Abstract
Objectives
This study aims to develop a comprehensive list of stressors relevant to junior doctors and will also report findings exploring the associations between burnout and stressors, which include work and non‐work–related stressors as well as pandemic‐related stressors.
Methods
An anonymous online questionnaire was sent to 1000 randomly selected junior doctors in the North‐West of England. The questionnaire included 37 questions on general and pandemic‐specific stressors, and the Maslach Burnout Inventory Health Services Survey. The main outcomes of interest were junior doctor ratings of stressors and scores for burnout (emotional exhaustion [EE], depersonalisation [DP], and personal accomplishment [PA]). Stepwise regression analysis was undertaken to assess associations between stressors and burnout.
Results
In total, 326 responses were collected (response rate = 33%). Of the top 10 stressors rated by junior doctors, 60% were related to the pandemic. Multiple stressors were found to be associated with the burnout dimensions. Fatigue (β = .43), pandemic‐related workload increase (β = .33), and feeling isolated (β = .24) had the strongest associations with EE, whereas fatigue (β = .21), uncertainty around COVID‐19 information (β = .22) and doing unproductive tasks (β = .17) had the strongest associations with DP. Working beyond normal scope due to COVID‐19 (β = −.26), not confident in own ability (β = −.24) and not feeling valued (β = −.20) were found to have the strongest associations with PA.
Conclusions
Junior doctors experience a combination of general stressors and additional stressors emerging from the pandemic which significantly impact burnout. Monitoring these stressors and targeting them as part of interventions could help mitigating burnout in junior doctors.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Hann, Mark 2 ; Panagioti, Maria 3 ; Patel, Mumtaz 4 ; Agius, Raymond 5 ; Martie Van Tongeren 5 ; Esmail, Aneez 3 ; Bower, Peter 3 1 Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
2 Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
3 Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
4 Health Education England, Manchester, UK
5 Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK





