Oncology may be viewed as an extraordinary rewarding specialty.
Burnout is a work-related psychological syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment. It may occur in persons who work with other people when occupational pressures persist over time. Burnout syndrome was first described in the 1970s and has been extensively studied by Dr. Maslach et al. (1986),
Data provided by oncologists' professional associations are alarming. Study conducted by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) detected that 45% of oncologists had already experienced burnout symptoms.
A prevalence of 58% was found among oncologist who worked in a Brazilian hospital.
In 2016, a meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of various interventions to prevent and reduce physicians' burnout.
A systematic review protocol was elaborated based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocols (PRISMA-P),
Based on the acronym PICOS, the participants were oncologist physicians, the interventions included those to prevent and reduce stress and burnout; the comparison (control) were with oncologists who had not undergone these interventions; outcomes included quality of life, and signs and symptoms of stress and burnout; and, the study types included randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials.
Initially, with assistance of experienced librarians, a search strategy was developed to identify studies that contemplated interventions to deal with stress and burnout among oncologists. The strategy included keywords such as “burnout”, “stress”, “oncologists”, “interventions” and its synonyms. The full search is detailed in Appendix 1.
The search was applied in the following databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. In addition, the grey literature was searched on Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses and Open Grey. The reference list of the articles found was carried out manually, and the main authors of the subject were contacted, asking for possibly non included articles to complement the search. Filters for languages and restrictions on the date of publication were not used.
According to pre-elaborated criteria, studies were included if they involved oncologists, either clinical oncologists, radio-oncologists, oncology surgeons, pediatric oncologists or onco-hematologists; and, contained specific data on interventions to prevent or deal with stress or burnout.
Studies were excluded if they: 1) involved only non-medical oncologist professionals or medical students; 2) did not involve interventions to prevent or handle with stress and burnout; 3) had duplicated data from another included study or insufficient data; 4) were conducted in animals; 5) were reviews, letters, books, case report, case series, opinion article, technique articles and guidelines; 6) did not have their complete text available online/published and if the texts were not accessible after three contact attempts in a 15-day period by electronic mail to corresponding authors.
Articles found in the databases were organized in the EndNote X9 program. Two reviewers (A.S. and C.W.) selected the articles independently in two phases. In phase-1, the two reviewers read the titles and abstracts applying the eligibility criteria using an online software (Rayyan, Qatar Computing Research Institute). In phase-2, the same reviewers read the full-text, also applying the eligibility criteria. In case of disagreement, in both phases, doubts were resolved by consensus and, if incompatibility remained, a third reviewer (J.M.D.O.) was called.
The first and second reviewers (A.C.S. and C.W.) collected the main information from the selected studies independently. After that, the collected information was cross-checked, and its accuracy confirmed in a consensus meeting. In case of disagreement, conflict was resolved with a final decision by the third reviewer (J.M.D.O).
Criteria for data extraction were determined prior to the review, using a table that included: author, year, participants, country, type of study, primary and secondary objectives, type of intervention, results and outcomes, participants' acceptability, satisfaction of the intervention and intervention effectiveness If data were not found in the article, three contact attempts were tried in a 15-day period by electronic mail to corresponding authors to obtain relevant unpublished information.
The risk of bias (RoB) of included studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for quasi-experimental,
Stress levels and burnout symptoms were considered as the main outcome and the analysis was not restricted by any method for measuring or diagnosing them.
No restrictions were made on how these outcomes were measured or whether they were obtained by psychologists or by self-assessment.
The extracted data were synthesized in a descriptive manner. Studies including any type of intervention and any number of doctors were accepted.
Heterogeneity within studies was evaluated either by the inconsistency index (I
Meta-analysis was considered inappropriate due to the included studies heterogeneity in clinical and methodological characteristics. The synthesis of results was also descriptive.
A summary of the overall confidence in cumulative evidence available by outcomes analyzed was presented using “grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation” (GRADE). Summary of Findings (SoF) table was produced using the GRADE online software.
In phase-1, 3,020 citations were identified from electronic databases. After removing duplicated records, a total of 2,067 titles and abstracts were evaluated with the eligibility criteria. Following phase-1, 197 articles entered phase-2. After full-text reading, 19 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included for qualitative analysis (see on
The 19 included studies were conducted in thirteen countries. One in Australia,
All included studies evaluated samples with at least one group of medical oncology doctors (fellows, residents, or specialist physicians) and the total of 1,513 individuals were analyzed. They included oncology care providers as specialist physicians (oncology, onco-hematology, pediatric, palliative care),[23-26,28,29,31,33,38] oncology residents,
A summary of the descriptive characteristics of the various studies can be found in
In regard to the study design, nine were quasirandomized studies,[26-28,30,33,34,37,40,41] one was crosssectional,
The interventions to prevent and/or reduce stress levels and burnout included mostly classrooms
Figure 1 Flow diagram of literature search and selection criteria. (Adapted from PRISMA - Moher et al. (2010):
Two studies used art therapy,
The Maslach burnout inventory (MBI) was used to measure changes before and after the intervention in fifteen studies.
The follow-up periods ranged from 7 days
Art-therapy was evaluated in two studies, both with before and after design.
A cross-sectional study published by Graff et al. (2018)
Kesselheim et al. (2020)
Other approaches that worked to reduce physician stress and burnout were based on small groups, and their curriculum included the following strategies: a training program supervised by counselors,
Three studies included in this systematic review attempted to combat the burnout of the oncologist by promoting communication skills between doctors and patients.
Two studies evaluated Balint groups' impact on reducing burnout in residents and oncology fellows.
In a randomized clinical trial conducted by Moody et al. (2013),
Interventions which had a significant effect in the reduction of stress and burnout were experience sharing between women doctors in virtual groups,
Interventions that did not reduce were simulated communication skills training,
Nine of the 19 studies included fulfilled all the applicable questions regarding the methodological quality criteria, being classified with low-risk of bias: three RCT,
The main topics that introduced potential bias into the studies were the selection of the reported results and the existence of other interventions on the compared groups.
All studies were based on interventions focused on the participants individually, or in group, and any intervention made a structural change within the work environment.
Certainty in cumulative evidence was considered low and very low for randomized and observational studies, respectively. Further explanations regarding evidence appraisal are presented in
Figure 2 RoB summary author's judgments for each included study, assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool RoB 2.0 for randomized trials
| Author, Year (Country) | Study design | Participants / Context / Setting | Groups(n/%) | Outcomes measured | Measures |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bar-Sela, Lulav- Grinwald and Mitnik, 201 2 | Before -after | 15 Oncology residents | IGJunior: 1° part of residency (<3y) (8/53.3*); Senior: 2° part of residency (>3y) (7/46.7*) | Burnout measures (Emocional Exaustion and Despersonalization), Communication skills and self-awareness | MBI and expectations questionnaire that was completed at the beginning and at the end of the year |
| Barzelloni et al, 2014 | RCT | 34 Physicians and nurses Departments of Medical Oncology the Policlínico Tor Vergata University hospital and John of Procida Salerno | IG (12/35.3*) CG (22/64.7*) | Burnout and Health at TO and quarterly (T1, T2, T3, T4). | General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) and MBI - |
| Bragard et al, 201 0 | RCT | 62 Cancer physicians specialists All Belgian specialists working in cancer care were invited | IG (29/46.8*) CG group (33/53.2*) | Burnout, communication skills, contextual variables | MBI; Standardized Breaking Bad News Simulated Interview for assessment of communication skills; Socioprofessional questionnaire and |
| Brown etal, 2014 | RCT | 62 Oncologists 21 from 10 Australian/New Zealand (ANZ) centers and 41 from 10 Swiss/ German/Austrian (SGA) centers | IG: 1-day workshop group (NR) eg (NR) | Communication behavior, stress and satisfaction | the Job Stress Survey (JSS) NR |
| Bui et al, 2021 | Before -after | 28 participants among medical doctors, nurses, socio-sanitary assistant, biologists, support, and administrative staff Oncology Department Oncology Units (Recovery Ward and Day Hospital) | Medical doctors (7/23.5%) Nurses (8/29.4%) | Burnout effective, lifestyle and work factors | MBI; B-C Working Fit and Socio demographic questionnaire |
| Butow et al, 20 08 | RCT | 30 medical and radiation oncologists from six tertiary care hospitals in six Australian cities | IG (16/53.3*) CG (14/46.7*) | Doctor behaviors | MBI and Demographic, previous training and current practice assessed at baseline |
| Clemons et al, 201 9 | Before -after | 13 Medical and surgical oncologists and a palliative care physician a group of oncologists from Canada | 1 group (13/100*) | Physician, burnout happiness and compliance with the virtues | Abbreviated MBI and Oxford Happiness Questionnaire |
| Dahn et al, 201 9 | Before -after (pilot study) | 9 participants - 8 residents and 1 staff Centre for Radiation Oncology residents. Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS | Resident group (8/88.9%*) Staff group (1/11.1%*) | Burnout, Resiliency, welness | |
| Graff et al, 2018 | Cross Sectional | 169 Female oncologist/ hematologist (H/O), pediatric, radiation oncology, surgical specialties, and palliative | 1 group (169/100*) | Burnout, Career satisfaction | 12-question online survey using a visual analog scale |
| care from a Facebook closed group | Group A -16 doctors and 16 nurses | ||||
| Italia et al, 20 07 | Before -after | 65 Doctors (50.77%*) and nurses of oncology unit in two hospital units of Catania | of an adult oncology unit (32/49.2*) Group B -17 doctors and 16 nursesofa pediatric oncology unit (33/50.8*) | Burnout | MBI |
| Kesselheim et al, 20 20 | Cluster RCT | 19 pediatric hematology-oncology fellowship programs during the 2016-2017 academic year - 100 fellows from All PHO fellowship training programs in the United States | 59 intervention and 41 usual training fellows | Pediatric Hematology- Oncology Self- Assessment in Humanism (PHOSAH) | Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Self- Assessment in Humanism (PHOSAH), MBI, Patient-Provider Orientation Scale (PPOS), Empowerment at Work Scale, and a 5-point satisfaction scale |
| Landaverde etal, 201 8 | Before -after | Medical oncologists (155 members including hematologists, medical oncologists, pharmacists, laboratory personnel, nurses and secretaries) from medical oncology team at Mexico Hospital, San Jose Costa Rica | NR | Burn out | MBI |
| Le Blanc et al, 20 07 | Cluster RCT | 664 care providers (physicians, nurses, and radiotherapy assistants) working in direct care for oncology patients.of 29 oncology wards from the Netherlands | IG (260/39.2%) CG (404; 60.8%) | Burnout and Association of burnout and the level of social supportjob control, and participation in decision making | MBI and other questionnaires about work situation and well-being |
| Mache et al, 201 7 | RCT | 80 German-speaking employed junior physicians working in clinic departments of oncology and hematology medicine hospital departments in Germany | IG (39/48.75*) CG (CG) (41/51.25*) | Perceived stress Work-related health Psychosocial skills self-perceived training outcome and training design | Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ), Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, MBI-emotional exhaustion (EE), and Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire-27 MBI, General Anxiety Disorder-7, the 12 |
| Medisauskaite and Kamau, 201 9 | RCT | 91 doctors - 54.9% (50) work in hospitals and 72.5% (66) work >41 h a week (6% oncologists) randomly selected NHS trusts, 9 royal colleges of medicine, and the British Medical Association (BMA) | Trial group 4 - Modules 1 -4 / IG (39/*) Trial group 5 - Doctors not assigned to any module / CG (52/*) | Burnout, anxiety, insomnia, grief, alcohol/ drug use, binge eating, physical symptoms, and psychiatric morbidity | items General Health Questionnaire, Texas Revised Inventory of Grief, Patient Health Questionnaire, Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Scale (AUDIT), Commonly Abused Drugs Charts, Insomnia Severity Index, 5 items from the Binge Eating Scale from the Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale and the Physical Symptom Inventory |
| Moody et al, 201 3 | RCT | 47 (21 % of oncologist physician and 53% of oncologist nurses) From the Children's Hospital of Montefiore in New York City and the Schneider Children's Hospital in Petach Tivka, Israel | IG (23/48.94*) CG (24/ 51.06*) | Burnout, Depression and perceived stress | MBI, Beck Depression Inventory and Perceived Stress Scale-14 |
| Pathak, Eapen and Zell, 2019 | Before-after | NR number Oncology trainees from Hematology and Oncology Division of an academic Comprehensive Cancer Care center | The Henrietta Lacks Firm The Jane Wright Firm The Padmini Iyer Firm The Rita Mehta Firm NR numbers | Burnout | MBI |
| Sekeres et al, 2003 | Non-randomized clinical trial | 28 first-year hematology-oncology fellows (14 each academic year of 2000-2001 and 2001-2002) From Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/ Brigham and Women's Hospital (DFCI/BWH) and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) | Fellows that started at Dana- Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital (DFCI/ BWH)-CG and IG (14/50*) (7 each academic year of 2000-2001 and 2001-2002) Fellows that started at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) CG and IG(14/50*) (7 each academic year of 2000-2001 and 2001-2002) | Fellows' Fellows' perceptions on: how they related to patients and colleagues “attitudes” questionnaire - attitudes during the course of the first fellowship year | 32-item attitudes questionnaire6, scored 1 to 5, at three time points during their first year (within the first week of the start of fellowship; during the sixth month of fellowship, just before the switch-over; and during the final month of the first year of fellowship) |
| Tjasink and Soosaipillai, 201 8 | Before- after | 16 doctors | Single group | Burnout | MBI |
Abreviattions: Cl=confidence interval; d=days; CG=Control Group; IG=lntervention Group; h=hour; min=minutes; mo=month; MBI=Maslach Burnout Inventory; EE=Emotional exhaustion; RPA=Reduced personal accomplishment; Dp=Depersonalization; NR=Not reported; RCT=randomized-controlled trial; SD=Standard Deviation; U=Unclear; w=weeks; y=years; (*) data calculated by the authors.
Of the 17 residents that were participating, 2 decided not to continue after 2 meetingsand therefore were excluded.
13 physicians completed the baseline scores, 11 completed Maslach/Oxford scores at the end of the study, and 8 the 1-month post-study assessment
Dropouts: at T2 the number of participants had dropped from 664 (experimental group: 260; control group: 404) to 376 (experimental group: 231; control group: 145), and at T3 it had dropped to 304 (experimental group: 208; control group: 96).
The study involved 227 doctors however the analysis considered in the present SR were Group 4 and control (91 doctors).
Additional information by emailing official authors.
