Exploring the dimensions of burnout syndrome among academicians: a survey study

INTRODUCTION

The increasing demands of modern life and the dual pressures of professional and personal responsibilities have significantly heightened the risk of burnout among individuals. Growing competition and workplace expectations further increases this stress, placing employees under constant pressure to perform.¹ Burnout syndrome is a psychological condition that arises from prolonged exposure to unmanaged occupational stress, characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a diminished sense of personal accomplishment. Originally introduced by Herbert Freudenberger in the 1970s, burnout has since been recognized as a serious occupational health concern that adversely impacts productivity, job satisfaction, and overall mental well-being across diverse professions.^2-4 The World Health Organization classified burnout as an “occupational phenomenon” in the 11^th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), describing it as a syndrome resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been effectively managed.⁵ Research has shown that burnout extends beyond any single profession, affecting individuals in teaching, healthcare, law enforcement, administration, and even those engaged in unpaid or academic work.⁶

The education sector has emerged as one of the most vulnerable to burnout due to increasingly demanding work environments and performance expectations.^7,8 Academicians represent a unique occupational group exposed to multifaceted pressures related to teaching, research, administrative duties, student mentorship, and personal commitments creating significant mental strain.^9-11 The constant need to meet deadlines and maintain high standards of performance, while balancing personal commitments, contributes to emotional exhaustion and psychological distress.¹² Such pressures have been strongly linked with depletion of mental resources and a higher likelihood of burnout among academic professionals.^13,14

Studies conducted across various countries highlight differing prevalence rates of burnout in academia. In Nigeria, 57.7% of academic physicians in tertiary hospitals experienced burnout.¹⁵ In India, approximately 40% (39.76%) of medical college faculty reported burnout symptoms.¹⁶ Similar trends have been documented in France, where 40% of medical faculty, and in Brazil, about 41% of university professors experienced burnout.^17,18 In Malaysia, Fadzil et al also identified burnout among faculty in science and technology disciplines, though the prevalence rate was unspecified.¹⁹

Burnout has been increasingly described as a “silent threat” within the workforce because it develops gradually and often goes unnoticed until its effects become severe. It undermines physical health, emotional stability, and job performance, potentially leading to chronic stress, depression, cardiovascular issues, and premature withdrawal from professional life.^10,20,21 Due to its insidious progression, individuals may fail to recognize its impact until it significantly disrupts both personal well-being and organizational functioning. Furthermore, burnout has far-reaching organizational consequences, including absenteeism, reduced productivity, and weakened team cohesion. Among the many adverse consequences of burnout, the decline in job satisfaction is particularly concerning. When employees lose engagement or a sense of purpose in their work, their morale and motivation diminish, reinforcing the ongoing cycle of exhaustion and detachment.^10,11

Given the growing evidence that burnout adversely affects professional efficiency, psychological well-being, and institutional productivity, it becomes important to understand its scope within academia. Despite increasing awareness, comprehensive data encompassing in diverse academic disciplines still remains limited. Therefore, the present study sought to assess the prevalence of burnout syndrome among academicians of various disciplines and to underscore its potential consequences for individual well-being and organizational performance. By addressing this gap, the study aims to contribute to the expanding body of evidence emphasizing the urgent need for preventive strategies and institutional interventions to mitigate burnout in higher education settings.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted among academicians employed in colleges and universities across India from January 2024-August 2024. The study aimed to include a diverse group of academic professionals representing different disciplines. This study involved a voluntary participation and the online survey was administered through Google forms. The questionnaire included an informed consent statement at the beginning, and participants were required to provide consent before proceeding. Participants were informed that their responses would remain confidential and will be used solely for the research purposes. The survey link was circulated via email and various social media platforms to ensure wide participation. The term academic was broadly defined to include all faculty categories, tenured and non-tenured staff, full-time and part-time lecturers, and teaching or research assistants in colleges or universities.²²

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The study included academicians of both genders who had been employed in their current institution for at least one year and voluntarily provided informed consent to participate. Individuals who declined to give consent or submitted incomplete questionnaires were excluded from the final analysis.

Procedure

The questionnaire, presented in English, included a brief introduction outlining the study objectives and clear instructions for completion. The questionnaire included sections on demographic details, occupational profile, and work–life balance. Burnout was assessed using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), an open-access, validated tool developed by Kristensen et al that measures three domains: personal, work-related, and colleague-related burnout.²³ Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater burnout. CBI scores were categorized as follows: 0-24: no burnout, 25-49: mild burnout, 50-74: moderate burnout, 75-99: severe burnout, 100: complete burnout.

Statistical analysis

The collected data were analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics included frequency tables, measures of central tendency, and measures of dispersion. Inferential statistics, including Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman’s Correlation test were used to assess relationships between variables and draw conclusions. Quantitative data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.

RESULTS

This study included 148 academicians (60.8% females, 36.5% males and 2.7% who did not prefer to reveal their gender; mean age =40.08±8.77 years). Most participants were from nuclear families (68.9%), and 43.2% had children (Table 1). Assistant professors constituted 43.2%, while 48.5% were employed in the government sector and 56.7% of them were holding full-time permanent positions. Nearly half (43.2%) had over 11 years of academic experience. The majority worked 5-7 hours daily (40.5%), taught 1-2 classes per day (59.5%), and 28.4% handled more than four subjects annually. Over a third (37.8%) had administrative duties, while 67.6% reported that scholarly publications were mandatory (Table 2).

Most respondents (70.2%) were from health and rehabilitation sciences (from various departments like anatomy, physiology, medicine, pharmacology, physiotherapy, and nursing), with smaller groups from engineering and technology (13.5%), social sciences/humanities (sociology, arts, law) (8.1%), research and basic sciences (5.4%), and commerce and business (2.7%) (Table 6).

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of burnout across three domains, work-related, colleagues-related, and personal. Mild to moderate burnout was most prevalent in the work-related (83.8%) and personal (82.4%) domains, while colleagues-related burnout showed comparatively lower levels, with 41.9% reporting mild and 25.7% moderate burnout. Severe or complete burnout was rare across all domains. Figure 2 presents the distribution of total burnout levels among academicians, further highlighting the predominance of mild to moderate burnout symptoms.

Figure 3 Illustrates the comparative mean ranks of total burnout across genders, highlighting a noticeably higher level among females. A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to examine gender differences in total burnout scores among academicians. The results revealed a statistically significant difference between males and females (U=1866.00, Z=-2.56, p=0.010). Female academicians exhibited higher burnout levels (mean rank =78.77) compared to their male counterparts (mean rank =62.06). This finding suggests that female participants experienced significantly greater overall burnout.

*Significant at p<0.05; **Highly significant at p<0.001, ***Chi-square value and p value

Significant at p<0.05; **Highly significant at p<0.001, ***Chi-square value and p value.

*Significant at p<0.05; **Highly significant at p<0.001, ***Shows Spearman’s Correlation and p value

In Table 3 respondents whose family responsibilities often affected job performance showed significantly higher burnout across all domains (p<0.001). Similarly, bringing office work home and skipping meals due to work were strongly linked to elevated burnout, particularly in personal and total domains. Missing family or social events, stress-related health issues, and longer or stressful commutes were also significantly associated with higher burnout levels (p≤0.002). In contrast, engaging in recreational activities was inversely related to burnout, suggesting a protective effect. Losing sleep over job worries showed the strongest association, especially with total burnout (χ²=146.03, p<0.001).

In Table 4 significant associations were observed between gender and work-related burnout (χ²=33.01, p<0.001), suggesting that job-related demands may affect males and females differently. Marital status was strongly linked to colleagues-related (χ²=59.85, p<0.001), work-related and total burnout (χ²=19.43, p=0.022), while family type showed robust associations with all burnout domains, indicating that home environment influences emotional and interpersonal stress. Having children was related to higher work-related and total burnout, reflecting the strain of balancing parenting and academic duties.

The mandatory requirement to publish scholarly articles was significantly associated with personal, work-related and total burnout, underscoring the pressure of academic productivity. Educational level and academic rank were also strongly linked with burnout across multiple domains, implying that higher qualifications and senior roles bring increased responsibilities and stress. Working sector was associated only with personal burnout, suggesting institutional differences in workload or support systems. In contrast, nature of employment showed no significant association with burnout. However, the type of students taught was significantly related to all burnout domains (p<0.05), indicating that teaching responsibilities and student complexity play a critical role in shaping burnout experiences among academicians.

