Understanding the patterns of psychoactive substance use among physicians may help supporting their well-being and maintaining high standards of patient care. Given the demanding nature of medical practice, GPs may face unique stressors that influence their substance use patterns.This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of psychoactive substance use (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, benzodiazepines, cocaine, and opioid) among general practitioners (GPs) in the region and to identify sociodemographic and professional factors associated with these behaviors, including workload, age, and parental status.A cross-sectional study was conducted using an anonymous online questionnaire distributed to GPs in XXX. The survey combined two recruitment strategies: a broad diffusion via social media and a randomized subsample GPs selected from a regional directory and contacted by phone. The questionnaire, hosted on the secure Skezia platform, included validated scales to assess substance use (AUDIT, Fagerström, CAST, ECAB) and sociodemographic and professional information, including age, gender, marital status, parental status, and weekly working hours. Anxiety levels were assessed using a self-reported question. Data were analyzed using Jamovi.The study included 190 GPs (44 residents, 146 practicing physicians), with a 15% response rate in the randomized subsample. Alcohol misuse was reported by 22.6% of participants, with 6.8% showing probable dependence. Tobacco use was 10.5%. Cannabis use in the past five years was 17.4%. Benzodiazepine use was 23.2%. Cocaine use was 9.5%. Opioid use was 2.6%. Anxiety was reported by 54.2% of participants. Risk factors included younger age, lack of children, and high workload. GPs working 50–60 hours/week reported more frequent alcohol consumption (31.8%).The prevalence of psychoactive substance use among GPs in Occitanie aligns closely with general population trends, except for lower tobacco use and higher benzodiazepine use. The high rates of anxiety (54.2%) and substance use underscore the need to address systemic and personal factors influencing physician well-being.This study provides a regional snapshot of substance use patterns among GPs, highlighting the importance of further research to explore longitudinal trends and the effectiveness of interventions. By fostering a better understanding of these dynamics, the medical community can work toward improving physician health and, by extension, patient care.

Fatigue is highly prevalent among healthcare workers and is associated with impaired health, reduced productivity, and increased occupational risk. Fatigue assessment using standardized scales may provide a practical approach for identifying workers at risk of functional decline and guiding workplace health promotion strategies. However, its association with objectively measured physical fitness remains unclear in occupational healthcare settings.This study aimed to examine whether moderate-to-severe personal or work-related fatigue, assessed using validated fatigue scales, is independently associated with physical fitness performance, such as muscle strength, muscle endurance, flexibility, cardiorespiratory fitness, and grip strength among hospital employees.In this multicenter, cross-sectional study, personal and work-related fatigue were assessed using validated scales, and participants were categorized into mild or moderate-to-severe fatigue groups. Independent t-tests were conducted to compare demographic characteristics and physical fitness parameters between fatigue groups. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to examine associations between fatigue severity and physical fitness outcomes, particularly muscle strength and muscle endurance, adjusting for potential confounders.A total of 365 hospital employees were enrolled, with a mean age of approximately 45 years. Compared with employees reporting mild fatigue, those in the moderate-to-severe fatigue group were significantly younger (43.2 vs. 46.1 years, p < 0.05), exhibited poorer muscle strength and endurance as measured by sit-up normative scores (3.54 vs. 3.94, p < 0.05), and had lower overall physical fitness scores (11.8 vs. 12.7, p < 0.05). After multivariable adjustment, moderate-to-severe fatigue remained independently associated with lower muscle strength and endurance (β = −0.10; 95% CI: −0.19 to −0.01; p = 0.026). Compared with employees reporting mild fatigue, those with moderate-to-severe fatigue demonstrated an approximately 0.1-point reduction in muscle strength and endurance performance.Fatigue severity, assessed using standardized scales, was independently associated with poorer muscle strength and endurance, suggesting that fatigue may capture aspects of functional health status not fully reflected by traditional cardiometabolic or anthropometric indicators.Fatigue assessment may serve as a scalable and actionable tool for healthcare employers to identify workers at risk of functional decline and to guide targeted workplace health promotion and fatigue management strategies. Keywords (MeSH Terms) Fatigue; Physical Fitness; Workplace Health Promotion

Burnout among physicians is an escalating concern in modern healthcare systems, marked by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. The COVID‑19 pandemic intensified workload and psychological strain, coinciding with a rapid global expansion of telemedicine. This digital shift sparked debate regarding its impact on physician well‑being, yet only limited evidence has explored how telemedicine influences burnout. Given the already elevated prevalence of mental health issues among healthcare providers, understanding whether telemedicine alleviates or exacerbates burnout is essential.This systematic review aimed to examine the relationship between telemedicine use and burnout among physicians.A comprehensive search was done in 4 databases: Pubmed,Scopus,Cochrane and PsycNet. We identified 469 records; after removing duplicates, 382 articles were screened, and 16 studies met inclusion criteria (14 cross‑sectional, one mixed‑methods, and one qualitative study).Findings were mixed: several studies reported that telemedicine improved work–life balance, flexibility, and autonomy, contributing to lower burnout levels, while others highlighted increased workload, technological challenges, and reduced professional fulfillment, suggesting a potential worsening of burnout.This review shows that telemedicine’s impact on physician burnout is inconsistent. Some studies report benefits such as greater flexibility and improved work–life balance, which may reduce burnout. Others describe increased administrative burden, technical challenges, and reduced patient connection, which may worsen stress. These mixed findings likely reflect differences in implementation, support, and specialty‑specific needs. Overall, telemedicine’s effect on burnout depends heavily on context.Telemedicine can both alleviate and contribute to physician burnout. While it offers flexibility, it may also introduce new stressors. Current evidence is limited and inconsistent, highlighting the need for stronger, longitudinal research to determine how telemedicine can be integrated in ways that support physician well‑being.