The questionnaire derived from the Physician's Belief Scale; the American Academy on Physician and Patient evaluation; common objectives of Balint-like groups across the United States; barriers to physician recognition of psychosocial aspects of health care reports; and from surveys of previous hematology-oncology fellows to explore attitudes toward patients, colleagues, and psychosocial issues
In total 18 candidates were recruited but four were excluded from our analysis as: two candidates withdrew prior to the first session, and two candidates did not complete the post-intervention MBI-HSS survey.
| Author, Year (Country) | Intervention | Final Diagnosis / After intervention Results before and after intervention | Conclusions | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bar-Sela, Lulav-Grinwald and Mitnik, 201 2 | Balint-type case discus-sion groups 1.5 h monthly (9 sessions/y) | - Before intervention/Baseline MBI parameter score: EE: Junior: 3.66 / Senior: 3.14 - RPA: Junior: 1.33/Senior: 1.34- Dp Junior: 2.6/Senior: 0.98 After Follow-up 1y MBI parameter score: EE: Junior: 3.67 / Senior: 3.48 -RPA: Junior: 1.96 / Senior: 1.48 Dp: Junior: 2.13 / Senior: 1.4 | No significant difference was found in regard to Burnout. However, Balint group may improve tresidents' communication abilities and contribute to their self-accomplishment as doctors. | - Small sample size; - Limited number of group sessions |
| Barzelloni etal, 2014 | 1 day of classroom training and discussion meetings on a monthly basis for a year TO (previous) T4 after a year | MBI - Emociona Exaustion: statistically significant reduction (p < 0.04) TO versus T4 in the EG. - No statistical differences in the other MBI test two dimensions GHQ IG TO vs. T4, p < 0.00), IG vs CG at the end of surgery (T4p<0.01). | There was clinical significant implications | NR |
| Bragard etal, 2010 | 19h BT (two 8h day sessions and one 3h evening session - 2h plenary session focusing on theoretical information in the form of two lectures and 17h of small-group role-playing sessions) CW (six sessions of 3h spread over a 3-month period) | - Before intervention/Baseline MBI mean (SD): EE: BT: 21 (7) vs BT with CW: 18 (8) RPA: BT: 39 (5) vs BT with CW: 39 (6) Dp: BT: 7 (4) vs BT with CW: 6 (5) After intervention - after 6 monts MBI mean (SD): EE: BT: 22 (8) vs BT with CW: 18(10) RPA: BT: 39 (3) vs BT with CW: 39 (4) Dp: BT: 8 (5) vs BT with CW: 7 (6) | No difference found in Burnout scores. The authors consider that the amount of clinical workload and the overuse of some facilitative communication skills were associated with cancer physicians | - Use of role play with direct feedback focusing mainly on the acquisition of communication skills oriented towards patient; voluntary participation (and thus highly motivated physicians); Small sample size |
| Brown etal, 2014 | 1 day 7h interactive face-to-face workshop (2h of written and oral materials, 30 min of video modeling ideal behavior, 4h of role-play practice, and 30 min of individualized feedback on audio-taped consultations with actual patients) | Only AFTER 1 month of intervention CG versus IG ANZ: - IG: significant increase in collaborative communication after training; - CG: decline in use of collaborative behaviors during the study period. No effect of training on other doctor communication behaviors. Trained doctors did not demonstrate increased confidence in their information provision or reduced stress and burnout | The intervention was not sufficient to reduce stress and burnout | NR |
| Bui etal, 2021 | 8-months intervention involved fortnight meetings by facilitators, incorporated elements of reflection, shared experiences and managing emotions; 3-hour meetings occurring once every two weeks with an expert team in building, communication strategies and emotional management; Topics addressed were organized into 4 modules: 1 Specific training focused on personal work experience and relationship between colleagues in each department 2 Individual counselling 3 Emotion management (residential course) 4 Self-Help Groups activation | - MBI percentage of participants with each levels (2 weeks before the intervention): EE: Low: 29.4% High: 17.6% RPA: NR DP: NR MBI percentage of participants with each levels(6mo) After the intervention: EE: Low: 52.9%: High: 5.9% RPA: no difference from TO DP: no difference from TO | The intervention was not able to change Burnout,, but there was dramatic reduc-tion in high degree of EE (Emocional Exaustion), main-ly in Day Hospital | - Limited sample size - No control group |
| Butow et al, 2008 | CST: 1,5-day intensive face-to-face workshop incorporating presentation of principles, a DVD modelling ideal behavior and role-play practice, followed by four 1,5h video-conferences at monthly intervals incorporating role-play of doctor-generated scenarios | - Baseline MBI's median: EE IG: 18.0 versus CG: 16.0 RPA IG: 40.0 versus CG: 40.0 Dp IG: 8.0 versus CG: 2.5 MBI's median: EE IG: 18.0 versus CG: 13.5 RPA IG: 39.0 versus CG: 38.5 Dp IG: 6.0 versus CG: 3.0 | The intervention did not succeed in reducing levels of stress and burnout | Small sample size of doctors and of institutions making it i impossible to stratify; -skill levels were high at Baseline; over-representation of female doctors in the sample; |
| Clemons etal, 2019 | Modified Franklin's 13 virtues (the next virtue was added to the previously listed virtues and scores were requested daily) - Each day during the 13-week program, oncologists were emailed a list of virtues to focus on and scored how they felt they were complying with them (5-point Likert scale was used instead of a simple yes/no to increase potential variability in responses) | - Baseline MBI score: EE: 7 - RPA: 16 Dp: 4 Happiness Questionnaire: 4.2 17w (13w of follow-up and 1 mo following study completion After interventio MBI score: EE: 13w: 7+1 mo: 4.5 - RPA: 13w: 16+1 mo: 15.5 Dp: 13w: 3 +1 mo: 2 Happiness Questionnaire: 13w: 4.7 +1mo: 4.7 | There was no improvement of happiness nor burnout reduction. Scores which significantly changed in self-rated virtue over time were order tem-perance, and resolution | Small sample size; Includedprofessionals involved in different aspects of cancer care; Used a 200-year- old program and the “translation” of Franklin's original text, could lead to improvements in happiness and reduced burnout in physicians caring for cancer patients |
| Dahn etal, 2019 | 2-hour resident seminar with dis-cussions, mentorship and teaching communication and stress management skills focused on fostering resiliency and wellness in oncology residents by a local Radiation Oncologist, covered top-ics such as mindfulness, healthy habits and reframing stress with an interactive focus on experien-tial learning and group discussion; | - Resident group: - Burnout rate: NR Average Connor-Davidson Resiliency score: NR Overall rating of the initial resident seminar: 8.3/10 - usefulness: 7.0-8.9/10 Overall rating of the resident and staff session: 8.4/10 - individual activities rated from 8.3-8.8/10 Follow up 3 mo After Resident group: - Burnout rate: 50% Average Connor-Davidson Resiliency score: 68 | The intervention was highly valued by residents and faculty, suggesting the importance of resilience education in the Radiation Oncology residency curriculum | NR |
| Graff etal, 2018 | Online virtual Facebook (FB) community for female physicians practicing in hematology/ oncology, founded in 2015, dynamic evolved to include advice on complex deidentified cases, real-time updates from H/O conferences, designated discussions on the art of oncology and career-life balance, virtual journal clubs, easy transfers of care for relocating patients, and improved access to clinical trials | No previous assessment and no follow-up Respondents also felt the community as compared with FB in general reduced their sense of professional burnout (FB mean: 5.5; SD, 2.63; 95% Cl, 5.0 to 6.0; community mean, 7.8; SD, 1.86; 95% Cl, 7.5 to 8.1) | Social media can be an effective venue to educate physicians, augment patient care via advice, foster networking, reduce burnout, and improve career satisfaction among female physicians in the field of H/O. | - Self-reported measures; a selection bias may have been introduced, with members of Hematology/ Oncology Women Physician Group (HOWPG) with better experiences completing; Control arm (regular FB use); Use of a visual analog scale rather than an independently validated tool for assessment of burnout and/or career satisfaction |
| Italia et al, 2007 | 13 weekly meetings organized by psychologist and psychologist-art therapist: 5 used psychodrama techniques to promote communicative exchanges; 4 'play-therapy' and stimulate a sense of comfort by non-verbal communication based on play; 3 to Ericksonian relaxation techniques; and 1 to observed and discussed a video with techniques to support children during painful procedures) | Baseline MBI mean±SD: EE: Group A: NR Group B: 15.85±6.37 - RPA: Group A: NR Group B: 60.35±11.07 Dp: Group A: NR Group B: 3.80±4.20 After 4mo MBI mean±SD: EE: Group A: NR Group B: 11,70±3.63 RPA: Group A: NR Group B: 67.40±9.10 - Dp: Group A: NR Group B: 2.25±2.63 | Techniques using AT such as psychodrama and relaxation were effective for the operators who were most at risk of burnout | - Intervention was composed of different techniques |
| Kesselheim et al, 2020 | A novel, 4-module, case-based curriculum entitled “Humanism and Professionalism for Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Fellows“, which aims to foster pediatric hematology-oncology fellows' reflection on the feelings, challenges, and conflicts arising in the care of children and families affected by cancer or blood disorders | Baseilne PHOSAH intervention: 8.2 (3.3); usual training: 7.4 (4.2) MBI mean (SD): - EE: intervention:2.3 (1.0); usual training: 2.4 (1.2) RPA: intervention 4.8 (0.7); usual training: 4.7 (0.8) Dp: intervention 1.1 (0.9) - usual training: -1.2 (0.9) PPOS intervention: 4.4(0.3) - usual training: 4.4 (0.4) Empowerment at Work Scale intervention: 4.9 (0.6) - usual training: 4.5 (0.8) Follow up 1y After PHOSAH: - intervention: 9.0 (3.9); - usual training: 8.0 (4.0) MBI mean (SD): EE: intervention: 2.2 (1.0); usual training: 2.2 (1.2) RPA: intervention 4.9 (0.7); usual training = 4.8 (0.8) Dp: intervention = 1.1 (0.8); usual training = : 1.2 (0.9) PPOS: - intervention: 4.3 (0.4); - usual training: 4.4 (0.4) Empowerment at Work Scale: - intervention: 5.0 (0.7); - usual training: 4.7 (0.6) | Exposure to the curriculum did not alter fellows' self-assessed humanism and professionalism skills. However, fellows expressed significantly higher levels of satisfaction in their humanism training, indicating the curriculum potential for positive impact on their perceived learning environment | The study: did not explicitly collect information about feasibility; and, is vulnerable to selection bias, as program directors who chose to have their programs participate may already prioritize humanism training in their fellowships; - Data on the routine strategies for teaching humanism that were utilized by usual training sites were collected retrospectively and could be vulnerable to recall bias |
| Landaverde etal, 2018 | Anti-stress program to medical oncologists consisting of oncologists' 1 d-meeting outside outside the workplace every 3mo, in which there are integrative activities, teamwork, and workshops of stress management | Follow up 2y Reduction of burnout risk from intermediate in 60% of the oncologists to 10%,.None of the oncologists had developed burnout syndrome | The intervention was effective | NR |
| Le Blanc et al, 2007 | Team-based burnout intervention called 'Take Care!” program with a training plan of 6mo sessions of 3h each, which were supervised by both team counselors | - MBI mean±SD: EE: IG: 1,54±0.89 vs CG: 1,46±0.80 RPA: NR Dp: IG: 0.96±0.70 vs CG: 0.86±0.58 Follow pu 6 mO After MBI mean±SD: EE: IG: 1.53 0.92 vs CG: 1,65±1.00 RPA: NR Dp: IG: 0.98±0.65 vs CG: 0.93±0.62 | The relatively brief, team-based intervention program, not only influenced the stress component of burnout (EE) but also was a motivational component (Dp). | - High attrition rate over time; - No objective (i.e., non-self-report) outcome measures were included; Interaction of the EG (training) and CG |