Spearman’s correlation analysis was conducted to determine the association between different burnout dimensions and various professional characteristics. A significant negative correlation was found between age and both personal burnout (r=−0.235, p=0.002) and work-related burnout (r=−0.353, p=0.000), as well as total burnout (r=−0.230, p=0.005). Total academic experience showed a weak and non-significant negative correlation with all burnout domains (p>0.05), suggesting that while more experienced faculty members may have slightly lower burnout levels. Similarly, the number of courses or subjects taught per year and average hours spent per week on administrative duties did not show any significant association with burnout. However, a significant positive correlation was observed between the number of classes taken per day and both personal burnout (r=0.313, p=0.000) and work-related burnout (r=0.233, p=0.004), as well as with total burnout (r=0.202, p=0.014). In contrast, working hours per day showed no significant relationship with any burnout domain (p>0.05), indicating that it is not merely the duration of work but rather the intensity and structure of the workday (e.g., class frequency) that plays a more critical role in burnout development (Table 5).

*Significant at p<0.05; **Highly significant at p<0.001.

The chi-square analysis demonstrated significant variation in burnout levels across academic disciplines, particularly within larger groups. Faculty from health and rehabilitation sciences, who form most of the sample (70.2%), showed statistically significant associations with all dimensions of burnout (p<0.05 in all cases). In research and basic sciences, significant associations are observed for personal burnout and total burnout, while in work-related and colleagues-related burnout approach did not reach statistical significance. Given the small sample size in this group (5.4%), these findings suggest a tendency toward burnout, though results should be interpreted cautiously. Participants from social sciences and humanities also demonstrate significant associations with personal, work-related, and total burnout. Colleagues-related burnout is marginally non-significant. This suggests that faculty in these disciplines experience considerable personal and occupational stress, potentially related to teaching load, academic pressures, and role expectations. In contrast, engineering and technology faculty do not show statistically significant associations with any burnout dimension. Although some burnout is present, it does not reach significance, indicating comparatively lower or more manageable burnout levels in this group. Similarly, commerce and business faculty show no statistically significant burnout across any domain. However, the very small sample size (2.7%) limits strong conclusions, and these results should be interpreted with caution. Overall, the results suggest that burnout patterns vary across disciplines, with the highest burden and variability observed in health-related academic fields (Table 6).

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that burnout among academicians is both widespread and multifactorial. Overall, over 80% of participants in this study reported at least mild to moderate symptoms in either the personal or work-related domains while approximately 74% showed colleagues related burnout. These findings resonate with recent evidence indicating that higher education faculty face elevated burnout risk due to excessive workloads, performance pressures, and institutional demands.^24,25

In this study, several sociodemographic and professional factors showed meaningful associations with different dimensions of burnout, while a few did not. Gender was not significantly related to personal burnout or overall burnout scores; however, it showed a strong association with work-related burnout. This suggests that although male and female academicians may experience similar levels of general fatigue or personal exhaustion, workplace demands, role expectations, and institutional pressures may affect genders differently, leading to unequal levels of work-related strain. Our findings showed that female academicians experienced significantly higher burnout levels than male participants, this is consistent with existing literature where Spanish university faculty reported higher emotional exhaustion and perceived stress in women compared to men.²⁶ Similarly, broader research indicates that women in academia often face greater emotional strain, potentially due to the combined pressures of professional duties, household responsibilities, and caregiving roles.^27-29 Supporting this trend, Griebler found that exhaustion symptoms were nearly twice as common among female teachers (21%) compared with male teachers (11%).³⁰ Together, these findings highlight the gendered nature of burnout and the need for targeted institutional support.

The findings indicate that personal life circumstances such as marital status, having children, and family structure show meaningful associations with different burnout domains. Marital status may add emotional and practical responsibilities that interact with work stress, consistent with evidence that family demands can intensify burnout when personal or organizational resources are inadequate.³¹ Family structure also shapes the level of support available at home. Individuals in joint or extended families often face competing role expectations and limited personal recovery time, increasing emotional exhaustion.³² Conversely, those living in nuclear families may experience insufficient social support and greater responsibility for household and caregiving duties, which can heighten vulnerability to personal and work-related burnout.^31,32 Similarly, having children was significantly associated with higher work-related and total burnout, aligning with prior research showing that parenting increases time pressure and emotional demands, reducing opportunities for rest and recovery.^33,34 These challenges may be amplified in academia, where high workloads and limited schedule flexibility can exacerbate work–family conflict and elevate burnout risk.

The requirement to produce scholarly articles was significantly linked to higher levels of personal, work-related, and total burnout. Previous researches shows that academic demands particularly publication pressure is one of the key predictors of burnout among faculty.^24,35 Similarly, the level of education was associated with all burnout domains, suggesting that academicians with advanced qualifications often face greater administrative, supervisory, and research responsibilities, heightening exhaustion and strain.²⁸ Conversely, those with lower qualifications may encounter limited institutional support or job security, which can also elevate stress.³⁶ Together, these findings underscore that both performance expectations and academic hierarchy significantly shape burnout risk.

