Importance: Burnout is prevalent in physicians and can have a negative influence on performance, career continuation, and patient care. Existing evidence does not allow clear recommendations for the management of burnout in physicians.Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce burnout in physicians and whether different types of interventions (physician-directed or organization-directed interventions), physician characteristics (length of experience), and health care setting characteristics (primary or secondary care) were associated with improved effects.Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to May 31, 2016. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were hand searched.Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and controlled before-after studies of interventions targeting burnout in physicians.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The main meta-analysis was followed by a number of prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. All analyses were performed using random-effects models and heterogeneity was quantified.Main Outcomes and Measures: The core outcome was burnout scores focused on emotional exhaustion, reported as standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals.Results: Twenty independent comparisons from 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis (n = 1550 physicians; mean [SD] age, 40.3 [9.5] years; 49% male). Interventions were associated with small significant reductions in burnout (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.29; 95% CI, −0.42 to −0.16; equal to a drop of 3 points on the emotional exhaustion domain of the Maslach Burnout Inventory above change in the controls). Subgroup analyses suggested significantly improved effects for organization-directed interventions (SMD = −0.45; 95% CI, −0.62 to −0.28) compared with physician-directed interventions (SMD = −0.18; 95% CI, −0.32 to −0.03). Interventions delivered in experienced physicians and in primary care were associated with higher effects compared with interventions delivered in inexperienced physicians and in secondary care, but these differences were not significant. The results were not influenced by the risk of bias ratings.Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence from this meta-analysis suggests that recent intervention programs for burnout in physicians were associated with small benefits that may be boosted by adoption of organization-directed approaches. This finding provides support for the view that burnout is a problem of the whole health care organization, rather than individuals.

The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire that has been developed in primary care to distinguish non-specific general distress from depression, anxiety and somatization. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate its criterion and construct validity. Data from 10 different primary care studies have been used. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the 4DSQ scores with clinical diagnoses, the GPs' diagnosis of any psychosocial problem for Distress, standardised psychiatric diagnoses for Depression and Anxiety, and GPs' suspicion of somatization for Somatization. ROC analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations. Construct validity was evaluated by investigating the inter-correlations between the scales, the factorial structure, the associations with other symptom questionnaires, and the associations with stress, personality and social functioning. The factorial structure of the 4DSQ was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The associations with other questionnaires were assessed with Pearson correlations and regression analyses. Regarding criterion validity, the Distress scale was associated with any psychosocial diagnosis (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.79), the Depression scale was associated with major depression (AUC = 0.83), the Anxiety scale was associated with anxiety disorder (AUC = 0.66), and the Somatization scale was associated with the GPs' suspicion of somatization (AUC = 0.65). Regarding the construct validity, the 4DSQ scales appeared to have considerable inter-correlations (r = 0.35-0.71). However, 30–40% of the variance of each scale was unique for that scale. CFA confirmed the 4-factor structure with a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.92. The 4DSQ scales correlated with most other questionnaires measuring corresponding constructs. However, the 4DSQ Distress scale appeared to correlate with some other depression scales more than the 4DSQ Depression scale. Measures of stress (i.e. life events, psychosocial problems, and work stress) were mainly associated with Distress, while Distress, in turn, was mainly associated with psychosocial dysfunctioning, including sick leave. The 4DSQ seems to be a valid self-report questionnaire to measure distress, depression, anxiety and somatization in primary care patients. The 4DSQ Distress scale appears to measure the most general, most common, expression of psychological problems.

Chronic pain is commonly co-morbid with a depressive or anxiety disorder. Objective of this study is to examine the influence of depression, along with anxiety, on pain-related disability, pain intensity, and pain location in a large sample of adults with and without a depressive and/or anxiety disorder. The study population consisted of 2981 participants with a depressive, anxiety, co-morbid depressive and anxiety disorder, remitted disorder or no current disorder (controls). Severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms was also assessed. In separate multinomial regression analyses, the association of presence of depressive or anxiety disorders and symptom severity with the Chronic Pain Grade and location of pain was explored. Presence of a depressive (OR = 6.67; P<.001), anxiety (OR = 4.84; P<.001), or co-morbid depressive and anxiety disorder (OR = 30.26; P<.001) was associated with the Chronic Pain Grade. Moreover, symptom severity was associated with more disabling and severely limiting pain. Also, a remitted depressive or anxiety disorder showed more disabling and severely limiting pain (OR = 3.53; P<.001) as compared to controls. A current anxiety disorder (OR = 2.96; p<.001) and a co-morbid depressive and anxiety disorder (OR = 5.15; P<.001) were more strongly associated with cardio-respiratory pain, than gastro-intestinal or musculoskeletal pain. These findings remain after adjustment for chronic cardio respiratory illness. Patients with a current and remitted depressive and/or anxiety disorder and those with more severe symptoms have more disabling pain and pain of cardio-respiratory nature, than persons without a depressive or anxiety disorder. This warrants further research.