Abstract
Background: We aimed to assess the validity (criterion and cross-cultural validity) and reliability of the first occupational burnout (OB) detection tool designed for healthcare professionals in Belgium in the context of Swiss medical practice. Methods: First, we assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the Tool. We developed this tool based on the consultation reports of 42 patients and compared its detection to the results of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI), filled-in by patients before a consultation. Second, we performed an inter-rater reliability (IRR) assessment on the OB symptoms and detection reached by the Tool between a psychiatrist, two psychologists, and an occupational physician. Results: The Tool correctly identified over 80% of patients with OB, regardless of the cutoff value used for OLBI scores, reflecting its high sensitivity. Conversely, its specificity strongly varied depending on the OLBI cutoff. There was a slight to fair overall agreement between the four raters on the detection of OB and the number of OB symptoms. Around 41% of symptoms showed a substantial to an almost perfect agreement, and 36% showed a slight to a moderate agreement. Conclusions: The Tool seems useful for identifying OB of moderate and strong severity in both the Belgian and Swiss contexts.
Highlights
There are no diagnostic standards for occupational burnout (OB), and none of the currently existing measurement tools could be used as a gold standard or comparator [1,2]
65 patients were received at the Work and Suffering” Consultation (WSC) between 2010 and 2013, and 42 of them completed the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and were included in the study
The criterion validity analyses with the OLBI as a comparator revealed that the Tool correctly identified over 80% of patients with OB, regardless of the cutoff value used for OLBI scores, reflecting its high sensitivity
Summary
There are no diagnostic standards for occupational burnout (OB), and none of the currently existing measurement tools could be used as a gold standard or comparator [1,2]. OB detection requires validated measurement tools on which healthcare practitioners and researchers can rely. The measurement tools that are currently available [3,4,5,6,7] are all patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS)—i.e., they rely solely on self-report—and their clinical validity has been questioned [8]. In a recent systematic review on the validity of five PROMs, only the Copenhagen Burnout. The insufficient validation of the first burnout PROMs has led to their multiplication and a marked heterogeneity in OB detection [2]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