Academic rank was significantly associated with personal, work-related, and total burnout, but not with colleagues-related burnout. This suggests that hierarchical differences in academia affect individual and role-based stress more than interpersonal factors. Senior faculty often experience heavier administrative and leadership demands, whereas junior staff may face job insecurity and limited autonomy both contributing to burnout.^28,37 Working sector showed a significant link only with personal burnout, indicating that sector-specific conditions such as job stability, institutional expectations, and administrative culture may shape emotional exhaustion more than professional or collegial domains.^36,38

The nature of employment did not show significant associations with any burnout domain (p>0.05), suggesting that employment status alone may not distinctly influence burnout. This may be because workload demands and role expectations tend to be similar across different types of positions. In contrast, the level or type of students taught was significantly associated with all burnout dimensions. Teaching postgraduate or mixed-level students may impose greater cognitive, supervisory, and evaluative demands, contributing to elevated personal and work-related strain. This aligns with the research that highlighted that teaching intensity, student diversity, and supervision responsibilities are major predictors of academic burnout.^37,39 These findings emphasize that the complexity of teaching roles, plays a more critical role in faculty exhaustion and stress.

Age showed a significant negative correlation with personal, work-related, and total burnout, indicating that younger academicians experienced higher burnout levels. This aligns with prior findings suggesting that early-career faculty face greater stress due to job insecurity, workload pressure, and performance expectations, while senior staff may have better coping mechanisms and stability.^28,38 Academic experience and number of subjects taught per year were not significantly correlated, suggesting that duration or course volume alone does not determine burnout risk. However, the number of classes taught per day was positively correlated with burnout, implying that teaching intensity and frequent class transitions may heighten emotional fatigue.²⁴ Administrative duties and total working hours showed no significant associations, supporting the view that the qualitative demands of academic work, rather than the quantity of hours, are more predictive of burnout.⁴⁰

Burnout levels differed significantly across academic disciplines. Academicians from health and rehabilitation sciences, research and basic sciences, and social sciences/humanities reported significantly higher personal, work-related, and overall burnout scores (p<0.05). These findings suggest that faculty in these disciplines may be particularly vulnerable to burnout across multiple dimensions, likely due to heavier workloads, greater emotional demands, and intensive interpersonal interactions inherent to health-related and social science professions. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, as sample sizes in the latter two disciplines were relatively small. In contrast, no significant associations were observed among academicians from engineering and technology and commerce and business, which may likewise be attributable to limited sample representation. Overall, these findings indicate that burnout may be discipline-specific, potentially reflecting variations in teaching intensity, research expectations, and patterns of student engagement. Consistent with this interpretation, previous studies have reported higher burnout among faculty in health-related and social science disciplines, where emotionally demanding student interactions and heavier workloads are more prevalent.^37,38

Several work–life balance variables showed significant associations with burnout dimensions. Academicians who reported that family responsibilities affect job performance experienced significantly higher levels of personal, work-related, and total burnout, highlighting the strain of balancing professional and domestic roles.⁴¹ Similarly, bringing office work home and skipping meals or family functions due to work were strongly linked to higher burnout across all domains, consistent with findings that blurred work–home boundaries and poor self-care contribute to emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.^31,38 Those suffering from stress-related health issues also exhibited greater burnout, confirming the reciprocal relationship between chronic stress and somatic complaints.²⁰ A study found that teachers experiencing high levels of burnout were more likely to suffer from mental health problems such as anxiety and sleep disturbances.⁴²

Furthermore, longer commuting times and perceived commuting stress were significantly associated with higher burnout levels. Extended travel to work can increase fatigue, reduce time for rest and personal activities, and heighten stress even before the workday begins.⁴³ These findings suggest that commuting is not just a logistical burden but an important occupational health factor influencing academic well-being. Lack of recreational engagement was another strong predictor, participants with limited or no leisure activities reported markedly higher burnout, supporting evidence that recovery experiences buffer occupational stress.⁴⁴ Finally, sleep disturbances due to job worries had the most robust association with total burnout, underlining the critical role of restorative sleep in preventing emotional exhaustion and maintaining well-being.⁴⁵

