Next Article in Journal
School-to-Work Transitions under Unequal Conditions: A Regionalised Perspective on the ‘Discouraged Worker’ Hypothesis
Previous Article in Journal
Acquiring Citizenship through Naturalization in Greece: A Sisyphean Struggle for Immigrants
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/socsci12100546
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Validation of a Single-Item Screening Measure of Burnout in a Sample of Spanish Health Workers

by
Inmaculada Mateo-Rodríguez
1,2,3,*,
Emily Knox
2,
Coral Oliver-Hernandez
4 and
Antonio Daponte-Codina
1,2
1
Andalusian School of Public Health, 18080 Granada, Spain
2
CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain
3
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), 28040 Madrid, Spain
4
Department of Social, Work and Differential Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid, 28223 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12(10), 546; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12100546
Submission received: 28 July 2023 / Revised: 14 September 2023 / Accepted: 26 September 2023 / Published: 28 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Employee Quality of Life, Well-Being and Wellness: A Pathway to Organizational Performance, Efficiency, and Sustainability)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Burnout is a significant problem faced by professionals in the healthcare setting, and yet there is a lack of validated screening tools in the Spanish context. The present study examined the psychometric properties of a single-item measure of burnout (SIB) within a sample of 675 health professionals working at five centres in Spain, with the brief burnout questionnaire (BBQ) providing the main comparison measure. Predictive validity was acceptable, with high positive correlations between SIB, overall BBQ and the three BBQ dimensions. Construct validity, examined using confirmatory factor analysis, found that the SIB sufficiently covered the components of the three factors of burnout described by the BBQ and the components of the three dimensions of the burnout syndrome factor. Convergent validity was confirmed through significant negative correlations between SIB and good perceived health and job satisfaction. Acceptable cut-points were established. The Spanish-language SIB provides an acceptable and sensitive screening measure of burnout for use with health professionals.

1. Introduction

In January 2022, the updated International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) came into effect, including burnout syndrome in the list of recognised diseases. This syndrome is conceptualised as “the result of chronic workplace stress that has not been effectively managed”.
Professional burnout is a major global health concern among physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers (Sultana et al. 2020; Woo et al. 2020; Rotenstein et al. 2018). Professionals working in the healthcare setting are exposed to a high number of stressful situations at work (Arias-Ulloa et al. 2023; Rollin et al. 2022; Søvold et al. 2021; Weinberg and Creed 2000), meaning it is unsurprising that they show high amounts of psychological distress (Hardy et al. 1997) and, consequently, burnout (Wu et al. 2021; Imo 2017; Woo et al. 2020; Patel et al. 2018). In addition, the health crisis provoked by the COVID-19 pandemic has placed further pressure on healthcare providers. Aspects such as work interfering with household activities, feeling pushed beyond training, exposure to COVID-19 patients and making life-prioritising decisions could be leading to even greater burnout within this group of professionals (Leo et al. 2021; Morgantini et al. 2020).
Prior research shows that burnout leads to poor health outcomes in health workers, both directly and via work-related stress (Khamisa et al. 2013). Further, in addition to the personal cost of poor health to health professionals, burnout has a negative impact on the productivity of health professionals, career engagement and quality of patient care (Hodkinson et al. 2022). This may lead to more professionals walking away from the profession ahead of time (Dewa et al. 2014), with the concomitant cost of this suffered by health services.
Research into burnout among professionals working in the health sector has raised awareness of the importance of health and mental wellbeing among these workers. In this sense, a call has been made for all healthcare systems to evaluate and measure mental health and, specifically, levels of burnout in the health sector (Rotenstein et al. 2018). To this end, validated instruments are needed that can be used routinely (Stodolska et al. 2023) and permit early and continued evaluations. Given the serious consequences of burnout, it is of particular interest to have easy-to-use screening measures available, as this would make it possible to target the working population as a whole and enable early detection of the syndrome.
All of the above makes it critically important for occupational health services to be able to measure and evaluate burnout. Burnout is typically measured according to three established dimensions, namely, emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and loss of professional efficacy (Maslach et al. 2001). A number of instruments have been developed to measure burnout, including the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (Demerouti et al. 2003), the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (Kristensen et al. 2005), the Brief Burnout Questionnaire (BBQ; Moreno Jiménez et al. 1997) and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach et al. 1996). Until recently, the most commonly used instrument to measure burnout both internationally and within Spain was the MBI; however, the validated Spanish adaption has since been discontinued. This has left a gap that must be filled through validation studies in order to verify the appropriate use of burnout measures by Spanish health professionals.
Further, given the pressures and shortage of both time and human resources already imposed on health services, it is important for single-item instruments to be available that can be completed quickly and screen for the risk of burnout. One such single-item measure was developed by Schmoldt et al. (1994) and later validated by Rohland et al. (2004) in a sample of Texas Tech University School of Medicine students. However, while this tool has been validated in different populations in the United States (Dolan et al. 2014; Knox et al. 2018; Waddimba et al. 2016; West et al. 2009, 2012; Flickinger et al. 2020; Kemper et al. 2019), Australia (Hansen and Girgis 2010) and Singapore (Ong et al. 2021), no single-item burnout measure has been validated within a sample of Spanish-speaking health workers from Spain. Thus, the present study aimed to validate the aforementioned single-item burnout measure within a population of Spanish health workers and describe its psychometric properties for use in this population.

2. Materials and Methods

The study methodology followed two main phases. The first phase corresponded to the adaptation of the single-item screening measure to be tested and administered as part of a questionnaire. A review of existing literature was conducted with the aim of identifying scales employed in Spain to evaluate burnout. Outcomes of the literature review pertaining to candidate scales were tabulated and classified according to the number of items included in the scale under consideration, with scales being grouped according to those made up of 1, 2, 3 and >3 items. The table included information about each questionnaire, including its psychometric questionnaires and the population with which it had been validated.
Once eligible scales had been compiled, members of the research team and experts in the fields of health sciences and social sciences reviewed the psychometric properties inherent to the scales while also considering the samples with which they had been evaluated. For scale selection, a deductive method called logic partitioning was used alongside content analysis. Logic partitioning followed an iterative process of, firstly, identifying all potential candidates for use as the single-item measure, followed by selection based on characteristics such as relevance to context, viability and empirical basis.
Following the aforementioned process, members of the expert panel each selected three scales, one comprising a single item, a short scale (between 1 and 3 items) and a multidimensional scale (more than 3 items). Selected scales were examined in the second stage of the study. Scales were agreed upon through discussion, debate and consensus. The single-item selected was the single-item measure developed by Schmoldt et al. (1994). This version of the SBI was then submitted to a process of transcultural adaptation that consisted of direct translation, translation synthesis, inverse translation and consolidation via an expert panel.
The second part corresponded to participant recruitment and questionnaire administration. Health professionals were recruited via convenience sampling from five health centres in Spain. The questionnaire was sent via mass mailing to corporate email, including a LimeSurvey link to the digital version, and/or in paper format by research team members based at participating centres in June 2021, with a reminder being sent out 10 days later. The first page of the questionnaire requested informed consent, with participants only being able to proceed upon an affirmative response.

2.1. Instruments

Single-item burnout measure (SIB; Schmoldt et al. 1994). Response options range from: (1) I enjoy my work. I have no symptoms of burnout; to (5) I feel completely burned out and often wonder if I can go on. I am at the point where I may need some changes or may need to seek some sort of help. The original validation study (Rohland et al. 2004) found this item to be conceptually similar to and highly correlated with the MBI.
Brief burnout questionnaire (BBQ; Moreno Jiménez et al. 1997). It comprised 21 items rated along a 5-point scale, of which 9 describe antecedents of burnout, 9 describe the syndrome itself and 3 describe consequences of burnout. This tool was selected as a comparison for the single-item measure due to its wide adaptation into Spanish, including in the health context (Garcí-Carmona and Robles-Ortega 2011). Further, factor 2 of this tool, denominated ‘burnout syndrome’, comprises the dimensions of emotional exhaustion, lack of personal realisation and depersonalisation, which are the same dimensions evaluated by the MBI. Scores can be summed to give an overall score for quantitative comparison, or factor scores can be summed to give overall factor scores for which established cut-points exist. The burnout syndrome factor was most consistently related to overall burnout, so it was used for classification in the present study. Burnout was diagnosed by scores of 27 and above for this factor.
Job satisfaction questionnaire S20/23. It comprises 23 items designed to evaluate satisfaction pertaining to the occupational setting. Internal consistency of the scale was reported as 0.92 in its original validation (Meliá and Peiró 1989).
Perceived health (adapted from Ware and Sherbourne 1992). Participants responded to the statement, “How would you say your health is in general?” along a 5-point scale ranging from (1) excellent to (5) poor. This item has been widely used throughout Spain and more globally (Jürges et al. 2008).
Sociodemographic variables. The questionnaire also included ad hoc items on sex, date of birth, number of years working in their profession, number of years working at the centre, professional category and paid weekly working hours.
Data were collected and stored digitally within the Lime Survey software (Community Edition version 3.28.74, Open source community, Australia) or on paper at participating centres and unified in a digital database upon the termination of data collection. All data were coded to protect anonymity. The statistical programs SPSS v26.0 (versión 26.0, IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) and AMOS (versión 26.0, IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) were used for data analysis.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

