The study provides a systematic review of the empirical evidence for associations between job burnout and secondary traumatic stress (STS) among professionals working with trauma survivors, indirectly exposed to traumatic material. Differences in the conceptualization and measurement of job burnout and STS were assumed to moderate these associations. A systematic review of literature yielded 41 original studies, analyzing data from a total of 8,256 workers. Meta-analysis indicated that associations between job burnout and STS were strong (weighted r = .69). Studies applying measures developed within the compassion fatigue framework (one of the conceptualizations of job burnout and STS) showed significantly stronger relationships between job burnout and STS, indicating a substantial overlap between measures (weighted r = .74; 55% of shared variance). Research applying other frameworks and measures of job burnout (i.e., stressing the role of emotional exhaustion) and STS (i.e., focusing on symptoms resembling posttraumatic stress disorder or a cognitive shift specific for vicarious trauma) showed weaker, although still substantial associations (weighted r = .58; 34% of shared variance). Significantly stronger associations between job burnout and STS were found for: (a) studies conducted in the United States compared to other countries; (b) studies using English-language versions of the questionnaires compared to other-language versions, and (c) research in predominantly female samples. The results suggest that, due to high correlations between job burnout and STS, there is a substantial likelihood that a professional exposed to secondary trauma would report similar levels of job burnout and STS, particularly if job burnout and STS were measured within the framework of compassion fatigue.

Significant self-efficacy-burnout relationships were observed across countries, although the strength of associations varied across burnout components, participants' profession, and their age.

BackgroundThe integration of digital treatments into national mental health services is on the agenda in the European Union. The E-COMPARED consortium conducted a survey aimed at exploring stakeholders' knowledge, acceptance and expectations of digital treatments for depression, and at identifying factors that might influence their opinions when considering the implementation of these approaches.MethodAn online survey was conducted in eight European countries: France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and The United Kingdom. Organisations representing government bodies, care providers, service-users, funding/insurance bodies, technical developers and researchers were invited to participate in the survey. The participating countries and organisations reflect the diversity in health care infrastructures and e-health implementation across Europe.ResultsA total of 764 organisations were invited to the survey during the period March–June 2014, with 175 of these organisations participating in our survey. The participating stakeholders reported moderate knowledge of digital treatments and considered cost-effectiveness to be the primary incentive for integration into care services. Low feasibility of delivery within existing care services was considered to be a primary barrier. Digital treatments were regarded more suitable for milder forms of depression. Stakeholders showed greater acceptability towards blended treatment (the integration of face-to-face and internet sessions within the same treatment protocol) compared to standalone internet treatments. Organisations in countries with developed e-health solutions reported greater knowledge and acceptability of digital treatments.ConclusionMental health stakeholders in Europe are aware of the potential benefits of digital interventions. However, there are variations between countries and stakeholders in terms of level of knowledge about such interventions and their feasibility within routine care services. The high acceptance of blended treatments is an interesting finding that indicates a gradual integration of technology into clinical practice may fit the attitudes and needs of stakeholders. The potential of the blended treatment approach, in terms of enhancing acceptance of digital treatment while retaining the benefit of cost-effectiveness in delivery, should be further explored.FundingThe E-COMPARED project has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 603098.

The objective of our study was to systematically review research evidence for relationships between self-efficacy beliefs and psychological as well as somatic outcomes of collective traumatic events. Twenty-seven studies enrolling adult and adolescent survivors of acute, escalating, and chronic collective trauma with a total of N = 8011 participants were reviewed. Cross-sectional studies suggest medium to large effects of self-efficacy on general distress, severity and frequency of PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder) symptoms (weighted r values range from –.36 to –.77), whereas longitudinal studies indicate large effects on general distress and PTSD symptom severity (weighted r values range: –.55 to –.62). Self-efficacy was also related to better somatic health (self-reported symptoms, i.e., less pain, fatigue, or disability). Studies addressing the relationship between self-efficacy and substance abuse after collective trauma revealed a more complex picture. Some types of pretreatment self-efficacy (e.g., self-efficacy for coping with urges) or changes in efficacy beliefs may predict less substance use or relapses. Studies testing the mediating role of cognitive or social variables in the relationship among efficacy beliefs and health outcomes indicated rather direct, unmediated effects of beliefs about ability to deal with adversities on posttraumatic adaptation. Men may benefit more from stronger efficacy beliefs. In terms of reciprocity between self-efficacy and health, evidence from longitudinal studies suggested that self-efficacy determines health-related outcomes, but changes in diagnosis do not predict changes in self-efficacy. Although a lack of experimental studies limits the conclusions, the results indicated that self-efficacy is a powerful predictor of posttraumatic recovery among collective trauma survivors.