Prevalence and associated factors in burnout and psychological morbidity among substance misuse professionals

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Studies of psychological stress among substance misuse professionals rarely describe the nature of burnout and psychological morbidity. The main aim of this study was to determine the extent, pattern and predictors of psychological morbidity and burnout among substance misuse professionals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study was a cross-sectional mail survey of 194 clinical staff of substance misuse services in the former South Thames region of England, using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) as measures of psychological morbidity and burnout, respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Rates of psychological morbidity (82%: 95% CI = 76–87) and burnout (high emotional exhaustion – 33% [27–40]; high depersonalisation – 17% [12–23]; and diminished personal accomplishment – 36% [29–43]) were relatively high in the study sample. High levels of alienation and tension (job stressors) predicted emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation (burnout) but not psychological morbidity. Diminished personal accomplishment was associated with higher levels of psychological morbidity</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In the sample of substance misuse professionals studied, rates of psychological morbidity and burnout were high, suggesting a higher level of vulnerability than in other health professionals. Furthermore, pathways to psychological morbidity and burnout are partially related. Therefore, targeted response is required to manage stress, burnout and psychological morbidity among substance misuse professionals. Such a response should be integral to workforce development.</p

Young patients', parents', and survivors' communication preferences in paediatric oncology: Results of online focus groups

Contains fulltext : 51596.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Guidelines in paediatric oncology encourage health care providers to share relevant information with young patients and parents to enable their active participation in decision making. It is not clear to what extent this mirrors patients' and parents' preferences. This study investigated communication preferences of childhood cancer patients, parents, and survivors of childhood cancer. METHODS: Communication preferences were examined by means of online focus groups. Seven patients (aged 8-17), 11 parents, and 18 survivors (aged 8-17 at diagnosis) participated. Recruitment took place by consecutive inclusion in two Dutch university oncological wards. Questions concerned preferences regarding interpersonal relationships, information exchange and participation in decision making. RESULTS: Participants expressed detailed and multi-faceted views regarding their needs and preferences in communication in paediatric oncology. They agreed on the importance of several interpersonal and informational aspects of communication, such as honesty, support, and the need to be fully informed. Participants generally preferred a collaborative role in medical decision making. Differences in views were found regarding the desirability of the patient's presence during consultations. Patients differed in their satisfaction with their parents' role as managers of the communication. CONCLUSION: Young patients' preferences mainly concur with current guidelines of providing them with medical information and enabling their participation in medical decision making. Still, some variation in preferences was found, which faces health care providers with the task of balancing between the sometimes conflicting preferences of young cancer patients and their parents