Validation of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory in Pharmacists.

Olajide O Fadare, Michael Andreski, Matthew J Witry
Author Information
  1. Olajide O Fadare: University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
  2. Michael Andreski: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa.
  3. Matthew J Witry: University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to 1) determine the validity of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) for use in the assessment of burnout in a sample of pharmacists using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and 2) use the CBI items and other measures of work-life to assess burnout in pharmacists employed in various types of practice.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to a sample of 2,582 pharmacists in a single Midwestern US state. The survey included the three subscales of the CBI, each of which measures personal, work-related, and patient-related dimensions of burnout. Other items included demographics, practice type, workload, and work-life balance. CFA was used to measure fit, and Cronbach's alpha was used to assess reliability. Correlation was used to assess criterion validity of the CBI. Logistic regression and bivariate analyses were used to assess pharmacist burnout based on demographics.
RESULTS: Following the removal of 2 items from the measurement model, a 17-item 3-factor CBI was found to possess satisfactory psychometric properties for use in pharmacists. The CBI correlated with measures of work-life demonstrating criterion validity. A logistic regression showed that younger pharmacists and community pharmacists experience higher burnout than older pharmacists and clinical pharmacists. Community pharmacists also more often reported high workloads and poorer work-life integration. Both community and clinic pharmacists desired more time providing patient care services and less time dispensing.
CONCLUSION: The CBI is a psychometrically reliable and valid instrument for assessing burnout in pharmacists. Younger pharmacists and community pharmacists warrant attention due to their higher degree of burnout.

Keywords

References

  1. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 1;178(10):1317-1331 [PMID: 30193239]
  2. J Gen Intern Med. 2015 May;30(5):582-7 [PMID: 25451989]
  3. BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 26;9(9):e024448 [PMID: 31558448]
  4. Pharmacy (Basel). 2018 Jul 04;6(3): [PMID: 29973518]
  5. Am Pharm. 1991 Sep;NS31(9):27-31 [PMID: 1951038]
  6. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2015 Mar;86(1):71-80 [PMID: 25437488]
  7. Hosp Pharm. 2021 Aug;56(4):374-377 [PMID: 34381277]
  8. J Appl Psychol. 2003 Oct;88(5):879-903 [PMID: 14516251]
  9. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008 Dec 15;72(6):137 [PMID: 19325957]
  10. Can Fam Physician. 1986 Nov;32:2366-8 [PMID: 21267217]
  11. J Grad Med Educ. 2009 Dec;1(2):225-30 [PMID: 21975983]
  12. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2018 Mar 1;75(5):292-297 [PMID: 29472510]
  13. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2018 Jan;14(1):106-111 [PMID: 28087207]
  14. Psychol Health. 2001 Sep;16(5):501-10 [PMID: 22804495]
  15. Pharm Hist. 2001;43(2-3):75-85 [PMID: 11837273]
  16. Int J Behav Med. 2010 Jun;17(2):143-53 [PMID: 19924543]
  17. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:397-422 [PMID: 11148311]
  18. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017 Sep 1;74(17):1296-1297 [PMID: 28842454]
  19. Hosp Pharm. 2017 Dec;52(11):742-751 [PMID: 29276254]
  20. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2004 May-Jun;44(3):326-36 [PMID: 15191243]
  21. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Sep-Oct;21(5):182-8 [PMID: 12224881]
  22. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2011 Mar;7(1):51-63 [PMID: 21397881]
  23. J Clin Psychol. 1986 May;42(3):488-92 [PMID: 3711351]
  24. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2007 Sep;3(3):285-302 [PMID: 17945159]
  25. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 1999 May-Jun;39(3):353-61 [PMID: 10363462]
  26. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Jul;46(7):894-902 [PMID: 19362309]
  27. J Affect Disord. 2003 Aug;75(3):209-21 [PMID: 12880934]
  28. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2008 Sep;4(3):231-43 [PMID: 18794034]
  29. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2000 May 15;57(10):975-84 [PMID: 10832498]
  30. Psychosom Med. 2012 Oct;74(8):840-7 [PMID: 23006431]
  31. PLoS One. 2016 Jul 08;11(7):e0159015 [PMID: 27391946]
  32. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020 Mar 5;77(6):441-448 [PMID: 31950988]
  33. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013 Dec;88(12):1358-67 [PMID: 24290109]
  34. Acad Psychiatry. 2009 Nov-Dec;33(6):431-41 [PMID: 19933883]
  35. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Sep 2;149(5):334-41 [PMID: 18765703]
  36. Mayo Clin Proc. 2017 Jan;92(1):129-146 [PMID: 27871627]
  37. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2007 Mar-Apr;47(2):165-73 [PMID: 17510003]
  38. Hosp Pharm. 1982 Oct;17(10):547-50 [PMID: 10257185]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0pharmacistsCBIburnoutwork-lifeassessusedvalidityBurnoutuse2itemsmeasuressurveycommunityCopenhagenInventorysampleCFApracticeincludeddemographicsworkloadcriterionregressionmeasurementhighertimeOBJECTIVES:studyaimed1determineassessmentusingconfirmatoryfactoranalysisemployedvarioustypesMETHODS:cross-sectionaladministered582singleMidwesternUSstatethreesubscalespersonalwork-relatedpatient-relateddimensionstypebalancemeasurefitCronbach'salphareliabilityCorrelationLogisticbivariateanalysespharmacistbasedRESULTS:Followingremovalmodel17-item3-factorfoundpossesssatisfactorypsychometricpropertiescorrelateddemonstratinglogisticshowedyoungerexperienceolderclinicalCommunityalsooftenreportedhighworkloadspoorerintegrationclinicdesiredprovidingpatientcareserviceslessdispensingCONCLUSION:psychometricallyreliablevalidinstrumentassessingYoungerwarrantattentionduedegreeValidationPharmacistspharmacy

Similar Articles

Cited By