Research

GPs’ mental wellbeing and psychological resources: a cross-sectional survey

Marylou Anna Murray, Chris Cardwell and Michael Donnelly
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (661): e547-e554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X691709

Abstract

Background The negative impact of work has been the traditional focus of GP surveys. We know little about GP positive mental health and psychological resources.

Aim To profile and contextualise GP positive mental health and personal psychological resources.

Design and setting Cross-sectional survey of GPs working in Northern Ireland (NI).

Method A questionnaire comprising the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) and measures of resilience, optimism, self-efficacy, and hope, and sociodemographic information was posted to 400 GPs randomly selected from a publicly available GP register.

Results The response rate was 55% (n = 221 out of 400). Mean value for GP wellbeing (WEMWBS) was 50.2 (standard deviation [SD] 8) compared to UK vets 48.8 (SD 9), UK teachers 47.2 (SD 9), and the population of NI 50.8 (SD 9). After adjustment for confounding, mean WEMWBS was 2.4 units (95% CI = 0.02 to 4.7) higher in female GPs than males (P = 0.05), and 4.0 units (95% CI = 0.8 to 7.3) higher in GPs ≥55 years than GPs ≤44 years (P = 0.02). Optimism was 1.1 units higher in female GPs than male GPs (95% CI = 0.1 to 2.0), and 1.56 units higher in GPs ≥55 years (95% CI = 0.2 to 2.9) than in those ≤44 years. Hope was 3 units higher in GPs ≥55 years (95% CI = 0.4 to 5.7) than in those aged 45–54 years. Correlation between WEMWBS and psychological resources was highest with hope (r = 0.65, P < 0.001).

Conclusion GPs have levels of positive mental health that are comparable to the local population and better than other occupational groups, such as vets and teachers. Male and younger GPs may have most to gain from wellbeing interventions.

INTRODUCTION

Increasing sub-specialism within secondary care and ongoing demographic shifts highlight the pivotal role that GPs are required to play in the provision of personalised patient care. In the context of rising GP workload and workforce concerns, there is a need to explore the positive resources and strengths of GPs. This positive approach complements the traditional focus on illness, stress, depression, and burnout, as well as recognising GP resilience as a resource in the context of work pressures. Levels of positive mental health vary across populations and occupational groups. The definition and measurement of resilience continues to be a source of debate,1,2 and empirical evidence for resilience training programmes is limited.3 GPs have expressed ethical-based concerns regarding the recommendation that they should undertake resilience training to adapt to increasingly difficult working conditions.4–6 This article examines these arguments by measuring GP wellbeing, including resilience and three related psychological resources that are amenable to change and known to impact on work performance.7 More specifically, the authors assess the profile of positive mental health and level of personal psychological resources among GPs, including the nature and degree of variation in GP positive mental health and psychological resources in terms of age, sex, GP practice size, and rurality. The relationships are then explored between GP positive mental health and their personal psychological resources.

METHOD

Participants were identified from a publicly available register of GPs compiled by the Business Services Organisation (BSO) in Northern Ireland. The list includes principals and salaried GPs (n = 1267), but not training or locum GPs. A random sample of 400 GPs was drawn from this list using a random number generator,8 and in expectation of 50% attrition. A personalised invitation, consent form, information sheet, stamped response-indicating postcard, stamped-return envelope, and a questionnaire were mailed to GPs in January 2016. A reminder with replacement questionnaire was mailed in February 2016 to GPs who had not returned a signed, response-indicating postcard. The questionnaire comprised five instruments with good psychometric properties, international validation, and brevity, mindful of respondent burden. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) has been validated in general populations9–11 and used to measure positive mental health in occupational groups.12,13 GP personal psychological resources were assessed using the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS),1,14 the Life-Orientation Test (LOT-R) of Optimism,15,16 the General Self Efficacy (GSE) scale17 (which addresses the perceived ability to cope with daily hassles and adapt to stressful events), and the Adult State Hope Scale (ASHS).18 The BRS was chosen because it assesses resilience in terms of being a malleable and modifiable personal resource.19 Information was collected on key sociodemographic variables, including broad age categories, sex, practice size, and location.

