MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was conducted from inception until November 13th, 2022, in PubMed, Embase, Education Resources Information Center, PsycINFO, and psycArticles. Studies reporting the prevalence of burnout or any subdimensions among radiology physicians, including residents, fellows, consultants, and attendings, were included. Data on study characteristics and estimates of burnout syndrome or any of its subdimensions were collected and summarized.
RESULTS: After screening 6379 studies, 23 studies from seven countries were eligible. The number of participants ranged from 26 to 460 (median, 162; interquartile range, 91-264). In all, 18 studies (78.3%) employed a form of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. In comparison, four studies (17.4%) used the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index, and one study (4.3%) used a single-item measure derived from the Zero Burnout Program survey. Overall burnout prevalence estimates were reported by 14 studies (60.9%) and varied from 33% to 88%. High burnout prevalence estimates were reported by only five studies (21.7%) and ranged from 5% to 62%. Emotional exhaustion and depersonalization prevalence estimates were reported by 16 studies (69.6%) and ranged from 11%-100% and 4%-97%, respectively. Furthermore, 15 studies (65.2%) reported low personal accomplishment prevalence, ranging from 14.7% to 84%. There were at least seven definitions for overall burnout and high burnout among the included studies, and there was high heterogeneity among the cutoff scores used for the burnout subdimensions.
CONCLUSION: Burnout in radiology is increasing globally, with prevalence estimates reaching 88% and 62% for overall and high burnout, respectively. A myriad of factors has been identified as contributing to the increased prevalence. Our data demonstrated significant variability in burnout prevalence estimates among radiologists and major disparities in burnout criteria, instrument tools, and study quality.
METHODS: Using 2007-2009 data from the GYTS, subjects from 6 countries were used to assess current smokers' odds of reporting time to first cigarette or craving positive (TTFC/C+) by the number of cigarette smoking days per month (DPM) and the number of cigarettes smoked per day (CPD).
RESULTS: The percentage of GYTS smokers who reported TTFC/C+ ranged from 58.0% to 69.7%. Compared with students who smoked on 1-2 DPM, those who smoked on 3-9 DPM had 3 times the adjusted odds of reporting TTFC/C+. The adjusted odds of reporting TTFC/C+ were 3 to 7 times higher among those who smoked 10-29 DPM and 6 to 20 times higher among daily smokers. Similarly, the adjusted odds of TTFC/C+ were 3-6 times higher among those who smoked 2-5 CPD and 6 to 20 times higher among those who smoked >6 CPD, compared to those who smoked <1 CPD.
CONCLUSION: Associations of TTFC/C+ prevalence with both frequency and intensity of cigarette smoking provide a construct validation of the GYTS question used to assess respondents' TTFC/C status.