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