李俊, 潘胜琼, 江雁, 刘芳, 李俊磊, 王文静. 不同判定方法对职业倦怠评估结果的差异性比较[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2024, 42(5): 568-573. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2024.05.002
引用本文: 李俊, 潘胜琼, 江雁, 刘芳, 李俊磊, 王文静. 不同判定方法对职业倦怠评估结果的差异性比较[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2024, 42(5): 568-573. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2024.05.002
LI Jun, PAN Shengqiong, JIANG Yan, LIU Fang, LI Junlei, WANG Wenjing. Comparison of differences in occupational burnout assessment results using different determination methods[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2024, 42(5): 568-573. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2024.05.002
Citation: LI Jun, PAN Shengqiong, JIANG Yan, LIU Fang, LI Junlei, WANG Wenjing. Comparison of differences in occupational burnout assessment results using different determination methods[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2024, 42(5): 568-573. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2024.05.002

不同判定方法对职业倦怠评估结果的差异性比较

Comparison of differences in occupational burnout assessment results using different determination methods

  • 摘要:

    目的 比较同一量表中不同的职业倦怠判定方法所得结果在实际应用中的差异,为今后职业倦怠研究提供理论依据。

    方法 2023年9月,使用国内公认的马斯勒职业倦怠调查普适量表(MBI-GS),采用分层随机抽样法抽取上海市金山区11家社区卫生服务中心的884名医务工作者开展职业倦怠调查。选取文献资料中该量表使用的3种不同的职业倦怠判定方法(即利用情感衰竭、去个性化、个人成就感降低等3个维度的得分,采取不同的界定方法对调查对象的职业倦怠情况进行判定)对调查对象进行职业倦怠评估,探讨3种判定方法对职业倦怠评估结果的差异。

    结果 回收有效问卷830份,问卷有效率93.89%。3种方法在职业倦怠各维度、总体检出率及严重程度分布上差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。3种不同评估方法在去个性化维度的评估上一致性极强(Kappa = 0.907,P < 0.001),但在情感耗竭、个人成就感降低及职业倦怠总检出率方面一致性微弱或极差(Kappa = 0.112、-0.254、0.057,均P < 0.001)。以是否发生职业倦怠为响应变量进行多因素logistic分析,结果显示:方法1中岗位、每周工作时长、睡眠质量、健康自评4个变量进入方程(OR = 0.309~0.590,均P < 0.05),方法2中岗位、文化程度、健康自评3个变量进入方程(OR = 0.171~1.788,均P < 0.05),方法3中每周工作时长、睡眠质量、健康自评3个变量进入方程(OR = 0.268~0.532,均P < 0.05),不同方法得出的影响因素和对结果解释有很大不同。

    结论 MBI-GS 的3种不同的职业倦怠判定方法对职业倦怠评估的差异性较大,在研究结果的引用、比较及外推上要慎之又慎。建议针对同一量表要建立统一的职业倦怠判定标准。

     

    Abstract:

    Objective To compare the differences of results obtained using different burnout criteria based on the same scale in practical applications and provide a theoretical basis for future burnout research.

    Methods In September 2023, 884 healthcare workers from 11 community health service centers in Jinshan District, Shanghai, were selected using a stratified random sampling method. They were surveyed with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey(MBI-GS). Three different burnout criteria(i.e., using the scores of three dimensions such as emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced sense of personal accomplishment and adopting different definition methods to determine the burnout situation of the respondents)used in the literature, were selected to assess the burnout of the survey subjects, and the differences of the three methods of determining the results of the burnout assessment were explored.

    Results A total of 830 valid questionnaires were returned, with a response rate of 93.89%. There were statistically significant differences among the three methods in terms of the dimensions of burnout, overall detection rates, and severity distribution(P < 0.05). The three methods showed very strong agreement in the assessment of the depersonalization dimension(Kappa = 0.907, P < 0.001), but weak or very poor agreement in emotional exhaustion, reduced personal accomplishment, and overall burnout detection rates(Kappa = 0.112, -0.254, 0.057, respectively, all P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis with burnout occurrence as the response variable showed that four variables, namely, position, weekly working hours, sleep quality, and self-rated health, entered the equation in Method 1(OR = 0.309 to 0.590, all P < 0.05), while three variables, namely, position, education level, and self-rated health, entered the equation in Method 2(OR = 0.171 to 1.788, all P < 0.05), and three variables of weekly working hours, sleep quality, and self-rated health entered the equation in Method 3(OR = 0.268 to 0.532, all P < 0.05). Different methods yielded different influencing factors and interpretations of the results.

    Conclusions The three different burnout criteria of the MBI-GS resulted in wide differences in burnout assessment. Caution should be exercised when citing, comparing, and extrapolating research results. It is recommended to establish a unified burnout criterion for the same scale.

     

/

返回文章
返回