Organizational interventions and occupational burnout: a meta-analysis with focus on exhaustion

Abstract

Purpose To assess whether organizational interventions are effective to prevent or reduce exhaustion, the core dimension of occupational burnout. Methods We searched in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases randomized and non-randomized controlled trials conducted among active workers and reporting the outcome as exhaustion score. We calculated the effect sizes using the pre-test–post-test control group design’s estimate. We used the random effects model in meta-analysis and Cochrane collaboration’s tool for interventions to assess the risk of bias. Overall quality of evidence was appraised using the GRADE. Results From the 2425 identified records, we assessed 228 full texts for eligibility and included 11 original articles describing 13 studies, 11 on organizational interventions, and 2 on combined inventions. The interventions were participatory (n = 9), focused on workload (n = 2), or on work schedule (n = 2). The overall effect size was − 0.30 ((95% CI = − 0.42; − 0.18), I2 = 62.28%), corresponding to a small reduction in exhaustion with a very low quality of evidence. Combined interventions had a larger effect (− 0.54 (95% CI = − 0.76; − 0.32)) than organizational interventions. When split by type of intervention, both participatory interventions and interventions focused on workload had a benefic effect of exhaustion reduction, with an estimated effect size of − 0.34 (95% CI = − 0.47; − 0.20) and − 0.44 (95% CI = − 0.68, − 0.20), respectively. Conclusion Interventions at combined level in workplaces could be helpful in preventing exhaustion. However, the evidence is still limited, due to a high heterogeneity between studies, bias potential, and small number of eligible studies. This calls for further research, using workload interventions at organizational level, especially in sectors with high risk of job stress and exhaustion.

A comparison between veterinary small animal general practitioners and emergency practitioners in Australia. Part 2: client-related, work-related, and personal burnout

“…Burnout describes an occupational syndrome deriving from chronically unmanaged work stress and is characterised by three key components: overwhelming exhaustion; increased cynicism and reduced work efficacy (1). It has been previously documented across a range of occupations, including healthcare workers, teachers and other care-giving professions (2)(3)(4). The prevalence of burnout among veterinarians, as indicated by studies published in the last 5 years, ranges from 23.0% to 56.9% (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11).…”

Psychometric validity of the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure and the Burnout Assessment Tool: a systematic review

“…While depression has been established as a leading cause of disability worldwide and a major contributor to the overall global burden of disease for a while ( 4 , 5 ), burnout is recognised as a disease only by a few countries ( 6 ). Affecting all occupational sectors on all continents, burnout is particularly prevalent in the health care sector ( 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ). In the USA, physician burnout was declared “public health crisis” in 2019 ( 15 ).…”