INTRODUCTION: The aim was to study the prevalence of burnout among various groups of healthcare professionals in Singapore. METHODS: An anonymous online survey questionnaire was conducted using the Maslach Burnout Inventory - Human Services to measure three categories of burnout: emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalisation (DP) and personal accomplishment (PA) from July 2019 to January 2020 in a healthcare cluster in Singapore. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 6,048 healthcare professionals out of a target survey population of 15,000 (response rate 40.3%). The study revealed 37.8% of respondents had high EE score ≥27, 29.7% of respondents had high DP score ≥10, and 55.3% of respondents had low PA score ≤33. Respondents with either high EE score or high DP score constituted 43.9% (n=2,654). The Allied Health group had the highest mean EE score, which was significantly higher than those of Medical, Nursing and Non-clinical groups (P<0.05). The Medical group had the highest mean DP score and this was significantly higher than the Nursing, Allied Health and Non-clinical groups (P<0.05). The Non-clinical group had the lowest PA, which was significantly lower than the Medical, Nursing and Allied Health groups (P<0.005). CONCLUSION There was high prevalence of burnout among healthcare professionals in Singapore, especially the allied health professionals. There were significant differences in the 3 categories of burnout (EE, DP and PA) among the different groups of healthcare professionals. There is an urgent need to address the high burnout rate.
Burnout, Professional/psychology* ; Delivery of Health Care ; Health Personnel/psychology* ; Humans ; Prevalence ; Singapore/epidemiology* ; Surveys and Questionnaires

Introduction: This study aimed to determine the views and practices of healthcare providers and barriers they encountered when implementing the national health screening program for men in a public primary care setting in Malaysia. Methods: An online survey was conducted among healthcare providers across public health clinics in Malaysia. All family medicine specialists, medical officers, nurses and assistant medical officers involved in the screening program for adult men were invited to answer a 51-item questionnaire via email or WhatsApp. The questionnaire comprised five sections: participants’ socio-demographic information, current screening practices, barriers and facilitators to using the screening tool, and views on the content and format of the screening tool. Results: A total of 231 healthcare providers from 129 health clinics participated in this survey. Among them, 37.44% perceived the implementation of the screening program as a “top-down decision.” Although 37.44% found the screening tool for adult men “useful,” some felt that it was “time consuming” to fill out (38.2%) and “lengthy” (28.3%). In addition, ‘adult men refuse to answer’ (24.1%) was cited as the most common patient-related barrier. Conclusions: This study provided useful insights into the challenges encountered by the public healthcare providers when implementing a national screening program for men. The screening tool for adult men should be revised to make it more user-friendly. Further studies should explore the reasons why men were reluctant to participate in health screenings, thus enhancing the implementation of screening programs in primary care.