RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Psychometric properties of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) in Italian physicians
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.04.22.22274175
DO 10.1101/2022.04.22.22274175
A1 Nicolò Aiello, Edoardo
A1 Fiabane, Elena
A1 Margheritti, Simona
A1 Magnone, Stefano
A1 Bolognini, Nadia
A1 Miglioretti, Massimo
A1 Giorgi, Ines
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/22/2022.04.22.22274175.abstract
AB Background Assessing burnout in physicians is relevant as it can adversely affect both their mental and physical health by also decreasing the quality of care, especially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed at standardizing the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), a psychometrically sound, worldwide-spread tool, in Italian physicians.Methods Nine-hundred and fifteen Italian physicians were web-administered the CBI, Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). The present CBI is a self-report questionnaire including 18 Likert items (range=19-90) assessing Personal, Work-related and Client-related Burnout. Client-related adaptation was performed. Construct validity, factorial structure (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) and internal consistency were tested. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed simultaneously against the PHQ-8, GAD-7 and GSE.Results All CBI measures yielded optimal internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=.90-.96). The CBI met its original three-factor model (CFI=.94; TLI=.93; RMSEA=.09; SRMR=.04), was positively related with the PHQ-8 (r=.76) and GAD-7 (r.=73), whereas negatively with the GSE (r=-.39), and yielded optimal diagnostics (AUC=.93; sensitivity=.91 and specificity=.85 at the optimal cut-off of 69/90).Discussion The CBI is a valid, reliable and normed tool to assess burnout levels in physicians, whose use is encouraged in both clinical practice and research as being short-lived, easy to use and openly accessible.Competing Interest StatementENA, EF and IG received funding from ANAAO ASSOMED Lombardia Associazione Medici Dirigen-ti. SM serves within ANAAO ASSOMED Lombardia Associazione Medici Dirigenti. SM, MM and NB declare no known conflicts of interest.Funding StatementThe present research received funding from ANAAO ASSOMED Lombardia Associazione Medici Dirigenti.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Participants provided informed consent. This study was approved on behalf of the Ethics Committee of the University of Milano-Bicocca (RM-2021-451).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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding Author.