For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
0
views
81
references
 Top references
cited by
4
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      691
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Burnout among doctors in China through 2020: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To analyze surveys measuring the prevalence of burnout among Chinese doctors and reveal the overall prevalence, characteristics, timeline, and factors related to burnout.

          Methods

          A comprehensive search was conducted on China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to 28 February 2021. Random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression and planned subgroup analyses were performed, and the standardized mean difference was adopted for comparisons between subgroups. Egger’s and Begg’s tests were performed to evaluate publication bias. Heterogeneity across the studies was tested using the I 2 statistic. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018104249).

          Results

          In total, 3,210 records were reviewed; 64 studies including 48,638 Chinese doctors were eligible for meta-analysis. The prevalence of burnout increased continuously from 2008 to 2017 and decreased significantly from 2018 to 2020, a little increase from 2020 to 2021. The overall prevalence of burnout was 75.48% (95% CI, 69.20 to 81.26; I 2 = 99.23%, P < 0.001), and high burnout was 9.37% (95% CI, 4.91 to 15.05, I 2 = 98.88%, P < 0.001). The prevalence of emotional exhaustion was 48.64% (95% CI, 38.73 to 58.59; I 2 = 99.53%, P < 0.001), depersonalization was 54.67% (95% CI, 46.95 to 62.27; I 2 = 99.20%, P < 0.001), and reduced personal accomplishment was 66.53% (95% CI, 58.13 to 74.44; I 2 = 99.37%, P < 0.001). Gender, marriage, professional title and specialty all influenced burnout.

          Conclusions

          The results showed that the total prevalence of doctor burnout in China is very high. The prevalence of burnout varies by location. Gender, marital status and professional title all affect burnout scores.

          Abstract

          Burnout; Prevalence; Chinese doctor; Systematic review; Meta-analysis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references81

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke … (2017)
          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
          Article 0 comments Cited 5958 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

            D F Stroup, J A Berlin, S C Morton … (2000)
            Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
            Article 0 comments Cited 2248 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement.

              Damian Hoy, Peter Brooks, Anthony Woolf … (2012)
              In the course of performing systematic reviews on the prevalence of low back and neck pain, we required a tool to assess the risk of study bias. Our objectives were to (1) modify an existing checklist and (2) test the final tool for interrater agreement. The final tool consists of 10 items addressing four domains of bias plus a summary risk of bias assessment. Two researchers tested the interrater agreement of the tool by independently assessing 54 randomly selected studies. Interrater agreement overall and for each individual item was assessed using the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic. Raters found the tool easy to use, and there was high interrater agreement: overall agreement was 91% and the Kappa statistic was 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.76, 0.86). Agreement was almost perfect for the individual items on the tool and moderate for the summary assessment. We have addressed a research gap by modifying and testing a tool to assess risk of study bias. Further research may be useful for assessing the applicability of the tool across different conditions. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Article 0 comments Cited 748 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Jing Zhang
                Miao Qu
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Heliyon
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Heliyon
                Title: Heliyon
                Publisher: Elsevier
                ISSN (Electronic): 2405-8440
                Publication date PMC-release: 28 June 2022
                Publication date Collection: July 2022
                Publication date (Electronic): 28 June 2022
                Volume: 8
                Issue: 7
                Electronic Location Identifier: e09821
                Affiliations
                [a ]Neurology Department, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100053, China
                [b ]Evidence-based Department, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100053, China
                [c ]Neurology Department, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Third Affiliated Hospital, Beijing, 100029, China
                [d ]Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China
                [e ]Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, 100010, China
                [f ]Library Department, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100053, China
                [g ]Beijing Xiaotangshan Hospital, Beijing, 102211, China
                Author notes
                [∗ ]Corresponding author. qumiaotcm@ 123456126.com
                [∗∗ ]Correspoding author. zhangjing0909@ 123456163.com
                [1]

                Two authors contributed equally to this work.

                Article
                Publisher Item ID: S2405-8440(22)01109-4 Publisher ID: e09821
                DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09821
                PMC ID: 9287156
                PubMed ID: 35855985
                SO-VID: 1b2418f1-1cbc-46d4-9d2b-a7abb4d6676f
                Copyright © © 2022 The Authors
                License:

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Date received : 15 March 2022
                Date revision received : 13 May 2022
                Date accepted : 24 June 2022
                Categories
                Subject: Review Article

                Keywords: burnout,prevalence,chinese doctor,systematic review,meta-analysis
                Data availability:
                Keywords: burnout, prevalence, chinese doctor, systematic review, meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content691

                See all similar

                Cited by4

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,341

                See all reference authors