Burnout Syndrome (BS) was first described in Freudenberger (1974) (Chauca Bajaña et al., 2023). It is considered one of the main health disorders directly linked to the work environment (Wisniewska and Richard Holt, 2023). In this context, special attention to the mental well-being of professors is crucial (Weiskopf, 1980; Deroncele-Acosta et al., 2023). Maslach describes it in three interrelated dimensions: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplishment (Maslach and Leiter, 2016; Maslach and Leiter, 2008; Portoghese et al., 2018; Dres et al., 2023). Burnout Syndrome is a psychosocial phenomenon that arises in response to chronic interpersonal stressors (Moch et al., 2003). It is estimated that BS affects between 41% and 68% of university professors (Silva et al., 2021; Moueleu Ngalagou et al., 2019), manifesting in a wide range of symptoms, from emotional aspects to psychiatric, cognitive, and psychosomatic manifestations, with varying degrees of severity (Bauer et al., 2006; Ogińska-Bulik and Juczyński, 2021; Alqassim et al., 2022). The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic introduced new stressors for professors, who had to adapt their work methods, incorporating Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) into both pedagogy and academic content (Altwaim et al., 2023; Prado-Gascó et al., 2020; Price, 2020). A systematic review revealed that the pandemic significantly impacted mental health, increasing stress, anxiety, and temporomandibular disorders (TMD), with headaches being a common manifestation (Minervini et al., 2023). Professors often face stress due to factors such as managing student and parent behavior, the diversity of students with their communication demands, conflicting role expectations, high social interaction (Beutel et al., 2023), and the lack of time to balance their professional responsibilities, continuous training, and recreational activities (Leite et al., 2019). The well-being of educators directly impacts the quality of teaching and, therefore, influences the success of the learning process (Scheuch et al., 2015). Preventing job burnout involves improving working conditions, balancing job responsibilities, and regularly engaging in physical activities (Ahola et al., 2012).

Resilience is the ability to negotiate, adapt, and effectively manage significant sources of stress or trauma (Windle, 2011). Among university professors, resilience refers to the ability to face and overcome the challenges inherent in their work, maintaining their well-being and teaching effectiveness (Mansfield et al., 2016; Gu and Day, 2007). Currently, various scales and questionnaires exist to measure resilience, such as the Resilience Scale (RS) (Wagnild and Young, 1993), Ego-Resilience (Block and Kremen, 1996), Resilience Attitudes and Skills Profile (Hurtes and Allen, 2001), Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) (Connor and Davidson, 2003), Adolescent Resilience Scale (Oshio et al., 2003), Adult Resilience Scale (Friborg et al., 2005; Friborg et al., 2003), Dispositional Resilience Scale (Bartone, 2007), 10-Item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (Campbell-Sills and Stein, 2007), Youth Resilience: Assessing Developmental Strengths (YR: ADS) (Donnon and Hammond, 2007), California Healthy Kids Survey Resilience Scale (Sun and Stewart, 2007), Brief Resilience Scale (Smith et al., 2008), Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM) (Ungar et al., 2008), and the Psychological Resilience Scale (Windle et al., 2008).

The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of burnout syndrome and associated factors among professors at the University of Guayaquil.

The sample in this study included 334 university professors, with a gender distribution: 52.4% were men and 47.6% were women. Analyzing the internal consistency of the instruments used, we found values demonstrating good reliability: Cronbach’s alpha for the burnout questionnaire was 0.868, indicating strong performance in measurement. The symptomatology questionnaire had an alpha of 0.827, while the resilience questionnaire achieved 0.957, showing excellent item correlation.

The results reveal that emotional exhaustion and depersonalization are significant issues for many participants, while the perception of personal accomplishment is relatively low (Table 1).

In terms of emotional exhaustion, professors were at a moderate level, with a mean of 22.05 (SD = 5.665), and depersonalization, although less intense, remained relevant, with a mean of 8.37 (SD = 3.092). Regarding personal accomplishment, participants reported low levels, with a mean score of 22.91 (SD = 3.370). Since this dimension is inversely scored in the MBI, lower values indicate greater burnout severity. Therefore, this result reflects a high level of burnout in this domain (Table 2).

The results showed a progressive decrease in burnout levels with increasing age among teachers, and this trend stabilized notably after the age of 50. Younger teachers exhibited higher and more variable levels of burnout, indicating a greater susceptibility to work-related stress in the early stages of their careers. In contrast, older teachers experienced more moderate and consistent levels of burnout (Figure 1).