How this fits in

This survey presents novel insights into the positive resources and strengths of GPs complementing the traditional focus on burnout and stress. In a context of substantial flux, GPs are maintaining levels of positive mental health comparable to the local population. They appear to have good levels of psychological resources, particularly with respect to adopting an optimistic and hopeful attitude to life and work.

Study size calculation

A standard deviation (SD) of 9 20,21 was used to calculate sample size of 200 based upon determining the true mean WEMWB score in GPs to within +1.2 or −1.2 units. A sample of 200 respondents afforded the detection of a potential difference of 3.75 units in WEMWB scores (with 80% power at the 5% level) between GPs with higher than median practice size compared with lower than median practice size. It also allowed the detection of a true correlation of 0.2 between personal psychological resources (as measured by BRS, AHS, GSE, and LOT- R) and positive mental health or WEMWBS (with 80% power at the 5% level).

Data analysis

The questionnaire data were collected in paper format and entered into SPSS Version 21.0 for statistical analysis. All scales approximated to a normal distribution. Means and SDs were calculated for the components and overall scores of the WEMWB Scale and the four measures of personal psychological resources (BRS, ASHS, LOT-R, and GSE scores) (Table 1). Independent samples t-tests were used to compare mean scores by sex (male/female), location (urban/rural), and practice size (≤4 GPs/≥5 GPs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare WEMWB scale by age category (≤44, 45–54, ≥55 years). Linear regression was used to analyse the increase in WEMWB scale per unit increase in age category, and to test for trend. It was also used to determine difference in mean WEMWB scores by categorical variable, adjusting for potential confounding by age, sex, location, and practice size. R2 statistics were calculated for adjusted models. Pearson correlation coefficients (and accompanying P-values) assessed the association between WEMWBS and the four resource scales. Individual missing items within scales were uncommon. Where an item was missing the score for the entire scale was omitted from the analysis. Means and standard deviations were extracted from relevant studies that used each of the five instruments in order to set the results in a comparative international context. The studies were obtained with the help of a specialist librarian using a systematic search of Medline, PsycInfo, and Embase databases (further details on search strategy and results are available from the authors).

View this table:
Table 1.

Profile of GP positive mental health and psychological resources

RESULTS

Participants

The response rate was 55% and the characteristics of respondents (n = 221 out of 400) were comparable to the study sample and GP population profile, with the exception of a higher than expected number of rural GPs who responded (Appendix 1). The Brief Resilience Scale was completed by all respondents (see Appendices 1 and 2 for details of missing outcome and demographic data across variables). The population profile of positive mental health and psychological resources is presented in Table 1. Mean values for each construct were in the top quartile of the scale range. In crude analyses (that is, not adjusted for confounders), female GPs had higher mean values for positive mental health and for each psychological resource (except self-efficacy) than men, although these differences were not significant. Similarly, rural GPs had higher scores than urban GPs across measures. However, in these crude analyses the authors did not find any statistically significant differences in wellbeing and psychological resources between groups based upon rurality and number of partners.

After adjustment for confounding, female GPs and older GPs had statistically significant higher mean WEMWB scores (Table 2). Mean WEMWB scores were 2.4 units higher in females than males (95% CI = 0.02 to 4.7), and 4.0 units higher in GPs ≥55 years than in GPs ≤44 years (95% CI = 0.8 to 7.3). Similar statistically significant findings were observed for optimism (data available from authors). The adjusted mean optimism score was 1.1 units higher in females than males (95% CI = 0.1 to 2.0), and 1.56 units higher in GPs >55 years compared to those ≤44 years (95% CI = 0.2 to 2.9). In the adjusted model, hope scores were 3 units higher in GPs ≥55 years than those in the 45–54 age group (95% CI = 0.4 to 5.7). Statistical analyses did not indicate differences between measured GP characteristics and self-efficacy or resilience scores. (Further details of adjusted analyses are available from the authors).

