Explores resilience factors and job burnout among prison staff, suggesting targeted support for low-resilience units.
Objective To deeply explore the resilience of job burnout among staff in a closed management prison hospital in China during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, to identify the influencing factors of resilience and its dynamic relationship with job burnout. Methods A paper questionnaire survey was conducted. From June to July 2020, 200 prison staff from a prison hospital in Chongqing, China, were selected by random sampling method for the survey, and the results were statistically analyzed using SPSS statistical software. Results There were significant differences in resilience between different prison wards, with the second ward having lower resilience than the administrative office, and the difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.05); the second ward also had lower resilience than the third ward, and the difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.05). Positive coping (β = 0.364, 95%CI:0.447 ~ 1.112) and General Self-Efficacy Scale(GSES) (β = 0.346, 95%CI:0.498 ~ 1.102) were positively correlated with resilience ( p < 0.05). There was no correlation with psychoticism, social support, job burnout, prison wards, or neuroticism ( p > 0.05). Conclusion This study identified regional differences in Chongqing prison staff’s resilience, which correlates positively with positive coping and GSES but not directly with job burnout. Practically, target support for low-resilience units and integrate relevant training into routines to boost adversity adaptation. For prison hospital construction, address internal regional psychological impacts, establish job rotation and dynamic psychological assessment mechanisms, and optimize work environment and occupational security to build a “psychological support + institutional guarantee” model, informing national standardized development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: