Validating a Korean Version of the Single-Item Burnout Measure for Evaluating Burnout Among Doctors

1Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective It is essential to measure the effect of burnout on doctors because burnout can affect doctors’ mental health as well as the functioning of medical practice. This study aims to validate a Korean version of the single-item burnout measure (SIBM), which was developed to quickly measure the level of burnout among doctors. Methods Through an online survey, a self-report questionnaire was administered to 324 public health doctors in Korea. The Korean version of the SIBM was validated against the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) screening tool, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale. Pearson correlation coefficients and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to determine the association between the SIBM and other scales. ANOVA was additionally used to determine the associations between the subscales of the MBI-GS and those of the SIBM. Results The correlation coefficient between the SIBM and the MBI-GS, PHQ-9, GAD-7, and PSS was positive (p<0.01), and the correlation coefficient between the SIBM and the VAX scale was not significant. Therefore, convergent and discriminant validity was verified. Exhaustion and cynicism, which were correlated with the SIBM, with r2=0.43 (p<0.01) and 0.48 (p<0.01), yielded R2 scores of 0.27 (p< 0.01) and 0.20 (p<0.01) in ANOVA. Conclusion The Korean version of the SIBM is an appropriate screening tool for burnout. It can be evaluated in a short time, thereby enhancing continuous follow-up observations and response rates to burnout.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Song, H. I., Yun, J. A., Ahn, Y. S., & Choi, K. S. (2023). Validating a Korean Version of the Single-Item Burnout Measure for Evaluating Burnout Among Doctors. Psychiatry Investigation, 20(7), 681–688. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2022.0339

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free