| Mache etal, 2017 | Intervention based on Lazarus transactional model of stress, including 2 strategies of coping with stressors: problem- and emotion-oriented coping ; psychosocial competency training focus on current working situations and problems of junior oncologists, coping strategies, resilience, and self-efficacy training as well as developing a support system among colleagues (12w sessions of 1,5h. All training sessions involved theoretical input, watching videos, oral group discussions, experiential exercises, and home assignments) combined with cognitive behavioral and solution-focused counselling | Baseine Perceived stress (mean±SD): IG: 3.25±0.69 - CG: 3.20±0.66 MBI-EE (mean±SD): IG: 4.09±0.59 - CG: 4.19±0.60 Follow up 36 w after Perceived stress (mean±SD): IG: 2.83±0.72 - CG: 3.29±0.64 MBI-EE (mean±SD): IG: 3.71 ±0.68 - CG: 4.18±0.61 Preceived stress IG at T1 (F = 29.21, P < .001), T2 (F = 24.7, P < .001), and T3 (F = 8.76, P < .01) Decrease emotional exhaustion (MBI-EE) and some emotion regulation skills (P < .01) (d=0.3-0.7) | A significant effect indicated that lower scores for perceived stress after intervenção and there was decrease in emotional exhaustion and and some emotion regulation skills with small to medium effect sizes | - Small sample size; Short follow-up ; self- report measures; Potential positive bias within the study group (participating physicians were motivated to learn and practice new skills and coping techniques); Potential outcome bias (simply spending time in a group of people facing similar working conditions may have played an important role in the outcomes) |
| Medisauskaite and Kamau, 201 9 | Intervention of 4 modules: Module 1 taught doctors about stress Module 2 taught doctors about burnout Module 3 taught doctors about coping with patient death Module 4 taught doctors about methods of managing distress. | Baseline Mean (SD) MBI: - EE: EG: 3.26±1.41 CG: 3.2±1.4 RPA: EG: 4.42±0.83 CG: 4.41 ±0.82 Dp: EG: 1,98±1.49 CG: 1,68±1.29 Anxiety: EG: 0.96±0.81 CG: 0.88±0.74 Psychiatric morbidity: EG: 2.14±0.57 CG: 2.17±0.61 Grief: EG: 1,6±0.6 CG: 1,74±0.66 Insomnia: EG: 1±0.84 CG: 1.18±0.84 Physical symptoms: EG: 1.75±0.51 CG: 1.84±0.56 Alcohol use habits: EG: 7.33±2.26 CG: 6.71 ±1.92 Binge-eating features: EG: 1,38± 1.75 CG: 1.1 ±1.69 Drug use: EG: 0.71 ±0.87 CG: 0.78±0.78 Follow up 7 d mean±SD MBI: EE: EG: 2.98±1.44 CG: 3.04±1.42 RPA: EG: 4.38±0.91 CG: 4.27±0.85 Dp: EG: 1.68±1.41 CG: 1,72±1.35 Anxiety:EG: 0.73±0.72 CG: 0.81 ±0.74 Psychiatric morbidity: EG: 2.16±0.57 CG: 2.21 ±0.64 Grief: EG: 1.51 ±0.57 CG: 1,64±0.62 Insomnia: EG: 1,02±0.96 CG: 1.11 ±0.87 Physical symptoms: EG: 1.69±0.61 CG: 1.85±0.65 Alcohol use habits: EG: 7.39±2.38 CG: 6.99±1.95 Binge-eating features: EG: 1,54±1.86 CG: 1.1 ±1.74 Drug use: EG: 0.53±0.69 CG:0.69±0.81 | From baseline to time-2 there were significant reductions in burnout (EE), burnout (Dp) and anxiety among doctors who completed all modules about the psychology of distress. | - Short follow-up |
| Moody etal, 2013 | Mindfulness-based course (MBC) participants received 8 weeks of didactic and experiential mindfulness education via a structured, ski I ls-tra i ni ng course delivered in a group setting at their hospital. The course included 1 initial 6-hour session; 6 weekly 1 -hour follow-up sessions; and a final 3-hour wrap-up session (15 hours total class time). | - Baseline MBI mean±SD: EE: IG: 27.2 CG: 26.2 RPA: IG: 16.0 CG: 15.4 Dp: IG: 19.6 CG: 18.2 Follow up 8w After MBI mean±SD: EE: IG: 26.9 CG: 24.2 RPA: IG: 15.0CG: 13.9 Dp: IG: 19.3 CG: 18.7 | Nearly 100% of participants met criteria for high levels of burnout in the categories of RPA and (Dp), in both the CG and EG at baseline and at the end of the study. In the category of EE, greater than 95% of participants in both groups, at both time points, showed moderate or high levels of burnout | - Small sample size; - Overrepresentation of women in the sample; - Lack of any intervention in the CG; lack of blinding |
| Pathak, Eapen and Zell, 2019 | Adapted Firm System called the FitFirms, which focused on social connectivity and altruistic service as means to combat burnout in oncology trainees The faculty and fellows interacted on an at-minimum quarterly basis in casual social events and/or community service-oriented events A didactic discussion series was created to explore concepts of resiliency, work-life balance, and the role of art in medicine-mentored by faculty across the spectrum of oncologic disciplines | Before Nine pre-intervention surveys were collected with 78% of trainees describing themselves as on the burnout spectrum of feeling either ineffective, overextended, disengaged, or burned out (22% engaged) Follow up 15 mo 10 post-intervention surveys were collected in which 60% of trainees described themselves on the burnout spectrum (40% engaged) | The FitFirms are a novel system using social capital to reduce the problem of burnout in oncology trainees by engaging in social connectivity and altruistic service through faculty- mentored, historically- named divisional cohorts | NR |
| Sekeres et al, 2003 | Balint-like physician awareness group every 2 weeks for 1.5 to 2 hours for 6 months - | - Base line Mean (range) Full questionnaire summary score: 3.6 (3.5-3.7) Stress in the work environment: 3.3 (3.2-3.5) Comfort dealing with emotional patient/clinical situations: 3.5 (3.3-3.7) Fellow's views of him/herself as a physician: 3.8 (3.7-3.9) Discomfort with psychosocial issues: 3.7 (3.5-3.9 Follow up 1y after Mean (range) Full questionnaire summary score: 3.7 (3.6-3.8) Stress in the work environment: 3.4 (3.2-3.6) Comfort dealing with emotional patient/clinical situations: 3.7 (3.6-3.9) Fellow's views of him/herself as a physician: 4.1 (3.9-4.2) Discomfort with psychosocial issues: 3.7 (3.5-3.9) | In conclusion, hematology-oncology fellows' attitudes change over the course of the first fellowship year. Positive attitudes and development as caring physicians can be enhanced through the institution of a physician awareness group. The impact and effectiveness of the EG can be measured, and successful groups should improve the ability of physicians to communicate with their patients, and thus patient satisfaction | - Small sample size; Important effects of the intervention or of the first oncology fellowship year may have been missed; Two-group comparison analyses were used instead of paired comparisons; Fellows in this program may not have been representative of Hematology-Oncology fellows across the United States; Attitudes questionnaire we used has not been validated previously, and individual topic domains varied in their reliability |
| Tjasink and Soosaipillai, 2018 | Art Therapy: mixture of different techniques such as mindfulness, relaxation, visualization, psychodrama and skills based supervision alongside art therapy; Six weeks of structured art therapy sessions lasting 90-120 minutes each, structured and divided into three broad themes: Self- awareness and self-care; Collegial connection and the organization; Reflecting on death, bereavement and finding meaning | - Baseline MBI mean±SD: EE: 30.79±8.31 RPA: 35.38±6.51 Dp: 7.93±5.05 Follow up 1 mo AfterMBI mean±SD: EE: 23.5±7.61 RPA: 38.31 ±5.31 Dp: 6.79±4.68 improvements in EE (p=<0.001) and RPA (p=0.011) | MBI-HS pre- and post-intervention demonstrated statistically significant improvements in EE | - Small sample; more effective techniques learned through the first experience may have been used in the second and third groups; group was self-selecting; the authors feel that a reluctance for some to join the course; Data was not collected from those who chose not to respond to the opportunity |
Cl=confidence interval; d=days; CG=Control Group; EG=Experimental Group; h=hour; min=minutes; mo=month; MBI=Maslach Burnout Inventory; EE=Emotional exhaustion; RPA=Reduced personal accomplishment; Dp=Depersonalization; NR=Not reported; RCT=randomized-controlled trial; SD=Standard Deviation; U=Unclear; w=weeks; y=years; (*) data calculated by the authors.
Of the 17 residents that were participating, 2 decided not to continue after 2 meetings and therefore were excluded.
13 physicians completed the baseline scores, 11 completed Maslach/Oxford scores at the end of the study, and 8 the 1-month post-study assessment
Dropouts: at T2 the number of participants had dropped from 664 (experimental group: 260; control group: 404) to 376 (experimental group: 231; control group: 145), and at T3 it had dropped to 304 (experimental group: 208; control group: 96).
The study involved 227 doctors however the analysis considered in the present SR were Group 4 and control (91 doctors).
Additional information by emailing official authors.
The questionnaire derived from the Physician's Belief Scale; the American Academy on Physician and Patient evaluation; common objectives of Balint-like groups across the United States; barriers to physician recognition of psychosocial aspects of health care reports; and from surveys of previous hematology-oncology fellows to explore attitudes toward patients, colleagues, and psychosocial issues
In total 18 candidates were recruited but four were excluded from our analysis as: two candidates withdrew prior to the first session, and two candidates did not complete the post-intervention MBI-HSS survey.
| Certainty assessment | Certainty | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| № of studies | Study design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | |
| Impact on Burnout symptoms (follow up: range 7 days to 1 years) | |||||||
| 6 | randomised trials | serious | serious | not serious | not serious | none | ⨁⨁○○ LOW |
| Impact on Burnout symptoms (follow up: range 1 months to 2 years) | |||||||
| 9 | observational studies | very serious | very serious | not serious | not serious | none | ⨁○○○ VERY LOW |
| Impact on Burnout symptoms | |||||||
| 1 | observational studies | not serious | not serious | not serious | serious d | none | ⨁○○○ VERY LOW |
| Prevention on Burnout | |||||||
| 1 | randomised trials | very serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | none | ⨁⨁○○ LOW |
| Stress level (follow up: range 1 months to 9 months) | |||||||
| 3 | randomised trials | very serious | very serious | serious | not serious | none | ⨁○○○ VERY LOW |
CI: Confidence interval Explanations:
Some included studies presented problems on domains 1 (randomization process), 4 (measurement of the outcome) and 5 (selection of the reported results). Overall risk of bias was considered Moderate.
Studies have methodological differences - Measurement method to burnout detection, coping strategy and / or follow-up period.
Included studies showed concerns in domain related to control group and it comparision treatment/care.d. Intervention group with small size.
The study present concerns in the randomization process.
The studies showed some concerns in the domain related to selection of the reported results.
Stress is one of the predictor factors to burnout, however isolated is not conclusive.
The objective of this systematic review was to identify interventions which are effective to prevent or reduce the signs and symptoms of stress and burnout on oncology physicians compared to oncology physicians who did not participate in the interventions.
Our findings showed that eight studies had interventions which were effective.
Two of these studies
Another intervention which reduced burnout was a virtual community of practices to sharing experiences among women oncologists' doctors.
Other interventions that reduced stress and burnout were based on small groups and were conducted at a time protected (paid) by the employer. It's important because both doctors and employers share the responsibility to promote the doctor's well-being.
On the other hand, eleven studies had interventions which had no effect on stress and burnout.
Three of them used interventions to promote communication skills between doctors and patients.
Two of them had Balint groups
Studies containing attempts to promote reflections on the feelings
Furthermore, one randomized clinical trial with the effects of mindfulness could not identify its effect on stress and burnout.
Some of the interventions of the studies included in our systematic review, such as mindfulness and Balint groups, require a period of participations, learning or practice,
In regard to the interventions' predominant focus on individuals, similar findings have been found in other reviews.
West et al. (2016)
Petrie et al. (2019),
Despite some important findings in the studies included in this systematic review,
In addition, most studies had evidenced the low quality and the follow-up periods were quite different.
Also, the studies had methodological differences, both in terms of design and in the population, in which not only oncologists were included. In some studies, measures were also differently obtained, through distinctive self-assessment questionnaires.
Even with failures, all studies that have evaluated possible ways to reduce stress and burnout among oncologist physician are still valid, since the prevalence of burnout varies from 23% to 48% around the world.
Individual approaches are useful, but in order to improve physicians' conditions to get involved and really care for people, the healthcare organization must work to control or eliminate known causes of wear and tear and enhance their defense and support systems.
It cannot be said with certainty that the interventions which did not presented impact on burnout in the included studies do not actually work. Likewise, data are also insufficient to show exactly the most effective interventions. Therefore, additional studies with interventions to prevent or decrease stress and burnout are still needed, including not only individual but also organizational and work environment changes.