View this table:
Table 2.

GP positive mental health (WEMWBS) scores across demographic and practice variables

Table 3 shows that each scale or measure of resource was associated positively, albeit moderately so, with mental wellbeing. The strongest correlation was with hope (r = 0.65), and the weakest was with self-efficacy (r = 0.35). Overall, hope had the strongest relationships with the set of wellbeing and resource variables, including self-efficacy (r = 0.48).

View this table:
Table 3.

Correlation coefficientsa between positive mental health and psychological resources

DISCUSSION

Summary

To the authors’ knowledge this study presents for the first time the positive mental health or wellbeing of GPs and their level of personal psychological resources. Overall, the positive mental health of GPs was at least comparable to the local population and better than other occupational groups, such as vets and teachers. GPs in the oldest age band (≥55 years) had the highest level of positive mental health, hope, and optimism, and female GPs had higher positive mental health and optimism than their male colleagues. GPs appear to have good levels of psychological resources, particularly with respect to self-efficacy and adopting an optimistic attitude to life and work. A hopeful attitude was the psychological resource that was most strongly related to positive mental health, followed by an optimistic outlook.

Strengths and limitations

The response rate was relatively low at 55% and the wellbeing and psychological resource levels of non-respondents were unknown. It is possible that levels may be lower or higher than the authors have found, for example, respondents may be more (or less) optimistic. However, the response rate was comparable to published GP surveys,22 the sample of respondents reflected the GP population from which the study sample was selected randomly, and the sample size had adequate power to be confident about statistical estimates. It was necessary to use wide age bands in order to ensure anonymity. However, anonymity is likely to have moderated potential for social desirability bias.23 Correlation coefficients between positive mental health and measures of psychological resource may have been affected by common method variance.24 The cross-sectional design precluded causal inferences. It might be argued that biases are inherent in self-report measures, but there is good psychometric evidence for each measure. Also, the validated instruments have made significant contributions to their respective literatures and afford an opportunity for the survey findings to be interpreted in an international context.

Comparison with existing literature

Although the level of positive mental health among the GP sample was lower than reported in previously published UK general population surveys,9,10 it was comparable to the level observed in a recent Northern Irish population survey,11 and higher than levels reported for other occupational groups in the UK, such as university employees,25 vets,26 and teachers.13 This new insight into GP mental health suggests that there may be merit in extending the focus of GP wellbeing beyond negative constructs such as burnout and stress. Similar to general population survey findings, older GPs had the highest level of positive mental health,10,20 perhaps reflecting a ‘stage of life’ sense of comfortable competency and achievement, and perceived positive impact of anticipated retirement. It is interesting to contrast the relatively high level of positive mental health in older GPs, with reports that the proportion of GPs aged 55–64 years who left practice doubled in the period between 2005 and 2014.27 This finding of higher wellbeing in female GPs contrasts with the results of general population surveys,9,11,28,29 and diverges from recognised sex differences in the prevalence of depression.30 Higher positive mental wellbeing scores in female GPs may be explained in terms of variables that were not assessed in this study, such as different work-time patterns between females and male GPs. For example, role conflict and work–family balance influence wellbeing,31 and part-time compared to fulltime work is associated with higher life satisfaction among career women.32 While the relationship between burnout and hours worked is dependent on the extent to which work arrangements meet the needs of doctors, their partners, and children.33

Interestingly, females and older GPs were more optimistic in their outlook than other GPs. U-shaped age variation in optimism has been described in three UK population samples.34 Perhaps unsurprisingly, context and circumstances appear to play a role. For example, one international study found that young, highly educated, affluent Irish females were the most optimistic.35 This GP sample was more optimistic than general population samples in the UK,34 Portugal,36 and Germany,37 although a higher level of optimism was reported by other occupational groups, such as nurses38 and military personnel.39 Optimism appears to be a significant predictor of physical health outcomes,40–42 including decreased mortality,43 as well as being related to better subjective wellbeing in times of adversity, and higher levels of engagement, coping, and being proactive in personal health protection.44 The authors’ finding of a moderately positive association between resilience and optimism concurs with studies of resilience in healthcare.45,46 Positive attitudes including optimism, tolerance, and humour, and celebrating small gains have been identified as pertinent to resilience in GPs.47–49 ‘Learned optimism’ forms the basis of the Penn Resilience programme,50 highlighting the potential to exploit synergism between these psychological resources. Furthermore, physician resilience has been defined as the ‘... ability to invest personal resources in a way that initiates positive resource spirals despite stressful work conditions’.49

