Chinese General Practice ›› 2022, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (07): 829-836.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.00.002
Special Issue: 社区卫生服务最新研究合辑; 家庭医生团队最新文章合集
• Original Research·Practice Status of Primary Health Worker • Previous Articles Next Articles
Burnout and Associated Factors among Family Doctor Team Members in Different Types of Primary Healthcare Institutions:a Comparative Study
1.Center for Health Management and Policy Research,School of Public Health,Cheeloo College of Medicine,Shandong University,Jinan 250012,China
2.Shandong University Center for Health Economics Experiment and Public Policy Research,Jinan 250012,China
3.NHC Key Lab of Health Economics and Policy Research(Shandong University),Jinan 250012,China
*Corresponding author:XU Lingzhong,Professor,Doctoral supervisor;E-mail:lzxu@sdu.edu.cn
Received:
2021-11-10
Revised:
2021-12-26
Published:
2022-03-05
Online:
2022-03-02
通讯作者:
徐凌忠
基金资助:
CLC Number:
JING Yurong, HAN Wantong, QIN Wenzhe, HU Fangfang, ZHANG Jiao, GAO Zhaorong, HONG Zhuang, KONG Fanlei, XU Lingzhong.
Burnout and Associated Factors among Family Doctor Team Members in Different Types of Primary Healthcare Institutions:a Comparative Study [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2022, 25(07): 829-836.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chinagp.net/EN/10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.00.002
机构类型 | 例数 | 性别 | 年龄 | 婚姻状况 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
男 | 女 | ≤30岁 | 31~40岁 | 41~50岁 | ≥51岁 | 非在婚 | 在婚 | ||
社区卫生服务中心/乡镇卫生院 | 201 | 57(28.4) | 144(71.6) | 37(18.4) | 85(42.3) | 69(34.3) | 10(5.0) | 26(12.9) | 175(87.1) |
社区卫生服务站/村卫生室 | 559 | 364(65.1) | 195(34.9) | 11(2.0) | 98(17.5) | 289(51.7) | 161(28.8) | 32(5.7) | 527(94.3) |
χ2值 | 80.843 | 147.672 | 10.905 | ||||||
P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 |
Table 1 Comparison of the demographics of family doctor team members in different types of primary healthcare institutions
机构类型 | 例数 | 性别 | 年龄 | 婚姻状况 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
男 | 女 | ≤30岁 | 31~40岁 | 41~50岁 | ≥51岁 | 非在婚 | 在婚 | ||
社区卫生服务中心/乡镇卫生院 | 201 | 57(28.4) | 144(71.6) | 37(18.4) | 85(42.3) | 69(34.3) | 10(5.0) | 26(12.9) | 175(87.1) |
社区卫生服务站/村卫生室 | 559 | 364(65.1) | 195(34.9) | 11(2.0) | 98(17.5) | 289(51.7) | 161(28.8) | 32(5.7) | 527(94.3) |
χ2值 | 80.843 | 147.672 | 10.905 | ||||||
P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 |
机构类型 | 例数 | 职业倦怠得分(![]() | 职业倦怠程度〔n(%)〕 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
情感耗竭维度 | 去个性化维度 | 个人成就感降低维度 | 总得分 | 零 | 轻度 | 中度 | 重度 | ||
社区卫生服务中心/乡镇卫生院 | 201 | 17.94±8.19 | 9.39±5.79 | 16.24±8.88 | 43.56±15.16 | 73(36.3) | 76(37.8) | 45(22.4) | 7(3.5) |
社区卫生服务站/村卫生室 | 559 | 19.13±9.29 | 10.16±6.59 | 17.89±9.88 | 47.18±17.32 | 163(29.1) | 210(37.6) | 134(24.0) | 52(9.3) |
t(Z)值 | -1.708 | -1.571 | -2.189 | -2.791 | -2.496a | ||||