In this systematic review, interventions which have effect in the reduction of stress and burnout were virtual oncologists' women community of practices to share experiences, art therapy, team monthly meetings outside the work environment, training sessions supervised by counselors, the teaching of stress coping strategies, and about stressors, burnout, and ways to identify and handle them. Interventions that did not reduce were communication skills training included Balint groups, Franklin's new virtue model, mindfulness, adapted systems, and the created humanism and professionalism curriculum for pediatric hematology-oncology.
| CINAHL | (“Burnout” OR “Burn out” OR “burned out” OR ((stress* OR distress*) AND (work* OR “job”))) AND (Oncologist* OR “medical oncology” OR “oncology physician” OR “oncology physicians”) AND (“psychological adaptation” OR “psychological adaptations” OR “Coping” OR “Behavior” OR resilienc* OR “happiness” OR “well being” OR “wellness” OR therapeutic* OR treatment* OR therap* OR “quality of life” OR “Life satisfaction” OR intervention*) |
|---|---|
| COCHRANE | (“Burnout” OR “Burn out” OR “burned out” OR ((stress* OR distress*) AND (work* OR “job”))) AND (Oncologist* OR “medical oncology” OR “oncology physician” OR “oncology physicians”) AND (“psychological adaptation” OR “psychological adaptations” OR “Coping” OR “Behavior” OR resilienc* OR “happiness” OR “well being” OR “wellness” OR therapeutic* OR treatment* OR therap* OR “quality of life” OR “Life satisfaction” OR intervention*) |
| EMBASE | EMBASE (“Burnout” OR “Burn out” OR “burned out” OR ((stress* OR distress*) AND (work* OR “job”))) AND (Oncologist* OR “medical oncology” OR “oncology physician” OR “oncology physicians”) AND (“psychological adaptation” OR “psychological adaptations” OR “Coping” OR “Behavior” OR resilienc* OR “happiness” OR “well being” OR “wellness” OR therapeutic* OR treatment* OR therap* OR “quality of life” OR “Life satisfaction” OR intervention*) |
| LILACS | (tw:(“Burnout” OR “Burn out” OR “burned out” OR ((stress* OR distress* OR estres*) AND (work* OR “job” OR trabalho OR trabajo)))) AND (tw:(oncologist* OR “medical oncology” OR “oncology physician” OR “oncology physicians” OR oncolog* OR cancerolog* OR radioterapeuta*)) AND (tw:(“psychological adaptation” OR “Psychological Adaptations” OR “psychological adaptations” OR “Coping” OR “Behavior” OR resilienc* OR “happiness” OR “well being” OR “wellness” OR therapeutic* OR treatment* OR therap* OR “quality of life” OR “Life satisfaction” OR intervention* OR “adaptação” OR “comportamento adaptativo” OR “felicidade” OR “alegria” OR “equilibrio” OR “bem-estar” OR “terapia” OR “Terapeutica” OR tratamento* OR “qualidade de vida” OR prevenc* OR intervenc* OR “adaptacion” OR “felicita” OR “bienestar” OR tratamiento* OR “calidad de vida” )) AND (instance:”regional”) AND ( db:(“LILACS”) AND type:(“article”)) |
| PSYCINFO | (“Burnout” OR “Burn out” OR “burned out” OR ((stress* OR distress*) AND (work* OR “job”))) AND (Oncologist* OR “medical oncology” OR “oncology physician” OR “oncology physicians”) AND (“psychological adaptation” OR “psychological adaptations” OR “Coping” OR “Behavior” OR resilienc* OR “happiness” OR “well being” OR “wellness” OR therapeutic* OR treatment* OR therap* OR “quality of life” OR “Life satisfaction” OR intervention*) |
| PUBMED | (“Burnout, Professional”[Mesh] OR “Burnout, Psychological”[Mesh] OR “Burn out” OR “Burnout”[Title/Abstract] OR “burned out” OR ((“Stress, Physiological”[Mesh:NoExp] OR Stress* OR distress*) AND (work* OR “job”))) AND (“Oncologists”[Mesh] OR “Oncologists”[Title/Abstract] OR “Oncologist”[Title/Abstract] OR “Oncologists”[Title/Abstract ] OR “medical oncology”[Title/Abstract] OR “oncology physician”[Title/Abstract] OR “oncology physicians”[Title/Abstract])AND (“adaptation, psychological”[MeSH Terms] OR “psychological adaptation” OR “psychological adaptations” OR “Coping” OR “Behavior” OR “resilience” OR “Resiliences” OR “happiness”[MeSH Terms] OR “happiness” OR “well being” OR “wellness” OR “therapeutics”[MeSH Terms] OR “therapeutics” OR “therapeutic” OR “treatment” OR “treatments” OR “therapy” OR “therapies” OR “quality of life”[MeSH Terms] OR “quality of life” OR “Life satisfaction” OR “intervention” OR “interventions”) |
| SCOPUS | TITLE-ABS-KEY((“Burnout” OR “Burn out” OR “burned out” OR ((stress* OR distress*) AND (work* OR “job”))) AND (Oncologist* OR “medical oncology” OR “oncology physician” OR “oncology physicians”) AND (“psychological adaptation” OR “Psychological Adaptations” OR “Coping” OR “Behavior” OR resilienc* OR “happiness” OR “well being” OR “wellness” OR therapeutic* OR treatment* OR therap* OR “quality of life” OR “Life satisfaction” OR intervention*)) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE,”ar” ) ) |
| WEB OF SCIENCE | (“Burnout” OR “Burn out” OR “burned out” OR ((stress* OR distress*) AND (work* OR “job”))) AND (Oncologist* OR “medical oncology” OR “oncology physician” OR “oncology physicians”) AND (“psychological adaptation” OR “psychological adaptations” OR “Coping” OR “Behavior” OR resilienc* OR “happiness” OR “well being” OR “wellness” OR therapeutic* OR treatment* OR therap* OR “quality of life” OR “Life satisfaction” OR intervention*) |
| GOOGLE SCHOLAR | (“Burnout” OR “Burn out” OR “burned out”) AND (Oncologist) AND (“psychological adaptation” OR “Coping” OR “Behavior” OR resilienc* OR “happiness” OR “well being” OR “wellness” OR “quality of life” OR “Life satisfaction”) |
| Database | Search (on July 22nd, 2021) |
| OPENGREY | (“Burnout” OR “Burn out” OR “burned out” OR ((stress* OR distress*) AND (work* OR “job”))) AND (Oncologist* OR “medical oncology” OR “oncology physician” OR “oncology physicians”) AND (“psychological adaptation” OR “psychological adaptations” OR “Coping” OR “Behavior” OR resilienc* OR “happiness” OR “well being” OR “wellness” OR therapeutic* OR treatment* OR therap* OR “quality of life” OR “Life satisfaction” OR intervention*) |
| PROQUEST | noft((“Burnout” OR “Burn out” OR “burned out” OR ((stress* OR distress*) AND (work* OR “job”))) AND (Oncologist* OR “medical oncology” OR “oncology physician” OR “oncology physicians”) AND (“psychological adaptation” OR “psychological adaptations” OR “Coping” OR “Behavior” OR resilienc* OR “happiness” OR “well being” OR “wellness” OR therapeutic* OR treatment* OR therap* OR “quality of life” OR “Life satisfaction” OR intervention*)) |
| Reference | Author | Reasons for Exclusion |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Allegra et al, 2005 | 2 |
| 2. | Alorabi et al, 2015 | 2 |
| 3. | Ansmann et al, 2013 | 2 |
| 4. | Armstrong et al, 2004 | 5 |
| 5. | Asai et al, 2007 | 2 |
| 6. | Back et al, 2017 | 5 |
| 7. | Balbay, 2011 | 2 |
| 8. | Balch, 2010 | 2 |
| 9. | Balch, 2007 | 5 |
| 10. | Balch, 2009 | 5 |
| 11. | Balch et al, 2011 | 2 |
| 12. | Banerjee et al, 2017 | 2 |
| 13. | Barberio et al, 2015 | 2 |
| 14. | Beas et al, 2016 | 5 |
| 15. | Berman et al, 2007 | 2 |
| 16. | Bittner et al, 2011 | 1 |
| 17. | Blanchard et al, 2009 | 5 |
| 18. | Blanchard et al, 2010 | 2 |
| 19. | Borate, 2017 | 5 |
| 20. | Bragard et al, 2012 | 2 |
| 21. | Bragard et al, 2010 | 2 |
| 22. | Bressi et al, 2008 | 2 |
| 23. | Burki, 2018 | 5 |
| 24. | Camps et al, 2009 | 2 |
| 25. | Cano, 2016 | 2 |
| 26. | Caruso et al, 2012 | 2 |
| 27. | Carvalho et al, 2014 | 2 |
| 28. | Catt et al, 2005 | 2 |
| 29. | Chatwal et al, 2018 | 6 |
| 30. | Ciammella et al, 2011 | 2 |
| 31. | Cotton, 2018 | 5 |
| 32. | Creagan, 1993 | 5 |
| 33. | Crowe, 2016 | 5 |
| 34. | Cubero et al, 2013 | 2 |
| 35. | Cumbe et al, 2017 | 2 |
| 36. | Dahn et al, 2019 | 2 |
| 37. | Daruvala et al, 2019 | 2 |
| 38. | De Rezende et al, 2011 | 5 |
| 39. | Dix et al, 2012 | 5 |
| 40. | Dougherty et al, 2009 | 2 |
| 41. | Dubois et al, 2020 | 6 |
| 42. | Eelen et al, 2014 | 2 |
| 43. | Essaadi et al, 2013 | 2 |
| 44. | Fang et al, 2010 | 2 |
| 45. | Fiore et al, 2016 | 6 |
| 46. | Fitzgerald et al, 2012 | 2 |
| 47. | Flores et al, 2014 | 2 |
| 48. | Ftanou, 2017 | 5 |
| 49. | Fujimori et al, 2015 | 1 |
| 50. | Fusco et al, 2019 | 2 |
| 51. | Giansante et al, 2012 | 2 |
| 52. | Girgis et al, 2009 | 2 |
| 53. | Glasberg et al, 2007 | 2 |
| 54. | Granek et al, 2016 (A) | 2 |
| 55. | Granek et al, 2017 | 2 |
| 56. | Granek et al, 2016 (B) | 2 |
| 57. | Granek et al, 2015 | 2 |
| 58. | Granek et al, 2017 | 2 |
| 59. | Granek et al, 2016 (C) | 2 |
| 60. | Granek et al, 2013 | 2 |
| 61. | Grant, 2018 | 6 |
| 62. | Grootenhuis et al, 1996 | 2 |
| 63. | Gross et al, 2014 | 2 |
| 64. | Grunfeld et al, 2000 | 2 |
| 65. | Guadagna et al, 2012 | 6 |
| 66. | Guest et al, 2011 (A) | 2 |
| 67. | Guest et al, 2011 (B) | 2 |
| 68. | Guveli et al, 2015 | 2 |
| 69. | Haley et al, 2004 | 2 |
| 70. | Hamilton, 2019 | 2 |
| 71. | Hegedus, 2012 | 1 |
| 72. | Henrik et al, 2021 | 2 |
| 73. | Hipp et al, 2015 | 2 |
| 74. | Hlubocky et al, | 2 |
| 75. | Hlubocky et al, 2017 | 5 |
| 76. | Hlubocky et al, | 2 |
| 77. | Holliday et al, 2017 | 2 |
| 78. | Hudson et al, 2018 | 2 |
| 79. | Hunter, 2019 | 6 |
| 80. | Huynh et al, 2019 | 2 |
| 81. | Isc-En et al, 2011 | 2 |
| 82. | Jackson et al, 2008 | 2 |
| 83. | Jasperse et al, 2012 | 2 |
| 84. | Jasperse et al, 2014 | 2 |
| 85. | Joaquim et al, 2018 | 2 |
| 86. | Jørgensen et al, 2009 | 2 |
| 87. | Joubert et al, 2013 | 1 |
| 88. | Jutagir et al, 2017 | 1 |
| 89. | Karnyski et al, 2017 | 5 |
| 90. | Kash et al, 2000 | 2 |
| 91. | Kattlove et al, 1992 | 5 |
| 92. | Kavalieratos et al, 2017 | 1 |
| 93. | Kaymak et al, 2010 | 2 |
| 94. | Kearney et al, 2009 | 5 |
| 95. | Kiguchi et al, 2018 | 5 |
| 96. | Kinderman and Gross, 2014 | 3 |
| 97. | Kleiner and Wallace, 2017 | 2 |
| 98. | Knight et al, 2014 | 2 |
| 99. | Koh et al, 2015 | 1 |
| 100. | Koo et al, 2013 | 2 |
| 101. | Koocher, 1980 | 5 |
| 102. | Korones, 2010 | 5 |
| 103. | Kracen, 2011 | 2 |
| 104. | Kuerer et al, 2007 | 2 |
| 105. | Laurent et al, 2015 | 2 |
| 106. | Leones et al, 2020 | 6 |
| 107. | Liakopoulou et al, 2008 | 2 |
| 108. | Lievrouw et al, 2016 | 2 |
| 109. | López-Castillo et al, 1999 | 2 |
| 110. | Lyckholm, 2001 | 5 |
| 111. | Lyckholm, 2007 | 5 |
| 112. | Mahendran et al, 2014 | 1 |
| 113. | Mampuya et al, 2016 | 2 |
| 114. | Mampuya et al, 2017 | 2 |
| 115. | Manochakian, 2014 | 5 |
| 116. | Martins et al, 2016 | 2 |
| 117. | McFarland et al, 2017 | 2 |
| 118. | McLean et al, 2011 | 2 |
| 119. | Mehlis et al, 2018 | 2 |
| 120. | Mougalian et al, 2013 | 2 |
| 121. | Mount, 1986 | 5 |
| 122. | Mukherjee et al, 2014 | 2 |
| 123. | Murali et al, 2019 | 5 |
| 124. | Muriel et al, 2009 | 1 |
| 125. | Na, 2019 | 5 |
| 126. | Nabhan, 2009 | 5 |
| 127. | Nissim et al, 2019 | 2 |
| 128. | Nowakowski et al, 2016 | 2 |
| 129. | O'Byrne et al, 1997 | 2 |
| 130. | Paiva et al, 2018 | 2 |
| 131. | Paula Vega et al, 2017 | 2 |
| 132. | Penson et al, 2000 | 5 |
| 133. | Penson et al, 2005 | 5 |
| 134. | Poulsen et al, 2018 | 2 |
| 135. | Poulsen et al, 2011 | 2 |
| 136. | Poulsen et al, 2012 | 2 |
| 137. | Pye et al, 2013 | 2 |
| 138. | Ramey et al, 2017 | 2 |
| 139. | Ramirez et al, 1995 | 2 |
| 140. | Raphael et al, 2019 | 2 |
| 141. | Rath et al, 2014 | 2 |
| 142. | Rath et al, 2015 | 2 |
| 143. | Ratti et al, 2019 | 2 |
| 144. | Rohan et al, 2009 | 2 |
| 145. | Romeo et al, 2016 (A) | 2 |
| 146. | Romeo et al, 2016 (B) | 2 |
| 147. | Rosenstein, 2019 | 2 |
| 148. | Roth et al, 2011 | 2 |
| 149. | Royce et al, 2019 | 5 |
| 150. | Russo et al, 2014 | 2 |
| 151. | Sargsyan et al, 2017 | 2 |
| 152. | Sarra and Feuz, 2019 | 2 |
| 153. | Schirmers, 2016 | 5 |
| 154. | Schraub et al, 2004 | 2 |
| 155. | Shanafelt et al, 2006 | 5 |
| 156. | Shanafelt, 2005 | 5 |
| 157. | Shanafelt et al, 2014 | 2 |
| 158. | Shanafelt et al, 2014 (A) | 2 |
| 159. | Shanafelt et al, 2005 | 2 |
| 160. | Shanafelt et al, 2014 (B) | 2 |
| 161. | Shanafelt et al, 2014 (C) | 2 |
| 162. | Shayne et al, 2012 | 1 |
| 163. | Shereck et al, 2014 | 3 |
| 164. | Sheth et al, 2019 | 2 |
| 165. | Shimp, 2014 | 5 |
| 166. | Shinan-Altman et al, 2018 | 1 |
| 167. | Sundquist, 2009 | 6 |
| 168. | Swetz et al, 2009 | 1 |
| 169. | Tamura et al, 2020 | 2 |
| 170. | Thompson et al, 2018 | 5 |
| 171. | Torres et al, 2013 | 2 |
| 172. | Tucunduva et al, 2006 | 2 |
| 173. | Turner et al, | 2 |
| 174. | Vachon et al, 2016 | 1 |
| 175. | Vasylyeva et al, 2011 | 2 |
| 176. | Vetter et al, 2018 | 2 |
| 177. | Vici et al, 2021 | 2 |
| 178. | Wan, 2008 | 5 |
Legend: 1) involved only non-medical cancer professionals or medical students; 2) did not involve interventions to prevent or handle with stress and burnout; 3) had duplicated data from another included study or insufficient data; 4) were conducted in animals; 5) were reviews, letters, books, case report, case series with less than 10 participants, opinion article, technique articles and guidelines; 6) did not have their complete text available online/published and if the texts were not accessible after three contact attempts in a 15-day period by electronic mail to corresponding authors.
| Study | Bias | Signalling question | Coments | Authors' judgement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barzelloni et al, 2014 | Bias arising from the randomization process | 1.1. Was the allocation sequence random? | PY | |
| 1.2. Was the allocation sequence concealed until participants were recruited and assigned to interventions? | Study: Abstract - Few information | NI | ||
| 1.3. Were there baseline imbalances that suggest a problem with the randomization process? | N | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Some concerns | |||
| Bias due to deviations from intended interventions (effect of assignment to intervention) | 2.1. Were participants aware of their assigned intervention during the trial? | Intervention: 1 day of classroom training Control: No intervention | Y | |
| 2.2. Were carers and trial personnel aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial? | Y | |||
| 2.3. If Y/PY/NI to 2.1 or 2.2: Were there deviations from the intended intervention that arose because of the trial context? | N | |||
| 2.4. If Y/PY to 2.3: Were these deviations likely to have affected the outcome? | NA | |||
| 2.5. If Y/PY/NI to 2.4: Were these deviations from intended intervention balanced between groups? | NA | |||
| 2.6. Was an appropriate analysis used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention? | PY | |||
| 2.7. If N/PN/NI to 2.6: Was there potential for a substantial impact (on the result) of the failure to analyse participants in the group to which they were randomized? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias due to missing outcome data | 3.1. Were data for this outcome available for all, or nearly all, participants randomized? | NI | ||
| 3.2. If N/PN/NI to 3.1: Is there evidence that the result was not biased by missing outcome data? | N | |||
| 3.3. If N/PN to 3.2: Could missingness in the outcome depend on its true value? | PN | |||
| 3.4. If Y/PY/NI to 3.3: Is it likely that missingness in the outcome depended on its true value? | PN | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Barzelloni et al, 2014 | Bias in measurement of the outcome | 4.1. Was the method of measuring the outcome inappropriate? | N | |
| 4.2. Could measurement or ascertainment of the outcome have differed between intervention groups? | N | |||
| 4.3. If N/PN/NI to 4.1 and 4.2: Were outcome assessors aware of the intervention received by study participants? | NA | |||
| 4.4. If Y/PY/NI to 4.3: Could assessment of the outcome have been influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | NA | |||
| 4.5. If Y/PY/NI to 4.4: Is it likely that assessment of the outcome was influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias in selection of the reported result | 5.1. Were the data that produced this result analysed in accordance with a pre-specified analysis plan that was finalized before unblinded outcome data were available for analysis? | Study: Abstract - Few information | NI | |
| 5.2. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible outcome measurements (e.g. scales, definitions, time points) within the outcome domain? | Study: Abstract Few information Evaluations were performed at T0 and quarterly (T1, T2, T3, T4) but only results comparing T0 and T4 were showed. | PY | ||
| 5.3. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible analyses of the data? | PY | |||
| Domain-level judgement | High risk | |||
| Overall bias | High risk | |||
| Bragard et al, 2010 | Bias arising from the randomization process | 1.1. Was the allocation sequence random? | PY | |
| 1.2. Was the allocation sequence concealed until participants were recruited and assigned to interventions? | Y | |||
| 1.3. Were there baseline imbalances that suggest a problem with the randomization process? | N | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias due to deviations from intended interventions (effect of assignment to intervention) | 2.1. Were participants aware of their assigned intervention during the trial? | Intervention: consolidation workshops Control: No intervention | Y | |
| 2.2. Were carers and trial personnel aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial? | Y | |||
| 2.3. If Y/PY/NI to 2.1 or 2.2: Were there deviations from the intended intervention that arose because of the trial context? | N | |||
| 2.4. If Y/PY to 2.3: Were these deviations likely to have affected the outcome? | NA | |||
| 2.5. If Y/PY/NI to 2.4: Were these deviations from intended intervention balanced between groups? | NA | |||
| 2.6. Was an appropriate analysis used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention? | Y | |||
| 2.7. If N/PN/NI to 2.6: Was there potential for a substantial impact (on the result) of the failure to analyse participants in the group to which they were randomized? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bragard et al, 2010 | Bias due to missing outcome data | 3.1. Were data for this outcome available for all, or nearly all, participants randomized? | PY | |
| 3.2. If N/PN/NI to 3.1: Is there evidence that the result was not biased by missing outcome data? | NA | |||
| 3.3. If N/PN to 3.2: Could missingness in the outcome depend on its true value? | NA | |||
| 3.4. If Y/PY/NI to 3.3: Is it likely that missingness in the outcome depended on its true value? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias in measurement of the outcome | 4.1. Was the method of measuring the outcome inappropriate? | N | ||
| 4.2. Could measurement or ascertainment of the outcome have differed between intervention groups? | N | |||
| 4.3. If N/PN/NI to 4.1 and 4.2: Were outcome assessors aware of the intervention received by study participants? | NI | |||
| 4.4. If Y/PY/NI to 4.3: Could assessment of the outcome have been influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | N | |||
| 4.5. If Y/PY/NI to 4.4: Is it likely that assessment of the outcome was influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | N | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias in selection of the reported result | 5.1. Were the data that produced this result analysed in accordance with a pre-specified analysis plan that was finalized before unblinded outcome data were available for analysis? | NI | ||
| 5.2. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible outcome measurements (e.g. scales, definitions, time points) within the outcome domain? | N | |||
| 5.3. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible analyses of the data? | N | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Some concerns | |||
| Overall bias | Some concerns | |||
| Brown et al, 2014 | Bias arising from the randomization process | 1.1. Was the allocation sequence random? | Study: Abstract - Few information | PY |
| 1.2. Was the allocation sequence concealed until participants were recruited and assigned to interventions? | NI | |||
| 1.3. Were there baseline imbalances that suggest a problem with the randomization process? | PN | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias due to deviations from intended interventions (effect of assignment to intervention) | 2.1. Were participants aware of their assigned intervention during the trial? | Intervention: face-to-face workshop Control: No intervention | Y | |
| 2.2. Were carers and trial personnel aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial? | Y | |||
| 2.3. If Y/PY/NI to 2.1 or 2.2: Were there deviations from the intended intervention that arose because of the trial context? | N | |||
| 2.4. If Y/PY to 2.3: Were these deviations likely to have affected the outcome? | NA | |||
| 2.5. If Y/PY/NI to 2.4: Were these deviations from intended intervention balanced between groups? | NA | |||
| 2.6. Was an appropriate analysis used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention? | NI | |||
| 2.7. If N/PN/NI to 2.6: Was there potential for a substantial impact (on the result) of the failure to analyse participants in the group to which they were randomized? | PY | |||
| Domain-level judgement | High risk | |||
| Brown et al, 2014 | Bias due to missing outcome data | 3.1. Were data for this outcome available for all, or nearly all, participants randomized? | NI | |
| 3.2. If N/PN/NI to 3.1: Is there evidence that the result was not biased by missing outcome data? | N | |||
| 3.3. If N/PN to 3.2: Could missingness in the outcome depend on its true value? | PN | |||
| 3.4. If Y/PY/NI to 3.3: Is it likely that missingness in the outcome depended on its true value? | PN | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias in measurement of the outcome | 4.1. Was the method of measuring the outcome inappropriate? | Y | ||
| 4.2. Could measurement or ascertainment of the outcome have differed between intervention groups? | Y | |||
| 4.3. If N/PN/NI to 4.1 and 4.2: Were outcome assessors aware of the intervention received by study participants? | NA | |||
| 4.4. If Y/PY/NI to 4.3: Could assessment of the outcome have been influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | NA | |||
| 4.5. If Y/PY/NI to 4.4: Is it likely that assessment of the outcome was influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | High risk | |||
| Bias in selection of the reported result | 5.1. Were the data that produced this result analysed in accordance with a pre-specified analysis plan that was finalized before unblinded outcome data were available for analysis? | NI | ||
| 5.2. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible outcome measurements (e.g. scales, definitions, time points) within the outcome domain? | Y | |||
| 5.3. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible analyses of the data? | Y | |||
| Domain-level judgement | High risk | |||
| Overall bias | High risk | |||
| Butow et al, 2008 | Bias arising from the randomization process | 1.1. Was the allocation sequence random? | Y | |
| 1.2. Was the allocation sequence concealed until participants were recruited and assigned to interventions? | PY | |||
| 1.3. Were there baseline imbalances that suggest a problem with the randomization process? | N | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias due to deviations from intended interventions (effect of assignment to intervention) | 2.1. Were participants aware of their assigned intervention during the trial? | Intervention: Communication skills training Control: No intervention | Y | |
| 2.2. Were carers and trial personnel aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial? | Y | |||
| 2.3. If Y/PY/NI to 2.1 or 2.2: Were there deviations from the intended intervention that arose because of the trial context? | N | |||
| 2.4. If Y/PY to 2.3: Were these deviations likely to have affected the outcome? | NA | |||
| 2.5. If Y/PY/NI to 2.4: Were these deviations from intended intervention balanced between groups? | NA | |||
| 2.6. Was an appropriate analysis used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention? | Y | |||
| 2.7. If N/PN/NI to 2.6: Was there potential for a substantial impact (on the result) of the failure to analyse participants in the group to which they were randomized? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Butow et al, 2008 | Bias due to missing outcome data | 3.1. Were data for this outcome available for all, or nearly all, participants randomized? | Y | |
| 3.2. If N/PN/NI to 3.1: Is there evidence that the result was not biased by missing outcome data? | NA | |||
| 3.3. If N/PN to 3.2: Could missingness in the outcome depend on its true value? | NA | |||
| 3.4. If Y/PY/NI to 3.3: Is it likely that missingness in the outcome depended on its true value? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias in measurement of the outcome | 4.1. Was the method of measuring the outcome inappropriate? | N | ||
| 4.2. Could measurement or ascertainment of the outcome have differed between intervention groups? | N | |||
| 4.3. If N/PN/NI to 4.1 and 4.2: Were outcome assessors aware of the intervention received by study participants? | Y | |||
| 4.4. If Y/PY/NI to 4.3: Could assessment of the outcome have been influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | N | |||
| 4.5. If Y/PY/NI to 4.4: Is it likely that assessment of the outcome was influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias in selection of the reported result | 5.1. Were the data that produced this result analysed in accordance with a pre-specified analysis plan that was finalized before unblinded outcome data were available for analysis? | NI | ||
| 5.2. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible outcome measurements (e.g. scales, definitions, time points) within the outcome domain? | N | |||
| 5.3. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible analyses of the data? | N | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Some concerns | |||
| Overall bias | Some concerns | |||
| Mache et al, 2017 | Bias arising from the randomization process | 1.1. Was the allocation sequence random? | Y | |
| 1.2. Was the allocation sequence concealed until participants were recruited and assigned to interventions? | Y | |||
| 1.3. Were there baseline imbalances that suggest a problem with the randomization process? | N | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias due to deviations from intended interventions (effect of assignment to intervention) | 2.1. Were participants aware of their assigned intervention during the trial? | Intervention: problem- and emotion- oriented coping Control: No intervention | Y | |
| 2.2. Were carers and trial personnel aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial? | N | |||
| 2.3. If Y/PY/NI to 2.1 or 2.2: Were there deviations from the intended intervention that arose because of the trial context? | N | |||
| 2.4. If Y/PY to 2.3: Were these deviations likely to have affected the outcome? | NA | |||
| 2.5. If Y/PY/NI to 2.4: Were these deviations from intended intervention balanced between groups? | NA | |||
| 2.6. Was an appropriate analysis used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention? | Y | |||
| 2.7. If N/PN/NI to 2.6: Was there potential for a substantial impact (on the result) of the failure to analyse participants in the group to which they were randomized? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Mache et al, 2017 | Bias due to missing outcome data | 3.1. Were data for this outcome available for all, or nearly all, participants randomized? | Y | |
| 3.2. If N/PN/NI to 3.1: Is there evidence that the result was not biased by missing outcome data? | NA | |||
| 3.3. If N/PN to 3.2: Could missingness in the outcome depend on its true value? | NA | |||
| 3.4. If Y/PY/NI to 3.3: Is it likely that missingness in the outcome depended on its true value? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias in measurement of the outcome | 4.1. Was the method of measuring the outcome inappropriate? | N | ||
| 4.2. Could measurement or ascertainment of the outcome have differed between intervention groups? | N | |||
| 4.3. If N/PN/NI to 4.1 and 4.2: Were outcome assessors aware of the intervention received by study participants? | Y | |||
| 4.4. If Y/PY/NI to 4.3: Could assessment of the outcome have been influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | N | |||
| 4.5. If Y/PY/NI to 4.4: Is it likely that assessment of the outcome was influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | N | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias in selection of the reported result | 5.1. Were the data that produced this result analysed in accordance with a pre-specified analysis plan that was finalized before unblinded outcome data were available for analysis? | NI | ||
| 5.2. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible outcome measurements (e.g. scales, definitions, time points) within the outcome domain? | PN | |||
| 5.3. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible analyses of the data? | PN | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Some concerns | |||
| Overall bias | Some concerns | |||
| Medisauskaite and Kamau, 2019 | Bias arising from the randomization process | 1.1. Was the allocation sequence random? | Y | |
| 1.2. Was the allocation sequence concealed until participants were recruited and assigned to interventions? | Y | |||
| 1.3. Were there baseline imbalances that suggest a problem with the randomization process? | N | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias due to deviations from intended interventions (effect of assignment to intervention) | 2.1. Were participants aware of their assigned intervention during the trial? | Intervention: learning modules that presented doctors with information about stress Control: No intervention | Y | |
| 2.2. Were carers and trial personnel aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial? | N | |||
| 2.3. If Y/PY/NI to 2.1 or 2.2: Were there deviations from the intended intervention that arose because of the trial context? | N | |||
| 2.4. If Y/PY to 2.3: Were these deviations likely to have affected the outcome? | NA | |||
| 2.5. If Y/PY/NI to 2.4: Were these deviations from intended intervention balanced between groups? | NA | |||
| 2.6. Was an appropriate analysis used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention? | Y | |||
| 2.7. If N/PN/NI to 2.6: Was there potential for a substantial impact (on the result) of the failure to analyse participants in the group to which they were randomized? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Medisauskaite and Kamau, 2019 | Bias due to missing outcome data | 3.1. Were data for this outcome available for all, or nearly all, participants randomized? | Y | |
| 3.2. If N/PN/NI to 3.1: Is there evidence that the result was not biased by missing outcome data? | NA | |||
| 3.3. If N/PN to 3.2: Could missingness in the outcome depend on its true value? | NA | |||
| 3.4. If Y/PY/NI to 3.3: Is it likely that missingness in the outcome depended on its true value? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias in measurement of the outcome | 4.1. Was the method of measuring the outcome inappropriate? | N | ||
| 4.2. Could measurement or ascertainment of the outcome have differed between intervention groups? | N | |||
| 4.3. If N/PN/NI to 4.1 and 4.2: Were outcome assessors aware of the intervention received by study participants? | N | |||
| 4.4. If Y/PY/NI to 4.3: Could assessment of the outcome have been influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | NA | |||
| 4.5. If Y/PY/NI to 4.4: Is it likely that assessment of the outcome was influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias in selection of the reported result | 5.1. Were the data that produced this result analysed in accordance with a pre-specified analysis plan that was finalized before unblinded outcome data were available for analysis? | Y | ||
| 5.2. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible outcome measurements (e.g. scales, definitions, time points) within the outcome domain? | N | |||
| 5.3. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible analyses of the data? | N | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Overall bias | Low risk | |||
| Moody et al, 2013 | Bias arising from the randomization process | 1.1. Was the allocation sequence random? | Y | |
| 1.2. Was the allocation sequence concealed until participants were recruited and assigned to interventions? | PY | |||
| 1.3. Were there baseline imbalances that suggest a problem with the randomization process? | N | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias due to deviations from intended interventions (effect of assignment to intervention) | 2.1. Were participants aware of their assigned intervention during the trial? | Intervention: Mindfulnessbased course Control: No intervention | Y | |
| 2.2. Were carers and trial personnel aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial? | Y | |||
| 2.3. If Y/PY/NI to 2.1 or 2.2: Were there deviations from the intended intervention that arose because of the trial context? | N | |||
| 2.4. If Y/PY to 2.3: Were these deviations likely to have affected the outcome? | NA | |||
| 2.5. If Y/PY/NI to 2.4: Were these deviations from intended intervention balanced between groups? | NA | |||
| 2.6. Was an appropriate analysis used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention? | Y | |||
| 2.7. If N/PN/NI to 2.6: Was there potential for a substantial impact (on the result) of the failure to analyse participants in the group to which they were randomized? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Moody et al, 2013 | Bias due to missing outcome data | 3.1. Were data for this outcome available for all, or nearly all, participants randomized? | Y | |
| 3.2. If N/PN/NI to 3.1: Is there evidence that the result was not biased by missing outcome data? | NA | |||
| 3.3. If N/PN to 3.2: Could missingness in the outcome depend on its true value? | NA | |||
| 3.4. If Y/PY/NI to 3.3: Is it likely that missingness in the outcome depended on its true value? | NA | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias in measurement of the outcome | 4.1. Was the method of measuring the outcome inappropriate? | N | ||
| 4.2. Could measurement or ascertainment of the outcome have differed between intervention groups? | N | |||
| 4.3. If N/PN/NI to 4.1 and 4.2: Were outcome assessors aware of the intervention received by study participants? | N | |||
| 4.4. If Y/PY/NI to 4.3: Could assessment of the outcome have been influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | N | |||
| 4.5. If Y/PY/NI to 4.4: Is it likely that assessment of the outcome was influenced by knowledge of intervention received? | N | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Low risk | |||
| Bias in selection of the reported result | 5.1. Were the data that produced this result analysed in accordance with a pre-specified analysis plan that was finalized before unblinded outcome data were available for analysis? | NI | ||
| 5.2. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible outcome measurements (e.g. scales, definitions, time points) within the outcome domain? | PN | |||
| 5.3. Is the numerical result being assessed likely to have been selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple eligible analyses of the data? | PN | |||
| Domain-level judgement | Some concerns | |||
| Overall bias | Some concerns | |||
Legend - Y=Yes, PY=Probably yes, PN= Probably no, N=No, NA=Not applicable, NI=No information.
| Question | 1. Is it clear in the study what is the cause' and what is the effect' (i.e. there is no confusion about which variable comes first)? | 2. Were the participants included in any comparisons similar? | 3. Were the participants included in any comparisons receiving similar treatment/care, other than the exposure or intervention of interest? | 4. Was there a control group? | 5. Were there multiple measurements of the outcome both pre and post the intervention/exposure? | 6. Was follow up complete and if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow up adequately described and analyzed? | 7. Were the outcomes of participants included in any comparisons measured in the same way? | 8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? | 9. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | %yes/risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bar-Sela, LulavGrinwald and Mitnik, 2012 | Y | Y | N | NA | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 77.78 |
| Bui et al, 2021 | Y | N | N | NA | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 66.67 |
| Clemons et al, 2019 | Y | Y | N | NA | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 77.78 |
| Dahn et al, 2019 | Y | N | N | NA | Y | Y | Y | U | U | 44.44 |
| Italia et al, 2007 | Y | Y | N | NA | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 77.78 |
| Landaverde et al, 2018 | Y | U | N | NA | Y | U | Y | Y | U | 44.44 |
| Pathak, Eapen and Zell, 2019 | Y | Y | N | NA | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 77.78 |
| Sekeres et al, 2003 | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 66.67 |
| Tjasink and Soosaipillai, 2018 | Y | Y | N | NA | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 77.78 |
Legend - Y=Yes, N=No, U=Unclear, NA=Not applicable.
| Question | 1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? | 2. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? | 3. Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | 4. Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? | 5. Were confounding factors identified? | 6. Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | 7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | 8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | %yes/risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graff et al, 2018 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | 75 |
Legend - Y=Yes, N=No, U=Unclear, NA=Not applicable.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Journal: Brazilian Journal of Oncology
DOI: 10.1055/s-00059887
e-issn: 2526-8732
Publisher: Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Publisher address: Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil
No citations found for this article.
1. Shanafelt, T and Dyrbye, L. Oncologist burnout: causes, consequences, and responses. J Clin Oncol [online]. 2012, vol. 30, p. 1235-1241.
2. Banerjee, S and Califano, R and Corral, J and Azambuja, E and Mattos-Arruda, L and Guarneri, V. Professional burnout in European young oncologists: results of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Young Oncologists Committee Burnout Survey. Ann Oncol [online]. 2017, vol. 28, p. 1590-1596.
3. Murali, K and Banerjee, S. Burnout in oncologists is a serious issue: what can we do about it?. Cancer Treat Rev [online]. 2018, vol. 68, p. 55-61.
4. Maslach, C and Jackson, SE and Leiter, MP and Schaufeli, WB and Schwab, RL. Maslach burnout inventory: consulting psychologists press. Consulting Psychologists Press;, 1986.
5. Tucunduva, LTCM and Garcia, AP and Prudente, FVB and Centofanti, G and Souza, CM and Monteiro, TA. A síndrome da estafa profissional em médicos cancerologistas brasileiros. Rev Assoc Med Bras [online]. 2006, vol. 52, p. 108-112.
6. Murali, K and Makker, V and Lynch, J and Banerjee, S. From burnout to resilience: an update for oncologists. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book [online]. 2018, vol. 38, p. 862-872.
7. Shanafelt, TD and Gradishar, WJ and Kosty, M and Satele, D and Chew, H and Horn, L. Burnout and career satisfaction among US oncologists. J Clin Oncol [online]. 2014, vol. 32, p. 678-686.
8. Martins, BP and Paiva, CE and Paiva, BSR. Evaluation of burnout, anxiety and depression in physicians of an oncology hospital. Ann Oncol [online]. 2016, p. 27.
9. Cano, DS and Moré, CLOO. Psychological coping strategies of clinical medical oncologists. Psicol Teor Pesq [online]. 2016, vol. 32, p. 1-10.
10. Asai, M and Morita, T and Akechi, T and Sugawara, Y and Fujimori, M and Akizuki, N. Burnout and psychiatric morbility among physicians engaged in end-to-life care for cancer patients: a cross-sectional nationwide survey in Japan. Psychooncol [online]. 2007, vol. 16, p. 421-428.
11. Medisauskaite, A and Kamau, C. Prevalence of oncologists in distress: systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychooncol [online]. 2017, vol. 26, p. 1732-1740.
12. West, CP and Dyrbye, LN and Erwin, PJ and Shanafelt, TD. Interventions to prevent and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet [online]. 2016, vol. 388, p. 2272-2281.
13. Moher, D and Shamseer, L and Clarke, M and Ghersi, D and Liberati, A and Petticrew, M. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev [online]. 2015, vol. 4, p. 1-9.
14. Booth, AM and Clarke, M and Dooley, G and Ghersi, D and Moher, D and Petticrew, D. PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, .
15. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg [online]. 2010, vol. 8, p. 336-341.
16. Campbell, M and McKenzie, JE and Sowden, A and Katikireddi, SV and Brennan, SE and Ellis, S. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ [online]. 2020, vol. 368, p. l6890.
17. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Checklist for quasi-experimental studies (non-randomized experimental studies). The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools for use in JBI systematic reviews. Joanna Briggs Institute;, 2016.
18. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2014 - the systematic review of economic evaluation evidence. Joanna Briggs Institute;, 2014.
19. Eldridge, S and Campbell, M and Campbell, M and Drahota-Towns, A and Giraudeau, B and Higgins, J. Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0): additional considerations for cluster-randomized trials. University of Portsmouth;, 2016.
20. McGuinness, LA. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): a R package and web application for visualising risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synt Methods [online]. 2019, vol. 12, p. 55-61.
21. Higgings, JPT and Green, S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration;, 2011.
22. Manheimer, E. Summary of findings tables: presenting the main findings of Cochrane complementary and alternative medicine-related reviews in a transparent and simple tabular format. Glob Adv Health Med [online]. 2012, vol. 1, p. 90-91.
23. Brown, R and Butow, P and Aldridge, J and Uraskova, I and Zoller, P and Boyle, F. The impact of consultation skills training in shared decision making on doctor behavior, confidence and stress and burnout: a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncol [online]. 2014, vol. 23, p. 148-149.
24. Butow, P and Cockburn, J and Girgis, A and Bowman, D and Schofield, P and D'Este, C. Increasing oncologists' skills in eliciting and responding to emotional cues: evaluation of a communication skills training program. Psychooncol [online]. 2008, vol. 17, p. 209-218.
25. Bragard, I and Libert, Y and Etienne, AM and Merckaert, I and Delvaux, N and Marchal, S. Insight on variables leading to burnout in cancer physicians. J Cancer Educ [online]. 2010, vol. 25, p. 109-115.
26. Clemons, M and Mazzarello, S and Pond, G and Amir, E and Asmis, T and Berry, S. A prospective intervention to improve happiness and reduce burnout in oncologists. Support Care Cancer [online]. 2019, vol. 27, p. 1563-1572.
27. Dahn, H and Thomson, C and Bowes, D and Ilie, G and Rutledge, R. “Resilience by design” - description of a pilot radiation oncology wellness program. Radiother Oncol [online]. 2019, vol. 139, p. S47.
28. Landaverde, D and Perichon, S and Flores, R and Rojas, R and Gurdian, J and Molina, JP. Anti-stress strategies applied to the medical oncology team at Mexico Hospital, San Jose Costa Rica: a unique model in Central America, to reduce the risk of burnout syndrome in oncologists. Psychooncol [online]. 2018, vol. 27, p. 53-98.
29. Mache, S and Vitzthum, K and Hauschild, I and Groneberg, D. A. pilot study evaluation of psychosocial competency training for junior physicians working in oncology and hematology. Psychooncol [online]. 2017, vol. 26, p. 1894-1900.
30. Bar-Sela, G and Lulav-Grinwald, D and Mitnik, I. “Balint group” meetings for oncology residents as a tool to improve therapeutic communication skills and reduce burnout level. J Cancer Educ [online]. 2012, vol. 27, p. 786-789.
31. Moody, K and Kramer, D and Santizo, RO and Magro, L and Wyshogrod, D and Ambrosio, J. Helping the helpers: mindfulness training for burnout in pediatric oncology-a pilot program. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs [online]. 2013, vol. 30, p. 275-284.
32. Barzelloni, ML and Pellegrino, R and Massimiliani, V and Roselli, M. Rosa/13 study on monitoring and prevention of work burnout the evaluation of the data after 1 year from the day of classroom training. Psychooncol [online]. 2014, vol. 23, p. 175-176.
33. Bui, S and Pelosi, A and Mazzaschi, G and Tommasi, C and Rapacchi, E and Camisa, R. Burnout and oncology: an irreparable paradigm or a man-ageable condition? Prevention strategies to reduce burnout in oncology health care professionals. Acta Biomed [online]. 2021, vol. 92, p. e2021091.
34. Italia, S and Favara-Scacco, C and Di Cataldo, A and Russo, G. Evaluation and art therapy treatment of the burnout syndrome in oncology units. Psychooncol [online]. 2008, vol. 17, p. 676-680.
35. Le Blanc, PM and Hox, JJ and Schaufeli, WB and Taris, TW and Peeters, MCW. Take care! The evaluation of a team-based burnout intervention program for oncology care providers. J Appl Psychol [online]. 2007, vol. 92, p. 213-227.
36. Medisauskaite, A and Kamau, C. Reducing burnout and anxiety among doctors: randomized controlled trial. Psychiatr Res [online]. 2019, vol. 274, p. 383-390.
37. Int J Art Ther. 2018;24(1) [online]. Available from: <>.
38. Graff, SL and Close, J and Cole, S and Matt-Amaral, L and Beg, R and Markham, MJ. Impact of closed facebook group participation on female hematology/oncology physicians. J Oncol Pract [online]. 2018, vol. 14, p. e758-e69.
39. Kesselheim, J and Baker, JN and Kersun, L and Lee-Miller, C and Moerdler, S and Snaman, JM. Humanism and professionalism training for pediatric hematology-oncology fellows: results of a multicenter randomized trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer [online]. 2020, vol. 67, p. e28308.
40. Pathak, B and Eapen, AM and Zell, JA. FitFirms: a wellness option for oncology trainees. J Clin Oncol [online]. 2019, p. 37.
41. Sekeres, MA and Chernoff, M and Lynch, TJ and Kasendorf, EI and Lasser, DH and Greenberg, DB. The impact of a physician awareness group and the first year of training on hematology-oncology fellows. J Clin Oncol [online]. 2003, vol. 21, p. 3676-3682.
42. Huet, V and Holttum, S. Art therapy-based groups for work-related stress with staff in health and social care: an exploratory study. Arts Psychother [online]. 2016, vol. 50, p. 46-57.
43. Moore, PM and Mercado, SR and Artigues, MG and Lawrie, TA. Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [online]. 2013, vol. 2013, p. CD003751.
44. Balint, M. The doctor, his patient and the illness. [online]. 1955, vol. 268, p. 683-688.
45. Clough, BA and March, S and Chan, RJ and Casey, LM and Phillips, R and Ireland, MJ. Psychosocial interventions for managing occupational stress and burnout among medical doctors: a systematic review. Syst Rev [online]. 2017, vol. 6, p. 144.
46. Kabat-Zinn, J. Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clin Psychol Sci Pract [online]. 2006, vol. 10, p. 144-156.
47. Krasner, MS and Epstein, RM and Beckman, H and Suchman, AL and Chapman, B and Mooney, CJ. Association of an educational program in mindful communication with burnout, empathy, and attitudes among primary care physicians. JAMA [online]. 2009, vol. 302, p. 1284-1293.
48. Petrie, K and Crawford, J and Baker, ST and Dean, K and Robinson, J and Veness, BG. Interventions to reduce symptoms of common mental disorders and suicidal ideation in physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatr [online]. 2019, vol. 6, p. 225-234.
49. Rothenberger, DA. Physician burnout and well-being: a systematic review and a framework for action. Dis Colon Rectum [online]. 2017, vol. 60, p. 567-576.
50. Allegra, CJ and Hall, R and Yothers, G. Prevalence of burnout in the u.s. Oncology community: results of a 2003 survey. J Oncol Pract [online]. 2005, vol. 1, p. 140-147.
51. Alorabi, M and Ghali, R and Boulos, D. Cross-sectional study of burnout among a group of Egyptian oncologists at Ain Shams University. European Journal of Cancer [online]. 2015, vol. 51, p. S219-S220.
52. Ansmann, L and Neumann, MK and Jung, J. Resources, stressors and health of privatepractice hematologists and oncologists: Results of a German-wide survey within the WIN ON (Working Conditions in Oncology) project. Onkologie [online]. 2013, vol. 36, p. 227.
53. Armstrong, J and Holland, J. Surviving the stresses of clinical oncology by improving communication. ONCOLOGYWILLISTON PARK THEN HUNTINGTON THE MELVILLE NEW YORK [online]. 2004, vol. 18, p. 363-372.
54. Asai, M and Morita, T and Akechi, T. Burnout and psychiatric morbility among physicians engaged in end-to-life care for cancer patients: A cross-sectional nationwide survey in Japan. PsychoOncology [online]. 2007, vol. 16, p. 421-428.
55. Back, AL and Steinhauser, KE and Kamal, AH. Why Burnout Is So Hard to Fix. J Oncol Pract [online]. 2017, vol. 13, p. 348-351.
56. Balbay, OA and Isikhan, V and Balbay, EG. Burnout status of health care personnel working in oncology and their coping methods. HealthMed [online]. 2011, vol. 5, p. 730-740.
57. Balch, C and Shanafelt, TD and Sloan, J. Comparisons of demographics, burnout and career satisfaction of 407 surgical oncologists (so) with 7454 surgeons from other specialties: An american college of surgeons(ACS) survey. Annals of Surgical Oncology [online]. 2010, vol. 17, p. S21-S22.
58. Balch, CM and Copeland, E. Stress and burnout among surgical oncologists: a call for personal wellness and a supportive workplace environment. Ann Surg Oncol [online]. 2007, vol. 14, p. 3029-3032.
59. Balch, CM and Freischlag, JA and Shanafelt, TD. Stress and Burnout Among Surgeons Understanding and Managing the Syndrome and Avoiding the Adverse Consequences. Archives of Surgery [online]. 2009, vol. 144, p. 371-376.
60. Balch, CM and Shanafelt, TD and Sloan, J. Burnout and career satisfaction among surgical oncologists compared with other surgical specialties. Ann Surg Oncol [online]. 2011, vol. 18, p. 16-25.
61. Banerjee, S and Califano, R and Corral, J. Professional burnout in European young oncologists: results of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Young Oncologists Committee Burnout Survey. Ann Oncol [online]. 2017, vol. 28, p. 1590-1596.
62. Annals of Oncology 26, 2015 [online]. Available from: <>.
63. Beas, R and Díaz-Pardavé, C. Categorization of Individuals With Burnout Syndrome: A Topic of Controversy. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management [online]. 2016, vol. 52, p. e1.
64. Berman, R and Campbell, M and Makin, W. Occupational stress in palliative medicine, medical oncology and clinical oncology specialist registrars. Clin Med (Lond) [online]. 2007, vol. 7, p. 235-242.
65. Bittner, JG and Khan, Z and Babu, M. Stress, burnout, and maladaptive coping. Bull Am Coll Surg [online]. 2011, vol. 96, p. 17-22.
66. Blanchard, P and Truchot, D and Albiges-Sauvin, L. Prevalence and causes of burnout syndrome among oncology residents in France: A comprehensive cross sectional study. European Journal of Cancer, Supplement [online]. 2009, vol. 7, p. 178.
67. Blanchard, P and Truchot, D and Albiges-Sauvin, L. Prevalence and causes of burnout amongst oncology residents: A comprehensive nationwide cross-sectional study. European Journal of Cancer [online]. 2010, vol. 46, p. 2708-2715.
68. Borate, U. The Power of Professional Friendships and Sisterhood. ASCO Connection [online]. 2017, vol. 8, p. 10-10.
69. Bragard, I and Dupuis, G and Razavi, D. Quality of work life in doctors working with cancer patients. Occupational Medicine [online]. 2012, vol. 62, p. 34-40.
70. Bragard, I and Etienne, A-M and Libert, Y. Predictors and correlates of burnout in residents working with cancer patients. Journal of Cancer Education [online]. 2010, vol. 25, p. 120-126.
71. Bressi, C and Manenti, S and Porcellana, M. Haemato-oncology and burnout: An Italian survey. British Journal of Cancer [online]. 2008, vol. 98, p. 1046-1052.
72. Burki, TK. Oncologists burnout in the spotlight. Lancet Oncol [online]. 2018, vol. 19, p. e238.
73. Camps, C and Escobar, Y and Esteban, E. Professional burnout among Spanish medical oncologists. Clinical & Translational Oncology [online]. 2009, vol. 11, p. 86-90.
74. Cano, DS and Moré, CLOO. Estratégias de enfrentamento psicológico de médicos oncologistas clínicos. [Psychological coping strategies of clinical medical oncologists.]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa [online]. 2016, vol. 32, p. 1-10.
75. Caruso, A and Vigna, C and Bigazzi, V. Burnout among physicians and nurses working in oncology. Med Lav [online]. 2012, vol. 103, p. 96-105.
76. Carvalho, CMSd and Barata, EMMA and Parreira, PMSD. Trabalho emocional e gestão de emoções em equipes de saúde oncológicas: um estudo qualitativo. Rev. enferm. UERJ [online]. 2014, vol. 22, p. 9-15.
77. Catt, S and Fallowfield, L and Jenkins, V. The informational roles and psychological health of members of 10 oncology multidisciplinary teams in the UK. Br J Cancer [online]. 2005, vol. 93, p. 1092-1097.
78. Journal of Clinical Oncology 36, 2018 [online]. Available from: <>.
79. Ciammella, P and Fiorentino, A and De Bari, B. The “buongiorno” project - An italian survey on the incidence of burnout among young italian radiation oncologists. European Journal of Cancer [online]. 2011, vol. 47, p. S209.
80. Cotton, K. Resilience While Caring for Seriously Ill Patients: Skills and Strategies to Prevent Burnout. ASCO Connection [online]. 2018, vol. 10, p. 38-41.
81. Creagan, ET. Stress among medical oncologists: The phenomenon of burnout and a call to action. Mayo Clinic Proceedings [online]. 1993, vol. 68, p. 614-615.
82. Crowe, C. Self-care and burnout in oncology professionals. Faculty of Behavioral Sciences, Yorkville University, 2016.
83. Cubero, D and Fumis, RRL and Cruz, FM. Burnout inmedical oncology fellows is high even before the program starts. Supportive Care in Cancer [online]. 2013, vol. 21, p. S231.
84. Cumbe, VFJ and Pala, AN and Palha, AJP. Burnout syndrome and coping strategies in Portuguese oncology health care providers. Rev. psiquiatr. clín. (São Paulo) [online]. 2017, vol. 44, p. 122-126.
85. Dahn, H and McGibbon, A and Bowes, D. Burnout and Resiliency in Canadian Oncology Residents: A Nationwide Resident and Program Director Survey. Pract Radiat Oncol [online]. 2019, vol. 9, p. e118-e125.
86. Daruvala, R and Ghosh, M and Fratazzi, F. Emotional exhaustion in cancer clinicians: A mixed methods exploration. Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology [online]. 2019, vol. 40, p. 111-120.
87. De Rezende, SN and Santiag, SM and Da Grac-a Garcia Andrade, M. To think, to feel, to talk and to realize: A construction of a psychoanalytical work developed with health professionals dealing with cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2011, vol. 20, p. 195-196.
88. Dix, D and Gulati, S and Robinson, P. Demands and rewards associated with working in pediatric oncology: a qualitative study of Canadian health care providers. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol [online]. 2012, vol. 34, p. 430-435.
89. Dougherty, E and Pierce, B and Ma, C. Factors associated with work stress and professional satisfaction in oncology staff. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine [online]. 2009, vol. 26, p. 105-111.
90. Dubois, C-A and Da Silva, RB and Lavoie-Tremblay, M. Developing and maintaining the resilience of interdisciplinary cancer care teams: an interventional study. BMC Health Services Research [online]. 2020, vol. 20, p. 1-10.
91. Eelen, S and Bauwens, S and Baillon, C. The prevalence of burnout among oncology professionals: oncologists are at risk of developing burnout. Psychooncology [online]. 2014, vol. 23, p. 1415-1422.
92. Essaadi, Z and Belbaraka, R and Aloulou, S. Burnout in health caregivers: Experience of a Moroccan anti cancer center. European Journal of Cancer [online]. 2013, vol. 49, p. S389-S390.
93. Fang, CK and Yang, YC and Chen, HW. Burnout, demoralization, and spiritual well-being of physicians who had cared cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2010, vol. 19, p. S113.
94. Annals of Oncology 27, 2016 [online]. Available from: <>.
95. Journal of Clinical Oncology 30, 2012 [online]. Available from: <>.
96. Flores, M D and Vega, C V and Del Río, G C. Ocuparse del bienestar de los profesionales de la salud: un desafío pendiente. Rev. chil. ter. ocup [online]. 2014, vol. 14, p. 33-44.
97. Ftanou, M. Self-Care: “Provider, heal thyself”. Journal of Thoracic Oncology [online]. 2017, vol. 12, p. S1716-S1717.
98. Fujimori, M and Uchitomi, Y. Effect of communication skills training program for oncologists on their burnout and psychiatric disorder. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2015, vol. 24, p. 281.
99. Fusco, V and Grosso, E and Como Costagliola, M. Burnout risk in cancer care staff: Is Laughter Yoga a possible tool for prevention?. Tumori [online]. 2019, vol. 105, p. 170-171.
100. Giansante, M and Ballarini, V. Perceived stress and coping strategies in medical and nursing staff in a department of clinical hematology: Pilot study. Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia [online]. 2012, vol. 34, p. B23-B28.
101. Girgis, A and Cockburn, J and Butow, P. Improving patient emotional functioning and psychological morbidity: evaluation of a consultation skills training program for oncologists. Patient Educ Couns [online]. 2009, vol. 77, p. 456-462.
102. Glasberg, J and Horiuti, L and Novais, MAB. Prevalence of the burnout syndrome among Brazilian medical oncologists. Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras. (1992) [online]. 2007, vol. 53, p. 85-89.
103. Granek, L and Ariad, S and Shapira, S. Barriers and facilitators in coping with patient death in clinical oncology. Supportive Care in Cancer [online]. 2016, vol. 24, p. 4219-4227.
104. Granek, L and Barbera, L and Nakash, O. Experiences of Canadian oncologists with difficult patient deaths and coping strategies used. Current Oncology [online]. 2017, vol. 24, p. e277-e284.
105. Granek, L and Barrera, M and Scheinemann, K. Pediatric oncologists' coping strategies for dealing with patient death. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology [online]. 2016, vol. 34, p. 39-59.
106. Granek, L and Bartels, U and Scheinemann, K. Grief reactions and impact of patient death on pediatric oncologists. Pediatr Blood Cancer [online]. 2015, vol. 62, p. 134-142.
107. Granek, L and Ben-David, M and Nakash, O. Oncologists' negative attitudes towards expressing emotion over patient death and burnout. Supportive Care in Cancer [online]. 2017, vol. 25, p. 1607-1614.
108. Granek, L and Krzyzanowska, MK and Nakash, O. Gender differences in the effect of grief reactions and burnout on emotional distress among clinical oncologists. Cancer [online]. 2016, vol. 122, p. 3705-3714.
109. Granek, L and Krzyzanowska, MK and Tozer, R. Oncologists' strategies and barriers to effective communication about the end of life. Journal of Oncology Practice [online]. 2013, vol. 9, p. e129-e135.
110. Grant, L. Developing a clinical supervision service for oncologists. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2018, vol. 27, p. 28.
111. Grootenhuis, MA and Van Der Wel, M and De Graaf-Nijkerk, J. Exploration of a selfprotective strategy in pediatric oncology staff. Medical and Pediatric Oncology [online]. 1996, vol. 27, p. 40-47.
112. Gross, SE and Ernstmann, N and Jung, J. Can a stressed oncologist be good in a consultation? A qualitative study on the oncologists' perception. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) [online]. 2014, vol. 23, p. 594-606.
113. Grunfeld, E and Whelan, TJ and Zitzelsberger, L. Cancer care workers in Ontario: prevalence of burnout, job stress and job satisfaction. Cmaj [online]. 2000, vol. 163, p. 166-169.
114. Guadagna, F and Civilleri, A and Lo Cascio, V. Well-being of physicians who work in oncology unit and in BMT unit: Analysis of protective factors from work stress. Bone Marrow Transplantation [online]. 2012, vol. 47, p. S389.
115. Guest, RS and Baser, R and Li, Y. Cancer surgeons' distress and well-being, I: the tension between a culture of productivity and the need for self-care. Ann Surg Oncol [online]. 2011, vol. 18, p. 1229-1235.
116. Guest, RS and Baser, R and Li, Y. Cancer surgeons' distress and well-being, II: modifiable factors and the potential for organizational interventions. Ann Surg Oncol [online]. 2011, vol. 18, p. 1236-1242.
117. Guveli, H and Anuk, D and Oflaz, S. Oncology staff: Burnout, job satisfaction and coping with stress. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2015, vol. 24, p. 926-931.
118. Haley, GR. The relationship between burnout and organizational commitment in academic oncologists. US, ProQuest Information & Learning [online]. 2004, p. 3730-3730.
119. Hamilton, J. Implementation of fellows support program. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2019, vol. 28, p. 23.
120. Journal of Clinical Oncology 30, 2012 [online]. Available from: <>.
121. Henrik, S and Mónika, FM and András, H. Two-level tumor board operation-based social intelligence that serves the quality of cancer treatment and the prevention of burnout phenomenon. Orvosi Hetilap [online]. 2021, vol. 162, p. 344-351.
122. Hipp, M and Pilz, L and Al-Batran, SE. Workload and Quality of Life of Medical Doctors in the Field of Oncology in Germany - a Survey of the Working Group Quality of Life of the AIO for the Study Group of Internal Oncology. Oncology Research and Treatment [online]. 2015, vol. 38, p. 154-159.
123. Hlubocky, FJ and Back, AL and Shanafelt, TD. Occupational and Personal Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic on US Oncologist Burnout and Well-Being: A Study From the ASCO Clinician Well-Being Task Force. JCO Oncol Pract [online]. , vol. 17, p. e427-e438.
124. Hlubocky, FJ and Rose, M and Epstein, RM. Mastering Resilience in Oncology: Learn to Thrive in the Face of Burnout. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book [online]. 2017, vol. 37, p. 771-781.
125. Hlubocky, FJ and Shanafelt, TD and Back, AL. Creating a Blueprint of Well-Being in Oncology: An Approach for Addressing Burnout From ASCO's Clinician Well-Being Taskforce. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book [online]. , vol. 41, p. e339-e353.
126. Holliday, EB and Bonner, JA and Formenti, SC. Emotional Intelligence and Burnout in Academic Radiation Oncology Chairs. Journal of Healthcare Management [online]. 2017, vol. 62, p. 302-313.
127. Journal of Clinical Oncology 36, 2018 [online]. Available from: <>.
128. Hunter, R. Creating a culture shift: The implementation of a resilience skills program in oncology providers. PsychoOncology [online]. 2019, vol. 28, p. 23.
129. Huynh, RA and Nguyen, VS and Assanasen, C. An evaluation of psychosocial needs among healthcare providers in vietnam. Pediatric Blood and Cancer [online]. 2019, vol. 66, p. S186.
130. Isc-En, P and Bahadir, G. Examination of conflict tendencies and ways of coping with stress of oncologists. PsychoOncology [online]. 2011, vol. 20, p. 111-112.
131. Jackson, VA and Mack, J and Matsuyama, R. A qualitative study of oncologists' approaches to end-of-life care. J Palliat Med [online]. 2008, vol. 11, p. 893-906.
132. Jasperse, M and Dungey, G. Investigating stress, burnout and job satisfaction within the New Zealand oncology care context. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology [online]. 2012, vol. 8, p. 173-174.
133. Jasperse, M and Herst, P and Dungey, G. Evaluating stress, burnout and job satisfaction in New Zealand radiation oncology departments. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) [online]. 2014, vol. 23, p. 82-88.
134. Joaquim, A and Custódio, S and Savva-Bordalo, J. Burnout and occupational stress in the medical residents of Oncology, Haematology and Radiotherapy: A prevalence and predictors study in Portugal. Psychology, Health and Medicine [online]. 2018, vol. 23, p. 317-324.
135. Jørgensen, LH and Jacobsen, CH. Gruppesupervision af læger på onkologisk afdeling. [Group supervision of oncologists.]. Psyke & Logos [online]. 2009, vol. 30, p. 672-694.
136. Joubert, L and Hocking, A and Hampson, R. Social work in oncology-Managing vicarious trauma-The positive impact of professional supervision. Social Work in Health Care [online]. 2013, vol. 52, p. 296-310.
137. Jutagir, D and Knies, A and Ercolano, E. Screening for psychosocial distress program. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2017, vol. 26, p. 65.
138. Karnyski, J and Harris, K. How Does the Doctor Feel?. Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology [online]. 2017, vol. 24, p. e37-e39.
139. Kash, KM and Holland, JC and Breitbart, W. Stress and burnout in oncology. Oncology (Williston Park) [online]. 2000, vol. 14, p. 1621-1633.
140. Kattlove, H and Figlin, RA and Belldegrun, A. Why oncologists burnout [1]. Journal of Clinical Oncology [online]. 1992, vol. 10, p. 1503.
141. Kavalieratos, D and Siconolfi, DE and Steinhauser, KE. “It Is Like Heart Failure. It Is Chronic … and It Will Kill You”: A Qualitative Analysis of Burnout Among Hospice and Palliative Care Clinicians. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management [online]. 2017, vol. 53, p. 901-910.e1.
142. Kaymak, SU and Cankurtaran, ES and Ozalp, E. Psychosocial consequences of working with dying patients. PsychoOncology [online]. 2010, vol. 19, p. S120-S121.
143. Kearney, MK and Weininger, RB and Vachon, MLS. Self-care of physicians caring for patients at the end of life “being connected…A key to my survival”. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association [online]. 2009, vol. 301, p. 1155-1164.
144. Kiguchi, H and Singh, S and Gulati, N. Building resilience during pediatric hematology/oncology fellowship: Implementing systematic debriefing sessions and resiliency curriculum to support trainees. Pediatric Blood and Cancer [online]. 2018, vol. 65, p. S184-S185.