Construct validity was examined, via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), through the independent estimation of the relationship between SIB and, firstly, the three factors of the BBQ and, secondly, the three dimensions of the burnout syndrome dimension of the BBQ, as proposed by Moreno Jiménez et al. (1997). Factor loadings > 0.4 were considered acceptable. The effect of incorporating the SIB into the BBQ model on model fit was estimated via chi-squared Yuan and Butler estimations with bootstrapped standard errors (CFI > 0.95, RMSEA 0.05–0.08 and SRMR 0.08 considered acceptable).
Predictive validity was examined through Pearson correlations between the values produced for the SIB and the burnout syndrome factor of the BBQ. Convergent validity was examined through Pearson correlations of SIB with job satisfaction and general health.
Finally, sensitivity and specificity were examined for two different previously established cut-points for SIB, via regression analysis, to examine the degree of association of burnout with poor health and job dissatisfaction. An inclusive cut-point for diagnosing burnout cases as scores of 3 to 5 was compared to a strict cut-point for diagnosing cases only as scores of 5. For this, regression analysis was carried out, classifying burnout cases according to diagnosis using BBQ factor 2, with resultant odds ratios also being considered.

3. Results

A final sample of 675 health professionals was recruited for the present study. Of these, 71.6% were female and 28.4% were male. A total of 15.6% were working in primary care, and 84.4% worked in a hospital. Further, 29.8% occupied non-health roles (e.g., administrative, menial, etc.) compared to 70.2% in health roles. Specifically, 28% were doctors, 33% were nursing staff, 16% were nursing support staff, 11% were administrative staff, 6% were porters and 6% were employed in another type of role (general services, maintenance, etc.). Finally, 23.2% did not have direct contact with the public, whereas 76.8% reported that they did. Using SIB, 31.1% and 6.2% had burnout using ‘inclusive’ and ‘strict’ cut-points, respectively. Using factor 2 of the BBQ, 32.3% presented burnout.
Table 1 and Table 2 present the outcomes of the CFA performed to examine construct validity.
It can be observed from Table 1 that all factor loadings are acceptable apart from those produced in relation to item 18, showing that SIB adequately measures the three factors of burnout proposed by the BBQ. Nonetheless, while model fit is acceptable in the case of factor 3, RMSEA values indicate poor fit for the other two factors. Given the poor performance of item 18, the analysis was repeated, eliminating this item with no notable change in outcomes.
Similarly, as seen in Table 2, factor loadings produced from the incorporation of SIB into the three-dimensional model of the burnout syndrome factor of the BBQ suggest that the tested item appropriately measures these three dimensions, again with the only exception of item 18. In this case, model fit was also acceptable, being especially good in relation to dimensions one and three of burnout syndrome.
With regard to predictive validity, Table 3 presents Pearson correlations between SIB and the overall BBQ, its three factors and the three dimensions of the burnout syndrome of the BBQ.
As can be observed in Table 3, statistically significant correlations (all p < 0.001) were produced between SIB and all aspects of burnout as measured by the BBQ. This shows that SIB does indeed measure the construct it is intended to measure.
Convergent validity was confirmed through significant negative correlations between SIB and general health (r = −0.535; p = 0.000) and job satisfaction (r = −0.575; p = 0.000).
With regard to the examination of the adequacy of formerly established cut-points, results are presented in Table 4.
Perceived poor health and job dissatisfaction were significantly predicted by burnout, regardless of the cut-point used. However, a larger odds ratio was produced in relation to the stricter definition of burnout. Burnout, as measured by SIB, was also positively related to factor 2 of the BBQ, regardless of the cut-point used, although a stronger correlation was seen in relation to the inclusive cut-point (r = 0.648; p = 0.000 vs. r = 0.350; p = 0.000). Analysis according to sub-groups defined by sex, age and professional group (presented in Supplementary Material) also showed classifications of burnout to be more similar to those produced when using the BBQ when the ‘inclusive’ cut-point was used.
Finally, the ‘inclusive’ cut-point showed a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 89%, being adequate and very good, respectively. The ‘strict’ cut-point had a sensitivity of 19% and a specificity of 99%, being unacceptable and excellent, respectively.