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design captures participants’ responses at a single point in time and therefore does not allow for causal inferences or assessment of changes in burnout over time. Second, the study relied on a self-administered, online questionnaire distributed via Google Forms, which may have introduced self-selection and response bias. Participation was voluntary, and academicians with stronger opinions or experiences related to burnout may have been more inclined to respond. Additionally, self-reported data are subject to recall bias and social desirability bias, which may have influenced the accuracy of responses. Third, although efforts were made to include academicians from diverse disciplines across India, the sampling approach using email and social media platforms limits control over the sampling frame and may affect the representativeness of the sample. The future studies should use a longitudinal design to track how burnout changes over time during a faculty member’s career. Including objective measures along with interviews or focus groups, could provide a clearer picture. Additionally, factors like national education policies, institutional work culture, and social expectations about balancing work and family should be explored in future research.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study shows that burnout among academicians is a serious and widespread problem influenced by many personal and professional factors. The findings revealed that gender, marital status, family type, parental responsibilities, academic rank, educational level, and working sector were significant predictors of burnout. Additionally, long commuting times, stress from publication requirements, bringing work home, skipping meals, and losing sleep due to job worries were key contributors. Conversely, engagement in recreational activities was associated with lower burnout levels. The high levels of burnout, especially in the personal and work-related areas, highlight the need for strong institutional support rather than relying only on individual coping efforts. Colleges and universities should focus on managing workload, providing mentoring opportunities, and ensuring easy access to mental health support to create a healthier work environment. Publication requirements should be supported with proper guidance, protected research time, and teamwork opportunities instead of being treated as strict targets. Similarly, family-friendly measures like flexible working hours, childcare facilities, and support for those managing both home and work responsibilities can help reduce stress. Early career faculty need special attention through mentoring, stress management, and peer-support programs to help them adjust to academic life. Furthermore, disciplines that involve more emotional and interpersonal interaction such as health and social sciences may require customized support like regular recovery breaks, peer discussions, and awareness about emotional fatigue. Collectively, these measures can help mitigate burnout and promote a healthier, more productive academic culture.

Funding: No funding sources

Conflict of interest: None declared

Ethical approval: The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee

REFERENCES

1. 1. Avalos B. Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education: a decade of growth. Teach Teach Educ. 2011;27(1):10-20.
2. 2. Maslach C. Burned-out. Hum Behav. 1976;5(9):16-22.
3. 3. Schaufeli WB, Maslach C, Marek T, eds. Professional Burnout: Recent Developments in Theory and Research. Washington (DC): Taylor and Francis; 1993.
4. 4. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001; 52:397-422.
5. 5. World Health Organization. Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”: International Classification of Diseases. Geneva: WHO; 2019.
6. 6. Rothmann S, Barkhuizen N. Burnout of academic staff in South African higher education institutions. S Afr J Ind Psychol. 2008;34(1):87-96.
7. 7. Garcia-Gonzalez MA, Torrano F, Garcia-Gonzalez G. An analysis of teacher burnout at different stages of the teaching career. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3):1-14.
8. 8. Singh S. Work stress and burnout among teachers: a review of literature. J Glob Psychol Res. 2020;6(1):1-8.
9. 9. Maslach C, Leiter MP. Burnout at work: a psychological perspective. New York: Psychology Press; 2016.
10. 10. García-Carmona M, González-Fernández A, Marín MD. Burnout in higher education teaching staff: a systematic review. Educ Res Rev. 2023;39:100504.
11. 11. Zhang Y, Luo L, Huang L, Chen J. Academic burnout among university faculty: a meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1456789.
12. 12. Yousefi Z, Abdullah R. Burnout among university instructors: The role of workload and work-life balance. J Soc Sci Humanit. 2019;27(2):45-56.
13. 13. Peeters MCW, Montgomery AJ, Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB. Balancing work and home: How job and home demands are related to burnout. Int J Stress Manag. 2005;12(1):43-61.
14. 14. Zábrodská K, Mudrák J, Květon P, Blatný M, Machovcová K, Rican P. Burnout among university faculty: The central role of work-family conflict. Stud High Educ. 2018;43(9):1621-36.
15. 15. Oluwadiya KS, Olasinde AA, Akintayo RO, Fadeyi A, Olakulehin AO, Kolawole IK. Burnout among academic physicians in tertiary hospitals in Nigeria. Int J Med Educ. 2023;14:123-30.
16. 16. Malhotra S, Maggon K, Yadav N, Dwivedi S, Singh A. Prevalence of burnout among faculty in a medical college in India: a cross-sectional study. Indian J Public Health. 2023;67(2):220-5.
17. 17. Dewaele A, Vercambre MN, Bécour B. Burnout among medical faculty in France: a national cross-sectional survey. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):450.
18. 18. De Souza ACC, Carvalho FM, Porto LA. Burnout among university professors in Brazil: Prevalence and associated factors. Rev Bras Med Trab. 2021;19(2):192-8.
19. 19. Fadzil MA, Abdullah Z, Ramlee N. Burnout among science and technology faculty members in Malaysian higher education institutions. J Tech Educ Train. 2022;14(2):1-14.
20. 20. Salvagioni DAJ, Melanda FN, Mesas AE, González AD, Gabani FL, Andrade SM. Physical, psychological and occupational consequences of job burnout: a systematic review of prospective studies. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0185781.
21. 21. Lee RT, Lee J, Lee SM. Burnout and associated health outcomes: a meta-analytic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024;21(2):345-60.
22. 22. Salimzadeh R, Sarli A, Ardalan A, Cheraghi MA. Examining the factors impacting academics’ psychological well-being. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:197.
23. 23. Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: a new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work Stress. 2005;19(3):192-207.
24. 24. García-Arroyo JA, Cárdenas Moncayo S, Gomez Garcia E, Osca Segovia A. Burnout and job satisfaction in university teachers: the moderating role of coping strategies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(24):13124.
25. 25. Silva de Oliveira L, Cardoso Neto JC. Burnout syndrome among university professors: Prevalence and associated factors. Rev Bras Med Trab. 2023;21(1):e2023-001.
26. 26. Redondo-Flórez L, Tornero-Aguilera JF, Ramos-Campo DJ, Clemente-Suárez VJ. Gender differences in stress‐and burnout‐related factors of university professors. BioMed Res Int. 2020;2020(1):6687358.
27. 27. Skaalvik EM, Skaalvik S. Job demands and job resources as predictors of teacher motivation and well-being. Soc Psychol Educ. 2018;21(5):1251-75.
28. 28. Sabagh Z, Hall NC, Saroyan A. Antecedents, correlates and consequences of faculty burnout. Educ Res. 2018;60(2):131-56.
29. 29. Einav M, Confino D, Geva N, Margalit M. Teachers’ burnout: the role of social support, gratitude, hope, entitlement and loneliness. Int J Appl Posit Psychol. 2024;9(2):827-49.
30. 30. Griebler R. Health status of Austrian teachers. In: Dür W, Felder-Puig R, eds. Textbook of School Health Promotion. Bern: Hans Huber; 2011:130138.
31. 31. Allen TD, Herst DEL, Bruck CS, Sutton M. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. J Occup Health Psychol. 2012;7(1):69-85.
32. 32. Hammig O. Work-life conflict and health among working parents: Comparing mothers and fathers in dual-earner families. Soc Sci Med. 2018;193:42-51.
33. 33. Winwood PC, Winefield AH. Comparing two measures of burnout among dentists in Australia. Int J Stress Manag. 2004;11(3):282-9.
34. 34. Alarcon GM. A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes. J Vocat Behav. 2011;79(2):549-62.
35. 35. Guthrie S, Lichten CA, van Belle J, Ball S, Knack A, Hofman J. Understanding mental health in the research environment: a rapid evidence assessment. Rand Health Q. 2018;7(3):2.
36. 36. Kinman G, Wray S. Higher stress: a survey of stress and well-being among staff in higher education. London: University and College Union; 2013.
37. 37. Watts J, Robertson N. Burnout in university teaching staff: A systematic literature review. Educ Res. 2011;53(1):33-50.
38. 38. Padilla MA, Thompson JN. Burnout in academia: a developing concern for higher education professionals. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2016;9:159-68.
39. 39. Shin JC, Jung J. Academics’ job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the changing academic environments. High Educ. 2014;67(5):603-20.
40. 40. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Job Demands-Resources Theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(3):273-85.
41. 41. Byron K. A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. J Vocat Behav. 2005;67(2):169-98.
42. 42. Agyapong B, Obuobi-Donkor G, Burback L, Wei Y. Stress, burnout, anxiety and depression among teachers: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(17):10706.
43. 43. Rugulies R, Aust B, Madsen IEH. Effort-reward imbalance at work and risk of depressive disorders. Am J Ind Med. 2017;60(8):694-704.
44. 44. Korpela K, De Bloom J, Kinnunen U. From restorative environments to restoration in work. J Occup Environ Psychol. 2015;88(1):1-20.
45. 45. Akerstedt T, Nordin M, Alfredsson L, Westerholm P, Kecklund G. Sleep and sleepiness: impact of stress and work hours. Sleep. 2012;35(7):969-76.