Abstract

Purpose

Current US health policy discussions regarding physician burnout have largely been informed by studies employing the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI); yet, there is little in the literature focused on interpreting MBI scores. We described the burnout symptoms and precision associated with MBI scores in US physicians.

Methods

Using item response theory (IRT) analyses of secondary, cross-sectional survey data, we created response profiles describing the probability of burnout symptoms associated with US physicians’ MBI emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal accomplishment (PA) subscale scores. Response profiles were mapped to raw subscale scores and used to predict symptom endorsements at mean scores and commonly used cut-points.

Results

The average US physician was likely to endorse feeling he/she is emotionally drained, used up, frustrated, and working too hard and all PA indicators once weekly or more but was unlikely to endorse feeling any DP symptoms once weekly or more. At the commonly used EE and DP cut-points of 27 and 10, respectively, a physician was unlikely to endorse feeling burned out or any DP symptoms once weekly or more. Each subscale assessed the majority of sample score ranges with ≥ 0.70 reliability.

Conclusions

We produced a crosswalk mapping raw MBI subscale scores to scaled scores and response profiles calibrated in a US physician sample. Our results can be used to better understand the meaning and precision of MBI scores in US physicians; compare individual/group MBI scores against a reference population of US physicians; and inform the selection of subscale cut-points for defining categorical physician burnout outcomes.

Details

Title
Describing the emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment symptoms associated with Maslach Burnout Inventory subscale scores in US physicians: an item response theory analysis
Author
Brady, Keri J, S 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Ni Pengsheng 2 ; Christopher, Sheldrick R 1 ; Trockel, Mickey T 3 ; Shanafelt, Tait D 4 ; Rowe, Susannah G 5 ; Schneider, Jeffrey I 6 ; Kazis, Lewis E 1 

 Boston University School of Public Health, Health Law, Policy & Management Department, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.189504.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7558) 
 Boston University School of Public Health, Health Law, Policy & Management Department, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.189504.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7558); Boston University School of Public Health, Biostatistics & Epidemiology Data Analytic Center, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.189504.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7558) 
 Stanford University, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956); Stanford University, Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, Stanford, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956) 
 Stanford University, Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, Stanford, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956) 
 1 Boston Medical Center Place, Boston Medical Center, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.239424.a) (ISNI:0000 0001 2183 6745); Boston University School of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.475010.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 0367 5222) 
 1 Boston Medical Center Place, Boston Medical Center, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.239424.a) (ISNI:0000 0001 2183 6745); Boston University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.475010.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 0367 5222) 
Publication year
2020
Publication date
Dec 2020
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V.
e-ISSN
25098020
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
2408870752
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.