The finding of a moderately strong correlation between resilience and positive mental health resonates with the concept of a resource spiral and is consistent with evidence that positive emotions promote positive adaptation to adversity.51 Upward spirals generated by positive emotions increase mental flexibility, a commonly identified attribute of resilient individuals.45,52–55 Normative Brief Resilience Scale scores were higher for health care professionals than this sample, and may reflect depleted resources in the face of increasing pressures in general practice. GPs’ perceptions about their level of general self-efficacy was comparable to other occupational groups, including health care professionals,38,56–58 and higher than general population samples.59–61

Perceived general self-efficacy appears to moderate the effect of daily hassles on positive wellbeing and negative mental health, and is a predictor of positive mental health.61,62 GPs’ relatively higher levels of self-efficacy may point to ways in which to support the GP workforce, as self-efficacy and job satisfaction are positively related.63

Hope, too, correlates positively with job satisfaction and work happiness, and is negatively associated with job stress.63,64 Unsurprisingly, hope had the strongest relationship with positive mental health in this study. The authors’ finding of a high correlation between hope and optimism has been identified in clinical and occupational groups.64,65 Collectively, the results add to evidence about the relationships between psychological resources such as hope and resilience and health and wellbeing in a work context.66–68 Also, it is likely that this resources-positive mental health-context set of relationships is influenced by other variables, such as organisational factors and social networks. A composite construct comprised of hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy is associated with higher job satisfaction, less burnout, and lower work-related stress in doctors.69–71 Brief and web-based interventions have been shown to develop resources within this composite construct.72,73

Implications for research and practice

These findings suggest that younger male GPs may experience lower levels of positive mental health than their older female colleagues, and that they might benefit from support measures designed to improve their wellbeing, such as coaching,74–76 or mindfulness.77–80 The relatively high levels of optimism, hope, and positive mental health in older GPs may have implications for morale and recruitment. Since evidence for resilience training (including programme content and format) is limited, a composite approach designed to capitalise on the synergism between related psychological resources simultaneously warrants further investigation.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of GP participants, and thank the reviewers, Professor C Simon and Dr C Mathieson, for their helpful comments.

Appendix 1. Sociodemographic characteristics

CharacteristicRespondents (n = 221)Study sample (n = 400)NI GP population (n = 1267)
Sex, n(%)
  Male112 (51)201 (50)645a (51)
  Female92 (42)199 (50)622a (49)
  Missing17 (7)
Age, n(%)
  ≤4486 (39)159b (40)
  45–5479 (36)167b (42)
  ≥5547 (21)74b (18)
  Missing9 (4)
Location, n(%)
  Urban113 (51)323 (81)1043 (82)
  Rural85 (38)77 (19)224 (18)
  Missing23 (11)
Practice size, n(%)
  ≤4 partners115 (52)199 (50)631 (50)
  ≥5 partners92 (42)201 (50)636 (50)
  Missing14 (6)

  • ↵a Business Services Organisation (BSO) data states 50:50 male:female. BSO list does not provide specific gender information or forenames for all entries. Forenames were available for 622 females.

  • ↵b Approximate age groups based on years registered on NI GP Performer’s List: ≤17, 18–30 and ≥31 years on Performer’s List.

Appendix 2. Missing data for outcome variables and associated demographic variables

Incomplete or omitted scales, nSex, nPractice location, nPractice size nAge,
Positive mental health, WEMWBS7111794
Optimism, LOT-R61622139
Resilience, BRS01723149
Self-efficacy, GSE81622138
Hope, ASHS91622138

  • ASHS = Adult State Hope Scale. BRS = Brief Resilience Scale. GSE = General Self Efficacy Scale. LOT-R = Life Orientation Test of Optimism. WEMWBS = Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale.

