Evaluation of the reboot coaching workshops among urology trainees: A mixed method approach.

Tmam Al-Ghunaim, Judith Johnson, Chandra Shekhar Biyani, Rebecca Coleman, Ruth Simms-Ellis, Daryl B O'Connor
Author Information
  1. Tmam Al-Ghunaim: School of Psychology University of Leeds Leeds UK. ORCID
  2. Judith Johnson: School of Psychology University of Leeds Leeds UK. ORCID
  3. Chandra Shekhar Biyani: Department of Urology St James's University Hospital Leeds UK. ORCID
  4. Rebecca Coleman: School of Psychology University of Leeds Leeds UK.
  5. Ruth Simms-Ellis: School of Psychology University of Leeds Leeds UK.
  6. Daryl B O'Connor: School of Psychology University of Leeds Leeds UK.

Abstract

Background: Urology trainees experience high burnout, and there is an urgent need for acceptable and effective interventions. The current study evaluated Reboot coaching workshops (Reboot-C), a tailored intervention based on cognitive-behavioural principles, with urology trainees.
Objective: Our primary objective was to evaluate the acceptability of Reboot-C among urology trainees. In addition, this study aimed to investigate whether there were changes in confidence, resilience, depression and burnout levels.
Materials and method: A single-arm design was used, including pre- and post-online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews.
Result: Twenty-one urology trainees replied to the survey, attended both Reboot-C workshops and responded to the post-intervention questionnaire. Thirteen of 21 (61%) urology trainees participated in the interview. Participating in Reboot-C was associated with significant improvements in resilience and confidence and a significant reduction in burnout. However, there was no significant reduction in depression. Qualitative data indicated that Reboot was acceptable and helped participants develop useful skills.
Conclusion: These findings pave the way for more conclusive studies on the efficacy of Reboot-C for surgeons.

Keywords

References

  1. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 1;178(10):1317-1331 [PMID: 30193239]
  2. Ann Fam Med. 2018 May;16(3):267-270 [PMID: 29760034]
  3. Occup Med (Lond). 2023 Mar 15;73(2):103-108 [PMID: 36516291]
  4. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020 Jun;51:102119 [PMID: 32339895]
  5. J Surg Educ. 2022 Sep-Oct;79(5):1206-1220 [PMID: 35659443]
  6. Int J Behav Med. 2008;15(3):194-200 [PMID: 18696313]
  7. BMC Public Health. 2011 Apr 19;11:249 [PMID: 21504610]
  8. Br J Surg. 2022 Mar 15;109(4):308-310 [PMID: 35084452]
  9. Braz Dent J. 2021 Jul-Aug;32(4):116-126 [PMID: 34787247]
  10. Ann Surg. 2010 Jun;251(6):995-1000 [PMID: 19934755]
  11. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022 Mar 17;8(1):63 [PMID: 35300720]
  12. Bull World Health Organ. 2022 Jun 1;100(6):385-401A [PMID: 35694622]
  13. J Am Coll Surg. 2018 Jan;226(1):80-90 [PMID: 29107117]
  14. BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 2;11(8):e045150 [PMID: 34341033]
  15. Int J Surg. 2022 May;101:106613 [PMID: 35421612]
  16. Open Med (Wars). 2018 Jul 04;13:253-263 [PMID: 29992189]
  17. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Nov 27;20(1):1094 [PMID: 33246457]
  18. Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Mar 14;10(3): [PMID: 35327003]
  19. Am J Prev Med. 2009 May;36(5):452-7 [PMID: 19362699]
  20. BJUI Compass. 2023 May 02;4(5):533-542 [PMID: 37636204]
  21. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017 Mar;52:19-42 [PMID: 27918887]
  22. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Feb 1;177(2):195-205 [PMID: 27918798]
  23. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Dec;104(8):1291-1295 [PMID: 30341030]
  24. BJU Int. 2019 Aug;124(2):349-356 [PMID: 30993851]
  25. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2020 Jul;102(6):401-407 [PMID: 32326734]
  26. Anaesthesia. 2020 Oct;75(10):1364-1371 [PMID: 32534465]
  27. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Nov 5;11:CD013779 [PMID: 33150970]
  28. Health Care Manage Rev. 2023 Jan-Mar 01;48(1):52-60 [PMID: 35713571]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0traineesurologyReboot-CburnoutworkshopsconfidenceresiliencedepressionsignificantacceptablestudyRebootcoachingamongreductionBackground:Urologyexperiencehighurgentneedeffectiveinterventionscurrentevaluatedtailoredinterventionbasedcognitive-behaviouralprinciplesObjective:primaryobjectiveevaluateacceptabilityadditionaimedinvestigatewhetherchangeslevelsMaterialsmethod:single-armdesignusedincludingpre-post-onlinequestionnairessemi-structuredinterviewsResult:Twenty-onerepliedsurveyattendedrespondedpost-interventionquestionnaireThirteen2161%participatedinterviewParticipatingassociatedimprovementsHoweverQualitativedataindicatedhelpedparticipantsdevelopusefulskillsConclusion:findingspavewayconclusivestudiesefficacysurgeonsEvaluationreboottrainees:mixedmethodapproachReboot���C

Similar Articles

Cited By