Skip to main content

Table 1 A summary of the evidence for associations between work environment factors and different dimensions of burnout

From: A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and burnout symptoms

Work factor Burnout dimensions – participants, number of studies and scientific evidence
  Emotional exhaustion Depersonalisation, cynicism Reduced personal accomplishment aBurnout or symptoms of exhaustion
Relationship between occupational environment and MORE burnout
 Low job control 19 769 9 1 396 4 123 1 3 252 2
 Demands, unspecified 21 014 13 1 354 4 5 807 3
 Demands, emotional 1 591 5 701 3 123 1 952 1
 Demands from patients 1 050 3 1 040 3 207 1
 Low co-worker support 12 788 4 708 2 123 1
 Low super-visor support 16 073 5 708 1 123 1 952 1
 Low work-place support 19 747 9 681 3 485 2 3 863 4
 High work load 2 290 7 1 908 6 821 3 1 201 2
 Low reward 569 2 569 2 569 2
 Job insecurity 12 449 3
Relationship between occupational environment and LESS burnout
 Workplace justice 921 3 446 1 446 1 662 1
The scientific evidence is insufficient
 Job strain   2 555 1
 Job development   952 1
 Work place conflicts 3 004 1  
 Threats 585 1   
 Lack of feedback 207 1   
 Aspects of the occupational role 274 1 274 1 274 1 952 1
 Long working week 523 1
 Physical environment   362 1
  1. aIncludes outcome from Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), which measures symptoms of fatigue and exhaustion [7]
  2. Criteria for evidence grading
  3. There is moderate scientific evidence for a relationship between exposure and outcome. The result is based on studies of high quality
  4. There is limited scientific evidence for a relationship between exposure and outcome. The result is based on studies of high or moderate quality
  5. It is not possible to determine if there is a relationship between exposure and outcome. The motivation is that one or several conditions apply: 1) no study fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 2) none of the studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were relevant to the hypothesis tested in the present review, 3) all relevant studies were of low quality or 4) studies were of high or moderate quality – but one or several limitations applied, e.g. inconsistency between studies
  6. Has not been reviewed, due to lack of studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria