INTRODUCTION
The well-being of the physician has gained significant international attention in
recent years, actively fueling the change in policies regarding their working
conditions.1 The routine of the
physician, especially the surgeon, remains challenging, with prolonged and
unpredictable working hours, stress from emotionally difficult situations, and
demands to master surgical techniques. Burnout, described as
emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment, has
been associated with a decrease in quality of life and an increase in
professional errors.2
A recent study conducted with American plastic surgeons concluded that, despite
the high prevalence of burnout and mental health disorders
associated with a career in medicine, American plastic surgeons have high levels
of happiness.1 Although this study focused
on the positive aspects of the medical profession, studies investigating
happiness in medicine and, especially, plastic surgery are limited.2 The scarcity of data is even more evident
in developing countries, such as Brazil, the country with the second largest
number of plastic surgeons in the world, and a country that presents a different
reality from that of developed countries.
The objective of this study was to specifically evaluate the happiness of plastic
surgeons belonging to the Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery – São Paulo –
SBCP-SP, and to evaluate which factors are associated with greater
happiness.
METHODS
This was a primary, observational, cross-sectional, descriptive study conducted
in a single center.
The project was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP) of the
Universidade Federal de São Paulo/Escola Paulista de
Medicina (Unifesp/EPM), under number 35395220.9.0000.5505. The
project was also approved by the Board of the Sociedade Brasileira de
Cirurgia Plástica -São Paulo, which provided the members’ e-mail
addresses, and conducted between October 2020 and October 2022. The data were
kept confidential and anonymized to comply with the General Data Protection Law
of Brazil (LGPD).
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in
Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist3, the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet
E-Surveys (CHERRIES)4 and the
Survey Disclosure Checklist (American Association
for Public Opinion Research, AAPOR) were used to describe the
study.5
The sample size of 238 participants was calculated considering a significance
level of 5% (95% confidence interval), 6% accuracy and the population size of
2,200 plastic surgeon members of the Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia
Plástica São Paulo Regional.
The inclusion criteria adopted were associate members and full members of the
Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica (SBCP) São Paulo
Regional who had their e-mail updated in the SBCP database.
The non-inclusion criteria were associate members or full members of the SBCP who
did not agree to participate in the study. The exclusion criteria adopted were
associate members or full members of the SBCP who, after reviewing the
questionnaire, decided to withdraw their authorization to participate in the
study.
To characterize the casuistry, sociodemographic and professional data were
obtained and elaborated with the collaboration of a multidisciplinary team
composed of psychologists, psychiatrists, and plastic surgeons. The
questionnaire was prepared following the recommendations of CHOI & PAK
(2005)6 and CHUNG et al.7 and sent to members via e-mail containing
the consent form and a link to the Google Forms® survey.
Data collection occurred from December 27, 2020, to July 28, 2021. The invitation
was sent six times, and the response rate was calculated based on the total
number of responses and the number of invited participants. The descriptive
analysis of those who did not respond was not performed, and participants who
may have given up answering after reading the questions or after partially
answering the questions were not identified. For the participants who agreed to
participate, all questions were mandatory so that the form could be authorized
for submission, and all responses received were included in the results.
The instrument used to assess happiness was the SHS questionnaire developed by
Lyubomirsky and Lepper.8 This instrument
was translated and validated for Brazilian Portuguese.9 The scores range from 1.0 to 7.0, with higher scores
reflecting greater happiness.
RESULTS
The data were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistical analysis.
Regarding the descriptive statistics, for the description of the quantitative
variables, the mean was used as a measure of dispersion, and the variability was
determined by the standard deviation; for the qualitative (or categorical)
variables, the absolute (n) and relative (%) frequency of the studied events
were used. Regarding inferential statistics, nonparametric tests were used. The
degree of association between the two variables was assessed using Spearman’s
correlation. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare two-by-two variables
from independent samples, and in the comparisons between more than two
subgroups, the Kruskal–Wallis test was used. The information was recorded in a
database using Microsoft Office Excel (2016) and statistically analyzed using
IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version
20.0) and MINITAB16. The significance level adopted for all analyses was 5%.
The response rate was 12.18%. A total of 268 participants completed the form, and
there was no request for exclusion from participation. Among the participants,
188 were male (70.1%), and 80 were female (29.9%). The score obtained using the
SHS scale was 5.51 ± 0.13.
The correlation between the happiness score and the three questions that
evaluated quantitative factors is shown in Table 1, and there was a statistically significant correlation between two
of them.
