Study On The Status Quo And Influencing Factors Of Job Burnout Among Tibet Nurses

Objective:1) To explore status quo of job burnout among Tibet nurses;2) To compare score of job burnout among Tibet nurse in different social、 environment and demographic characteristics;3)To analyze the relationship between stressors and Mediator variable and job burnout, establish structural equation model of Job Burnout among Tibet nurses; and4)To provide a basis for intervention for the plateau region nurses’ job burnout.Methods:Take Tibet autonomous region,municipal, county and township-level hospitals as the sampling frame, stratified-random-cluster sampling method was used, a self-made general information questionnaire, Chinese Nurses’Work-Stressor Scale, Maslach Burnout Inventory-general survey; General Big Five Scale, general Self-Efficacy scale, simplified Coping Style Questionnaire, Social Support rating Scale was used to test1062Tibet nurses. Data was analyzed by statistical description, two independent samples t test, ANOVA analysis, Kruskal-Wallis H nonparametric test, Pearson correlation analysis, multiple linear regression analysis and structural equation.Results:1All the scales’Cronbach’s a coefficients were greater than0.600;2Tibet nurses’emotional exhaustion score was (2.31±1.24); depersonalization score was (1.59±1.24); low personal accomplishment score was (3.06±1.29); The incidence of Job Burnout is33.15%, and22.32%,8.19%,2.64%for mild, moderate, and severe, Respectively.3Stepwise regression analysis showed that,job stressors (β=0.317), social support (β=-0.212), adaptive (β=0.216), negative coping (β=0.228), positive response (β=-0.190), hospital grade(β=0.090), race(β=-0.071),whether experienced workplace violence(β=0.057), nature of work(β=0.047),sociability (β=-0.041) entered into the multiple linear regression equation of emotional exhaustion (F=266.832,P=0.000), R-=0.717, which accounts for71.7%variance of emotional exhaustion; job stressors (β=0.245), sociability (β=-0.245), negative coping (β=0.217), positive coping (β=-0.158), whether native Tibet (β=0.146), adaptive (β=0.112), whether experienced workplace violence (β=0.098),social support (β=-0.112), altruism (β=-0.083), open(β=0.078), department category (β=0.043) entered the multiple linear regression equation of depersonalization (F=130.449, P=0.000), R2=0.577, which accounts for57.7%variance of depersonalization; self-efficacy (β=-0.343), negative coping (β=0.182), social support (β=-0.127), hospital grade(β=-0.075),sociability (β=-0.071), whether on administrative duties (β=0.067), gender (β=-0.062), altruism (β=-0.065), open (β=0.060) entered into the multiple linear regression equation of low personal accomplishment (F=39.627,P=0.000), R2=0.253, which accounts for25.3%variance of low personal accomplishment.4Structural equation model showed that Work stressors can act directly on emotional exhaustion (path coefficient=0.35), can also act indirectly by social support (path coefficient=-0.17), open (path coefficient=-0.02), altruism (path coefficient=-0.01), self-efficacy (path coefficient=-0.03), adaptability (path coefficient=0.05) on emotional exhaustion; social support (path coefficient=-0.21), adaptability (path coefficient=0.24),negative coping (path coefficient=0.23), positive response (path coefficient=-0.18) can act directly on emotional exhaustion; work stressors can act directly on depersonalization (path coefficient=0.29), but can also act indirectly by social support (path coefficient=-0.16), open (path coefficient=-0.02), altruism (path coefficient=-0.01), self-efficacy (path coefficient=-0.02), adaptability (path coefficient=0.05) on depersonalization; social support (path coefficient=-0.12), adaptability (path coefficient=0.11), negative coping (path coefficient=0.23), positive coping (path coefficient=-0.15), sociability (path coefficient=-0.25) can act directly on depersonalization; work stressors has no direct effect on low self-efficacy, but can act indirectly by social support (path coefficient=-0.07), adaptability (path coefficient=0.02) on low personal accomplishment, self-efficacy (path coefficient=-0.36),negative coping (path coefficient=0.19),social support (path coefficient=0.13) can act directly on low self-efficacy.Conclusions:1The Tibet nurses’Job Burnout is mild to moderate degree.2department category, job title, whether native Tibet, type of hospital, Hospital Ownership are predictors of emotional exhaustion; workplace violence, whether native Tibet, department category, nature of work, type of hospital are predictors of depersonalization; administrative duties, hospital type, gender, education level are predictors of low personal accomplishment.3Work stressors, social support, adaptability, negative coping, positive response, hospital grade,race, workplace violence, nature of work, sociability are predictors of emotional exhaustion; work stressors, sociability, negative coping, positive coping, whether native Tibet, adaptability, workplace violence, social support, altruism, openness, department category are predictors of depersonalization; self-efficacy, negative coping, social support, hospital grade,sociability, whether administrator,gender, altruism,openness are predictors of low personal accomplishment.4Work stressors are the most important and the most direct impact factors of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Social support, openness, altruism, self-efficacy and adaptability play intermediary role between work stressors and emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, in which the effect of social support is the most obvious; Self-efficacy is the most important the most direct influence factor of low personal accomplishment. Social support,adaptation play intermediary role between work stressors and low personal accomplishment, in which the effect of adaptation is the most obvious.