No abstract

No abstract

Background: Burnout during residency may be a function of intense professional demands and poor work/life balance. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, NYC hospital systems were quickly overwhelmed, and trainees were required to perform beyond the usual clinical duties with less supervision and limited education. Objective: The present longitudinal study examined the effects of COVID-19 caseload over time on burnout experienced by resident physicians and explored the effects of demographic characteristics and organizational and personal factors as predictors of burnout severity. Methods: This study employed a prospective design with repeated measurements from April 2020 to June 2020. Participants were surveyed about their well-being every 5 days. Predictors included caseload, sociodemographic variables, self-efficacy, hospital support, perceived professional development, meaning in work, and postgraduate training level. Results: In total, 54 resident physicians were recruited, of whom 50% reported burnout on initial assessment. Periods of higher caseload were associated with higher burnout. PGY-3 residents reported more burnout initially but appeared to recover faster compared to PGY-1 residents. Examined individually, higher self-efficacy, professional development, meaningful work, and hospital support were associated with lower burnout. When all four predictors were entered simultaneously, only self-efficacy was associated with burnout. However, professional development, meaningful work, and hospital support were associated with self-efficacy. Conclusion: Burnout among residency is prevalent and may have implications for burnout during later stages of a physician’s career. Self-efficacy is associated with lower burnout and interventions to increase self-efficacy and the interpersonal factors that promote self-efficacy may improve physician physical and emotional well-being.

Frontline clinicians responding to the COVID-19 pandemic are at increased risk of burnout, but less is known about the trajectory of clinician burnout as caseloads increase and decrease. Personal and professional resources, including self-efficacy and hospital support, can attenuate the risk of burnout. Yet, empirical data documenting how burnout and resources changed as the pandemic waxed and waned are limited. This intensive longitudinal prospective study employed ecological momentary assessment methods to examine trajectories of burnout and resources over the pandemic’s first year in a New York City hospital. A 10-item survey was emailed every 5 days to frontline clinicians (physicians, nurses, and physician assistants). The primary outcome was a single-item validated measure of burnout; predictors included daily hospital COVID-19-related caseloads and personal and professional resources. Clinicians (n = 398) completed the initial survey and an average of 12 surveys over the year. Initially, 45.3% of staff reported burnout; over the year, 58.7% reported burnout. Following the initial COVID peak, caseloads declined, and burnout levels declined. During the second wave of COVID, as caseloads increased and remained elevated and personal and professional resource levels decreased, burnout increased. This novel application of intensive longitudinal assessment enabled ongoing surveillance of burnout and permitted us to evaluate how fluctuations in caseload intensity and personal and professional resources related to burnout over time. The surveillance data support the need for intensified resource allocation during prolonged pandemics.

Satisfying disclosures for people with mental illness can reduce health disparities by improving access to valuable social and informational support. In an experimental and correlational study (Total N = 364), the present work documented relationships between two commonly cited disclosure motivations and disclosure directness, or the degree to which one explicitly discusses their stigma during a disclosure experience, because disclosure directness has been documented as a new predictor of satisfying disclosures. Using a sample of Americans living with mental illness, experimental findings (Study 1) highlight that participants with stigma-sharing motivations, or those which focus on sharing one's stigma and related experiences with the disclosure recipient, utilized more direct disclosures, relative to participants with stigma-testing motivations, or those that focus on figuring out the recipient's attitude toward one's mental illness. Structural equation modeling in Study 2 suggested that stigma-testing motivations were associated with more negative disclosure experiences through reducing disclosure directness, while stigma-sharing motivations produced the opposite pattern of results. Moreover, Study 2 suggested that disclosure motivations can have downstream effects on perceptions of public stigma and psychological distress symptoms through an indirect effect on disclosure directness and satisfaction. Together, this work reviews the significance of documenting disclosure motivations and disclosure directness in disclosure research and highlights the potential benefit of reframing disclosure motivations to impact the positivity of disclosure experiences for people living with concealable stigmas.