Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated with Occupational Therapist Burnout.
Eun-Young Park
PMID 34987329WHAT IT FOUND
Job satisfaction, engagement, and professional identity had the strongest links to lower burnout among occupational therapists, while job challenges and work addiction linked to higher burnout.
Personal factors like age and education showed weaker associations across 17 studies of 2,430 therapists.
Key findings
01Job satisfaction (Fisher's Z = -0.462), professional identity (Fisher's Z = -0.405), and engagement (Fisher's Z = -0.254) showed the strongest negative associations with burnout. All negative effect sizes fell in the medium range (0.10 to 0.49).
02Job challenges (Fisher's Z = 0.452) and turnover intention (Fisher's Z = 0.429) showed the strongest positive associations with burnout, also in the medium range. Marital status, work field, and work hours had only small effects (below 0.10). No variable reached the large threshold (above 0.50).
03The 17 included studies were highly heterogeneous (Q = 1701.075, p < 0.001), so a random effects model was used. The fail-safe N was 228 (well above the 95 threshold) and Egger's test was non-significant (p = 0.78), indicating no detectable publication bias.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Heterogeneity was very high (Q = 1701.075, p < 0.001), meaning the included studies varied widely in their populations, measures, and designs, so the pooled estimates carry wide uncertainty. Some variables had very few effect sizes: turnover intention had only two, and three studies reported gender only as percentages rather than counts. All underlying studies were correlational or cross-sectional, so no causal claims can be made about any of the associations. Nine of the 17 included studies were rated only medium quality on the assessment tool. Five studies did not report age data and three did not report experience data, limiting the completeness of the pooled estimates for those variables.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read these associations as evidence that changing one factor will reduce burnout. The underlying studies are correlational, the heterogeneity was very high (Q = 1701.075), and several variables had only two or three effect sizes pooled. A medium effect size (0.10 to 0.49) is a modest association, not a strong one.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →