Front. Public HealthFrontiers in Public HealthFront. Public Health2296-2565Frontiers Media S.A.10.3389/fpubh.2024.1366612Public HealthOriginal ResearchAssessment of burnout, resilience, and thriving among academic health professionals: findings from an international studyNahasAbdul Rahman Fata1ElnaemMohamed Hassan2*MubarakNaeem3KhatwaMerna Abou4BarakatMuna5FallerErwin6KassemLamyaa M.7RamatillahDiana Laila8JaberAmmar9AkkawiMuhammad Eid1Al-ShamiAbdulkareem Mohammed10ChandranSarath11MohamedIslam12JackIain2AbouelhanaAhmed2CourtenayAaron2ElrggalMahmoud E.131Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia2School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ulster University, Coleraine, United Kingdom3Department of Pharmacy Practice, Lahore Medical and Dental College, University of Health Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan4Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt5Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan6School of Allied Health Sciences, Pharmacy Department, San Pedro College, Davao City, Philippines7Department of Pharmacy Practice, Unaizah College of Pharmacy, Qassim University, Unaizah, Qassim, Saudi Arabia8Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas 17 Agustus, Jakarta, Indonesia9Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacotherapeutics, Dubai Pharmacy College, Dubai, United Arab Emirates10University College MAIWP International (UCMI), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia11College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Government Medical College, Kannur, India12California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, CA, United States13Faculty of Medicine, Al-Qunfudah, Umm Al-Qura University, Saudi Arabia
Edited by: Enkeleint A. Mechili, University of Vlorë, Albania
Reviewed by: Ivan Borrelli, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Introduction
Burnout, resilience, and thriving significantly impact academics, particularly in health professions, where responsibilities are extensive. This study aimed to explore these constructs among academic health professionals, examining sociodemographic and work-related factors influencing these outcomes.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted among academic health professionals via web-based professional networks from August 2022 to February 2023. Validated tools were used, and descriptive and inferential statistics were applied.
Results
505 participants were included, predominantly female (63%), with a mean age of 38.15 ± 9.6 years. High burnout was reported by 10.9%, 13.7% experienced exhaustion, and 6.3% were disengaged. Resilience and thriving were moderate at 59.2 and 51.9%, respectively. Age correlated negatively with burnout (r = −0.131, p = 0.003) but positively with resilience (r = 0.178, p < 0.001). Females reported higher exhaustion (p = 0.014), while males showed greater resilience (p = 0.016). Instructors exhibited lower resilience compared to assistant professors (p < 0.001) and associate professors (p < 0.001). Those at public universities reported higher exhaustion than those at private universities (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Variable levels of burnout, resilience, and thriving were observed among academic health professionals, influenced by sociodemographic and work-related factors. Interventions targeting resilience and thriving may mitigate burnout risk and enhance engagement among academics in health professions.
burnoutresiliencethrivingacademichealth professionsIFP22UQU4320605DSR246Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabiasection-at-acceptanceOccupational Health and SafetyIntroduction
In the era of globalization and the advancement of technologies, the work environment has become more competitive and demanding, with work overload and stress imposed on workers, and academics are no exception. The disparities between the enduring and demanding work requirements and the capacity of academicians to tackle these demands ultimately culminate in burnout and emotional distress (1). Professional burnout is a psychological state that negatively impacts one’s relationship with one’s work, resulting in emotional exhaustion, reduced job engagement, commitment, and inappropriate practice within the work environment (2). Worldwide, the prevalence of burnout and emotional distress among academicians is relatively high, affecting over one-third of the population (3, 4). Furthermore, a high proportion of burnout tends to be affected by work type, chronic disease, and gender, reflecting other dimensions of this issue in academia (5).
Health field academicians face burnout because of a lack of coping with and adapting to ongoing stressful challenges that are considered part of academic job portfolios. Coping can be apparent via a worker’s ability to be resilient and thrive following stressful events. Resilience is the ability to rebound after facing adversity via effective adaptation or management of substantial stressful events (6). By contrast, thriving refers to a positive mindset in dealing with work-related stressors with a joint state of vitality and learning, resulting in a higher level of functioning (7). There is a clear distinction between resilience and thriving in the workplace, particularly in the aftermath. Resilience results in a return to a balanced state, while thriving leads to significant gains. Those who exhibit determination are more likely to foster thriving, resulting in improved stress resilience (6).
