SOphrology Intervention to Improve WELL-Being in Hospital Staff (SO-WELL): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial Study.

INTRODUCTION: Stress at work and psychosocial risks are a major public health problem. Sophrology and neurolinguistic programming (NLP) have demonstrated benefits in terms of mental, physical and social health, both in the general population and in patients, and both in and out of hospital settings. However, these approaches have never been provided at the hospital for the benefit of health professionals at risk of suffering at work. In general, we aim to demonstrate the effectiveness of a hospital sophrology/NLP intervention for health care professionals at risk of stress-related disorders. The secondary objectives are to study (i) within-group, and (ii) between-group): (1) effects on mental, physical, and social health; (2) persistence of effect; (3) relationships between job perception and mental, physical, and social health; (4) intervention success factors (personality and job perception, attendance and practice, other); (5) effects on other stress biomarkers (other measures of autonomic nervous system activity, DHEAS, cortisol, etc.). METHODS: Our study will be a randomized controlled prospective study (research involving the human person of type 2). The study will be proposed to any health-care workers (HCW) or any non-HCW (NHCW) from a healthcare institution (such as CHU of Clermont-Ferrand, other hospitals, clinics, retirement homes). Participants will benefit from NLP and sophrology interventions at the hospital. For both groups: (i) heart rate variability, skin conductance and saliva biomarkers will be assessed once a week during the intervention period (6 to 8 sophrology sessions) and once by month for the rest of the time; (ii) the short questionnaire will be collected once a week during the whole protocol (1-2 min); (iii) the long questionnaire will be assessed only 5 times: at baseline (M0), month 1 (M1), month 3 (M3), month 5 (M5) and end of the protocol (M7). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol, information and consent form had received the favorable opinion from the Ethics Committee. Notification of the approval of the Ethics Committee was sent to the study sponsor and the competent authority (ANSM). The study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the identification number NCT05425511 after the French Ethics Committee's approval. The results will be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: The psychological questionnaires in this study are self-assessed. It is also possible that responses suffer from variation. For the study, participants need to attend 6 to 8 sophrology sessions and one visit per month for 7 months, which might seem demanding. Therefore, to make sure that participants will complete the protocol, two persons will be fully in charge of the participants' follow-up.

Burnout in French General Practitioners: A Nationwide Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of burnout among French general practitioners in private practice and to study the risk and protective factors of burnout. METHODS: A nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted with French GPs working in a private practice in France who were asked to fulfil an internet questionnaire. We used the secure internet application REDCap®. Exclusion criteria were only working in a hospital, substitute doctors, and internship students. There was a putative sample size of 88,886 GPs. We retrieved the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), occupational characteristics (type of installation, emergency regulated shifts, night shifts, university supervisor, weekly hours worked, seniority), and personal characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, and number of children. RESULTS: We included 1926 GPs among the 2602 retrieved questionnaires. A total of 44.8% of French liberal GPs were experiencing burnout, with 4.8% (95%CI 3.9-5.9%) experiencing severe burnout. The risk factors of severe burnout were male gender (RR = 1.91, 95%CI 1.15-3.16), working in a suburban area (5.23, 2.18-12.58), and having more than 28 appointments per day (1.95, 1.19-3.19). Working more than 50 h weekly showed a tendency to increase the risk of severe burnout (1.55, 0.93-2.59, p = 0.095), with a significant increase in the risk of low and moderate burnout (1.31, 1.02-1.67 and 1.86, 1.34-2.57, respectively). Protective factors were mainly resident training, which decreased the risk of both low, moderate, and severe burnout (0.65, 0.51-0.83; 0.66, 0.48-0.92; and 0.42, 95%CI 0.23-0.76, respectively). Performing home visits decreased the risk of severe burnout (0.25, 0.13-0.47), as did group practice for intermediate level of burnout (0.71, 0.51-0.96). CONCLUSION: GPs are at a high risk of burnout, with nearly half of them in burnout, with burnout predominantly affecting males and those between the ages of 50 and 60 years old. The main risk factors were a high workload with more than 28 appointments per day or 50 h of work per week, and the main protective factors were related to social cohesion such having a teaching role and working in a group practice with back-office support.

How to Measure Sedentary Behavior at Work?

Background: Prolonged sedentary behavior (SB) is associated with increased risk for chronic conditions. A growing number of the workforce is employed in office setting with high occupational exposure to SB. There is a new focus in assessing, understanding and reducing SB in the workplace. There are many subjective (questionnaires) and objective methods (monitoring with wearable devices) available to determine SB. Therefore, we aimed to provide a global understanding on methods currently used for SB assessment at work. Methods: We carried out a systematic review on methods to measure SB at work. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles published between 1st January 2000 and 17th March 2019. Results: We included 154 articles: 89 were cross-sectional and 65 were longitudinal studies, for a total of 474,091 participants. SB was assessed by self-reported questionnaires in 91 studies, by wearables devices in also 91 studies, and simultaneously by a questionnaire and wearables devices in 30 studies. Among the 91 studies using wearable devices, 73 studies used only one device, 15 studies used several devices, and three studies used complex physiological systems. Studies exploring SB on a large sample used significantly more only questionnaires and/or one wearable device. Conclusions: Available questionnaires are the most accessible method for studies on large population with a limited budget. For smaller groups, SB at work can be objectively measured with wearable devices (accelerometers, heart-rate monitors, pressure meters, goniometers, electromyography meters, gas-meters) and the results can be associated and compared with a subjective measure (questionnaire). The number of devices worn can increase the accuracy but make the analysis more complex and time consuming.