Table 1 - Correlation of Total SHS with Quantitative Factors.
|
SHS |
Corr (r) |
p value
|
Time of residence |
0.067 |
0.276 |
Confidence Training |
0.240 |
<0.001 |
Current practice |
0.396 |
<0.001 |
Table 1 - Correlation of Total SHS with Quantitative Factors.
The relationships between happiness scores and sociodemographic data are shown in
Table 2 and illustrated in Figures
1 and 2.
Table 2 - Comparison of sociodemographic data for total SHS.
|
|
N |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
CI |
P value
|
Gender |
Female |
80 (29.85%) |
5.57 |
1.13 |
0.25 |
0.549 |
Male |
188 (70.15%) |
5.49 |
1.11 |
0.16 |
Marital status |
With partner |
237 (88.43%) |
5.47 |
1.12 |
0.14 |
0.090 |
Without partner |
31 (11.57%) |
5.84 |
1.03 |
0.36 |
Do you have children? |
No |
77 (28.73%) |
5.41 |
1.05 |
0.23 |
0.213 |
Yes |
191 (71.27%) |
5.55 |
1.14 |
0.16 |
Do you have any
religious and/or spiritual beliefs?
|
No |
31 (11.57%) |
5.45 |
1.21 |
0.43 |
0.881 |
Yes |
237 (88.43%) |
5.52 |
1.10 |
0.14 |
Practices sports activities |
No |
83 (30.97%) |
5.35 |
1.22 |
0.26 |
0.234 |
Yes |
185 (69.03%) |
5.59 |
1.06 |
0.15 |
Has leisure
activities
|
No |
38 (14.18%) |
4.82 |
1.33 |
0.42 |
<0.001 |
Yes |
230 (85.82%) |
5.63 |
1.03 |
0.13 |
Has some diagnosed mood disorder |
No |
228 (85.07%) |
5.63 |
1.05 |
0.14 |
<0.001 |
Yes |
40 (14.93%) |
4.86 |
1.27 |
0.39 |
Do you have difficulty
reconciling personal and professional life?
|
No |
185 (69.03%) |
5.69 |
1.02 |
0.15 |
0.001 |
Yes |
83 (30.97%) |
5.13 |
1.21 |
0.26 |
Do you have difficulties relating to other people at
work?
|
No |
254 (94.78%) |
5.58 |
1.07 |
0.13 |
<0.001 |
Yes |
14 (5.22%) |
4.27 |
1.11 |
0.58 |
Do you have
difficulties relating to other people in your social and family
life?
|
No |
243 (90.67%) |
5.60 |
1.05 |
0.13 |
<0.001 |
Yes |
25 (9.33%) |
4.62 |
1.33 |
0.52 |
Do you work day shifts? |
No |
196 (73.13%) |
5.66 |
1.07 |
0.15 |
<0.001 |
Yes |
72 (26.87%) |
5.12 |
1.15 |
0.27 |
Do you work night
shifts?
|
No |
207 (77.24%) |
5.59 |
1.08 |
0.15 |
0.042 |
Yes |
61 (22.76%) |
5.24 |
1.20 |
0.30 |
Do you perform any other paid activity, in addition
to plastic surgery?
|
No |
189 (70.52%) |
5.61 |
1.06 |
0.15 |
0.040 |
Yes |
79 (29.48%) |
5.28 |
1.21 |
0.27 |
You are a member of the
SBCP
|
Associate Full-member
(Titular)
|
143 (53.36%) |
5.35 |
1.20 |
0.20 |
0.031 |
125 (46.64%) |
5.70 |
0.98 |
0.17 |
Number of hours worked per week? |
Less than 60 hours Entre 60 e 80 horas More than 80
hours
|
104 (38.81%) |
5.52 |
1.15 |
0.22 |
0.077 |
129 (48.13%) |
5.40 |
1.12 |
0.19 |
35 (13.06%) |
5.91 |
0.86 |
0.29 |
Type of surgery
performed
|
Both |
212 (79.1%) |
5.54 |
1.08 |
0.15 |
0.795 |
Aesthetics |
47 (17.54%) |
5.41 |
1.30 |
0.37 |
Reconstructive |
9 (3.36%) |
5.39 |
0.89 |
0.58 |
Do you consider that your professional career as a
plastic surgeon has reached a satisfactory level of
stability?
|
No |
86 (32.09%) |
4.96 |
1.16 |
0.25 |
<0.001 |
Yes |
143 (53.36%) |
5.85 |
1.00 |
0.16 |
Perhaps |
39 (14.55%) |
5.51 |
0.91 |
0.29 |
If you could go back,
would you choose plastic surgery as a career again?
|
No |
29 (10.82%) |
4.37 |
1.21 |
0.44 |
<0.001 |
Yes |
177 (66.04%) |
5.87 |
0.90 |
0.13 |
Perhaps |
62 (23.13%) |
5.02 |
1.07 |
0.27 |
Location of activity |
Capital |
150 (55.97%) |
5.64 |
1.15 |
0.18 |
0.017 |
Interior |
118 (44.03%) |
5.36 |
1.05 |
0.19 |
Table 2 - Comparison of sociodemographic data for total SHS.
Figure 1 - Comparison of sociodemographic data for total SHS.
Figure 1 - Comparison of sociodemographic data for total SHS.
Figure 2 - Comparison of SHS between associate members and full members of
the SBCP.
Figure 2 - Comparison of SHS between associate members and full members of
the SBCP.
Groups were divided and compared according to age group and time of completion of
residence (Table 3), with no
statistically significant differences.
Table 3 - Comparison of age groups and residence times for total SHS.
|
|
|
Standard |
|
|
|
|
N |
Mean |
Deviation |
IC |
Valor-p |
Age range |
Up to 40 years ≥ 41
years
|
88 (32.84%) |
5.49 |
1.13 |
0.24 |
0.767 |
180 (67.16%) |
5.53 |
1.11 |
0.16 |
Residence time |
Up to 10 years |
98 (36.57%) |
5.44 |
1.17 |
0.23 |
|
88 (32.84%) |
11 to 20 years |
80 (29.85%) |
5.41 |
1.13 |
0.25 |
0.255 |
180 (67.16%) |
|
≥ 21 years |
90 (33.58%) |
5.69 |
1.02 |
0.21 |
|
Table 3 - Comparison of age groups and residence times for total SHS.
DISCUSSION
There are few studies in the literature that aim to evaluate the happiness of
plastic surgeons. In 1997, Capek et al.10
applied a questionnaire to American plastic surgeons and reported a high level
of happiness and satisfaction with their careers, similar to the results found
in this study.
More recently, Streu et al.11 in 2014 and
Qureshi et al.12 in 2015 demonstrated
that American plastic surgeons have a lower quality of life than the American
population in general. The concepts of quality of life and happiness are
distinct. Considering that the objective of this study was to specifically
evaluate happiness, it is not possible to compare the results of these American
studies with the present study.
More recently, Sterling et al.1 evaluated
the happiness of American plastic surgeons using the same scale used in this
study. The researchers observed that there was an increase in happiness as they
progressed in training and that meeting the expectations of the practice after
training also correlated with higher happiness rates.
In Brazil, similar studies evaluating happiness were not found, but two published
studies aimed to understand the sociodemographic characteristics of plastic
surgeons and were each restricted to states with a relatively low number of
plastic surgeons: Paraná and Goiás. In the first, Araújo et al.13 only described sociodemographic
characteristics, and in the second, Arruda et al.14 correlated the sociodemographic data with quality of life. In the
latter, the authors concluded that factors such as being married, having
children, having a monthly income greater than R $ 30,000.00, working time
greater than 10 years, being at least a specialist, not working shifts, having a
weekly workload of up to 40 hours, and performing more than 4 surgeries per week
positively influence a better quality of life.
São Paulo, the focus of the present study, includes at least one-third of the
plastic surgery specialists in Brazil,15
and had an SHS score of 5.51 ± 0.13. Although the economic realities of Brazil
and the United States are quite different, such data suggest that plastic
surgeons in the state of São Paulo report a level of happiness similar to that
of Americans, which was 5.5.1
Arruda et al.14 found that better quality
of life was associated with married plastic surgeons who had children, while in
the present study, there was no difference between the happiness of those who
had or did not have partners and those who did or did not have children. In this
regard, Sterling et al.1 also found no
statistically significant differences in the happiness levels of American
surgeons.
In a specialty with male predominance, it would be plausible to assume that women
would face greater challenges and that they would report lower levels of
happiness. However, the results of the present study did not observe a
difference in the levels of happiness between the sexes, demonstrating a
scenario similar to that of the United States1.
Among medical students, there is a tendency to think that cosmetic plastic
surgery may be a more interesting career than reconstructive plastic surgery.
However, the results of the present study found no difference between the levels
of happiness between surgeons who practice cosmetic and reconstructive surgery.
Such data may be useful for the Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia
Plástica (SBCP) to encourage the specialty of reconstructive
surgery not only in the state of São Paulo but also throughout the country.
In this study, the majority (66%) of plastic surgeons stated that if they could
go back, they would choose the specialty of plastic surgery again, and only
10.8% stated the opposite. This is an encouraging finding, especially for future
aspirants in this career, who may have doubts about their choice of
specialty.
