Comparison of the burnout among medical residents before and during the pandemic

  1. Hüseyin Küçükali
  2. Sezanur Nazlı Türkoğlu
  3. Shams Hasanli
  4. Fatma Nur Dayanır Çok
  5. Hazal Cansu Culpan
  6. Osman Hayran

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.111118
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.05.28.22275707v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.28.22275707: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Researchers approached participants in their work environment (usually in doctors’ rooms in their clinics), informed them about the study, obtained their consent and handed them a hard copy of the questionnaire.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data were analysed via SPSS v25.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: It is important to note that this study was not longitudinal, i.e., data is not necessarily collected from the same residents in the reference study. There is a constant change in residents in each hospital. Thus, this study does not show a causal relationship between the pandemic and burnout among medical residents. Still, the comparison in this study provides better evidence than existing studies in the Turkish context for both local decision-makers and global researchers. Although the study has achieved an approximate 50% participation rate, selection bias should be always kept in mind while interpreting the findings. Residents who experience burnout may be more or less willing to participate in the study than others. Lastly, 69 participants answered the online form, and they have a significantly higher mean EE score (21.9±7.5) than those who answered the paper form (18.2±7.7). When they are excluded from Model 1, female sex and experience of personal problems during the pandemic turn into non-significant (p=0.51, p=0.67 respectively). No difference was observed for other dimensions by mode of application.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2022.05.28.22275707v1 on medRxiv