Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: an exploratory study
Keywords:Burnout, Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, Medical Librarians, Information Professionals, Systematic Reviews, Professional, Systematic Reviews as Topic
Objective: The aim of this exploratory study was to assess personal, work-related, and client-related burnout among information professionals who support systematic review (SR) work.
Methods: The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, a validated tool for assessing burnout, was administered to information professionals who support SR work. A broad range of health sciences or medical librarians and information professionals were targeted via professional email discussion lists and news outlets. Questionnaire responses were captured electronically using Qualtrics Survey Software and quantitatively analyzed.
Results: Respondents experienced an average personal burnout score of 48.6, work-related score of 46.4, and client-related score of 32.5 out of 100. Respondents who reported spending >80% of their job duties on SR work had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported spending <10% of their job duties on SR work (average, 31.5 versus 50.9, respectively). Also, respondents who reported using an SR support tool had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported sometimes using a tool (average, 43.7 versus 54.7, respectively).Conclusion: The results suggest that information professionals who dedicate more time to SR work or who consistently use an SR support tool experience less burnout. This study provides groundwork for further investigation with the aim of developing approaches to prevent or combat SR-related burnout among information professionals.
Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:397–422.
Petek M. Stress among reference library staff in academic and public libraries. Ref Serv Rev. 2018 Feb 12;46(1):128–45.
Affleck MA. Burnout among bibliographic instruction librarians. Libr Inf Sci Res. 1996 Mar;18(2):165–83.
Shupe EI, Wambaugh SK, Bramble RJ. Role-related stress experienced by academic librarians. J Acad Librariansh. 2015 May;41(3):264–9.
Institute of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. National Academy of Sciences; 2011 Mar.
Dudden RF, Protzko SL. The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian. Med Ref Serv Q. 2011;30(3):301–15.
Harris MR. The librarian’s roles in the systematic review process: a case study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):81–7.
Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;68(6):617–26.
Koffel JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One. 2015 May 4;10(5):e0125931.
Nicholson J, McCrillis A, Williams JD. Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Oct;105(4):385–93. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.176.
Spencer AJ, Eldredge JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):46–56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82.
Bullers K, Howard AM, Hanson A, Kearns WD, Orriola JJ, Polo RL, Sakmar KA. It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Apr;106(2):198–207. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.323.
Townsend WA, Anderson PF, Ginier EC, MacEachern MP, Saylor KM, Shipman BL, Smith JE. A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jul;105(3):268–75. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.189.
McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):74–80.
Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: a new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work Stress. 2005 Jul;19(3):192–207.
Qualtrics. Qualtrics. Provo, UT: Qualtrics; 2018.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018.
Brotheridge CM, Grandey AA. Emotional labor and burnout: comparing two perspectives of “people work.” J Vocat Behav. 2002 Feb;60(1):17–39.
Leiter MP, Schaufeli WB. Consistency of the burnout construct across occupations. Anxiety Stress Coping. 1996 Jan;9(3):229–43.
Evans BK, Fischer DG. The nature of burnout: a study of the three-factor model of burnout in human service and non-human service samples. J Occup Organ Psychol. 1993 Mar;66(1):29–38.
Kay RH, Loverock S. Assessing emotions related to learning new software: the computer emotion scale. Comput Human Behav. 2008 Jul;24(4):1605–23.
Kay RH. Exploring the relationship between emotions and the acquisition of computer knowledge. Comput Educ. 2008 May;50(4):1269–83.
American Library Association. Member demographics study [Internet]. The Association; 2017 Sep [cited 2018 Oct 30]. <http://www.ala.org/tools/research/initiatives/membershipsurveys>.