This study has limitations. As a descriptive, cross-sectional study, the results
refer only to a certain time, and some responses may have been influenced by the
COVID-19 pandemic. It is necessary to take into account that some of the
questions in the questionnaire are sensitive and may have caused some of the
participants to feel uncomfortable answering them. There is the possibility of
selection bias, where the population that agreed to participate in the study and
answered the questionnaire is substantially different from the population that
did not choose to participate.
On the other hand, the present study has, as positive points, following the
checklist Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
(STROBE),3 the Checklist for Reporting
Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)4
and the Survey Disclosure Checklist (American Association for Public Opinion
Research/AAPOR)5. In addition,
although the response rate may be considered low, it is compatible with the
rates reported by surveys conducted using electronic means16 and reached the targeted sample size. A prospective
study, following a cohort of Brazilian plastic surgeons throughout their
careers, would allow a better understanding of the happiness of plastic
surgeons, how it can change over time, and which factors are most
influential.
CONCLUSION
The plastic surgeon in São Paulo has a level of happiness similar to that
reported by American surgeons, with no differences in happiness between the
sexes or between those who work in aesthetics, reconstructive, or both.
REFERENCES
1. Sterling DA, Grow JN, Vargo JD, Nazir N, Butterworth JA. Happiness
in Plastic Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of 595 Practicing Plastic
Surgeons, Fellows, Residents, and Medical Students. Ann Plast Surg.
2020;84(1):90-4.
2. Pulcrano M, Evans SR, Sosin M. Quality of Life and Burnout Rates
Across Surgical Specialties: A Systematic Review. JAMA Surg.
2016;151(10):970-8.
3. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke
JP; STROBE Initiative. T The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational
Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting
observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453-7.
4. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: The Checklist for
Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res.
2004;6(3):e34.
5. https://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/AAPOR-Code-of- Ethics/Survey-Disclosure-Checklist.aspx
6. Choi BC, Pak AW. A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Prev Chronic
Dis. 2005;2(1):A13.
7. Chung WHJ, Gudal RA, Nasser JS, Chung KC. Critical Assessment of
Surveys in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review. Plast
Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(5):912e-22e.
8. Lyubomirsky S, Lepper HS. A measure of subjective happiness:
Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Soc Indic Res.
1999;46:137-55.
9. Damasio B F, Zanon C, Koller SH. Validation and psychometric
properties of the Brazilian version of the subjective happiness scale. Univ
Psychol. 2014;13(1):17-24.
10. Capek L, Edwards DE, Mackinnon SE. Plastic surgeons: a gender
comparison. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;99(2):289-99.
11. Streu R, Hansen J, Abrahamse P, Alderman AK. Professional burnout
among US plastic surgeons: results of a national survey. Ann Plast Surg.
2014;72(3):346-50.
12. Qureshi HA, Rawlani R, Mioton LM, Dumanian GA, Kim JYS, Rawlani V.
Burnout phenomenon in U.S. plastic surgeons: risk factors and impact on quality
of life. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(2):619-26.
13. Araujo LRR, Auersvald A, Gamborgi MA, Freitas RS. Perfil do
cirurgião plástico paranaense. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2012;27(3
Suppl.1):12.
14. Arruda FC, Paula PR, Porto CC. Quality of Life of the Plastic
Surgeon in the Midwest of Brazil. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open.
2018;6(8):e1802.
15. Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica (SBCP). 2020. Demografia
Cirurgia Plástica. Número de cirurgiões plásticos e perfil geoeconômico por
município. [Acesso 2021 Ago 7]. Disponível em: http://www2.cirurgiaplastica.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/demografia_cirurgiaplastica_2020_alta.pdf
16. Thoma A, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M, Goldsmith CH;
Evidence-Based Surgery Working Group. How to assess a survey in surgery. Can J
Surg. 2011;54(6):394-402.
1. Universidade Nove de Julho - Vergueiro Campus,
Brazil - SP., - - São Paulo - São Paulo - Brazil.
2. Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Plastic
Surgery Division - São Paulo - São Paulo - Brazil.
3. Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Discipline
of Operative Technique and Experimental Surgery - São Paulo - São Paulo -
Brazil.
Corresponding author:
Marcio Yuri Ferreira Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola
Paulista de Medicina Rua Botucatu, 740, Vila Clementino, São Paulo, S P, Brazil.
CEP: 04023-062 E-mail: secretaria.sp@unifesp.br
Article received: March 21, 2024.
Article accepted: April 30, 2024.
Conflicts of interest: none.