The Lund University Checklist for Incipient Exhaustion: a prospective validation of the onset of sustained stress and exhaustion warnings.
BACKGROUND
The need for instruments that can assist in detecting the prodromal stages of stress-related exhaustion has been acknowledged. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether the Lund University Checklist for Incipient Exhaustion (LUCIE) could accurately and prospectively detect the onset of incipient exhaustion and to what extent work stressor exposure and private burdens were associated with increasing LUCIE scores.


METHODS
Using surveys, 1355 employees were followed for 11 quarters. Participants with prospectively elevated LUCIE scores were targeted by three algorithms entailing 4 quarters: (1) abrupt onset to a sustained Stress Warning (n = 18), (2) gradual onset to a sustained Stress Warning (n = 42), and (3) sustained Exhaustion Warning (n = 36). The targeted participants' survey reports on changes in work situation and private life during the fulfillment of any algorithm criteria were analyzed, together with the interview data. Participants untargeted by the algorithms constituted a control group (n = 745).


RESULTS
Eighty-seven percent of participants fulfilling any LUCIE algorithm criteria (LUCIE indication cases) rated a negative change in their work situation during the 4 quarters, compared to 48 % of controls. Ratings of negative changes in private life were also more common in the LUCIE indication groups than among controls (58 % vs. 29 %), but free-text commentaries revealed that almost half of the ratings in the LUCIE indication groups were due to work-to-family conflicts and health problems caused by excessive workload, assigned more properly to work-related negative changes. When excluding the themes related to work-stress-related private life compromises, negative private life changes in the LUCIE indication groups dropped from 58 to 32 %, while only a negligible drop from 29 to 26 % was observed among controls. In retrospective interviews, 79 % of the LUCIE indication participants confirmed exclusively/predominantly work stressors, while 6 % described a predominance of private life stressors.


CONCLUSIONS
Negative changes in the work situation were the most prominent change related to a sustained increase in LUCIE scores. The findings seem to confirm that LUCIE is a potentially useful tool for clinical screening of incipient work-related exhaustion.
Department of Psychology, Lund University, SE-22100, Lund, Sweden. kai.osterberg@psy.lu.se.|Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, SE-22185, Lund, Sweden. kai.osterberg@psy.lu.se.
Kai
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1907-8812
K
Österberg
Department of Psychology, Lund University, SE-22100, Lund, Sweden.|Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, SE-22185, Lund, Sweden.
Roger
R
Persson
Department of Psychology, Lund University, SE-22100, Lund, Sweden.
Njördur
N
Viborg
School of Education and Environment, Centre for Psychology, Kristianstad University, SE-29188, Kristianstad, Sweden.
Peter
P
Jönsson
Hälsan & Arbetslivet, Occupational Health Care Unit, Region Västra Götaland, Skaraborg Hospital, SE-54185, Skövde, Sweden.|Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, SE-40530, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Artur
A
Tenenbaum
Burnout; Exhaustion disorder; KEDS; LUCIE; Personality traits; Stress
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Sep;75(5):784-94
22658625
J Occup Environ Med. 2010 Aug;52(8):778-90
20657300
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Sep;63(5):506-16
18727753
BMC Public Health. 2010 Jun 02;10:301
20515510
BMC Public Health. 2016 Apr 21;16:350
27099142
Occup Environ Med. 2003 Jun;60(6):429-37
12771395
Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:397-422
11148311
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014 Apr;87(3):295-306
23463443
BMC Public Health. 2014 Aug 09;14:821
25106094
Scand J Public Health Suppl. 2004;63:152-80
15513656
Appl Ergon. 2009 Jul;40(4):775-80
18838130
Scand J Psychol. 2014 Feb;55(1):72-82
24236500
J Occup Environ Med. 2016 Sep;58(9):902-10
27454394
Clin Psychol Rev. 2007 Oct;27(7):769-80
17707564
Psychol Med. 2016 Mar;46(4):683-97
26620157
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Jul;66(7):586-92
21422028