Gratitude at Work: Prospective Cohort Study of a Web-Based, Single-Exposure Well-Being Intervention for Health Care Workers

Abstract

Background Emotional exhaustion (EE) in health care workers is common and consequentially linked to lower quality of care. Effective interventions to address EE are urgently needed. Objective This randomized single-exposure trial examined the efficacy of a gratitude letter–writing intervention for improving health care workers’ well-being. Methods A total of 1575 health care workers were randomly assigned to one of two gratitude letter–writing prompts (self- vs other focused) to assess differential efficacy. Assessments of EE, subjective happiness, work-life balance, and tool engagement were collected at baseline and 1-week post intervention. Participants received their EE score at baseline and quartile benchmarking scores. Paired-samples t tests, independent t tests, and correlations explored the efficacy of the intervention. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software assessed the linguistic content of the gratitude letters and associations with well-being. Results Participants in both conditions showed significant improvements in EE, happiness, and work-life balance between the intervention and 1-week follow-up (P<.001). The self-focused (vs other) instruction conditions did not differentially predict improvement in any of the measures (P=.91). Tool engagement was high, and participants reporting higher motivation to improve their EE had higher EE at baseline (P<.001) and were more likely to improve EE a week later (P=.03). Linguistic analyses revealed that participants high on EE at baseline used more negative emotion words in their letters (P=.005). Reduction in EE at the 1-week follow-up was predicted at the level of a trend by using fewer first-person (P=.06) and positive emotion words (P=.09). No baseline differences were found between those who completed the follow-up assessment and those who did not (Ps>.05). Conclusions This single-exposure gratitude letter–writing intervention appears to be a promising low-cost, brief, and meaningful tool to improve the well-being of health care workers.

Maternal and neonatal health care worker well-being and patient safety climate amid the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Conversely, individual-focused interventions may carry the benefits of rapid deployment and adoption with minimal resource expenditure, and many are conducive to remote engagement using smartphones or other technology—features that may be particularly beneficial during the highly dynamic and taxing environment of a pandemic response. We have found that simple, bite-sized strategies are favorably received by HCWs, and have developed a family of these interventions for healthcare workers ( www.hsq.dukehealth.org/tools ) [ 32 ].…”

“…We evaluated burnout with a widely used [ 9 , 19 , 29 – 32 ] 5-item emotional exhaustion scale shown to have excellent psychometric properties [ 19 , 29 , 32 – 34 ], external validity [ 9 , 31 , 33 ], and responsiveness to interventions [ 19 , 32 , 34 ]. To limit response burden, particularly during the pandemic, we elected to forgo assessment, of depersonalization and personal accomplishment to reduce survey burden.…”

Clinician Burnout Associated With Sex, Clinician Type, Work Culture, and Use of Electronic Health Records

“…The survey includes a 5-item derivative of the Maslach Burnout Inventory emotional exhaustion domain (henceforth burnout ). 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 While the Maslach Burnout Inventory is the gold standard for burnout measurement, a meta-analysis found that the other 2 domains of burnout, depersonalization and personal accomplishment, consistently produced smaller coefficient α estimates than emotional exhaustion. 35 In addition, emotional exhaustion is more psychometrically robust in discriminating between burnout and nonburnout outpatients suffering from work-related neurasthenia.…”

Personal and Professional Factors Associated With Work-Life Integration Among US Physicians

“…This difference in mean (SD) WLI scores persisted for the subgroup of single mothers (44 [22] vs 51 [22] for other single women; mean difference, −7 [−0.3 SDs]; P = .02) but not of single fathers (50 [28] vs 52 [25] for other single men; mean difference, −2 [−0.1 SDs]; P = .54).…”