Article Text
Abstract
Objectives Examine the prevalence of burn-out in health professionals working in a hospital dedicated to patients with cancer. Explore the relationship between attachment style and burn-out in healthcare professionals working in Oncology and Palliative Care.
Methods Cross-sectional descriptive and correlational study with a sample of 337 health professionals working in a tertiary hospital dedicated to oncology care. The evaluation protocol included a sociodemographic questionnaire, two burn-out (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) and Maslach Burnout Inventory) and attachment (Adult Attachment Scale) scales. Statistical analysis was performed by IBM SPSS Statistics V.25. The tests were performed at a significance level of 5%.
Results In the sample, there is a predominance of professionals working in oncology services (76,8%). Comparing professionals who work in oncology services and palliative care, it appears that just over half have high levels of personal burn-out, however the groups do not differ significantly (53.5% vs 56.8%, p=0.619); the same is observed in work-related (p=0.626) and patient-related burn-out (p=0.672). The number of hours per week in which one has the perception that is exposed to suffering is positively correlated with personal, work-related burn-out and exhaustion (p<0.05). Correlating the two burn-out scales in the sample, it is observed that higher levels of personal, work-related and patient-related burn-out are associated with higher levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation, as well as lower levels of personal accomplishment (p<0.001). Considering the correlation between the burn-out dimensions and attachment scale, it appears that high levels of exhaustion, depersonalisation, personal, work-related and patient-related burn-out were associated with higher levels of anxiety (p<0.001). Similar results were found in the palliative care professionals sample.
Conclusions The constant exposure to the suffering of others places high emotional demands on oncology and palliative care professionals, making them vulnerable to burn-out. Burn-out is a multifactorial process, that involves individual characteristics with environmental effects. There are no significant differences between Oncology and Palliative Care professionals. Higher levels of personal, work-related and patient-related burn-out are associated with higher levels of anxiety. These results suggest that an anxious attachment style increases the risk of burn-out . In the sample, the most important predictor of burn-out was the number of hours per week exposed to suffering. In order to prevent burn-out, there is a growing evidence that suggests mindfulness, exercise, high-quality sleep and pursuit of happiness can improve burn-out in healthcare professionals. This work brings the advantage of using two burn-out assessment scales (particularly CBI scale), in addition to trying to correlate the level of burn-out and attachment in professionals exposed to suffering.
- Cancer
- Bereavement
- Hospital care
- Psychological care
- Quality of life
- Supportive care
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. This work was presented in e-poster format at the 13th Congress of the European Pain Federation, 20–22 September 2023 (link https://www.postersessiononline.eu/173580348_eu/congresos/EFIC2023/aula/-P_1547_EFIC2023.pdf)
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. This work was presented in e-poster format at the 13th Congress of the European Pain Federation, 20–22 September 2023 (link https://www.postersessiononline.eu/173580348_eu/congresos/EFIC2023/aula/-P_1547_EFIC2023.pdf)
Footnotes
Contributors FG contributed to data collection, writing and review. MG contributed to writing and review. MCB and JV contributed to review. FG is the guarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.