Effects of cognitive behavioral therapy-based group intervention on burnout and anxiety symptoms in operating room nurses

Table 1 Comparison of baseline data between the two groups, n (%)¹

Item	Intervention group (n = 46)	Control group (n = 44)	Statistical value	P value
General demographic data
Age (years)	32.0 ± 5.8	31.0 ± 5.7	t = 0.862	0.391
Gender			χ2 = 0.167	0.682
Female	43 (93.5)	42 (9 5.5)
Male	3 (6.5)	2 (4.5)
Marital status			χ2 = 0.030	0.863
Married	28 (60.9)	26 (59.1)
Unmarried	18 (39.1)	18 (40.9)
Education level			χ2 = 0.001	0.975
Bachelor’s degree	45 (97.8)	43 (97.7)
Master’s degree or above	1 (2.2)	1 (2.3)
Living situation			χ2 = 0.134	0.715
Living alone	10 (21.7)	11 (25.0)
Living with family	36 (78.3)	33 (75.0)
Work-related data
Years of operating room experience (years)	9.3 ± 6.5	8.0 ± 6.1	t = 1.018	0.311
Professional title			χ2 = 0.080	0.961
Nurse	11 (23.9)	10 (22.7)
Nurse practitioner	28 (60.9)	28 (63.6)
Supervising nurse or above	7 (15.2)	6 (13.6)
Work shift type			χ2 = 0.028	0.867
Fixed day shift	9 (19.6)	8 (18.2)
Rotating shift	37 (80.4)	36 (81.8)
Average weekly working hours (hours)	40.2 ± 5.1	39.8 ± 5.3	t = 0.361	0.719
Undertaking teaching responsibilities	19 (41.3)	17 (38.6)	χ2 = 0.067	0.796
Health status
BMI (kg/m2)	21.8 ± 2.4	22.1 ± 2.6	t = -0.561	0.576
Chronic disease	6 (13.0)	5 (11.4)	χ2 = 0.059	0.808
Average daily sleep duration (hours)	6.4 ± 0.9	6.3 ± 1.0	t = 0.465	0.643
Regular exercise habits	13 (28.3)	15 (34.1)	χ2 = 0.357	0.550

¹Continuous variables with normal distribution are expressed as mean ± SD, analyzed using an independent samples t-test; categorical variables are expressed as n (%), analyzed using χ² test.

BMI: Body mass index.

Table 2 Comparison of burnout levels between the two groups at different time points¹

Indicator	Group	Baseline	Post-intervention	3 months post-intervention
Emotional exhaustion
	Intervention group (n = 46)	20.8 ± 3.6	14.2 ± 3.8	13.5 ± 3.5
	Control group (n = 44)	21.2 ± 3.4	21.5 ± 3.5	21.8 ± 3.6
	t value	-0.445	-8.026	-9.517
	P value	0.658	< 0.001	< 0.001
Depersonalization
	Intervention group (n = 46)	15.3 ± 2.9	10.6 ± 2.7	10.1 ± 2.6
	Control group (n = 44)	15.7 ± 3.1	15.9 ± 3.0	16.2 ± 3.1
	t value	-0.525	-7.389	-8.366
	P value	0.602	< 0.001	< 0.001
Professional efficacy
	Intervention group (n = 46)	18.4 ± 4.2	24.8 ± 4.5	25.6 ± 4.3
	Control group (n = 44)	18.9 ± 4.0	18.6 ± 4.2	18.3 ± 4.1
	t value	-0.48	5.597	6.786
	P value	0.633	< 0.001	< 0.001
MBI-GS total score
	Intervention group (n = 46)	53.7 ± 8.4	36.0 ± 7.9	34.0 ± 7.5
	Control group (n = 44)	54.0 ± 8.1	54.8 ± 8.3	55.7 ± 8.5
	t value	-0.144	-9.185	-10.754
	P value	0.886	< 0.001	< 0.001

¹Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey total score is calculated by reverse scoring the professional efficacy dimension and adding it to emotional exhaustion and depersonalization dimension scores; P-values have been Bonferroni corrected (corrected α = 0.05/3 = 0.0167); analyzed using an independent samples t-test.

MBI-GS: Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey.

Table 3 Comparison of anxiety symptoms between the two groups at different time points¹

Group	Baseline	Post-intervention	3 months post-intervention
Intervention group (n = 46)	9.8 ± 3.2	5.6 ± 2.4	5.2 ± 2.3
Control group (n = 44)	10.1 ± 3.4	10.3 ± 3.3	10.5 ± 3.4
t value	-0.357	-6.402	-7.19
P value	0.722	< 0.001	< 0.001

¹Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, with a total score range of 0-21 points; P-values have been Bonferroni corrected (corrected α = 0.0167); analyzed using an independent samples t-test.

Table 4 Comparison of depressive symptoms between the two groups at different time points¹

Group	Baseline	Post-intervention	3 months post-intervention
Intervention group (n = 46)	8.6 ± 3.5	5.1 ± 2.6	4.7 ± 2.4
Control group (n = 44)	8.9 ± 3.7	9.1 ± 3.6	9.3 ± 3.7
t value	-0.329	-5.053	-5.831
P value	0.743	< 0.001	< 0.001

¹Patient Health Questionnaire-Depression scale, with a total score range of 0-27 points; P-values have been Bonferroni corrected (corrected α = 0.0167); analyzed using an independent samples t-test.

Table 5 Comparison of sleep quality between the two groups at different time points¹

Group	Baseline	Post-intervention	3 months post-intervention
Intervention group (n = 46)	9.7 ± 2.4	6.8 ± 2.1	6.3 ± 2.0
Control group (n = 44)	9.9 ± 2.6	10.1 ± 2.5	10.3 ± 2.6
t value	-0.315	-5.627	-6.776
P value	0.754	< 0.001	< 0.001

¹Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, with a total score range of 0-21 points, where higher scores indicate poorer sleep quality; P-values have been Bonferroni corrected (corrected α = 0.0167); analyzed using an independent samples t-test.

Table 6 Comparison of job satisfaction between the two groups at different time points¹

Group	Baseline	Post-intervention	3 months post-intervention
Intervention group (n = 46)	58.3 ± 9.6	68.5 ± 10.2	70.2 ± 9.8
Control group (n = 44)	57.8 ± 9.8	57.5 ± 9.9	57.1 ± 10.0
t value	0.2	4.383	5.268
P value	0.842	< 0.001	< 0.001

¹Job Satisfaction Scale total score ranges from 20 points to 100 points, with higher scores indicating higher satisfaction; P-values have been Bonferroni corrected (corrected α = 0.0167); analyzed using an independent samples t-test.

Table 7 Comparison of self-efficacy between the two groups at different time points¹

Group	Baseline	Post-intervention	3 months post-intervention
Intervention group (n = 46)	24.6 ± 4.8	29.8 ± 5.1	30.5 ± 4.9
Control group (n = 44)	24.9 ± 4.6	24.7 ± 4.7	24.5 ± 4.8
t value	-0.251	4.1	4.92
P value	0.803	< 0.001	< 0.001

¹General Self-Efficacy Scale, with a total score range of 10-40 points, where higher scores indicate stronger self-efficacy; P-values have been Bonferroni corrected (corrected α = 0.0167); analyzed using an independent samples t-test.