Several possible risk factors may predispose health field academics to burnout and stress, such as increased workload, a persistent requirement to secure research grants, reduced resources for self-development, and increased demands on building capacities to cope with the ongoing trend to maintain e-learning activities (3, 5). Burnout is attributed mainly to the work environment, demands, and struggle to achieve work-life balance (8). Previous research examined the relationship between coping styles and burnout among healthcare professionals and found that task-oriented and adaptive coping was associated with a decreased risk of burnout, potentially improving staff well-being (9, 10). Moreover, individual-level coping capacities and handling workplace dynamics have also been found to shape the risk of stress and burnout and affect mental well-being among academic individuals (1, 11). Several recent reports have highlighted the ongoing risk of burnout in academia, resulting in a quiet quitting phenomenon in some cases that might affect the long-term sustainability of high-quality education (12).
Although there is some country-specific data on burnout assessment among academicians (3, 13, 14), this issue was not commonly assessed together with other relevant traits, such as resilience and thriving, from international perspectives. Therefore, assessing academic burnout and coping abilities in the health field is crucial to determining the most effective ways to reinforce academic success and mental well-being. Considering this, this study aimed to investigate the phenomenon of academic burnout, resilience, and thriving among academic health professionals while examining various sociodemographic and work-related factors that may impact these outcomes.
Methods
This was a cross-sectional, survey-based study conducted among international academic health professionals. Data were collected from October 2022 to February 2023 based on convenience sampling. A self-administered online pre-validated survey was prepared in Google Forms and distributed via participants’ email addresses and social and professional networks. Regular reminders were sent every 2 weeks to ensure adequate response rate.
Ethical approval
The Research and Ethics Committee at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) approved the study protocol (IREC 2022-391). All study participants provided their online consent before their participation. The consent form was placed on the introductory page of the study form with all relevant details about the study and voluntary participation. Participants were asked to read these details carefully and give their consent if they wanted to continue participating in the research and start answering the survey questions.
Sample size and sampling
In order to calculate the required sample size, the study follows the method suggested by Krejcie and Morgan (1970) where a minimum of 376 participants is needed to ensure acceptable statistical power. The inclusion criteria included all consented academic health professionals with verified professional identities on social networks like LinkedIn. Participants were eligible to participate if they were employed on academic appointments in one of the accredited academic programs in health professions in any country. Participation was voluntary and not associated with any compensation or incentives.
Measures
The survey consisted of four main parts:
Part 1: Sociodemographic, such as country, age, gender, marital status, and having kids.
Part 2: Work-related factors, such as annual salary, employment status, academic rank, institution type, experience, and loads of teaching and research.
Part 3: Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI):
Oldenburg Burnout Inventory has been regarded as a reliable and robust tool to measure academic burnout (15–17). It effectively measures burnout by assessing all aspects of exhaustion, namely physical, affective, and cognitive. This suits those whose jobs involve thinking and mental functioning (18). OLBI consists of two subscales: Exhaustion (OLBI-E) and Disengagement (OLBI-D), each with eight questions. To interpret the OLBI scores for our sample, we divided the frequency distributions of the mean scores for OLBI-E and OLBI-D into quartiles. Accordingly, OLBI-E scores of more than 22 were considered high exhaustion, whereas, for disengagement, high disengagement was deemed if OLBI-D scores were more than 21. The scores were then categorized into “low,” “average,” and “high” scores. This yielded four groups, i.e., High burnout (participants with “high” scores for both OLBI-E and OLBI-D), Exhaustion and Disengagement, either Disengaged or Exhausted (participants who had a “high” score for that particular subscale combined with a “low” or “average” score on the other subscale), and a fourth group of low-burnout (participants with “low” or “average” scores for both subscales) (19). Table 1 details OLBI subscales score interpretation and grouping.
Part 4: Stress Adaptation Scale (SAS).
Stress Adaptation Scale is a valid and reliable scale to assess two critical individual capacities: resilience and thriving. It consists of two subscales: the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) and the Brief Thriving Scale (BTS). Each subscale consisted of six statements. Answers are based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Scores are interpreted by summing the total score of the subscale and dividing it by six (i.e., the number of statements) to get the mean value. Scores are then categorized into five groups based on mean values (6, 20). Table 2 details the interpretation and grouping of the BRS and BTS scores.