P值 | 0.088 | 0.117 | 0.029 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
Table 2 Comparison of total score and subscale scores of Chinese version of Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey as well as level of burnout between family doctors in different types of primary healthcare institutions
机构类型 | 例数 | 职业倦怠得分(![]() | 职业倦怠程度〔n(%)〕 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
情感耗竭维度 | 去个性化维度 | 个人成就感降低维度 | 总得分 | 零 | 轻度 | 中度 | 重度 | ||
社区卫生服务中心/乡镇卫生院 | 201 | 17.94±8.19 | 9.39±5.79 | 16.24±8.88 | 43.56±15.16 | 73(36.3) | 76(37.8) | 45(22.4) | 7(3.5) |
社区卫生服务站/村卫生室 | 559 | 19.13±9.29 | 10.16±6.59 | 17.89±9.88 | 47.18±17.32 | 163(29.1) | 210(37.6) | 134(24.0) | 52(9.3) |
t(Z)值 | -1.708 | -1.571 | -2.189 | -2.791 | -2.496a | ||||
P值 | 0.088 | 0.117 | 0.029 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
项目 | 基层医疗卫生机构 | 社区卫生服务中心/乡镇卫生院 | 社区卫生服务站/村卫生室 | 项目 | 基层医疗卫生机构 | 社区卫生服务中心/乡镇卫生院 | 社区卫生服务站/村卫生室 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
性别 | 岗位 | ||||||||
男 | 73.4(309/421) | 66.7(38/57) | 74.5(271/364) | 全科医生 | 69.6(217/312) | 64.4(47/73) | 71.1(170/239) | ||
女 | 63.4(215/339) | 62.5(90/144) | 64.1(125/195) | 公共卫生医生 | 71.0(247/348) | 69.7(46/66) | 71.3(201/282) | ||
χ2值 | 8.727 | 0.307 | 6.582 | 护士 | 62.5(45/72) | 56.9(29/51) | 76.2(16/21) | ||
P值 | 0.003 | 0.580 | 0.010 | 其他 | 53.6(15/28) | 54.5(6/11) | 52.9(9/17) | ||
年龄(岁) | χ2值 | 5.213 | 2.563 | 2.866 | |||||
≤30 | 58.3(28/48) | 56.8(21/37) | 63.6(7/11) | P值 | 0.157 | 0.467 | 0.413 | ||
31~40 | 69.4(127/183) | 64.7(55/85) | 73.5(72/98) | 工作年限(年) | |||||
41~50 | 70.4(252/358) | 69.6(48/69) | 70.6(204/289) | ≤4 | 68.8(427/621) | 62.6(117/187) | 71.4(310/434) | ||
≥51 | 68.4(117/171) | 40.0(4/10) | 70.2(113/161) | ≥5 | 69.8(97/139) | 78.6(11/14) | 68.8(86/125) | ||
χ2值 | 2.914 | 4.227 | 0.777 | χ2值 | 0.056 | 1.443 | 0.325 | ||
P值 | 0.405 | 0.234 | 0.861 | P值 | 0.814 | 0.230 | 0.569 | ||
婚姻状况 | 签约团队负责人 | ||||||||
非在婚 | 72.4(42/58) | 69.2(18/26) | 75.0(24/32) | 否 | 68.9(384/557) | 62.8(86/137) | 71.0(298/420) | ||
在婚 | 68.7(482/702) | 62.9(110/175) | 70.6(372/527) | 是 | 69.0(140/203) | 65.6(42/64) | 70.5(98/139) | ||
χ2值 | 0.352 | 0.398 | 0.284 | χ2值 | <0.001 | 0.153 | 0.010 | ||
P值 | 0.553 | 0.528 | 0.594 | P值 | 0.995 | 0.695 | 0.920 | ||
受教育程度 | 自评居民认可度 | ||||||||
中专及以下 | 70.9(275/388) | 71.4(10/14) | 70.9(265/374) | 非常低/比较低 | 86.8(99/114) | 77.8(21/27) | 89.7(78/87) | ||
大专 | 66.2(137/207) | 55.7(39/70) | 71.5(98/137) | 一般 | 71.3(301/422) | 69.3(70/101) | 72.0(231/321) | ||
本科及以上 | 67.9(112/165) | 67.5(79/117) | 68.8(33/48) | 比较高/非常高 | 55.4(124/224) | 50.7(37/73) | 57.6(87/151) | ||
χ2值 | 1.501 | 3.030 | 0.133 | χ2值 | 37.490 | 9.033 | 27.889 | ||
P值 | 0.472 | 0.220 | 0.935 | P值 | <0.001 | 0.011 | <0.001 | ||
职称 | 报酬-工作量匹配度 | ||||||||
无 | 70.5(213/302) | 63.4(26/41) | 71.6(187/261) | 极不匹配/不太匹配 | 74.9(289/386) | 73.3(63/86) | 75.3(226/300) | ||
初级 | 69.5(223/321) | 72.1(62/86) | 68.5(161/235) | 一般 | 65.3(173/265) | 63.2(55/87) | 66.3(118/178) | ||
中级及以上 | 64.2(88/137) | 54.1(40/74) | 76.2(48/63) | 比较匹配/非常匹配 | 56.9(62/109) | 35.7(10/28) | 64.2(52/81) | ||
χ2值 | 1.816 | 5.598 | 1.573 | χ2值 | 15.400 | 12.886 | 6.445 | ||
P值 | 0.403 | 0.061 | 0.455 | P值 | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.040 | ||
月收入(元) | 自评工作压力 | ||||||||
<2 000 | 70.7(268/379) | 66.7(20/30) | 71.1(248/349) | 无/较小 | 50.3(89/177) | 42.9(27/63) | 54.4(62/114) | ||
2 000~4 000 | 71.4(187/262) | 70.5(62/88) | 71.8(125/174) | 一般 | 65.6(80/122) | 67.5(27/40) | 64.6(53/82) | ||
>4 000 | 58.0(69/119) | 55.4(46/83) | 63.9(23/36) | 较大/非常大 | 77.0(355/461) | 75.5(74/98) | 77.4(281/363) | ||
χ2值 | 7.954 | 4.309 | 0.934 | χ2值 | 43.435 | 17.993 | 24.057 | ||
P值 | 0.019 | 0.116 | 0.627 | P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
用工形式 | 自评激励机制有效性 | ||||||||
非在编 | 71.4(395/553) | 67.4(64/95) | 72.3(331/458) | 极不有效/不太有效 | 88.0(73/83) | 88.6(31/35) | 87.5(42/48) | ||
在编 | 62.3(129/207) | 60.4(64/106) | 64.4(65/101) | 一般 | 74.4(209/281) | 62.5(45/72) | 78.5(164/209) | ||
χ2值 | 5.838 | 1.059 | 2.509 | 比较有效/非常有效 | 61.1(242/396) | 55.3(52/94) | 62.9(190/302) | ||
P值 | 0.016 | 0.304 | 0.113 | χ2值 | 29.229 | 12.261 | 21.523 | ||
P值 | <0.001 | 0.002 | <0.001 |
Table 3 Comparison of burnout prevalence in family doctor team members in different types of primary healthcare institutions by personal characteristics
项目 | 基层医疗卫生机构 | 社区卫生服务中心/乡镇卫生院 | 社区卫生服务站/村卫生室 | 项目 | 基层医疗卫生机构 | 社区卫生服务中心/乡镇卫生院 | 社区卫生服务站/村卫生室 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
性别 | 岗位 | ||||||||
男 | 73.4(309/421) | 66.7(38/57) | 74.5(271/364) | 全科医生 | 69.6(217/312) | 64.4(47/73) | 71.1(170/239) | ||
女 | 63.4(215/339) | 62.5(90/144) | 64.1(125/195) | 公共卫生医生 | 71.0(247/348) | 69.7(46/66) | 71.3(201/282) | ||
χ2值 | 8.727 | 0.307 | 6.582 | 护士 | 62.5(45/72) | 56.9(29/51) | 76.2(16/21) | ||
P值 | 0.003 | 0.580 | 0.010 | 其他 | 53.6(15/28) | 54.5(6/11) | 52.9(9/17) | ||
年龄(岁) | χ2值 | 5.213 | 2.563 | 2.866 | |||||
≤30 | 58.3(28/48) | 56.8(21/37) | 63.6(7/11) | P值 | 0.157 | 0.467 | 0.413 | ||
31~40 | 69.4(127/183) | 64.7(55/85) | 73.5(72/98) | 工作年限(年) | |||||
41~50 | 70.4(252/358) | 69.6(48/69) | 70.6(204/289) | ≤4 | 68.8(427/621) | 62.6(117/187) | 71.4(310/434) | ||
≥51 | 68.4(117/171) | 40.0(4/10) | 70.2(113/161) | ≥5 | 69.8(97/139) | 78.6(11/14) | 68.8(86/125) | ||
χ2值 | 2.914 | 4.227 | 0.777 | χ2值 | 0.056 | 1.443 | 0.325 | ||
P值 | 0.405 | 0.234 | 0.861 | P值 | 0.814 | 0.230 | 0.569 | ||
婚姻状况 | 签约团队负责人 | ||||||||
非在婚 | 72.4(42/58) | 69.2(18/26) | 75.0(24/32) | 否 | 68.9(384/557) | 62.8(86/137) | 71.0(298/420) | ||
在婚 | 68.7(482/702) | 62.9(110/175) | 70.6(372/527) | 是 | 69.0(140/203) | 65.6(42/64) | 70.5(98/139) | ||
χ2值 | 0.352 | 0.398 | 0.284 | χ2值 | <0.001 | 0.153 | 0.010 | ||
P值 | 0.553 | 0.528 | 0.594 | P值 | 0.995 | 0.695 | 0.920 | ||
受教育程度 | 自评居民认可度 | ||||||||
