A Brief Burnout Evaluation Scale (BBES) as a potential tool to prevent collapse of the health care task force during the COVID-19 pandemic
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Introduction
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where overloaded health systems seem inevitable, there is a need for reliable, conceptually adequate, and easily applied measurement tools to identify health professionals at risk.
Objective
to present the preliminary psychometric properties of a Brief Burnout Evaluation Scale (BBES) and its association with important outcomes, i.e., moderate to severe depression and suicidal ideation.
Methods
The BBES has 4 Likert-type items and was tested as part of a cross-sectional study that included 401 medical students. Reliability analysis and validity studies were performed.
Results
In the parallel analysis, two factors were extracted, explaining 84.4% of the variance. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78, showing high internal consistency. Considering a cut-off point of 12, the odds ratio for moderate to severe depression was 3.01 (CI 1.7-5.22; p<0.001) and for last month suicidal ideation 2.96 (CI 1.6-5.48).
Conclusion
The results suggest good psychometric characteristics for the BBES, thus reinforcing its utility as an assessment tool for evaluating the well-being or distress of health professionals. It carries with it the potential to implement early interventions and to prevent the descent into burnout so common today in the health care task force during the pandemic.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.21.20198804: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: 8 The studies were approved by the ethics committee of the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (CAAE 70231617600005327 and 85311418800005327 respectively). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Resu…
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.21.20198804: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: 8 The studies were approved by the ethics committee of the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (CAAE 70231617600005327 and 85311418800005327 respectively). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.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.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
