Table 1.
Number and direction of summary effect sizes for each combination of burnout and quality metric. Summary effect sizes obtained via empirical Bayes meta-analysis.
| Na | P < 0.05 threshold | P < 0.005 threshold | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| g > 0b | g < 0c | No effectd | g > 0b | g < 0c | No effectd | ||
| Primary effects only | 46 | 24 (52%) | 1 (2%) | 21 (46%) | 18 (39%) | 1 (2%) | 27 (59%) |
| Primary and secondary effects | 114 | 58 (51%) | 6 (5%) | 50 (44%) | 47 (41%) | 6 (5%) | 61 (54%) |
| Standard burnout definitions | 24 | 15 (62%) | 1 (4%) | 8 (33%) | 14 (58%) | 1 (4%) | 9 (38%) |
| Independent/Objective quality metrics | 48 | 14 (29%) | 2 (4%) | 32 (67%) | 9 (19%) | 2 (4%) | 37 (77%) |
a
Number of distinct burnout/quality combinations represented
b
Summary effect Hedges’ g > 0 indicates burnout related to poor quality of care
c
Summary effect Hedges’ g < 0 indicates burnout related to high quality of care
d
Summary effect Hedges’ g not significantly different from 0 at the specified P-value threshold