Mental health is a critical component of healthcare workforce sustainability. Physicians face unique stressors, high patient loads, long shifts, on-call duties, and administrative pressures, that increase vulnerability to anxiety, depression, and burnout. These conditions not only impair quality of life but also compromise patient safety, clinical decision-making, and organizational efficiency. The WHO estimates that poor mental health costs the global economy US$1 trillion annually in lost productivity, with healthcare professionals among the most affected groups. Despite this, few studies translate mental health deterioration into standardized economic metrics such as QALYs, limiting the ability to prioritize interventions and allocate resources effectively.To estimate the economic cost of mental health deterioration associated with work-related factors among physicians by mapping GHQ‑12 scores to EQ‑5D utilities and annual QALY losses using Mao’s (2025) algorithm.Cross-sectional study of 708 physicians in Barcelona. Psychological distress was measured with GHQ‑12. EQ‑5D utilities and annual QALY losses were derived using Mao (2025) mapping, which improves predictive accuracy for mental health states compared to earlier models. QALY losses were monetized using Spanish cost-effectiveness thresholds (€20,000–€34,000/QALY). We analyzed mean costs by work setting, on-call type, contract type, weekly hours, and sector. Correlations between GHQ‑12, EQ‑5D, and QALY loss were assessed.Mean EQ‑5D was 0.89; mean annual QALY loss 0.11. Estimated annual mental-health cost per physician ranged from €2,200 to €3,700 depending on threshold. Higher costs were observed in primary care, ICU, emergency services, in-person on-call duties, and non-permanent contracts.Our findings underscore the critical importance of addressing mental health among healthcare professionals. Physicians are exposed to persistent psychosocial stressors, high patient loads, unpredictable schedules, and frequent on-call duties, that elevate the risk of anxiety, depression, and burnout. These conditions not only impair individual well-being but also compromise patient safety, clinical decision-making, and organizational performance.Work-related mental health deterioration among physicians entails substantial QALY losses and economic costs. Incorporating QALY-based metrics into occupational health policy can guide resource allocation and improve workforce sustainability.

Physicians’ mental health is fundamental for high-quality care and patient safety. Recent systemic changes, including the COVID-19 pandemic, technological innovations, and demographic shifts such as feminization and migration, have intensified psychosocial stressors in clinical practice. These pressures intersect with structural determinants like employment sector, workload, and job multiplicity, creating complex vulnerabilities. Understanding these dynamics is essential for designing interventions that safeguard well-being and sustain healthcare systems.To analyze the relationship between physicians’ mental health and working conditions, focusing on employment sector (public vs. private), number of jobs, and primary workplace setting, while considering demographic factors such as age and country of origin.A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the 2021 and 2022 Galatea Foundation Surveys. Mental health was assessed using the GHQ-12 screening tool. Descriptive statistics summarized sample characteristics; chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests explored bivariate associations. Logistic regression models, both crude and adjusted, estimated odds ratios for poor mental health across occupational and demographic factors, stratified by gender.Age ≥50 was consistently protective for both genders (OR=0.5, p<0.05). Being foreign-born increased risk among women (OR=1.7, p<0.05). For men, working in the public sector was associated with higher psychological distress (OR=2, p<0.05), while holding multiple jobs showed a protective effect (OR=0.5, p<0.05).Female physicians consistently reported worse mental health than men, yet none of the occupational factors analyzed, such as employment sector, number of jobs, or workplace setting, were significantly associated with their outcomes. This suggests that their higher psychological distress may be driven by structural and psychosocial determinants beyond traditional labor variables, such as unpaid domestic work and organizational dynamics. Conversely, among men, working in the public sector was linked to poorer mental health, while holding multiple jobs appeared protective. These findings highlight that occupational factors interact differently across genders and underscore the need for gender-sensitive and intersectional approaches in occupational health policies.Safeguarding physicians’ mental health requires systemic strategies beyond individual coping mechanisms. Policies should address structural inequalities, promote flexible and supportive work environments, and integrate psychosocial resources into healthcare organisations. Given the demographic evolution of the medical workforce, interventions must be gender-sensitive and culturally responsive.

Long COVID is characterised by persistent or recurrent symptoms following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Healthcare professionals—who experienced sustained exposure and high workloads during the pandemic—appear disproportionately affected. Persistent symptoms can compromise both their health and their ability to meet demanding clinical responsibilities, raising concerns about workforce well-being, retention, and safety.To examine the experience of healthcare workers living with Long COVID across Europe, with a focus on its impact on work capacity, workplace adaptations implemented, and strategies used to maintain professional performance.We designed a mixed-methods study combining a structured online questionnaire with optional open-ended questions. Eligible participants include physicians, nurses, physiotherapists and other healthcare workers with confirmed or clinically suspected Long COVID. Data collection has recently begun and remains open. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive and comparative statistics. Qualitative responses will undergo thematic analysis to explore perceived limitations, support needs, and experiences with organisational responses. The study has received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee for Medicinal Products (CEIm) of Hospital Universitario La Paz (PI-5030).Preliminary findings will be available by the time of the conference. Based on early responses, we anticipate identifying substantial variability in symptom burden, fluctuating functional limitations, and challenges in sustaining work performance. We also expect to document a wide range of workplace accommodations, differing levels of institutional support, and strategies employed by affected professionals to cope with physical, cognitive and emotional difficulties.Understanding how Long COVID affects healthcare personnel at both personal and organisational levels is essential to inform workforce planning and occupational health policies. The mixed-methods approach is expected to provide complementary insights: quantitative patterns of impact and qualitative narratives that contextualise workers’ lived experiences.This study aims to generate evidence to guide the development of supportive institutional policies, tailored return-to-work pathways, and workplace adaptations for healthcare professionals experiencing Long COVID.