Notes

Funding

Marylou Murray is a recipient of a Department of Employment and Learning Scholarship.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast (Reference: 15.59).

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received December 14, 2016.
  • Revision requested January 30, 2016.
  • Accepted March 3, 2017.

This is an OpenAccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Windle G,
    2. Bennett KM,
    3. Noyes J
    (2011) A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes 9(8), doi:10.1186/1477-7525-9-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Robertson HD,
    2. Elliott AM,
    3. Burton C,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Resilience of primary healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X685261&#39.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Robertson IT,
    2. Cooper CL,
    3. Sarkar M,
    4. Curran T
    (2015) Resilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: A systematic review. J Occup Organ Psychol 88(3):533–562.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Horsfall S
    (2014) Doctors who commit suicide while under GMC fitness to practice investigation. Internal review. (General Medical Council), http://www.gmc-uk.org/Internal_review_into_suicide_in_FTP_processes.pdf_59088696.pdf (accessed 20 Jul 2015).
  5. 5.
    1. Gerada C
    (2014) The wounded healer—why we need to rethink how we support doctors. (BMJ Careers), http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=20022922 (accessed 18 Oct 2016).
  6. 6.↵
    1. Spence D
    (2016) Bad Medicine: Resilience. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X688201&#39.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Luthans F
    (2002) Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Acad Manage Perspect 16(1):57–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Haahr M
    (2016) True random number service. Random.org, https://www.random.org/ (accessed 24 Nov 2015).
  9. 9.↵
    1. Tennant R,
    2. Hiller L,
    3. Fishwick R,
    4. et al.
    (2007) The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 5:63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Stranges S,
    2. Samaraweera PC,
    3. Taggart F,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Major health-related behaviours and mental well-being in the general population: the Health Survey for England. BMJ Open 4:e005878.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. McAneney H,
    2. Tully MA,
    3. Hunter RF,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Individual factors and perceived community characteristics in relation to mental health and mental well-being. BMC Public Health 15:1237.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Bartram DJ,
    2. Yadegarfar G,
    3. Baldwin DS
    (2009) A cross-sectional study of mental health and well-being and their associations in the UK veterinary profession. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 44(12):1075–1085.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Kidger J,
    2. Brockman R,
    3. Tilling K,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Teachers’ wellbeing and depressive symptoms, and associated risk factors: A large cross-sectional study in English secondary schools. J Affect Disord 192:76–82.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Smith BW,
    2. Dalen J,
    3. Wiggins K,
    4. et al.
    (2008) The Brief Resilience Scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. Int J Behav Med 15(3):194–200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Scheier MF,
    2. Carver CS,
    3. Bridges MW
    (1994) Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J Pers Soc Psychol 67(6):1063–1078.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Parkinson J
    (2008) Review of scales of positive mental health validated for use in adults in the UK: Technical Report December 2007. (NHS Health Scotland).
  17. 17.↵
    1. Weinman J,
    2. Wright S,
    3. Johnston M
    1. Schwarzer R,
    2. Jerusalem M
    (1995) in Measures in health psychology A user’s portfolio Causal and control beliefs, Generalised self-efficacy scale, eds Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M (NFER-Nelson, Windsor), pp 35–37.
  18. 18.↵
    1. Snyder CR,
    2. Sympson SC,
    3. Ybasco FC,
    4. et al.
    (1996) Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. J Pers Soc Psychol 70(2):321–325.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Smith B,
    2. Tooley E,
    3. Christopher P,
    4. Kay V
    (2010) Resilience as the ability to bounce back from stress: A neglected personal resource? J Pos Psychol 5(3):166–176.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Stewart-Brown S,
    2. Janmohamed K
    (2008) Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) User guide, Version 1.
  21. 21.↵
    1. Spittlehouse JK,
    2. Vierck E,
    3. Pearson JF,