The relationship between physical and emotional well-being and discomfort in professors was found to be complex. Although 69.5% felt capable of making quick decisions and 52.1% enjoyed recreational activities, high levels of physical discomfort were also reported. This included symptoms such as sleep difficulties (47.3%), muscle tension (47.3%), and pain in areas like the head (51.5%), neck (41.9%), and temporomandibular joint (72.8%). These findings were complemented by the prevalence of other symptoms, such as appetite loss (71.6%), nausea or vomiting (86.2%), and respiratory issues (81.1%), suggesting widespread discomfort. Additionally, physical symptoms related to stress, such as hand or eyelid tremors (72.2%) and sweaty or cold hands (60.5%), were observed (Table 3).

Professors demonstrated notable resilience in aspects such as adapting to change, maintaining close relationships, and confidence in facing new challenges. However, the presence of physical and emotional symptoms associated with stress, such as nausea, tremors, and respiratory issues, indicates that some could benefit from interventions that strengthen their resilience against stress (Table 4).

Regarding demographic and occupational characteristics, no statistically significant association was found between burnout and variables such as gender, marital status, age, years of experience, and time working at the institution (p > 0.05). However, employment status showed a significant relationship with burnout (p = 0.049). Additionally, physical and emotional stress symptoms, such as sleep problems, muscle tension, physical pain, and gastrointestinal disorders, were strongly associated with burnout (p < 0.001). Resilience factors, such as the ability to adapt to change, achieving goals, clarity under pressure, and persistence in the face of difficulties, were also significantly related to burnout (p < 0.01) (Table 5).

The linear regression models and corresponding scatter plots illustrated positive relationships between the total burnout score and its subdimensions: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment, although at varying levels of intensity.

In Figure 2, which shows the relationship between the Total Burnout Score and the Exhaustion Score, a positive trend is observed: as burnout increases, exhaustion also increases, suggesting a positive correlation between the two variables. The regression line, represented by the equation y = −7.82 + 0.56𝑥, indicates that each additional point in burnout increases exhaustion by an average of 0.56 points. With a coefficient of determination of R2 = 0.776 it is concluded that 77.6% of the variability in exhaustion is explained by burnout, reflecting a strong relationship. Despite the clear trend, the spread of some points suggests the influence of other factors or individual variability in exhaustion. In Figure 3, a moderate positive relationship is observed between the Total Burnout Score and the Depersonalization Score: as burnout increases, depersonalization tends to increase as well, though this relationship is less consistent than with exhaustion. The trendline equation y = −5.22 + 0.25x suggests that, on average, each additional point in burnout increases depersonalization by 0.25 points. However, the coefficient of determination R2 = 0.554 indicates that 55.4% of the variability in depersonalization is explained by burnout, suggesting the possible influence of other factors or greater individual variability in this dimension. In Figure 4, which shows the relationship between the Total Burnout Score and the Personal Accomplishment Score, a positive but weak trend is observed. Although an increase in burnout is associated with a slight increase in personal accomplishment, the relationship is not as significant as in the cases of exhaustion and depersonalization. The trendline equation is y = 13.04 + 0.19𝑥, indicating that each additional point in burnout increases personal accomplishment by only 0.19 points on average. With a coefficient of determination of R2 = 0.266, only 26.6% of the variability in personal accomplishment is explained by burnout, suggesting a weak relationship and the possible influence of other factors. Additionally, the wide spread of points around the regression line reinforces that this relationship is variable and less predictable.

University professors are increasingly exposed to emotional and physical demands that can erode their well-being over time. The literature has consistently documented high rates of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in this population. In line with these findings, 51.5% of the professors in the present sample reported moderate levels of emotional exhaustion, while 62.9% experienced moderate depersonalization. However, what stands out most is the overwhelming sense of diminished personal accomplishment: 99.7% of participants reported low scores in this dimension. This suggests that while many professors are navigating ongoing emotional and interpersonal strain, an even greater number are struggling with a deeper sense of disengagement and loss of meaning in their professional roles an aspect that may have more lasting consequences for both educators and the quality of education they provide. These findings are consistent with the study by Teles et al. (2020), which analyzed 520 higher education professors and found significant levels of emotional exhaustion. In that study, 31.3% of the variance in burnout was attributed to perceived stress, highlighting the importance of considering this factor when studying the syndrome. Similarly, Agyapong et al. (2024) research revealed that among 1,912 professors, 76.9% experienced emotional exhaustion, 23.2% depersonalization, and 30.8% lack of personal accomplishment. This shows that burnout syndrome is becoming a growing issue in the academic context.

