Reporting of burnout among practicing anesthesia providers: a systematic review
TL;DR
Reported burnout prevalence in anesthesia providers varies dramatically due to inconsistent measurement and classification methods, and standardized reporting of MBI subscale scores and adoption of validated binary classification approaches are essential to improve comparability across studies.
Abstract
Background: Burnout, which is defined as emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment, poses significant risks to clinicians' well-being and patient safety. In particular, anesthesia providers may be vulnerable due to high-intensity work environments and cognitive demands. Objective: To examine the prevalence of burnout and the methodological variability in studies involving practicing anesthesia providers. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Embase Classic+Embase, Ovid EBM Reviews Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid APA PsycInfo, Ebscohost CINAHL Plus, and Clarivate Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception to January 2025 for studies reporting burnout prevalence in anesthesia providers. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Burnout definitions, measurement tools, and prevalence estimates were narratively synthesized. Where full Maslach Burnout Inventory data were available, multiple published burnout definition criteria were applied to explore their effect on prevalence. Results: Of 1,205 identified studies, 50 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing over 35,599 fully qualified anesthesia providers (31,500 physicians and 4,099 non-physicians). The MBI was used in 43 studies (86%). Across 37 prevalence estimates for all anesthesia providers, burnout prevalence ranged from 9.0% to 99.2%. Burnout dichotomization varied significantly, with 15 unique and reproducible Maslach Burnout Inventory-based criteria being identified. Re‑analysis of five datasets showed prevalence estimates for the same population could vary from 11% to 73% depending on the criteria applied. Most studies used non‑random sampling and demonstrated unclear or high risk of bias across many domains. Conclusion: Reported burnout prevalence in anesthesia providers varies dramatically due to inconsistent measurement and classification methods. Standardized reporting of MBI subscale scores and adoption of validated binary classification approaches are essential to improve comparability across studies. Methodologically rigorous sampling strategies are urgently needed to guide targeted workforce interventions.