4. Discussion

The present study examined the psychometric properties of a SIB within a sample of 675 health professionals working at five centres in Spain, with the BBQ providing the main comparison measure. Predictive validity was acceptable, with high positive correlations between SIB, overall BBQ and the three BBQ dimensions. Construct validity, examined using confirmatory factor analysis, found that the SIB sufficiently covered the components of the three factors of burnout described by the BBQ and the components of the three dimensions of the burnout syndrome factor. The SIB was revealed to be an adequate diagnostic tool, although dimensional weaknesses prevail.
In their original study with 307 medicine graduates, Rohland et al. (2004) found a significant association between the English-language version of this same single-item measure and the three factors of burnout as measured via the MBI, with the strongest relationship emerging with emotional exhaustion. When administered to workers at an Australian oncology unit, Hansen and Girgis (2010) found the SIB to correlate with the emotional exhaustion factor of the MBI but did not examine its association with any other factor. In 1050 primary care workers in California and 308 doctors in New York, Knox et al. (2018) and Waddimba et al. (2016), respectively, found the SIB to significantly correlate with both the emotional exhaustion and cynicism factors of the MBI, although neither of these authors examined its association with MBI overall scores or with specific dimensions. In contrast, Ong et al. (2021) and Flickinger et al. (2020) found the English-language version of the SIB to correlate with all MBI burnout factors in 439 hospital workers in Singapore and 287 medical students from Virginia, respectively. All of the above provides tentative preliminary support for the potential use of the tool, although in-depth validation is lacking and analysis in the European and, more specifically, Spanish-speaking context is required.
The present study addressed this gap by examining the Spanish version of the SIB but also furthered existing research by expanding consideration to include both a multi-component burnout measure and its various dimensions. The present examination of the multi-dimensionality of this single-item instrument is novel in this line of research and found that the instrument appropriately addresses the three factors of burnout and three dimensions of the factor pertaining to burnout syndrome of the BBQ. Further, given that the validated MBI is no longer available in the Spanish language, it was important that the present study incorporate an alternative multi-dimensional burnout measure provided through the BBQ. In accordance with the studies discussed above, model fit was especially good for the dimension of emotional exhaustion but also for depersonalisation. Such an in-depth consideration of the multi-dimensional construct validity of this measure had not been previously reported.
The Spanish adaptation of SIB demonstrated good predictive and concurrent validity, being significantly and inversely related to perceived health and job satisfaction. In a study with primary care workers in California, the English-language SIB was significantly associated with both work environment and clinical team culture (Knox et al. 2018), further corroborating its application in the occupational setting. With regard to health, the present findings are in accordance with the findings that this single-item measure correlates with stress, mindfulness, resilience and self-compassion (Kemper et al. 2019).
With regard to the appropriate cut-point, the ‘inclusive’ scoring approach, in which burnout is diagnosed with a score of 3, 4 or 5, appears to be the most suitable. In a sample of American primary care workers, Dolan et al. (2014) reported similar specificity and sensitivity values to the present study when using the same cut-point for the English version of the same single-item instrument, although sensitivity was slightly higher (83.2% vs. 75%) and specificity slightly lower (87.4% vs. 89%). Nonetheless, in the above-mentioned study conducted by Knox et al. (2018), while specificity was higher than in the present study (>92.3%), the sensitivity of this cut-point was found to be unacceptable (50.4–58.6%). Kemper et al. (2019) also reported insufficient sensitivity for this cut-point, although specificity was adequate (82%). These differences may be explained by the different classification measures used between studies, with the present study using the BBQ, while Knox et al. (2018) used the emotional exhaustion subscale of the MBI, and Kemper et al. (2019) used the 22-item MBI.
The present study found that a ‘strict’ cut-point lacked sensitivity for use in the present context. Indeed, Knox et al. (2018) found an ‘inclusive’ cut-point to perform better than a more restrictive cut-point in which burnout was defined as scores of 4 and 5 (41.8–44.4% sensitivity and >91.4% specificity). Use of a ‘strict’ cut-point should be avoided, as a large number of workers suffering from burnout are likely to be missed.
It is also interesting to note that some previous studies have suggested that SIB may underestimate burnout relative to a multi-dimensional measure (Ong et al. 2021; Kemper et al. 2019). This was not the case in the present study, where, in fact, the diagnostic rate of burnout was highly similar between the two items, regardless of sex, age and professional group. This is useful as it suggests that the item could be used for screening in Spain among demographically diverse groups of health professionals.