The participants displayed high levels of resilience. For example, 70.4% stated: “I give my best,” and another 70.4% said, “I am proud of my achievements.” Additionally, 69.8% reported having “close and secure relationships.” These results suggest that resilience may be a key protective factor, helping many professors avoid high levels of burnout in terms of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. In the dimension of personal accomplishment, resilience seems to have a less marked relationship with the prevention of severe derealization. This indicates that resilience, understood as the ability to adapt to changes and face challenges positively, has a favorable influence on burnout syndrome. Therefore, higher levels of resilience correspond to lower levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization experienced by university professors (Nituica et al., 2021b).

Thus, it can be concluded that resilience acts as a protective factor against burnout (Agyapong et al., 2023). This research suggests that fostering resilience can be a valuable tool in preventing the effects of the syndrome, being an intrinsic skill that allows professors to cope with the demands of the academic environment and achieve their goals (Melguizo-Ibáñez et al., 2023). In this context, it is crucial to implement strategies that strengthen professors’ motivation in their academic activities, such as creating a recognition system for their achievements (Salmela-Aro et al., 2019) or organizing events that promote positive dynamics among colleagues. It would also be beneficial to carry out continuous evaluations of professors’ perceptions of their own effectiveness (Nituica et al., 2021a; Lebares et al., 2018). In this way, proactive support can be provided in their teaching work to prevent burnout. Additionally, a study by Melguizo-Ibáñez et al. (2022) with 4,117 professors found that those who practiced at least 3 h of physical activity per week showed a better association between resilience, burnout, and stress. They concluded that physical activity can help reduce stress and burnout syndrome, thus mitigating its effects on professors’ physical health. These findings align with the physical symptoms observed in our research. Regarding the physical symptoms accompanying burnout, common issues were identified, such as sleep difficulties (47.3%), tension (47.3%), and pain in areas like the head (51.5%), neck (41.9%), and temporomandibular joint (72.8%). Furthermore, a high prevalence of symptoms such as appetite loss (71.6%), nausea or vomiting (86.2%), and respiratory problems (81.1%) were reported. This suggests that burnout syndrome can generate a wide range of physical ailments in professors that, if not addressed promptly, may worsen their health. Therefore, greater involvement of physical therapists in the work environment is recommended (Quinn et al., 2021).

It is unsurprising that many educational institutions are implementing active breaks during the workday, allowing professors to engage in short, dynamic exercises that make the day more manageable (Galof and Šuc, 2021). Additionally, higher education institutions should ensure that professors have access to health plans that allow for quick and effective treatment of their physical ailments (Bogaert et al., 2014). Moreover, investing in educational campaigns about physical and mental health would be valuable, helping professors recognize the negative effects that emotional exhaustion and depersonalization can have on their physical well-being so they can take appropriate steps and seek timely medical attention (Kotowski et al., 2022). Finally, although this study focused on exploring resilience and physical symptoms associated with burnout, it is clear that much remains to be understood. Investigating the factors that influence academic burnout is essential—not only to identify protective and risk variables, but also to support the well-being of educators and strengthen the learning environment as a whole. When a professor feels motivated, resilient, and fulfilled in their role, it is more likely that their students will also benefit, both emotionally and academically. It is important to acknowledge that our research was conducted within a single public university in Ecuador. Institutional characteristics such as workload, administrative duties, and academic culture—can shape how burnout manifests and is reported. As a result, the findings may not fully reflect the experience of faculty in other educational settings. We therefore recommend that future studies adopt multicenter approaches that include diverse institutions, allowing for broader and more representative insights. Interestingly, we observed a tendency toward lower burnout levels among professors aged 50 and older. While this finding is noteworthy, it should be interpreted with caution, as our analysis did not control related factors such as teaching seniority, job security, or potential reductions in teaching load due to administrative roles. Future research using multivariate models or ANOVA is needed to better understand the independent influence of age on burnout in academic professionals.

A significant proportion of professors at the University of Guayaquil experience burnout syndrome, especially in the dimensions of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. However, resilience was identified as a key protective factor, suggesting the need to implement institutional strategies that strengthen this capacity to reduce the impact of burnout and improve professors’ well-being.