OLBI subscales score severity and burnout grouping.
OLBI-exhaustion scores
OLBI-disengagement scores
High (top quartile)
>22
>21
Average
18–22
16–21
Low (bottom quartile)
<18
<16
High burnout group
High
High
Exhausted group
High
Low or Average
Disengaged group
Low or Average
High
Low-burnout group
Low or Average
Low or Average
Grouping based on BRS and BTS score ranges.
Score ranges (mean)
BRS
BTS
Very high
5.00–4.67
5.00–4.83
High
4.50–4.00
4.67–4.33
Medium
3.83–3.00
4.17–3.33
Low
2.83–2.17
3.17–2.50
Very low
2.00–1.00
2.33–1.00
Reliability of the used scales
Cronbach’s alpha (α) measures the internal consistency of an assessment instrument. A Cronbach’s alpha value between 0.6 and 0.8 is considered acceptable (21). A pilot study was conducted among 35 participants representing our population to ensure the reliability of OLBI and SAS among our sample. The Cronbach’s alpha values of OLBI and SAS subscales were greater than 0.6, with OLBI-E at 0.82, and OLBI-D at 0.64, BRS at 0.61, and BTS at 0.9. Therefore, both scales demonstrated adequate overall internal consistency.
Data analysis
The responses were downloaded into an Excel® spreadsheet. The data were then imported for analysis to the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, IBM, United States), version 25.0. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed whenever appropriate. A P value of ≤ .05 was considered significant.
ResultsSociodemographic and work-related characteristics of the study participants
A total of 505 participants were included in the study. Participants ranged in age from 22 to 80, with a mean of 38.15 ± 9.6 years. Most of our sample consisted of female participants (63%) who were married (65.1%) and had kids (62.4%). Most respondents were from Egypt (19.4%) and India (17%), and a considerable number were also collected from Pakistan (12.1%), Jordan (11.1%), and the Philippines (10.7%).
Regarding the work-related characteristics of the study participants, the majority had an annual salary of less than U$25,000 (66.3%) and were permanent lecturers (69.5%). 14.7% were professors, and only 5% were from public colleges; however, the majority were from pharmacy faculties (67.1%), and 42.6% had more than 10 years of working experience. Over one-third of the sample (38.8%) had no clinical-related work, 13.7% were not involved in research, and 17.4% were involved in a 6-h weekly postgraduate supervision. Although about half of the participants had no administration post (56.6%), only 26.9% stated they were not involved in administration work. Nearly half of the study sample (51.1%) were familiar with the remote learning software available in their institution. However, less than half of the sample (41.2%) considered the available remote learning resources sufficient. Table 3 shows the sociodemographic and work-related characteristics of our sample.
Participants’ sociodemographic and work-related characteristics (N = 505).
N
%
Gender
Male
187
37.0
Female
318
63.0
Marital status
Divorced/Separated
22
4.4
Married
329
65.1
Single
145
28.7
Widowed
9
1.8
Having kids
No
190
37.6
Yes
315
62.4
Country
Egypt
98
19.4
India
86
17.0
Pakistan
61
12.1
Jordan
56
11.1
Philippine
54
10.7
KSA
40
7.9
Indonesia
34
6.7
UAE
31
6.1
Malaysia
19
3.8
Syria
10
2.0
Others (Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Ethiopia, Iraq, Tunisia, and Afghanistan)
16
3.2
Annual salary
< U$25 K
335
66.3
U$25 K to < U$50 K
79
15.6
U$50 K to < U$100 K
67
13.3
> U$100 K
24
4.8
Employment status
Visiting lecturer
30
5.9
Permanent lecturer
351
69.5
Contract lecturer
124
24.6
Academic rank
Instructor/Teaching assistant
108
21.4
Lecturer
116
23.0
Assist. Prof.
101
20.0
Assoc. Prof.
106
21.0
Prof.
74
14.7
Institution type
Private college
155
30.7
Public college
28
5.5
Private Unit
160
31.7
Public Unit
162
32.1
Field/Faculty
Allied Health/Medical Lab
31
6.1
Public health
11
2.2
Nursing/Midwifery
26
5.1
Pharmacy
339
67.1
Dentistry
28
5.5
Medicine
70
13.9
Working experience in years
<2 years
66
13.1
2–5 years
95
18.8
>5–10 years
129
25.5
>10 years
215
42.6
How many working hours per week do you spend in the clinical setting?
