Understanding burnout according to individual differences: ongoing explanatory power evaluation of two models for measuring burnout types

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The classic determination of burnout is by means of the dimensions exhaustion, cynicism and inefficacy. A new definition of the syndrome is based on clinical subtypes, consisting of "frenetic" (involved, ambitious, overload...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Montero-Marín Jesús (Author), Araya Ricardo (Author), Blazquez Barbara (Author), Skapinakis Petros (Author), Vizcaino Vicente (Author), García-Campayo Javier (Author)
Format: Book
Published: BMC, 2012-10-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The classic determination of burnout is by means of the dimensions exhaustion, cynicism and inefficacy. A new definition of the syndrome is based on clinical subtypes, consisting of "frenetic" (involved, ambitious, overloaded), "underchallenged" (indifferent, bored, with lack of personal development) and "worn-out" (neglectful, unacknowledged, with little control). The dimensions of overload, lack of development and neglect form a shortened version of this perspective. The aims of this study were to estimate and to compare the explanatory power of both typological models, short and long, with the standard measurement.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a cross-sectional survey with a randomly sample of university employees (n=409). Multivariate linear regression models were constructed between the "Maslach Burnout Inventory General Survey" (MBI-GS) dimensions, as dependent variables, and the "Burnout Clinical Subtype Questionnaire" (BCSQ-36 and BCSQ-12) dimensions, as independent variables.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The BCSQ-36 subscales together explained 53% of 'exhaustion' (p<0.001), 59% of 'cynicism' (p<0.001) and 37% of 'efficacy' (p<0.001), while BCSQ-12 subscales explained 44% of 'exhaustion' (p<0.001), 44% of 'cynicism' (p<0.001), and 30% of 'efficacy' (p<0.001). The difference in the explanatory power of both models was significant for 'exhaustion' (p<0.001), and for 'cynicism' (p<0.001) and 'efficacy (p<0.001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Both BCSQ-36 and BCSQ-12 demonstrate great explanatory power over the standard MBI-GS, while offering a useful characterization of the syndrome for the evaluation and design of interventions tailored to the characteristics of each individual. The BCSQ-36 may be very useful in mental health services, given that it provides a good deal of information, while the BCSQ-12 could be used as a screening measure in primary care consultations owing to its simplicity and functional nature.</p>
Item Description:10.1186/1471-2458-12-922
1471-2458