    4. Joyce PR
    (2014) Temperament and character as determinants of well-being. Compr Psychiatry 55(7):1679–1687.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Creavin ST,
    2. Creavin AL,
    3. Mallen CD
    (2011) Do GPs respond to postal questionnaire surveys? A comprehensive review of primary care literature. Fam Pract 28(4):461–467.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Edwards AL
    (1957) The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. (Dryden Press).
  24. 24.↵
    1. Podsakoff PM,
    2. MacKenzie SB,
    3. Lee J,
    4. Podsakoff NP
    (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Cooper K,
    2. Barton GC
    (2015) An exploration of physical activity and wellbeing in university employees. Perspect Public Health 136(3):152–160.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Bartram DJ,
    2. Yadegarfar G,
    3. Baldwin DS
    (2009) A cross-sectional study of mental health and well-being and their associations in the UK veterinary profession. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 44(12):1075–1085.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Baird B,
    2. Charles A,
    3. Honeyman M,
    4. Maguire D,
    5. Das P
    (2016) Understanding pressures in general practice. (The King’s Fund), http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/pressures-in-general-practice (accessed 17 Oct 2016).
  28. 28.↵
    1. Lloyd K,
    2. Devine P
    (2012) Psychometric Properties of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) in Northern Ireland. J Ment Health 21(3):257–263.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. dos Santos JJA,
    2. da Costa TA,
    3. Guilherme JH,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Adaptation and cross-cultural validation of the Brazilian version of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. Rev Assoc Méd Bras 61(3):209–214.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Piccinelli M,
    2. Wilkinson G
    (2000) Gender differences in depression. Critical review. Br J Psychiatry 177:486–492.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Spector PE,
    2. Cooper CL,
    3. Poelmans S,
    4. et al.
    (2004) A cross-national comparative study of work-family stressors, working hours, and well-being: China and Latin America versus the Anglo world. Person Psychol 57(1):119–142.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Higgins C,
    2. Duxbury L,
    3. Johnson KL
    (2000) Part-time work for women: does it really help balance work and family? Hum Resour Manage 39(1):17–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.↵
    1. Barnett RC,
    2. Gareis KC,
    3. Brennan RT
    (1999) Fit as a mediator of the relationship between work hours and burnout. J Occup Health Psychol 4(4):307–317.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Walsh D,
    2. McCartney G,
    3. McCullough S,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Always looking on the bright side of life? Exploring optimism and health in three UK post-industrial urban settings. J Public Health (Oxf) 37(3):389–397.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Gallagher MW,
    2. Lopez SJ,
    3. Pressman SD
    (2013) Optimism is universal: Exploring the presence and benefits of optimism in a representative sample of the world. J Pers 81(5):429–440.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Ribeiro JLP,
    2. Pedro L,
    3. Marques S
    (2012) Dispositional optimism is unidimensional or bidimensional? The Portuguese revised life orientation test. Span J Psychol 15(3):1259–1271.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Glaesmer H,
    2. Rief W,
    3. Martin A,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Psychometric properties and population-based norms of the Life Orientation Test Revised (LOT-R). Br J Health Psychol 17(2):432–445.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Chang Y,
    2. Wang P,
    3. Li H,
    4. Liu Y
    (2011) Relations among depression, self-efficacy and optimism in a sample of nurses in Taiwan. J Nurs Manag 19(6):769–776.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Lee JE,
    2. Sudom KA,
    3. McCreary DR
    (2011) Higher-order model of resilience in the Canadian forces. Can J Behav Sci 43(3):222–234.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    1. Boehm JK,
    2. Kubzansky LD
    (2012) The heart’s content: the association between positive psychological well-being and cardiovascular health. Psychol Bull 138(4):655–691.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.
    1. Kubzansky LD,
    2. Sparrow D,
    3. Vokonas P,
    4. Kawachi I
    (2001) Is the glass half empty or half full? A prospective study of optimism and coronary heart disease in the normative aging study. Psychosom Med 63(6):910–916.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Rasmussen HN,
    2. Scheier MF,