中专及以下 | 70.9(275/388) | 71.4(10/14) | 70.9(265/374) | 非常低/比较低 | 86.8(99/114) | 77.8(21/27) | 89.7(78/87) | ||
大专 | 66.2(137/207) | 55.7(39/70) | 71.5(98/137) | 一般 | 71.3(301/422) | 69.3(70/101) | 72.0(231/321) | ||
本科及以上 | 67.9(112/165) | 67.5(79/117) | 68.8(33/48) | 比较高/非常高 | 55.4(124/224) | 50.7(37/73) | 57.6(87/151) | ||
χ2值 | 1.501 | 3.030 | 0.133 | χ2值 | 37.490 | 9.033 | 27.889 | ||
P值 | 0.472 | 0.220 | 0.935 | P值 | <0.001 | 0.011 | <0.001 | ||
职称 | 报酬-工作量匹配度 | ||||||||
无 | 70.5(213/302) | 63.4(26/41) | 71.6(187/261) | 极不匹配/不太匹配 | 74.9(289/386) | 73.3(63/86) | 75.3(226/300) | ||
初级 | 69.5(223/321) | 72.1(62/86) | 68.5(161/235) | 一般 | 65.3(173/265) | 63.2(55/87) | 66.3(118/178) | ||
中级及以上 | 64.2(88/137) | 54.1(40/74) | 76.2(48/63) | 比较匹配/非常匹配 | 56.9(62/109) | 35.7(10/28) | 64.2(52/81) | ||
χ2值 | 1.816 | 5.598 | 1.573 | χ2值 | 15.400 | 12.886 | 6.445 | ||
P值 | 0.403 | 0.061 | 0.455 | P值 | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.040 | ||
月收入(元) | 自评工作压力 | ||||||||
<2 000 | 70.7(268/379) | 66.7(20/30) | 71.1(248/349) | 无/较小 | 50.3(89/177) | 42.9(27/63) | 54.4(62/114) | ||
2 000~4 000 | 71.4(187/262) | 70.5(62/88) | 71.8(125/174) | 一般 | 65.6(80/122) | 67.5(27/40) | 64.6(53/82) | ||
>4 000 | 58.0(69/119) | 55.4(46/83) | 63.9(23/36) | 较大/非常大 | 77.0(355/461) | 75.5(74/98) | 77.4(281/363) | ||
χ2值 | 7.954 | 4.309 | 0.934 | χ2值 | 43.435 | 17.993 | 24.057 | ||
P值 | 0.019 | 0.116 | 0.627 | P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
用工形式 | 自评激励机制有效性 | ||||||||
非在编 | 71.4(395/553) | 67.4(64/95) | 72.3(331/458) | 极不有效/不太有效 | 88.0(73/83) | 88.6(31/35) | 87.5(42/48) | ||
在编 | 62.3(129/207) | 60.4(64/106) | 64.4(65/101) | 一般 | 74.4(209/281) | 62.5(45/72) | 78.5(164/209) | ||
χ2值 | 5.838 | 1.059 | 2.509 | 比较有效/非常有效 | 61.1(242/396) | 55.3(52/94) | 62.9(190/302) | ||
P值 | 0.016 | 0.304 | 0.113 | χ2值 | 29.229 | 12.261 | 21.523 | ||
P值 | <0.001 | 0.002 | <0.001 |
自变量 | 社区卫生服务中心/乡镇卫生院 | 社区卫生服务站/村卫生室 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | SE | Wald χ2值 | P值 | OR(95%CI) | b | SE | Wald χ2值 | P值 | OR(95%CI) | ||
性别(以男为参照) | |||||||||||
女 | -0.296 | 0.410 | 0.520 | 0.471 | 0.744(0.333,1.662) | -0.505 | 0.215 | 5.510 | 0.019 | 0.603(0.396,0.920) | |
年龄(岁,以≤30为参照) | |||||||||||
31~40 | 0.934 | 0.544 | 2.953 | 0.086 | 2.545(0.877,7.389) | -0.130 | 0.729 | 0.032 | 0.858 | 0.878(0.210,3.667) | |
41~50 | 1.963 | 0.710 | 7.639 | 0.006 | 7.119(1.770,28.638) | -0.259 | 0.700 | 0.137 | 0.712 | 0.772(0.196,3.042) | |
≥51 | 0.852 | 1.034 | 0.679 | 0.410 | 2.345(0.309,17.798) | -0.328 | 0.718 | 0.209 | 0.648 | 0.720(0.176,2.942) | |
职称(以无为参照) | |||||||||||
初级 | 0.261 | 0.501 | 0.272 | 0.602 | 1.298(0.487,3.465) | -0.122 | 0.212 | 0.333 | 0.564 | 0.885(0.584,1.341) | |
中级及以上 | -0.678 | 0.680 | 0.995 | 0.319 | 0.508(0.134,1.924) | 0.541 | 0.352 | 2.366 | 0.124 | 1.718(0.862,3.426) | |
月收入(元,以<2 000为参照) | |||||||||||
2 000~4 000 | -0.543 | 0.590 | 0.845 | 0.358 | 0.581(0.183,1.848) | 0.118 | 0.223 | 0.279 | 0.597 | 1.125(0.727,1.741) | |
>4 000 | -1.640 | 0.806 | 4.142 | 0.042 | 0.194(0.040,0.941) | -0.315 | 0.392 | 0.645 | 0.422 | 0.730(0.339,1.573) | |
用工形式(以非在编为参照) | |||||||||||
在编 | -0.201 | 0.508 | 0.156 | 0.693 | 0.818(0.303,2.213) | -0.385 | 0.252 | 2.325 | 0.127 | 0.681(0.415,1.116) | |
自评居民认可度(以非常低/比较低为参照) | |||||||||||
一般 | -0.690 | 0.635 | 1.179 | 0.278 | 0.502(0.144,1.743) | -1.356 | 0.423 | 10.284 | 0.001 | 0.258(0.113,0.590) | |
比较高/非常高 | -0.365 | 0.619 | 0.347 | 0.556 | 0.694(0.206,2.337) | -0.849 | 0.390 | 4.749 | 0.029 | 0.428(0.199,0.918) | |
报酬-工作量匹配度(以极不匹配/不太匹配为参照) | |||||||||||
一般 | -0.467 | 0.619 | 0.569 | 0.451 | 0.627(0.186,2.110) | 0.377 | 0.320 | 1.393 | 0.238 | 1.459(0.779,2.730) | |
比较匹配/非常匹配 | 0.363 | 0.437 | 0.691 | 0.406 | 1.438(0.611,3.384) | 0.158 | 0.247 | 0.410 | 0.522 | 1.171(0.722,1.900) | |
自评工作压力(以无/较小为参照) | |||||||||||
一般 | 0.720 | 0.515 | 1.959 | 0.162 | 2.055(0.749,5.635) | 0.289 | 0.317 | 0.829 | 0.363 | 1.335(0.717,2.486) | |
较大/非常大 | 1.289 | 0.459 | 7.874 | 0.005 | 3.629(1.475,8.929) | 0.842 | 0.270 | 9.747 | 0.002 | 2.320(1.368,3.935) | |
自评激励机制有效性(以极不有效/不太有效为参照) | |||||||||||
一般 | -1.630 | 0.677 | 5.793 | 0.016 | 0.196(0.052,0.739) | -0.836 | 0.485 | 2.970 | 0.085 | 0.434(0.168,1.122) | |
比较有效/非常有效 | -1.448 | 0.646 | 5.022 | 0.025 | 0.235(0.066,0.834) | -0.171 | 0.493 | 0.120 | 0.729 | 0.843(0.321,2.215) |
Table 4 Multivariate Logistic regression analysis of the influencing factors of burnout among family doctor team members in different types of primary healthcare institutions
自变量 | 社区卫生服务中心/乡镇卫生院 | 社区卫生服务站/村卫生室 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
b | SE | Wald χ2值 | P值 | OR(95%CI) | b | SE | Wald χ2值 | P值 | OR(95%CI) | ||
性别(以男为参照) | |||||||||||
女 | -0.296 | 0.410 | 0.520 | 0.471 | 0.744(0.333,1.662) | -0.505 | 0.215 | 5.510 | 0.019 | 0.603(0.396,0.920) | |
年龄(岁,以≤30为参照) | |||||||||||
31~40 | 0.934 | 0.544 | 2.953 | 0.086 | 2.545(0.877,7.389) | -0.130 | 0.729 | 0.032 | 0.858 | 0.878(0.210,3.667) | |
41~50 | 1.963 | 0.710 | 7.639 | 0.006 | 7.119(1.770,28.638) | -0.259 | 0.700 | 0.137 | 0.712 | 0.772(0.196,3.042) | |
≥51 | 0.852 | 1.034 | 0.679 | 0.410 | 2.345(0.309,17.798) | -0.328 | 0.718 | 0.209 | 0.648 | 0.720(0.176,2.942) | |
职称(以无为参照) | |||||||||||
初级 | 0.261 | 0.501 | 0.272 | 0.602 | 1.298(0.487,3.465) | -0.122 | 0.212 | 0.333 | 0.564 | 0.885(0.584,1.341) | |
中级及以上 | -0.678 | 0.680 | 0.995 | 0.319 | 0.508(0.134,1.924) | 0.541 | 0.352 | 2.366 | 0.124 | 1.718(0.862,3.426) | |
月收入(元,以<2 000为参照) | |||||||||||
2 000~4 000 | -0.543 | 0.590 | 0.845 | 0.358 | 0.581(0.183,1.848) | 0.118 | 0.223 | 0.279 | 0.597 | 1.125(0.727,1.741) | |
>4 000 | -1.640 | 0.806 | 4.142 | 0.042 | 0.194(0.040,0.941) | -0.315 | 0.392 | 0.645 | 0.422 | 0.730(0.339,1.573) | |
用工形式(以非在编为参照) | |||||||||||
在编 | -0.201 | 0.508 | 0.156 | 0.693 | 0.818(0.303,2.213) | -0.385 | 0.252 | 2.325 | 0.127 | 0.681(0.415,1.116) | |
自评居民认可度(以非常低/比较低为参照) | |||||||||||
一般 | -0.690 | 0.635 | 1.179 | 0.278 | 0.502(0.144,1.743) | -1.356 | 0.423 | 10.284 | 0.001 | 0.258(0.113,0.590) | |
比较高/非常高 | -0.365 | 0.619 | 0.347 | 0.556 | 0.694(0.206,2.337) | -0.849 | 0.390 | 4.749 | 0.029 | 0.428(0.199,0.918) | |
报酬-工作量匹配度(以极不匹配/不太匹配为参照) | |||||||||||
一般 | -0.467 | 0.619 | 0.569 | 0.451 | 0.627(0.186,2.110) | 0.377 | 0.320 | 1.393 | 0.238 | 1.459(0.779,2.730) | |
比较匹配/非常匹配 | 0.363 | 0.437 | 0.691 | 0.406 | 1.438(0.611,3.384) | 0.158 | 0.247 | 0.410 | 0.522 | 1.171(0.722,1.900) | |
自评工作压力(以无/较小为参照) | |||||||||||
一般 | 0.720 | 0.515 | 1.959 | 0.162 | 2.055(0.749,5.635) | 0.289 | 0.317 | 0.829 | 0.363 | 1.335(0.717,2.486) | |
较大/非常大 | 1.289 | 0.459 | 7.874 | 0.005 | 3.629(1.475,8.929) | 0.842 | 0.270 | 9.747 | 0.002 | 2.320(1.368,3.935) | |
自评激励机制有效性(以极不有效/不太有效为参照) | |||||||||||
一般 | -1.630 | 0.677 | 5.793 | 0.016 | 0.196(0.052,0.739) | -0.836 | 0.485 | 2.970 | 0.085 | 0.434(0.168,1.122) | |
比较有效/非常有效 | -1.448 | 0.646 | 5.022 | 0.025 | 0.235(0.066,0.834) | -0.171 | 0.493 | 0.120 | 0.729 | 0.843(0.321,2.215) |
[1] | 陆昌勤. 工作倦怠感研究及展望[J].中国心理卫生杂志,2004,18(3):206-207,211. DOI:10.3321/j.issn:1000-6729.2004.03.024. |
[2] | MASLACH C, SCHAUFELI W B, LEITER M P. Job burnout[J]. Annu Rev Psychol,2001,52(1):397-422. DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397. |
[3] | 赵浴光,李晓璇,崔莹,等. 社会支持对医护人员职业倦怠的影响:基于自我效能的中介作用研究[J]. 中国医院管理,2019,39(11):48-50. |
[4] | 杨曦,张桂祯,张新颜,等.医护人员职业倦怠现状分析及对策探讨[J]. 西南军医,2015,17(6):607-610. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-7193.2015.06.003. |
[5] | 国务院医改办,原国家卫生计生委,国家发展改革委,等. 关于印发推进家庭医生签约服务指导意见的通知[EB/OL]. (2016-06-06)[2021-07-30]. . |
[6] | 沈琦,刘帅,崔恒清,等. 上海市闵行区家庭医生工作压力与职业倦怠状况研究[J]. 中国全科医学,2019,22(31):3815-3818,3829. DOI:10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2019.00.439. |
[7] | 赵越,左延莉,吴彩媛,等. 基于供方视角的广西家庭医生签约服务工作现状和满意度调查[J]. 卫生软科学,2019,33(5):63-66. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-2800.2019.05.014. |
[8] | 贺哲,邵飘飘,邵天,等. 湖北省基于家庭医生视角的家庭医生签约服务开展影响因素及对策研究[J]. 中国全科医学,2018,21(28):3447-3452. DOI:10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2018.28.008. |
[9] | 傅玉凤,李俊,江雁. 上海市某郊区家庭医生团队成员职业倦怠现状及影响因素分析[J]. 健康教育与健康促进,2019,14(6):33-35. DOI:10.16117/j.cnki.31-1974/r.201906009. |
[10] | 亓小燕,钱梦华,蒋骅. 上海市虹口区家庭医生职业倦怠现状及影响因素分析[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援,2019,37(1):11-14. DOI:10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2019.01.003. |
[11] | 陈思雨,陈飞,张长丽,等. 泰安市乡村医生职业倦怠状况及影响因素分析[J]. 中国初级卫生保健,2019,33(10):29-31. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-568X.2019.10.0009. |
[12] | 李超平,时勘. 分配公平与程序公平对工作倦怠的影响[J]. 心理学报,2003,35(5):677-684. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1673-5218.2009.12.005. |
[13] | 李永鑫,李艺敏. 工作倦怠评价标准的初步探讨[J]. 心理科学,2006,29(1):148-150. DOI:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2006.01.040. |
[14] | 贺玲玲,蒲川,黄礼平,等. 重庆市家庭医生团队职业倦怠与隐性缺勤关联性研究[J]. 中国全科医学,2021,24(19):2452-2458. DOI:10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.00.230. |
[15] | 卢慧敏,黄琦,杨丹丹,等. 家庭医生团队职业倦怠现状及影响因素研究[J]. 中国全科医学,2019,22(10):1223-1228. DOI:10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2019.10.018. |
[16] | 刘美星,丁静,季燕,等. 北京市西城区家庭医生职业倦怠现状及影响因素研究[J]. 中国全科医学,2021,24(13):1656-1664. DOI:10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2020.00.537. |
[17] | 山东省卫生健康委员会. 山东省卫生健康委员会关于开展家庭医生服务提升行动的通知[EB/OL]. (2021-05-14)[2021-07-30]. . |
[18] | 胡开红,齐秀丽. 儿科医务人员工作压力、应对方式与心理健康状况相关性调查分析[J]. 中国健康心理学杂志,2019,27(7):1063-1066. DOI:10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2019.07.025. |
[19] | 舒之群,荆丽梅,孙晓明,等. 上海市浦东新区家庭医生职业认同与满意度调查[J]. 中华全科医师杂志,2015,14(12):938-941. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-7368.2015.12.011. |
[20] | 刘彩茵,何婷婷,王全. 基层医务人员的家庭医生签约服务政策响应度及工作满意度研究[J]. 中国全科医学,2019,22(10):1160-1164. DOI:10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2019.10.006. |
[21] | 张丽芳,贾艳,吴宁,等. 社区卫生综合改革对卫生人员激励机制的影响与对策[J]. 中国卫生政策研究,2012,5(9):48-52. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-2982.2012.09.009. |
[22] | KHAN M, ROYCHOWDHURY I, MEGHANI A,et al. Should performance-based incentives be used to motivate health care providers? Views of health sector managers in Cambodia,China and Pakistan[J]. Health Econ,2020,15(2):247-260. DOI:10.1017/s1744133118000506. |
[23] | 李思清,周颖,詹祥. 家庭医生离职倾向及其影响因素研究[J]. 教育教学论坛,2020,8(21):114-115. |
[24] | 冯黄于飞,景日泽,王嘉豪,等. 不同岗位家庭医生团队成员的激励因素研究[J]. 中国全科医学,2021,24(4):25-31. DOI:10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.00.089. |
[1] | HU Jieman, TAN Feixiang, YUAN Anxin, CHEN Shiyu, TANG Chulei, YIN Yueheng, BA Lei, XU Qin. Analysis of the Trajectory of Postoperative Frailty and Influencing Factors in Patients with Colorectal Cancer [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(26): 3276-3282. |
[2] | CHOU Xintong, PENG Hanyu, MA Hui, ZHANG Zhen, SU Xian, QIU Hongyan. Maternal Preferences in Contraceptive Decision-making: an Analysis of Influencing Factors [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(26): 3294-3299. |
[3] | WEI Jiaohua, PENG Huiru, PENG Jianye, TAN Wenting, HUANG Jine, FANG Li. Expression of the Serum MOTS-c and Its Correlation with Atrial Remodeling in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(26): 3271-3276. |
[4] | YU Zizi, LIU Duli, LI Ximin, RUAN Chunyi, YIN Xiangyang, CAI Le. Analysis of the Prevalence and Self-management of Hypertension and Its Influencing Factors in Rural [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(25): 3137-3143. |
[5] | FAN Boyang, ZHANG Yu, SUN Wenning, ZHANG Huifang, WANG Yingjie, ZHANG Ao, ZHAO Yang, WANG Haipeng. Study of Behavioral Intention and Influencing Factors of Integrated Medical and Preventive Care Provided by Grassroots Doctors for Patients with Chronic Diseases [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(25): 3144-3150. |
