ABSTRACT
We aimed to describe the characteristics and current practices of Swiss health professionals who manage patients with occupational burnout (POB), namely the general practitioners (GP), psychiatrist-psychotherapists (PP), occupational physicians (OP) and psychologists. Among 3216 respondents, 2951 reported to consult POB, and 1130 (713 physicians and 410 psychologists) to treat them. The study showed that POB management constitutes 5 to 25% of health care professionals’ consultations, with an inequal distribution of POBs across professionals’ specialties and specializations, but also across geographic regions. The profile of POB consulted also differs across professionals. Work psychologists see more often POB at early burnout stage, GPs have most patients with moderate burnout, while PPs report the largest proportion of patients with severe burnout.
The treatment practices depend on burnout severity. Psychiatrists and physicians with double specialty (GP-OPs and GP-PPs) treat patients with more severe burnout than GPs. Psychologists treating patients with severe burnout collaborate with other health professionals and contact the POB’s employer and/or health insurance. Treatment practices and burnout severity are not associated with the proportion of relapsed patients and patients who return to work. Yet, the former is associated with professionals’ age, sex, and specialty. Physicians with waiting time >3 months have a higher proportion of relapsed patients. GPs prescribe most often sick leaves, while PPs are the most frequent prescribers of pharmacological treatment. PPs collaborate significantly more often than GPs with pharmacologists and contact POB’s employer and health insurance. Among psychologists, work psychologists differ from other psychologists by a more frequent POB (psycho)education and coaching, namely on how to negotiate with employer and family, as well as on physical exercise. They also more often contact POB’s employer. Besides profession and specialization, we observed important regional variation in treatment modalities chosen by both physicians and psychologists.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol was submitted to the cantonal ethics commission for Research on Human Beings of the Canton of Vaud (CER-VD). The CER-VD judged that this study did not fall within the scope of the Federal Law on Research on Human Beings (HRA) and issued an exemption from review (BASEC-Nr. Req-2021-01156).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files