    3. Greenhouse JB
    (2009) Optimism and physical health: A meta-analytic review. Ann Behav Med 37(3):239–256.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Giltay EJ,
    2. Kamphuis MH,
    3. Kalmijn S,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Dispositional optimism and the risk of cardiovascular death: the Zutphen Elderly Study. Arch Intern Med 166(4):431–436.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Carver CS,
    2. Scheier MF,
    3. Segerstrom SC
    (2010) Optimism. Clin Psychol Rev 30(7):879–889.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Matheson C,
    2. Robertson HD,
    3. Elliott AM,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Resilience of primary healthcare professionals working in challenging environments: a focus group study. Br J Gen Pract, https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X685285.
  46. 46.↵
    1. Jackson D,
    2. Firtko A,
    3. Edenborough M
    (2007) Personal resilience as a strategy for surviving and thriving in the face of workplace adversity: a literature review. J Adv Nurs 60(1):1–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Jensen PM,
    2. Trollope-Kumar K,
    3. Waters H,
    4. Everson J
    (2008) Building physician resilience. Can Fam Physician 54(5):722–729.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.
    1. Stevenson AD,
    2. Phillips CB,
    3. Anderson KJ
    (2011) Resilience among doctors who work in challenging areas: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract, https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11X583182.
  49. 49.↵
    1. Zwack J,
    2. Schweitzer J
    (2013) If every fifth physician is affected by burnout, what about the other four? Resilience strategies of experienced physicians. Acad Med 88(3):382–389.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Seligman ME
    (2011) Building resilience. Harv Bus Rev 89(4):100–6, 138.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Tugade MM,
    2. Fredrickson BL
    (2004) Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. J Pers Soc Psychol 86(2):320–333.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Luthar SS,
    2. Sawyer JA,
    3. Brown PJ
    (2006) Conceptual issues in studies of resilience. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1094(1):105–115.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.
    1. Epstein RM,
    2. Krasner MS
    (2013) Physician resilience: what it means, why it matters, and how to promote it. Acad Med 88(3):301–303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.
    1. Sarkar M,
    2. Fletcher D
    (2014) Ordinary magic, extraordinary performance: Psychological resilience and thriving in high achievers. Sport Exercise and Perf Psychol 3(1):46–60.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    1. Davydov DM,
    2. Stewart R,
    3. Ritchie K,
    4. Chaudieu I
    (2010) Resilience and mental health. Clin Psychol Rev 30(5):479–495.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Duggleby W,
    2. Cooper D,
    3. Penz K
    (2009) Hope, self-efficacy, spiritual well-being and job satisfaction. J Adv Nurs 65(11):2376–2385.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.
    1. Levant RF,
    2. Stefanov DG,
    3. Rankin TJ,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Moderated path analysis of the relationships between masculinity and men’s attitudes toward seeking psychological help. J Couns Psychol 60(3):392–406.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    1. Schutte NS,
    2. Malouff JM
    (2016) General and realm-specific self-efficacy: Connections to life functioning. Curr Psychol 35:361–369.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    1. Gaitan-Sierra C,
    2. Dempster M
    (2016) Choosing to engage and choosing to persist: The role of non-specific factors in health-promoting activities. Br J Health Psychol 21(3):515–532.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.
    1. Scholz U,
    2. Doña BG,
    3. Sud S,
    4. Schwarzer R
    (2002) Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. Eur J Psychol Assess 18(3):242–251.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 61.↵
    1. Schönfeld P,
    2. Brailovskaia J,
    3. Bieda A,
    4. Zhang XC,
    5. Margraf J
    (2016) The effects of daily stress on positive and negative mental health: Mediation through self-efficacy. Int J Clin Health Psychol 16(1):1–10.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    1. Karademas EC
    (2007) Positive and negative aspects of well-being: Common and specific predictors. Pers Individ Dif 43(2):277–287.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    1. Law FM,
    2. Guo GJ
    (2016) Correlation of hope and self-efficacy with job satisfaction, job stress, and organizational commitment for correctional officers in the Taiwan prison system. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 60(11):1257–1277.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Youssef CM,
    2. Luthans F
    (2007) Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. J Manag 33(5):774–800.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    1. Haanstra TM,
    2. Tilbury C,
    3. Kamper SJ,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Can optimism, pessimism, hope, treatment credibility and treatment expectancy be distinguished in patients undergoing total hip and total knee arthroplasty? PloS One 10(7):e0133730.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    1. Luthans F
    (2012) Psychological capital: Implications for HRD, retrospective analysis, and future directions. Hum Res Dev Quart 23(1):1–8.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.
    1. Luthans F,
    2. Avey JB,
    3. Avolio BJ,
    4. Peterson SJ
    (2010) The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital. Hum Res Dev Quart 21(1):41–67.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    1. Avey JB,
    2. Luthans F,
    3. Smith RM,
    4. Palmer NF
    (2010) Impact of positive psychological capital on employee well-being over time. J Occup Health Psychol 15(1):17–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Wang Y,
    2. Liu L,
    3. Wang J,
    4. Wang L
    (2012) Work-family conflict and burnout among Chinese doctors: the mediating role of psychological capital. J Occup Health 54(3):232–240.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  70. 70.
    1. Liu L,
    2. Chang Y,
    3. Fu J,
    4. et al.
    (2012) The mediating role of psychological capital on the association between occupational stress and depressive symptoms among Chinese physicians: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 12:219.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Fu J,
    2. Sun W,
    3. Wang Y,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Improving job satisfaction of Chinese doctors: the positive effects of perceived organizational support and psychological capital. Public Health 127(10):946–951.
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.↵
    1. Luthans F,
    2. Avey JB,
    3. Avolio BJ,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Psychological capital development: toward a micro-intervention. J Organ Behav 27(3):387–393.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    1. Luthans F,
    2. Avey JB,
    3. Patera JL
    (2008) Experimental analysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Acad Manag Learn Edu 7(2):209–221.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. 74.↵
    1. Gazelle G,
    2. Liebschutz JM,
    3. Riess H
    (2015) Physician burnout: coaching a way out. J Gen Intern Med 30(4):508–513.
    OpenUrl
  75. 75.
    1. Gardiner M,
    2. Kearns H,
    3. Tiggemann M
    (2013) Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural coaching in improving the well-being and retention of rural general practitioners. Aust J Rural Health 21(3):183–189.
    OpenUrl
  76. 76.↵
    1. Schneider S,
    2. Kingsolver K,
    3. Rosdahl J
    (2014) Physician coaching to enhance wellbeing: A qualitative analysis of a pilot intervention. Explore (NY) 10(6):372–379.
    OpenUrl
  77. 77.↵
    1. Sood A,
    2. Prasad K,
    3. Schroeder D,
    4. Varkey P
    (2011) Stress management and resilience training among Department of Medicine faculty: a pilot randomized clinical trial. J Gen Intern Med 26(8):858–861.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.
    1. Krasner MS,
    2. Epstein RM,
    3. Beckman H,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Association of an educational program in mindful communication with burnout, empathy, and attitudes among primary care physicians. JAMA 302(12):1284–1293.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.
    1. Atanes AC,
    2. Andreoni S,
    3. Hirayama MS,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Mindfulness, perceived stress, and subjective well-being: a correlational study in primary care health professionals. BMC Complement Altern Med 15(1):303.
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.↵
    1. Warnecke E,
    2. Quinn S,
    3. Ogden K,
    4. et al.
    (2011) A randomised controlled trial of the effects of mindfulness practice on medical student stress levels. Med Educ 45(4):381–388.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 67 (661)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 67, Issue 661
August 2017
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
GPs’ mental wellbeing and psychological resources: a cross-sectional survey
Marylou Anna Murray, Chris Cardwell, Michael Donnelly
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (661): e547-e554. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X691709
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

 
 

British Journal of General Practice