Poor model fit regarding two of the theoretical factors limits the utility of the SIB when it comes to addressing dimensional aspects of burnout and, therefore, hamstrings its usefulness when tackling burnout via interventions. Other measures with better dimensional coherence should be employed following diagnosis in instances in which the subsequent aim is to treat manifestations of burnout. However, the SIB performed as well as the multi-dimensional measures from a diagnostic perspective. Given the context of the study setting and that its intended practical use at this stage is to identify cases of burnout, the potential of the SIB for this application is not affected.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study also presents a number of limitations. Firstly, the questionnaire was accessed by 885 health professionals, but the response rate was only 76% with further non-response to sociodemographic questions; for instance, 38.4% of participants preferred not to state their sex, while 13.5% and 13% did not report their age and their professional category, respectively. Other studies have reported much lower overall response rates, for example, 25% (Dolan et al. 2014), 43.2% (Rohland et al. 2004), 56% (Hansen and Girgis 2010), 52.1% (Ong et al. 2021) and 46% (Flickinger et al. 2020); therefore, this is not necessarily surprising. Nevertheless, future studies should seek to address this shortcoming. Secondly, while the intention of the study was to validate a screening measure for use in the specific population of Spanish health professionals, it is important to recognise that the generalisability of findings is limited, and further studies are required before administering this measure in other populations.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, given that the SIB demonstrated adequate psychometric properties, the present study supports its use as a preliminary screening tool in health services in Spain. This would enable the incidence of burnout among health professionals to be determined, representing an essential initial step towards adopting prevention and protection measures.
Confirmatory analysis, conducted to examine the convergent validity of the instrument, confirms that the SIB adequately measures the three factors of burnout included in the BBQ. Further, analysis of this factor according to its three dimensions (emotional exhaustion, lack of personal realisation and depersonalisation) produced good-fit outcomes when examined against the second (syndrome) and third factors of the BBQ (health consequences). This being said, poor model fit was found with the first (background) and second BBQ factors when analysis was conducted considering the overall score of the full scale instead of its separate dimensions. The SIB, therefore, should only be administered as a preliminary screening instrument when evaluating the syndrome from a processual perspective, as proposed by the BBQ. In cases where the SIB cut-off point is exceeded, burnout assessments should proceed to apply other broader instruments, such as the BBQ, in order to produce the more detailed information required to guide decisions orienting preventive activities.
Another important finding of the present study is that the SIB can be administered effectively to the different demographic groups found among Spanish healthcare centre staff. Nonetheless, future studies with larger and more representative samples are required to produce cut-points adjusted for use with samples with different professional profiles.
Further, the ‘inclusive’ cut-point is appropriate for diagnostic use given that it produced highly similar diagnostic outcomes to a more in-depth, validated comparison burnout measure and demonstrated an appropriate balance between sensitivity and specificity outcomes. In addition, when compared with multi-dimensional measures, the SIB does not underestimate burnout, making it a reliable instrument.
The present study also reveals that the SIB predicts the effects of burnout on health and job satisfaction. This makes it a useful instrument for use in the interventions targeting prevention carried out by occupational health services. This is hugely important given that burnout is a common issue amongst health professionals.
Finally, the present research produced a validated single-item instrument to measure burnout in Spain and addresses the scarcity of validation studies of short measurement instruments at a European level.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/socsci12100546/s1, Table S1: Percentage of burnout cases according to sociodemographic groups.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, I.M.-R.; methodology, I.M.-R. and E.K.; formal analysis, E.K. and I.M.-R.; investigation, all authors; writing—original draft preparation, E.K. and I.M.-R.; writing—review and editing, I.M.-R. and A.D.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Andalusian Health Service, belonging to the Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs of the Government of Andalusia. Cod 21-31739.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study received approval from the Ethics Committee for Biomedical Research of the province of Granada (CEIM/CEI Granada) Ethics reference code: 2149-N-21.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data availability is restricted due to privacy reasons. However, data may be available by writing to the correspondence author.

