Explaining and addressing the limitations in usefulness of available estimated prevalence figures relating to burnout in family doctors: Evidence from a systematic scoping literature review

Burnout in family doctors (FDs) affects their well-being, patient care, and healthcare organizations, and is considered common worldwide. However, its measurement has been so inconsistent that whether the widely divergent prevalence figures can be meaningfully interpreted has been questioned. Our aim was to go further than previous systematic reviews to explore the meaning contribution and usefulness of FD-burnout prevalence estimates. Worldwide literature was systematically reviewed using Levac's scoping framework, with 249 papers undergoing full-text review. Of 176 studies measuring burnout, 78% used the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), which measures burnout as now defined by the World Health Organization. We, therefore, concentrated on the MBI. Its burnout measurement was markedly inconsistent, with prevalence estimates ranging from 2.8% to 85.7%. Researchers made prevalence claims relating to burnout severity and implied diagnoses based on participants' MBI scores, even though the MBI has not been validated as a clinical or diagnostic tool. Except when comparisons were possible between certain studies, prevalence figures provided limited meaning and added little to the understanding of burnout in FDs. Our review revealed a lack of research-supported meaningful information about the prevalence of FD burnout and that care is required to avoid drawing unsubstantiated conclusions from prevalence results. This paper's overall purpose is to propose how obtaining meaningful prevalence estimates can begin, which are recognized as key to developing improved prevention policies and interventions. Researchers must adopt a consistent means to measure burnout, use the MBI as its authors intended, and explore making progress through quantitative and qualitative collaboration.