Unhappy doctors? A longitudinal study of life and job satisfaction among Norwegian doctors 1994 – 2002

BACKGROUND: General opinion is that doctors are increasingly dissatisfied with their job, but few longitudinal studies exist. This study has been conducted to investigate a possible decline in professional and personal satisfaction among doctors by the turn of the century. METHODS: We have done a survey among a representative sample of 1 174 Norwegian doctors in 2002 (response rate 73 %) and compared the findings with answers to the same questions by (most of) the same doctors in 1994 and 2000. The main outcome measures were self reported levels of life satisfaction and job satisfaction according to the Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS). RESULTS: Most Norwegian doctors are happy. They reported an average life satisfaction of 5.21 in 1994 and 5.32 in 2002 on a scale from 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). Half of the respondents reported a very high level of general life satisfaction (a score of 6 or 7) while only one third said they would have reported this high level of satisfaction five years ago. The doctors thought that they had a higher level of job satisfaction than other comparable professional groups. The job satisfaction scale among the same doctors showed a significant increase from 1994 to 2002. Anaesthesiologists and internists reported a lower and psychiatrists and primary care doctors reported a higher level of job satisfaction than the average. CONCLUSION: Norwegian doctors seem to have enjoyed an increasing level of life and job satisfaction rather than a decline over the last decade. This challenges the general impression of unhappy doctors as a general and worldwide phenomenon

Real-time PCR-assay in the delivery suite for determination of group B streptococcal colonization in a setting with risk-based antibiotic prophylaxis

Objective: Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) reduces the incidence of neonatal early onset group B streptococcal infections. The present study investigated if an automated PCR-assay, used bedside by the labor ward personnel was manageable and could decrease the use of IAP in a setting with a risk-based IAP strategy. Methods: The study comprises two phases. Phase 1 was a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Women with selected risk-factors were allocated either to PCR-IAP (prophylaxis given if positive or indeterminate) or IAP. A vaginal/rectal swab and superficial swabs from the neonate for conventional culture were also obtained. Phase 2 was non-randomized, assessing an improved version of the assay. Results: Phase 1 included 112 women in the PCR-IAP group and 117 in the IAP group. Excluding indeterminate results, the assay showed a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 90%. In 44 % of the PCR assays the result was indeterminate. The use of IAP was lower in the PCR group (53 versus 92%). Phase 2 included 94 women. The proportion of indeterminate results was reduced (15%). The GBS colonization rate was 31%. Conclusion: The PCR assay, in the hands of labor ward personnel, can be useful for selection of women to which IAP should be offered