Acknowledgments

The Andalusian Health Service, the Andalusian Health Service’s Occupational Risk Prevention Coordination Unit and the government of Andalusia. Particular thanks go to: Nuria Queraltó, Federico Almanzor, Maria Jose Laguna, Emilio Carrera, Asunción Sánchez, Fernando Yelamo, Silvia Lucena, Carmen Sanchez, Juan Jesus Gonzalez, Maria Jose Molina, Sara Hernandez, Jose Gascon, Francisco Giraldez, Francisco Cabrera, Marta Muñoz, Juan Francisco Alvarez, Jesus Gotor and Jose Angel Martin.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Arias-Ulloa, Cristian Arturo, Juan Gómez-Salgado, Kenny Escobar-Segovia, Juan Jesús García-Iglesias, Javier Fagundo-Rivera, and Carlos Ruiz-Frutos. 2023. Psychological distress in healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Journal of Safety Research, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Demerouti, Evangelia, Arnold B. Bakker, Ioanna Vardakou, and Aristotelis Kantas. 2003. The Convergent Validity of Two Burnout Instruments: A Multitrait-Multimethod Analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 18: 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dewa, Carolyn S., Desmond Loong, Sarah Bonato, Nguyen Xuan Thanh, and Philip Jacobs. 2014. How Does Burnout Affect Physician Productivity? A Systematic Literature Review. BMC Health Services Research 14: 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dolan, Emily D., David Mohr, Michele Lempa, Sandra Joos, Stephan D. Fihn, Karin M. Nelson, and Christian D. Helfrich. 2014. Using a Single Item to Measure Burnout in Primary Care Staff: A Psychometric Evaluation. Journal of General Internal Medicine 30: 582–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Flickinger, Tabor E., Rachel H. Kon, Rebecca Jacobsen, Justine Owens, John Schorling, and Margaret Plews-Ogan. 2020. Single-Item Burnout Measure Correlates Well with Emotional Exhaustion Domain of Burnout but Not Depersonalization among Medical Students. Journal of General Internal Medicine 35: 3383–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Garcí-Carmona, María Rosa, and Humbelina Robles-Ortega. 2011. Personalidad Resistente y Sentido de Coherencia Como Predictores Del Burnout En Personal Sanitario de Cuidados Intensivos. Ansiedad y Estrés 17: 99–112. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hansen, Vibeke, and Afaf Girgis. 2010. Can a Single Question Effectively Screen for Burnout in Australian Cancer Care Workers? BMC Health Services Research 10: 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hardy, Gillian, Shapiro David, and Borrill Carol. 1997. Fatigue in the Workforce of National Health Service Trusts: Levels of Symptomatology and Links with Minor Psychiatric Disorder, Demographic, Occupational and Work Role Factors. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 43: 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hodkinson, Alexander, Anli Zhou, Judith Johnson, Keith Geraghty, Ruth Riley, Andrew Zhou, Efharis Panagopoulou, Carolyn A. Chew-Graham, David Peters, Aneez Esmail, and et al. 2022. Associations of physician burnout with career engagement and quality of patient care: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 378: e070442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Imo, Udemezue O. 2017. Burnout and psychiatric morbidity among doctors in the UK: A systematic literature review of prevalence and associated factors. BJPsych Bulletin 41: 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jürges, Hendrik, Mauricio Avendano, and Johan P. MacKenbach. 2008. Are Different Measures of Self-Rated Health Comparable? An Assessment in Five European Countries. European Journal of Epidemiology 23: 773–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kemper, Kathi J., Paria M. Wilson, Alan Schwartz, John D. Mahan, Maneesh Batra, Betty B. Staples, Hilary McClafferty, Charles J. Schubert, and Janet R. Serwint. 2019. Burnout in Pediatric Residents: Comparing Brief Screening Questions to the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Academic Pediatrics 19: 251–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khamisa, Natasha, Karl Peltzer, and Brian Oldenburg. 2013. Burnout in Relation to Specific Contributing Factors and Health Outcomes among Nurses: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 10: 2214–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Knox, Margae, Rachel Willard-Grace, Beatrice Huang, and Kevin Grumbach. 2018. Maslach Burnout Inventory and a Self-Defined, Single-Item Burnout Measure Produce Different Clinician and Staff Burnout Estimates. Journal of General Internal Medicine 33: 1344–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kristensen, Tage S., Marianne Borritz, Ebbe Villadsen, and Karl B. Christensen. 2005. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A New Tool for the Assessment of Burnout. Work and Stress 19: 192–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Leo, Carlo Giacomo, Saverio Sabina, Maria Rosaria Tumolo, Antonela Bodini, Giusepe Ponzini, Eugenio Sabato, and Pierpaolo Mincarone. 2021. Burnout Among Healthcare Workers in the COVID 19 Era: A Review of the Existing Literature. Front Public Health 9: 750529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Maslach, Christina, Susan E. Jackson, and Michael P. Leiter. 1996. The Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. The Maslach Burnout Inventory, 3rd ed. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277816643 (accessed on 16 April 2018).