None
196
38.8
< 5 h
87
17.2
>5–10 h
112
22.2
> 10 h
110
21.8
How many hours do you usually spend on research in a week?
None
69
13.7
< 10 h
265
52.5
>10–20 h
124
24.6
> 20 h
47
9.3
How many hours of postgraduate supervision (e.g., student meetings and discussions) do you usually spend in a week?
None
167
33.1
<3 h
102
20.2
>3–6 h
148
29.3
>6 h
88
17.4
Do you currently hold an administrative post? (e.g., Dean, Deputy Dean, Head of Department, and Coordinator)
No
286
56.6
Yes
219
43.4
How many hours of administrative work do you usually spend in a week?
None
136
26.9
<3 h
89
17.6
>3–6 h
124
24.6
>6 h
156
30.9
How familiar are you with remote learning software?
No
38
7.5
Not much
109
21.6
Familiar
258
51.1
Very
100
19.8
Does your institution provide sufficient remote learning resources (software, workshops, and equipment)
Insufficient
95
18.8
Partially sufficient
202
40.0
Sufficient
208
41.2
Burnout assessment based on OLBI score
Based on OLBI scoring and burnout grouping (Table 1), our analysis showed that 55 (10.9%) respondents had high burnout, 69 (13.7%) were exhausted, and 32 (6.3%) were disengaged (Figure 1). Our sample had an average exhaustion level (M = 20.0 ± 3.7) and an average disengagement level (M = 18.7 ± 3.4).
OLBI grouping of the study sample expressed in proportions.
Resilience and thriving assessment based on BRS and BTS
The proportion of participants with BRS scores in the medium range was 59.2% (n = 299), translating into an overall medium resilience of our sample with a mean BRS score of 3.14 ± 0.6. Similarly, the proportion of participants with BTS scores in the range considered medium was 51.9% (n = 262), which also translates into an overall medium thriving of our sample with a mean BTS score of 3.44 ± 0.7. Figure 2 shows more details on the BRS and BTS analysis.
BRS and BTS grouping of the study sample expressed in proportions.
Inferential analysis of demographic and work-related characteristics, burnout, resilience, and thrivingAge and gender
Age was significantly and negatively correlated with OLBI-E scores (r = −0.131, p = 0.003) but positively with BRS scores (r = 0.178, p = 0.001). An independent-sample t-test showed that gender differs significantly in OLBI-E and BRS scores. Females were more exhausted (M = 20.35 ± 3.57) compared to males (M = 19.50 ± 3.96, p = 0.014), whereas males were more resilient (M = 3.22 ± 0.57) than females (M = 3.09 ± 0.58, p = 0.016).
Employment status, academic rank, and responsibilities
There was a significant difference in employment status, in which contract lecturers (Md [IQR] = 19.50 [4.00]) were less exhausted than permanent lecturers (Md [IQR] = 20.00 [5.00], p = 0.028). A significant difference in academic ranking was also revealed. Instructors were more exhausted (Md [IQR] = 21.00 [5.00]) than lecturers (Md [IQR] = 20.00 [3.00], p < 0.001) and assistant professors (Md [IQR] = 20.00 [4.00], p = 0.043), but less exhausted than associate professors (Md [IQR] = 19.00 [6.00], p < 0.001) and professors (Md [IQR] = 20.00 [6.00], p = 0.044). Instructors were also less resilient (Md [IQR] = 3.00 [0.67]) than assistant professors (Md [IQR] = 3.00 [0.83], p < 0.001) and associate professors (Md [IQR] = 3.25 [0.67], p < 0.001). Interestingly, participants with admin posts showed higher resilience (Md [IQR] = 3.17 [0.83]) compared to those who were not holding any admin post (Md [IQR] = 3.00 [0.50], p < 0.001). In addition, those who were involved in administration duties for more than 6 h a week were also more resilient (Md [IQR] = 3.17 [0.83]) compared to those with no involvement in any administration duties (Md [IQR] = 3.00 [0.67], p < 0.013).
Institution type and resources
In terms of institution type, those who were working in a public university were more exhausted (Md [IQR] = 21.00 [5.00], p < 0.001) than those who were working in a private college (Md [IQR] = 19.00 [5.00], p < 0.001) or private university (Md [IQR] = 19.00 [4.00], p < 0.001). Participants who believed that their institution had sufficient remote learning resources were less disengaged and less exhausted (OLBI-D: Md [IQR] = 18.00 [4.00]; OLBI-E: Md [IQR] = 20.00 [4.00]) compared to those who believed that remote learning resources were partially sufficient (OLBI-D: Md [IQR] = 19.00 [4.00], p < 0.001; OLBI-E: Md [IQR] = 21.00 [4.00], p < 0.001) or insufficient (OLBI-D: Md [IQR] = 19.00 [3.00], p = 0.001; OLBI-D: Md [IQR] = 20.00 [5.00], p = 0.027). More detailed results are presented in Table 4.
Comparison of OLBI-D, OLBI-E, BRS, and BTS based on the sociodemographic and work-related factors of the participants (N = 505).
Disengagement
Exhaustion
BRS
BTS
Age
0.119
0.003a
<0.001a
0.309
Gender
0.257
0.014b
0.016b
0.473
Marital status
0.780
0.356
0.334
0.954
Having kids
0.194
0.055
0.311
0.74
Annual salary
0.638
0.873
0.96
0.540
Employment status
0.417
0.023d
0.081
0.076
Academic rank
0.143
<0.001d
<0.001d
0.807
Institution type
0.143
<0.001d
0.638
0.486
Faculty
0.325
0.560
0.881
0.097
Length of service
0.500
0.539
0.138
0.154
Hours of clinical setting work
0.719
0.055
0.225
0.053
Hours spent on research in a week
0.679
0.055
0.292
0.598
Hours of postgraduate supervision
0.354
0.133
0.837
0.054
Administration post
0.374
0.411
0.001c
0.816
Hours involved in admin post
0.065
0.778
0.024d
0.320
Familiarity with remote learning
0.392
0.404
0.208
0.852
Remote learning availability
<0.001d
<0.001d
<0.001d
0.093
Significant p values are in bold. aPearson correlation, bIndependent-samples t-test, cMann Whitney U-test, and dKruskal Wallis test.
Correlations between burnout, resilience, and thriving
Spearman’s rank-order correlation analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between the OLBI-D and OLBI-E scores and a significant negative correlation between OLBI-D and both the BRS and BTS scores. OLBI-E scores were also significantly and negatively correlated with both BRS and BTS. BRS and BTS scores were significantly and positively correlated (Figure 3).
Correlation (Spearman’s Rank-order) for burnout, resilience, and thriving scores.
Discussion
The present study assessed the prevalence of burnout, resilience, and thriving among a relatively large sample of health sciences academicians from over 10 countries. Burnout, resilience, and thriving are all important concepts for academic health professionals and can impact the quality of health education delivered to future generations of healthcare practitioners. Burnout is a state of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion caused by excessive and prolonged stress, a relatively increasing trend in academia (8). The present study’s findings showed a prevalence of high burnout at approximately 11%, affected predominantly by exhaustion over disengagement domains. A study conducted in Brazil among university professors recruited a smaller sample and used a different burnout assessment tool, underpinning a relatively higher prevalence of 40% (3). Another systematic review summarized burnout data from 12 studies conducted between 2005 and 2020. It reported an overall burnout risk of 37%, which is always higher than ours, but different assessment tools have been used (4). Considering that high burnout in our study means an increased risk of exhaustion and disengagement, this could expose academic staff to a state of losing interest, passion, and the ability to guide the young generation of healthcare practitioners adequately.
There have been several factors contributing to burnout in workplaces such as universities; these could include mainly job demands and lack of job resources, whereas available job resources exclusively predict engagement (3); burnout is related to health problems as well as to turnover intention, whereas engagement is related only to the latter (4); burnout mediates the relationship between job demands and health problems, whereas engagement mediates the relationship between job resources and turnover intention.
Our study participants had a medium level of resilience and thriving attributes. Resilience is essential in preventing burnout, as resilient people can cope with stress and adversity, bounce back from setbacks, and maintain a positive outlook (22). Our study revealed an inverse correlation between resilience and burnout. Similarly, a recent meta-analysis involving 29 studies conducted among nurses highlighted the inverse correlation between resilience burnout and exhaustion (23). This could pave the way for interventions to boost resilience and decrease the burnout risk among healthcare providers in academia.
Concerning the correlation between age and gender with burnout and resilience levels, our study showed that the younger generation and the female gender were more likely to be exhausted. At the same time, relatively older males were more likely to have higher resilience levels. Similar to our findings, an Italian study among healthcare workers highlighted that burnout was predicted by lower age, female gender, and low resilience levels (24). In this context, a relatively large United States study conducted among physicians underpinned that the link between female gender and burnout can be less significant by assuring equal treatment regarding work environment diversity and inclusion and perceived appreciation (25). These could be considered modifiable factors to reduce the risk of burnout among female workers. On the other hand, a previous Turkish study assessed resilience levels among teachers but did not show a significant association with either gender or age (26).
Furthermore, a study among university teachers in the Philippines indicated a moderate level of burnout independent of age, gender, academic rank, and service length (27). However, our findings showed a difference in burnout and resilience based on employment status and academic rank, where contact-based academics tended to be less exhausted than their permanent counterparts. At the beginning of their academic careers, instructors tend to be less resilient than their colleagues with higher academic ranks. This could imply the need for proper mentorship and advising programs for young academicians with proper support to set realistic expectations and goals while starting their academic careers. In addition, the present study showed that respondents from public universities tended to be more exhausted than those from private institutions. A previous large study among students highlighted that public university students tend to have lower odds of mental well-being (11). It is believed that the institution type could reflect the strategies followed to ensure staff well-being and allow them to adapt and grow professionally as successful, resilient teachers. In this domain, public universities in the participating countries might consider revisiting their staff support and well-being agendas with a periodical assessment of burnout and resilience levels.
Measures to alleviate burnout among academics should consider several factors contributing to burnout, such as job demands and lack of job resources (28). These could entail a reduced workload, which might be accomplished by increasing faculty numbers, decreasing class sizes, or providing more equitable work-life arrangements (29). This point is critical to consider, given that ethical climate dimensions such as role overload and clarity directly affect burnout risk, particularly for relatively younger employees (30). Further evidence supported a relationship between ethical leadership focusing on role clarity and burnout, encouraging adopting more active leadership to mitigate burnout risk (31). In addition, it is important to develop and maintain a supportive environment that provides opportunities for professional development, mentoring, and peer support (32). Finally, clear policies should be implemented to achieve work-life balance, such as setting boundaries, taking breaks, and regular exercise (29). In addition, various interventions could be considered to boost resilience, such as encouraging individuals to have a positive outlook on overcoming obstacles and accomplishing their goals (33). In addition, they can establish reliable social support networks upon which they can rely in times of difficulty (29). Lastly, a recent meta-analysis showed that resilience could be developed through interventions based on cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness interventions, and a mix of both (34). Moreover, to achieve a thriving, which is a state of being successful and thriving, academics in the health sciences should find a work-life balance, set realistic goals, work toward them with the necessary determination for academic success (35), and give back to their community by volunteering their time and energy to help the community improve. The latter should help acquire a sense of self-actualisation and a belief that the benefits of academic expertise extend beyond typical academic pursuits by integrating these benefits into students’ activities (36).
Finally, burnout, resilience, and thriving are all important concepts for health sciences academicians. By understanding these concepts and taking steps to prevent burnout, increase resilience, and thrive, health sciences academics can improve their physical and mental health, increase productivity, and achieve their goals. This could directly impact the quality and outcomes of higher education in the health sciences. We believe that the current study was able to present responses gathered from different international perspectives with a relatively large sample. In addition, it provided updated insights on the status of burnout, resilience, and thriving among a unique group of academic educators involved in health sciences programs. The findings of the present study could be used as a foundation for designing interventions and initiatives to support health sciences academics thriving and achieving their professional goals through resilience at minimal risk of burnout.
The present study has several limitations. First, there was a disproportionate distribution of responses among different countries, which did not enable cross-country comparison or country-specific recommendations. Second, the cross-sectional study has time-restricted limitations that do not allow for further investigation of potential causal relationships. Lastly, the online survey did not account for investigating the presence of any specific measures by academic institutions to assess or improve the well-being of their academic staff.
Conclusion
This study presents findings on the varying degrees of burnout, resilience, and thriving experienced by academic health professionals which are influenced by various sociodemographic and work-related factors. Interventions aimed at enhancing resilience and facilitating thriving may diminish the risk of burnout and enhance engagement among academic staff in the health professions field. Ultimately, this could directly impact the quality and outcomes of higher education in this field.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Research and Ethics Committee at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) approved the study protocol (IREC 2022-391). The study was conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research and Innovation of the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through project number IFP22UQU4320605DSR246.
We thank all the academic staff who participated in this study. We are also grateful for the data collection support Nermin Osman provided. Finally, we thank the Ulster University networking ISPF call for supporting the dissemination of this work.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
ReferencesGohar AbbasSRogerA. The impact of work overload and coping mechanisms on different dimensions of stress among university teachers. GRH. (2013) 8:93–118. doi: 10.3917/grh.133.0093Rakovec-FelserZ. Professional burnout as the state and process-what to do?Coll Antropol. (2011) 35:577–85.SilvaLPdos SantosJSPda SilvaLLCezarISde AbreuJSDde CerqueiraVP. Prevalence of burnout syndrome and associated factors in university professors working in Salvador, state of bahia. Rev Brasil Med Trabal. (2021) 19:151–6. doi: 10.47626/1679-4435-2020-548, PMID: 34603410Fernández-SuárezIGarcía-GonzálezMATorranoFGarcía-GonzálezG. Study of the prevalence of burnout in university professors in the period 2005-2020. Educ Res Int. (2021) 2021:1–10. doi: 10.1155/2021/7810659AyubIAlwi Muhd HelmiMSyuhada Mohd AzharNFauwiza Mohd FauziNNurul Ashikin TaibMAriffSM. Burnout among clinical and non-clinical academics during the implementation of remote teaching and learning due to COVID-19 pandemic. Malaysian J Med Health Sci. (2022) 18:36–43. doi: 10.47836/mjmhs18.X.XSmithBW. The hero's journey to resilience and thriving in the context of disaster. Posit Psychol Approach Disast Mean Resil Posttraum Growth. (2020):81–98. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-32007-2_6/COVERKleineAKRudolphCWZacherH. Thriving at work: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav. (2019) 40:973–99. doi: 10.1002/job.2375Langley-EvansSC. Burnout: the peril stalking academics and researchers. J Hum Nutr Diet. (2023) 36:588–91. doi: 10.1111/jhn.13135, PMID: 37066996HowlettMDoodyKMurrayJLeBlanc-DuchinDFraserJAtkinsonPR. Burnout in emergency department healthcare professionals is associated with coping style: a cross-sectional survey. Emerg Med J. (2015) 32:722–7. doi: 10.1136/EMERMED-2014-203750, PMID: 25604324RossiMFGualanoMRMagnavitaNMoscatoUSantoroPEBorrelliI. Coping with burnout and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workers' mental health: a systematic review. Front Psychol. (2023) 14:1139260. doi: 10.3389/FPSYT.2023.1139260/BIBTEX, PMID: 37009102ElnaemMHMubarakNKTMBarakatMAbdelazizDHMansourNO. Assessment of mental wellbeing of undergraduate pharmacy students from mm countries: the role of gender, lifestyle, health-related, and academic-related factors. Front Public Health. (2022) 10:1011376. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1011376, PMID: 36388263ForresterN. Fed up and burn out: quiet quitting hits academia. Nature. (2023) 615:751–3. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00633-wTakaFNomuraKHorieSTakemotoKTakeuchiMTakenoshitaS. Organisational climate with gender equity and burnout among university academics in Japan. Ind Health. (2016) 54:480–7. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2016-0126, PMID: 27725562MohamedSNikmatAHashimNAShuibNRaduanNJN. Burnout and its relationship to psychological distress and job satisfaction among academicians and non-academicians in Malaysia. Int J High Educ. (2020) 10:85–92. doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v10n1p85DemeroutiEBakkerAB. The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: A Good Alternative to Measure Burnout Engagement. Handbook of stress and burnout in health care. (2008). 65:1–25HalbeslebenJRBDemeroutiE. The construct validity of an alternative measure of burnout: investigating the English translation of the Oldenburg burnout inventory. Work Stress. (2005) 19:208–20. doi: 10.1080/02678370500340728ReisDXanthopoulouDTsaousisI. Measuring job and academic burnout with the Oldenburg burnout inventory (OLBI): factorial invariance across samples and countries. Burn Res. (2015) 2:8–18. doi: 10.1016/J.BURN.2014.11.001DemeroutiEMostertKBakkerAB. Burnout and work engagement: a thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. J Occup Health Psychol. (2010) 15:209–22. doi: 10.1037/A0019408, PMID: 20604629WilliamsPSMuellerMKCarrollHCCornwallMWDenneyLMKronebergerLM. Patterns of academic burnout, emotional distress, and coping in physical therapy students. Int J Health. (2018) 8:31. doi: 10.18848/2156-8960/CGPSmithBWDalenJWigginsKTooleyEChristopherPBernardJ. The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. Int J Behav Med. (2008) 15:194–200. doi: 10.1080/10705500802222972, PMID: 18696313ShiJMoXSunZ. Content validity index in scale development. J Cent South Univ. (2021) 37:152–5. doi: 10.3969/J.ISSN.1672-7347.2012.02.007TakuK. Relationships among perceived psychological growth, resilience and burnout in physicians. Pers Individ Differ. (2014) 59:120–3. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.003Castillo-GonzálezAVelando-SorianoADe La Fuente-SolanaEIMartos-CabreraBMMembrive-JiménezMJLucíaRB. Relation and effect of resilience on burnout in nurses: a literature review and meta-analysis. Int Nurs Rev. (2023) 71:160–7. doi: 10.1111/inr.12838, PMID: 37000679Di GiuseppeMNepaGProutTAAlbertiniFMarcelliSOrrùG. Stress, burnout, and resilience among healthcare workers during the covid-19 emergency: the role of defense mechanisms. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18:5258. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18105258, PMID: 34069270RotensteinLHarryEWicknerPGupteANevilleBALipsitzS. Contributors to gender differences in burnout and professional fulfillment: a survey of physician faculty. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. (2021) 47:723–30. doi: 10.1016/J.JCJQ.2021.08.002, PMID: 34507905Demir PolatDİSKENDERM. Exploring Teachers' resilience in relation to job satisfaction, burnout, organizational commitment and perception of organizational climate. Int J Psychol Educ Stud. (2018) 5:1–13. doi: 10.17220/ijpes.2018.03.001FabelicoFLAfallaBT. Perseverance and passion in the teaching profession: Teachers' grit, self-efficacy, burnout, and performance. J Critic Rev. (2020) 7:108–19. doi: 10.31838/jcr.07.11.17SchaufeliWBBakkerAB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. (2004) 25:293–315. doi: 10.1002/JOB.248PietarinenJPyhältöKSoiniTSalmela-AroK. Reducing teacher burnout: a socio-contextual approach. Teach Teach Educ. (2013) 35:62–72. doi: 10.1016/J.TATE.2013.05.003BorrelliIRossiMFMelcoreGPerrottaASantoroPEGualanoMR. Workplace ethical climate and Workers' burnout: a systematic review. Clin Neuropsychiatry. (2023) 20:405–14. doi: 10.36131/CNFIORITIEDITORE20230502, PMID: 38089739VullinghsJTDe HooghAHBDen HartogDNBoonC. Ethical and passive leadership and their joint relationships with burnout via role clarity and role overload. J Bus Ethics. (2020) 165:719–33. doi: 10.1007/S10551-018-4084-Y/TABLES/6SharomA. “Job-related burnout: A review,” in, Handbook of occupational health psychology. Eds. J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick American Psychological Association. (2003) 245–264.YeagerDSDweckCS. Mindsets that promote resilience: when students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educ Psychol. (2012) 47:302–14. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.722805JoyceSShandFTigheJLaurentSJBryantRAHarveySB. Road to resilience: a systematic review and meta-analysis of resilience training programmes and interventions. BMJ Open. (2018) 8:e017858. doi: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2017-017858, PMID: 29903782ElnaemMHBarakatMMubarakNMohammedMSAbdelazizDHFathelrahmanAI. Evaluation of grit and its associated factors among undergraduate pharmacy students from 14 Asian and middle eastern countries amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Saudi Pharmaceutic J. (2023) 31:410–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2023.01.008, PMID: 36744104SchattemanAM. Academics meets action: community engagement motivations, benefits, and constraints. J Commun Engag High Educ. (2014) 6:17–30.