Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 28, 2026

A Metadata Extraction Approach for Clinical Case Reports to Enable Advanced Understanding of Biomedical Concepts
Published on: September 20, 2018
Differences in burnout prevalence between clinical professionals and biomedical scientists in an academic medical
Erick Messias1, Molly M Gathright1, Emily S Freeman2
1Department of Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
Objective:
To determine the prevalence and associated factors for personal, work-related and patient/client-related burnout in clinical professionals and biomedical scientists in academic medicine.
Design:
Prevalence survey using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory.
Setting:
Mid-size academic health centre.
Participants:
Clinical providers (n=6489) and biomedical scientists (n=248) were invited to complete the survey. 1646 completed responses (response rate 24.4%) were analysed.
Primary And Secondary Outcome Measures:
Prevalence estimates and adjusted ORs (AOR) were stratified for gender, age and professional category.
Results:
Type of burnout varies across professional categories, with significant differences between clinicians and scientists. The prevalence of personal burnout was 52.7% (95%CI 50% to 55%), work-related burnout 47.5% (95%CI 45% to 49%) and patient/client-related burnout 20.3% (95%CI 18% to 22%). The prevalence of personal and work-related burnout was higher among women, while those aged 20-30 had a higher prevalence of all three burnout categories. Overall, clinical professionals had higher personal and work-related burnout, while biomedical scientists had higher client-related burnout. Accounting for the effects of gender and age, a significantly higher risk for personal burnout was found for physicians (AOR 1.64; 95%CI 1.3 to 2.1) and nurses (AOR 1.5; 95%CI 1.03 to 2.2). Significantly higher odds of work-related burnout were found for nurses (AOR 1.5; 95%CI 1.2 to 1.9) and residents (AOR 1.9; 95%CI 1.04 to 3.6). Basic scientists (AOR 10.0; 95%CI 5.7 to 17.6), physicians (AOR 2.8; 95%CI 1.9 to 4.1) and nurses (AOR 2.1; 95%CI 1.3 to 3.5) had higher odds of patient/client-related burnout.
Conclusions:
Types of burnout are unevenly distributed in academic medical centres. Physicians have higher risk of personal and patient/client-related burnout, residents have higher risk of work-related burnout, basic scientists are at higher risk of client-related burnout and nurses have higher odds of all three types of burnout. Interventions addressing the problem of burnout in clinical environments may be inadequate to support biomedical scientists.
Related Concept Videos
Cross-Sectional Research
Surveys
Finding Volume Using Cross-Sectional Area
Profile Leveling and Cross Sections
Prevalence and Incidence
Prevalence indicates the proportion of individuals in a population who have a specific disease or health...
Spinal Cord: Cross-sectional Anatomy
Gray Matter and its Components
Central to the gray matter is...