  18. Maslach, Christina, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, and Michael P. Leiter. 2001. Job Burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 397–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Meliá, Jose L., and Jose M. Peiró. 1989. La Medida De La Satisfaccion Laboral En Contextos Organizacionales: El Cuestionario De Satisfaccion S20/23 [The Measurement of Job Satisfaction in Organizational Settings: The S20/23 Job Satisfaction Questionnaire]. Psicologemas 5: 59–74. [Google Scholar]
  20. Moreno Jiménez, Bernardo, Rodriguez Bustos, Alvarez Matallana, and T. Mirales. 1997. La Evaluación Del Burnout: Problemas y Alternativas: EL CBB Como Evaluación de Los Elementos Del Proceso. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 13: 185–208. [Google Scholar]
  21. Morgantini, Luca A., Ushasi Naha, Heng Wang, Simone Francavilla, Ömer Acar, Jose M. Flores, Simone Crivellaro, Daniel Moreira, Michael Abern, Martin Eklund, and et al. 2020. Factors Contributing to Healthcare Professional Burnout during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid Turnaround Global Survey. PLoS ONE 15: e0238217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ong, John, Wan Yen Lim, Kinjal Doshi, Man Zhou, Ban Leong Sng, Li Hoon Tan, and Sharon Ong. 2021. An Evaluation of the Performance of Five Burnout Screening Tools: A Multicentre Study in Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, and Ancillary Staff. Journal of Clinical Medicine 10: 4836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Patel, Rikinkumar S., Ramya Bachu, Archana Adikey, Meryem Malik, and Mansi Shah. 2018. Factors Related to Physician Burnout and Its Consequences: A Review. Behavioral Sciences 8: 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Rohland, Barbara M., Gina R. Kruse, and James E. Rohrer. 2004. Validation of a Single-Item Measure of Burnout against the Maslach Burnout Inventory among Physicians. Stress and Health 20: 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rollin, Laetitia, Jean-Francois Gehanno, and Leroyer Ariane. 2022. Occupational stressors in healthcare workers in France. Revue d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique 70: 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rotenstein, Lisa S., Matthew Torre, Marco A. Ramos, Rachael C. Rosales, Constance Guille, Srijan Sen, and Douglas A. Mata. 2018. Prevalence of Burnout Among Physicians: A Systematic Review. JAMA 320: 1131–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schmoldt, R. A., D. K. Freeborn, and H. D. Klevit. 1994. Physician Burnout: Recommendations for HMO Managers. HMO Practice 8: 58–63. Available online: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/10135263 (accessed on 16 May 2020). [PubMed]
  28. Søvold, Lene E., John A. Naslund, Antonis A. Kousoulis, Shekhar Saxena, M. Walid Qoronfleh, Christoffel Grobler, and Lars Munter. 2021. Prioritizing the mental health and well-being of healthcare workers: An urgent global public health priority. Frontiers in Public Health 9: 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Stodolska, Agata, Grzegorz Wójcik, Ilona Barańska, Violetta Kijowska, and Katarzyna Szczerbińska. 2023. Prevalence of burnout among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated factors—A scoping review. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 36: 21–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sultana, Aabida, Rachit Sharma, Md Mahbud Hossain, Sudip Bhattacharya, and Neetu Purohit. 2020. Burnout among healthcare providers during COVID-19: Challenges and evidence-based interventions. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 308–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Waddimba, Anthony C., Melissa Scribani, Melinda A. Nieves, Nicole Krupa, John J. May, and Paul Jenkins. 2016. Validation of Single-Item Screening Measures for Provider Burnout in a Rural Health Care Network. Evaluation and the Health Professions 39: 215–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ware, John E., Jr., and Cathy Donald Sherbourne. 1992. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection. Medical Care 30: 473–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Weinberg, Ashley, and Francis Creed. 2000. Stress and Psychiatric Disorder in Healthcare Professionals and Hospital Staff. Lancet 355: 533–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. West, Colin P., Liselotte N. Dyrbye, Daniel V. Satele, Jeff A. Sloan, and Tait D. Shanafelt. 