145. Kinderman, A and Gross, D. Preparing for the marathon: Piloting a self-care and resilience workshop for oncology fellows. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management [online]. 2014, vol. 47, p. 402.
146. Kleiner, S and Wallace, JE. Oncologist burnout and compassion fatigue: investigating time pressure at work as a predictor and the mediating role of work-family conflict. BMC Health Serv Res [online]. 2017, vol. 17, p. 639.
147. Knight, K and Schneider, M and Wright, C. Occupational burnout among medical radiations professionals-a nation-wide multidisciplinary on-line survey of seven professions. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology [online]. 2014, vol. 58, p. 144.
148. Koh, MYH and Chong, PH and Neo, PSH. Burnout, psychological morbidity and use of coping mechanisms among palliative care practitioners: A multi-centre cross-sectional study. Palliative medicine [online]. 2015, vol. 29, p. 633-642.
149. Koo, K and Zeng, L and Zhang, L. Comparison and Literature Review of Occupational Stress in a Palliative Radiotherapy Clinic's Interprofessional Team, the Radiation Therapists, and the Nurses at an Academic Cancer Centre. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci [online]. 2013, vol. 44, p. 14-22.
150. Koocher, GP. Adjustment and coping strategies among the caretakers of cancer patients. Social Work in Health Care [online]. 1980, vol. 5, p. 145-150.
151. Korones, DN. Living in the moment. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology [online]. 2010, vol. 28, p. 4778-4779.
152. Kracen, AC. Mindfulness, health, well-being, and patient care of oncologists. US, ProQuest Information & Learning [online]. 2011, p. 5833-5833.
153. Kuerer, HM and Eberlein, TJ and Pollock, RE. Career satisfaction, practice patterns and burnout among surgical oncologists: report on the quality of life of members of the Society of Surgical Oncology. Ann Surg Oncol [online]. 2007, vol. 14, p. 3043-3053.
154. Laurent, J and Bragard, I and Coucke, P. [Working conditions, stress and burnout of Belgian professionals in radiotherapy: Comparative analysis and emotional labor exploration]. Cancer Radiother [online]. 2015, vol. 19, p. 161-167.
155. ecancermedicalscience 14, 2020 [online]. Available from: <>.
156. Liakopoulou, M and Panaretaki, I and Papadakis, V. Burnout, staff support, and coping in Pediatric Oncology. Supportive Care in Cancer [online]. 2008, vol. 16, p. 143-150.
157. Lievrouw, A and Vanheule, S and Deveugele, M. Coping With Moral Distress in Oncology Practice: Nurse and Physician Strategies. Oncology Nursing Forum [online]. 2016, vol. 43, p. 505-512.
158. López-Castillo, J and Gurpegui, M and Ayuso-Mateos, JL. Emotional distress and occupational burnout in health care professionals serving HIV-infected patients: A comparison with oncology and internal medicine services. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics [online]. 1999, vol. 68, p. 348-356.
159. Lyckholm, L. Dealing with stress, burnout, and grief in the practice of oncology. The Lancet Oncology [online]. 2001, vol. 2, p. 750-755.
160. Lyckholm L: Avoiding stress and burnout in cancer care. Words of wisdom from fellow oncologists. Oncology (Williston Park) [online]. 2007, vol. 21, p. 269.
161. Mahendran, R and Tan, JYS and Lim, HA. Improving the quality of life and care of medical oncology patients: A quality improvement project. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore [online]. 2014, vol. 43, p. S46-S47.
162. Mampuya, AW and Matsuo, Y and Nakamura, A. Evaluation of the prevalence of burnout and psychological morbidity among Japanese radiation oncologists practicing in Kyoto university hospital and affiliated institutions. International Journal of Radiation Oncology [online]. 2016, vol. 96, p. E404.
163. Mampuya, WA and Matsuo, Y and Nakamura, A. Evaluation of the prevalence of burnout and psychological morbidity among radiation oncologist members of the Kyoto Radiation Oncology Study Group (KROSG). J Radiat Res [online]. 2017, vol. 58, p. 217224.
164. Manochakian, R. My first year as an oncologist. Journal of Palliative Medicine [online]. 2014, vol. 17, p. 636-637.
165. Annals of Oncology 27, 2016 [online]. Available from: <>.
166. McFarland, DC and Roth, A. Resilience of internal medicine house staff and its association with distress and empathy in an oncology setting. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2017, vol. 26, p. 1519-1525.
167. Frontiers in Psychology 2, 2011 [online]. Available from: <>.
168. Mehlis, K and Bierwirth, E and Laryionava, K. High prevalence of moral distress reported by oncologists and oncology nurses in end-of-life decision making. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2018, vol. 27, p. 2733-2739.
169. Mougalian, SS and Lessen, DS and Levine, RL. Palliative care training and associations with burnout in oncology fellows. J Support Oncol [online]. 2013, vol. 11, p. 95-102.
170. Mount, BM. Dealing with our losses. J Clin Oncol [online]. 1986, vol. 4, p. 1127-1134.
171. Mukherjee, S and Beresford, B and Tennant, A. Staff burnout in paediatric oncology: New tools to facilitate the development and evaluation of effective interventions. European Journal of Cancer Care [online]. 2014, vol. 23, p. 450-461.
172. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 16, 2019 [online]. Available from: <>.
173. Muriel, AC and Hwang, VS and Kornblith, A. Management of psychosocial distress by oncologists. Psychiatric Services [online]. 2009, vol. 60, p. 1132-1134.
174. Na, KS. Interventions to reduce symptoms of common mental disorders and suicidal ideation in physicians. The Lancet Psychiatry [online]. 2019, vol. 6, p. 369.
175. Nabhan, C. “How could you do this, doctor. . . ?”. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine [online]. 2009, vol. 26, p. 239-240.
176. Nissim, R and Malfitano, C and Coleman, M. A Qualitative Study of a Compassion, Presence, and Resilience Training for Oncology Interprofessional Teams. Journal of Holistic Nursing [online]. 2019, vol. 37, p. 30-44.
178. O'Byrne, KK and Peterson, L and Saldana, L. Survey of Pediatric Hospitals' Preparation Programs: Evidence of the Impact of Health Psychology Research. Health Psychology [online]. 1997, vol. 16, p. 147-154.
179. BMC Cancer 18, 2018 [online]. Available from: <>.
180. Paula Vega, V and Rina González, R and José Bustos, M. Relationship between grief support and burnout syndrome in professionals and technicians of pediatric health. Revista Chilena de Pediatria [online]. 2017, vol. 88, p. 614-621.
181. Penson, RT and Dignan, FL and Canellos, GP. Burnout: Caring for the caregivers. Oncologist [online]. 2000, vol. 5, p. 425-434.
182. Penson, RT and Partridge, RA and Rudd, P. Laughter: The best medicine?. Oncologist [online]. 2005, vol. 10, p. 651-660.
183. Poulsen, M and Poulsen, AA. Optimising motivation and reducing burnout for radiation oncology trainees: A framework using self-determination theory. Pigment Cell and Melanoma Research [online]. 2018, vol. 31, p. 684-691.
184. Poulsen, MG and Poulsen, AA and Khan, A. Work engagement in cancer workers in Queensland: The flip side of burnout. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology [online]. 2011, vol. 55, p. 425-432.
185. Poulsen, MG and Poulsen, AA and Khan, A. Factors associated with subjective wellbeing in cancer workers in Queensland. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology [online]. 2012, vol. 56, p. 347-353.
186. Pye, K. Exploring moral distress in pediatric oncology; A sample of registered practitioners. Comprehensive Child and Adolescent Nursing [online]. 2013, vol. 36, p. 248-261.
187. Ramey, SJ and Ahmed, AA and Takita, C. Burnout Evaluation of Radiation Residents Nationwide: Results of a Survey of United States Residents. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics [online]. 2017, vol. 99, p. 530-538.
188. Ramirez, AJ and Graham, J and Richards, MA. Burnout and Psychiatric-Disorder among Cancer Clinician. British Journal of Cancer [online]. 1995, vol. 71, p. 1263-1269.
189. Raphael, MJ and Fundytus, A and Hopman, WM. Medical oncology job satisfaction: Results of a global survey. Semin Oncol [online]. 2019, vol. 46, p. 73-82.
190. Rath, K and Huffman, L and Carpenter, K. Burnout is associated with decreased career satisfaction and psychosocial distress amongmembers of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO). Gynecologic Oncology [online]. 2014, vol. 133, p. 44.
191. Rath, KS and Huffman, LB and Phillips, GS. Burnout and associated factors among members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Presented at the 45th Annual Meeting on Women's Cancer, Society of Gynecology Oncology, Tampa, FL, March 22-25, 2014. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology [online]. 2015, vol. 213, p. 824.e1-824.e9.
192. Ratti, MM and Di Mattei, V and Del Po, F. Psychological issues in oncology care: A multicentric study on burnout claudia yvonne finocchiaro. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2009, vol. 18, p. S231-S232.
193. Rohan, E and Bausch, J. Climbing Everest: Oncology work as an expedition in caring. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology [online]. 2009, vol. 27, p. 84-118.
194. Romeo, M and Belbusti, V and Giampieri, R. Is burnout the real problem of the operators in oncology field? Exploratory analysis of data from a single institution in italy. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2016, vol. 25, p. 121.
195. Annals of Oncology 27, 2016 [online]. Available from: <>.
196. Rosenstein, D. “this feels like internship all over again-: A monthly support group for first year hematology/oncology fellows. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2019, vol. 28, p. 22-23.
197. Roth, M and Morrone, K and Moody, K. Career burnout among pediatric oncologists. Pediatr Blood Cancer [online]. 2011, vol. 57, p. 1168-1173.
198. Pract Radiat Oncol, 2019 [online]. Available from: <>.
199. Russo, A and De Luca, R and Cicero, G. Well-being among Italian medical oncologists: an exploratory study. Oncology [online]. 2014, vol. 86, p. 72-78.
200. Sargsyan, M and Gevorgyan, D and Sargsyan, A. Role of the personal peculiarities in the development of the emotional burnout syndrome among oncologists. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2017, vol. 26, p. 149.
202. Schirmers, C. The plight of oncologists: Burnout and biotechnology. Boston University, 2016.
203. Schraub, S and Marx, E. Burn out syndrom in oncology. Bulletin Du Cancer [online]. 2004, vol. 91, p. 673-676.
204. Shanafelt, T and Chung, H and White, H. Shaping your career to maximize personal satisfaction in the practice of oncology. J Clin Oncol [online]. 2006, vol. 24, p. 4020-4026.
205. Shanafelt, TD. Finding meaning, balance, and personal satisfaction in the practice of oncology. Journal of Supportive Oncology [online]. 2005, vol. 3, p. 157-164.
206. Shanafelt, TD and Gradishar, WJ and Kosty, M. Burnout and career satisfaction among US oncologists. J Clin Oncol [online]. 2014, vol. 32, p. 678-686.
207. Shanafelt, TD and Kaups, KL and Nelson, H. An interactive individualized intervention to promote behavioral change to increase personal well-being in US surgeons. Annals of surgery [online]. 2014, vol. 259, p. 82.
208. Shanafelt, TD and Novotny, P and Johnson, ME. The well-being and personal wellness promotion strategies of medical oncologists in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Oncology [online]. 2005, vol. 68, p. 23-32.
209. Shanafelt, TD and Raymond, M and Horn, L. Oncology fellows' career plans, expectations, and well-being: do fellows know what they are getting into?. J Clin Oncol [online]. 2014, vol. 32, p. 2991-2997.
210. Shanafelt, TD and Raymond, M and Kosty, M. Satisfaction with work-life balance and the career and retirement plans of US oncologists. Journal of Clinical Oncology [online]. 2014, vol. 32, p. 1127-1135.
211. Shayne, M and Quill, TE. Oncologists responding to grief. Archives of Internal Medicine [online]. 2012, vol. 172, p. 966-967.
212. Shereck, E and Recht, M and Steckler, N. Intervention to prevent burnout in pediatric hematology/oncology fellows. Pediatric Blood and Cancer [online]. 2014, vol. 61, p. S88.
213. Sheth, N and Osborn, VW and Lee, A. Burnout in Radiation Oncology: A Pilot Residency Wellness Program. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics [online]. 2019, vol. 105, p. E156.
214. Shimp W: Reluctant reflections. An oncologist's take on how physician and patient burnout might be prevented. Minnesota medicine [online]. 2014, vol. 97, p. 32-34.
215. Shinan-Altman, S and Cohen, M and Rasmussen, V. Burnout among psychosocial oncologists in Israel: The direct and indirect effects of job demands and job resources. Palliat Support Care [online]. 2018, vol. 16, p. 677-684.
216. Sundquist, KJ and Pearce, K and Blair, T. Building resilience in challenging times. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology [online]. 2009, vol. 5, p. A257-A258.
217. Swetz, KM and Harrington, SE and Matsuyama, RK. Strategies for Avoiding Burnout in Hospice and Palliative Medicine: Peer Advice for Physicians on Achieving Longevity and Fulfillment. Journal of Palliative Medicine [online]. 2009, vol. 12, p. 773-777.
218. Tamura, N and Park, S and Sato, Y. Study protocol for evaluating the efficacy of Mindfulness for Health Professionals Building Resilience and Compassion program: a randomized, waiting-list controlled trial. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology Research and Practice [online]. 2020, vol. 2, p. e22.
219. Thompson, M and Lightowlers, S and Hunt, S. Supporting trainee oncologists with the emotional demands of caring for cancer patients. European Journal of Surgical Oncology [online]. 2018, vol. 44, p. S26.
220. Torres, B and Guarino, L. Individual differences and burnout in venezuelan oncologists. Universitas Psychologica [online]. 2013, vol. 12, p. 95-104.
221. Tucunduva, LTCdM and Garcia, AP and Prudente, FVB. A síndrome da estafa profissional em médicos cancerologistas brasileiros. Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras. (1992) [online]. 2006, vol. 52, p. 108-112.
222. Turner, TB and Kushner, DM and Winkel, AF. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology wellness curriculum pilot: A groundbreaking initiative for fellowship training. Gynecol Oncol [online]. , vol. 156, p. 710-714.
223. Vachon, M and Fillion, L and Goyette, C. Improving palliative care through staff support: A collaborative research project. Psycho-Oncology [online]. 2016, vol. 25, p. 110.
224. Vasylyeva, A. Psychopharmacotherapy of emotional burnout and depression among oncology staff. European Neuropsychopharmacology [online]. 2011, vol. 21, p. S450-S451.
225. Vetter, MH and Vetter, MK and Fowler, J. Resilience, hope and flourishing are inversely associated with burnout among members of the Society for Gynecologic Oncology. Gynecol Oncol Rep [online]. 2018, vol. 25, p. 52-55.
226. Vici, P and Krasniqi, E and Pizzuti, L. Burnout of health care providers during the covid-19 pandemic: Focus on medical oncologists. International Journal of Medical Sciences [online]. 2021, vol. 18, p. 2235-2238.
227. Wan, L. Caring for the carers. The Lancet Oncology [online]. 2008, vol. 9, p. 212-213.
Dados de acesso insuficientes para visualização no mapa.