[6] | WANG Rupeng, NAN Jing, HU Yiran, YANG Shenghua, JIN Zening. Predictive Value of the Triglyceride-Glucose Body Mass Index for Slow Flow/No-reflow Phenomenon in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Emergency Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(24): 2985-2992. |
[7] | WU Yue, WANG Xuetong, KE Bilian. Evaluation of Vision-related Quality of Life in Myopic Macular Degeneration Patients with Low Vision and Associated Factors [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(23): 2908-2914. |
[8] | DING Zijun, ZHOU Nannan, LUO Xing, LUO Jieyu, HAO Wenjuan, ZHANG Chunjiang, JIN Xin, ZHAO Dan. Cognitive Impairment in Patients on Maintenance Hemodialysis and Its Influencing Factors: a Multicenter Cross-sectional Study [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(23): 2885-2893. |
[9] | CHEN Youlan, LAN Yanqi, WU Ahua, ZHANG Haixia, HUANG Jiankang, GUO Zhinan. The Health Management Effect of Contracted Family Doctor Services under the Joint Management of Three Teachers in Xiamen City on Elderly Hypertensive Patients [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(22): 2769-2775. |
[10] | WEI Xiaoxia, CHEN Nuo, WANG Juanjuan, ZHU Jingfen. The Effects of Depression and Anxiety on Smoking Behavior among Vocational School Students [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(22): 2826-2832. |
[11] | ZHAO Xiaoqing, GUO Tongtong, ZHANG Xinyi, LI Linhong, ZHANG Ya, JI Lihong, DONG Zhiwei, GAO Qianqian, CAI Weiqing, ZHENG Wengui, JING Qi. Construction and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model for Cognitive Impairment in Community-dwelling Older Adults [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(22): 2776-2783. |
[12] | HAO Aihua, ZENG Ziying, JIN Aiqiong, TANG Lingling, ZHENG Zique, MA Jingtai, ZHAO Jianguo, ZENG Weilin, XIAO Jianpeng, NIE Hui, YANG Ying. Analysis of Factors Influencing Avoidable Hospitalization for Elderly Hypertensive Patients [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(19): 2370-2375. |
[13] | WEI Xu, YIN Yuhui, WANG Xu, YU Ruowen, ZHANG Yili, SUN Kai, WANG Hui, XIE Shiming, LI Yan, QIN Xiaokuan, YIN Xunlu, LI Linghui, ZHU Liguo. Study on the Assessment System of Bone Health Service Capacity of Primary Healthcare Institutions [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(19): 2354-2362. |
[14] | JING Tao, DAI Yongmei, LUO Jianying, LUO Wei, JI Yelinfan, PENG Chi, ZHANG Cuijun, CAO Yanjun, ZHENG Qing, HUANG Yu, SHEN Hejun. The Body Mass Index, Dietary Knowledge Acquisition Level, Sedentary Time and Influencing Factors among Chinese High School Students [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(16): 2025-2032. |
[15] | HUANG Zhijie, MAI Zhihua, WANG Haoxiang, HE Yuming, DENG Qiaoyan, DAI Ranran, ZHOU Zhiheng. Multimorbidity of Hypertension, Diabetes, and Dyslipidemia and Influencing Factors of Family Function among the Elderly [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(16): 2001-2010. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||