Citations

Purpose To explore the interaction between practice setting (academic practice [AP], private practice [PP]) and gender in relation to physician burnout and satisfaction with work–life integration (WLI). Method In 2017, the authors administered a cross-sectional survey of U.S. physicians and characterized rates of burnout and satisfaction with WLI using previously validated and/or standardized tools. They conducted multivariable logistic regression to determine the interaction between the included variables. Results Of the 3,603 participants in the final analysis, female physicians reported a higher prevalence of burnout than male physicians in both AP (50.7% vs 38.2%, P < .0001) and PP (48.1% vs 40.7%, P = .001). However, the multivariable analysis found no statistically significant gender-based differences in burnout (odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–1.17, P = .60). Women and men in AP were less likely to report burnout than men in PP (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52–0.94, P = .01 and OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53–0.90, P < .01, respectively); women in PP did not report different burnout rates from men in PP (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68–1.16, P = .38). Women in both AP and PP were less likely to be satisfied with WLI than men in PP (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47–0.83, P < .01 and OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58–0.97, P = .03, respectively); men in AP did not report different satisfaction with WLI than men in PP (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82–1.33, P = .71). Conclusions Gender differences in rates of burnout are related to practice setting and other differences in physicians’ personal and professional lives. These results highlight the complex relationships among gender, practice setting, and other personal and professional factors in their influence on burnout and satisfaction with WLI.

Background The benefits of aerobic exercise are well-studied; there is no consensus on the association between resistance training and major adverse cardiovascular outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to address this issue. Design and methods We searched for randomized trials and cohort studies that evaluated the association between resistance training and mortality and cardiovascular events. Two investigators screened the identified abstracts and full-texts independently and in duplicate. Cochrane tools were used to assess the risk of bias. We calculated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals using random effect models. Results From the 1430 studies identified, 11 (one randomized trial and 10 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, totaling 370,256 participants with mean follow-up of 8.85 years. The meta-analysis showed that, compared with no exercise, resistance training was associated with 21% (hazard ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)), 0.79 (0.69–0.91)) and 40% (hazard ratio (95% CI), 0.60 (0.49–0.72)) lower all-cause mortality alone and when combined with aerobic exercise, respectively. Furthermore, resistance training had a borderline association with lower cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio (95% CI), 0.83 (0.67–1.03)). In addition, resistance training showed no significant association with cancer mortality. Risk of bias was low to intermediate in the included studies. One cohort study looked at the effect of resistance training on coronary heart disease events in men and found a 23% risk reduction (risk ratio, 0.77, CI: 0.61–0.98). Conclusion Resistance training is associated with lower mortality and appears to have an additive effect when combined with aerobic exercise. There are insufficient data to determine the potential beneficial effect of resistance training on non-fatal events or the effect of substituting aerobic exercise with resistance training.

Background Bedside rounds (BR) have been proposed as an ideal method to promote patient-centred hospital care, but there is substantial variation in their implementation and effects. Our objectives were to describe the implementation of BR in hospital settings and determine their effect on patient-centred outcomes. Methods Data sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus and Ovid Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical Trials from database inception through 28 July 2017. We included experimental studies comparing BR to another form of rounds in a hospital-based setting (ie, medical/surgical unit, intensive care unit (ICU)) and reporting a quantitative patient-reported or objectively measured clinical outcome. We used random effects models to calculate pooled Cohen's d effect size estimates for the patient knowledge and patient experience outcome domains. Results Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria, including 20 from adult care (17 non-ICU, 3 ICU), and nine from paediatrics (5 non-ICU, 4 ICU), the majority of which (n=23) were conducted in the USA. Thirteen studies implemented BR with cointerventions as part of a ‘bundle’. Studies most commonly reported outcomes in the domains of patient experience (n=24) and patient knowledge (n=10). We found a small, statistically significant improvement in patient experience with BR (summary Cohen’s d=0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.14, p<0.001, I2=56%), but no significant association between BR and patient knowledge (Cohen’s d=0.21, 95% CI −0.004 to –0.43, p=0.054, I2=92%). Risk of bias was moderate to high, with methodological limitations most often relating to selective reporting, low adherence rates and missing data. Conclusions BR have been implemented in a variety of hospital settings, often ‘bundled’ with cointerventions. However, BR have demonstrated limited effect on patient-centred outcomes.

Abstract Physician burnout, a work‐related syndrome involving emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and a sense of reduced personal accomplishment, is prevalent internationally. Rates of burnout symptoms that have been associated with adverse effects on patients, the healthcare workforce, costs and physician health exceed 50% in studies of both physicians‐in‐training and practicing physicians. This problem represents a public health crisis with negative impacts on individual physicians, patients and healthcare organizations and systems. Drivers of this epidemic are largely rooted within healthcare organizations and systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, clerical burdens, work–home conflicts, lack of input or control for physicians with respect to issues affecting their work lives, organizational support structures and leadership culture. Individual physician‐level factors also play a role, with higher rates of burnout commonly reported in female and younger physicians. Effective solutions align with these drivers. For example, organizational efforts such as locally developed practice modifications and increased support for clinical work have demonstrated benefits in reducing burnout. Individually focused solutions such as mindfulness‐based stress reduction and small‐group programmes to promote community, connectedness and meaning have also been shown to be effective. Regardless of the specific approach taken, the problem of physician burnout is best addressed when viewed as a shared responsibility of both healthcare systems and individual physicians. Although our understanding of physician burnout has advanced considerably in recent years, many gaps in our knowledge remain. Longitudinal studies of burnout's effects and the impact of interventions on both burnout and its effects are needed, as are studies of effective solutions implemented in combination. For medicine to fulfil its mission for patients and for public health, all stakeholders in healthcare delivery must work together to develop and implement effective remedies for physician burnout.