2012. Concurrent Validity of Single-Item Measures of Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization in Burnout Assessment. Journal of General Internal Medicine 27: 1445–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. West, Colin P., Liselotte N. Dyrbye, Jeff A. Sloan, and Tait D. Shanafelt. 2009. Single Item Measures of Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization Are Useful for Assessing Burnout in Medical Professionals. Journal of General Internal Medicine 24: 1318–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Woo, Tiffany, Roger Ho, Arthur Tang, and Wilson Tam. 2020. Global prevalence of burnout symptoms among nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research 123: 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wu, Fangyun, Zheng Ren, Qi Wang, Minfu He, Wenjing Xiong, Guodong Ma, Xinwen Fan, Hongjian Liu, and Xiumin Zhang. 2021. The relationship between job stress and job burnout: The mediating effects of perceived social support and job satisfaction. Psychology, Health & Medicine 26: 204–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis outcomes following incorporation of SIB into the model of the three factors of the BBQ (using the original factor structure proposed by Moreno Jiménez et al. (1997).
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis outcomes following incorporation of SIB into the model of the three factors of the BBQ (using the original factor structure proposed by Moreno Jiménez et al. (1997).
Factor 1 (Antecedents)Factor 2 (Syndrome)Factor 3 (Consequences)
Factor Loadings
Single-item0.74 Single-item0.82 Single-item0.78
BBQ-20.74 BBQ-10.83 BBQ-130.75
BBQ-100.42 BBQ-70.82 BBQ-170.74
BBQ-160.64 BBQ-150.86 BBQ-210.69
BBQ-60.81 BBQ-30.44
BBQ-140.55 BBQ-110.48
BBQ-200.73 BBQ-180.28
BBQ-40.58 BBQ-50.55
BBQ-80.52 BBQ-120.70
BBQ-90.59 BBQ-190.69
Fit Indices
χ2255.380.000 120.790.000 1.970.373
CFI0.823 0.939 1.000
NFI0.802 0.916 0.995
RMSEA0.144 0.090 0.000
SRMR0.082 0.058 0.011
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis outcomes following incorporation of SIB into the model of three dimensions of the syndrome factor of the BBQ (using the original factor structure proposed by Moreno Jiménez et al. (1997).
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis outcomes following incorporation of SIB into the model of three dimensions of the syndrome factor of the BBQ (using the original factor structure proposed by Moreno Jiménez et al. (1997).
Dimension 1 (Emotional Exhaustion)Dimension 2 (Lack of Personal Realisation)Dimension 3 (Depersonalisation)
Factor loadings
Single-item0.811 Single-item0.704 Single-item0.471
BBQ-10.822 BBQ-50.639 BBQ-30.663
BBQ-70.828 BBQ-120.703 BBQ-110.706
BBQ-150.889 BBQ-190.739 BBQ-180.300
Fit indices
χ21.2100.546 13.1670.001 7.9900.018
CFI1.000 0.984 0.979
NFI0.999 0.981 0.973
RMSEA0.000 0.079 0.058
Table 3. Predictive validity of SIB examined via Pearson correlations with the BBQ.
Table 3. Predictive validity of SIB examined via Pearson correlations with the BBQ.
Single-Item Measure (SIB)
rpN
Overall BBQ0.7380.000627
BBQ Factor 1: Factors of burnout0.6380.000629
BBQ Factor 2: Burnout syndrome0.7100.000628
BBQ Factor 3: Consequences of burnout0.6670.000627
Dimensions of factor 2: Burnout syndrome
Emotional exhaustion0.7660.000628
Lack of personal realisation0.6000.000628
Depersonalisation0.3920.000628
Table 4. Association between cases of burnout, as diagnosed according to two different SIB cut-points, and poor perceived health and job dissatisfaction.
Table 4. Association between cases of burnout, as diagnosed according to two different SIB cut-points, and poor perceived health and job dissatisfaction.
Single-Item (‘Inclusive’ Diagnosis of Burnout [Scores 3, 4 and 5])Single-Item (‘Strict’ Diagnosis of Burnout [Score 5])
OR95% CIOR95% CI
Perceived poor health8.545.71–12.7811.755.26–26.23
Job dissatisfaction8.165.43–12.2416.675.07–54.84
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mateo-Rodríguez, I.; Knox, E.; Oliver-Hernandez, C.; Daponte-Codina, A. Validation of a Single-Item Screening Measure of Burnout in a Sample of Spanish Health Workers. Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 546. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12100546

AMA Style

Mateo-Rodríguez I, Knox E, Oliver-Hernandez C, Daponte-Codina A. Validation of a Single-Item Screening Measure of Burnout in a Sample of Spanish Health Workers. Social Sciences. 2023; 12(10):546. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12100546

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mateo-Rodríguez, Inmaculada, Emily Knox, Coral Oliver-Hernandez, and Antonio Daponte-Codina. 2023. "Validation of a Single-Item Screening Measure of Burnout in a Sample of Spanish Health Workers" Social Sciences 12, no. 10: 546. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12100546

APA Style

Mateo-Rodríguez, I., Knox, E., Oliver-Hernandez, C., & Daponte-Codina, A. (2023). Validation of a Single-Item Screening Measure of Burnout in a Sample of Spanish Health Workers. Social Sciences, 12(10), 546. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12100546

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop