In the work context, occupational stress is defined as an individual's reaction to the threats experienced in their work environment (1). These threats, known as stressors, lead to an imbalance between the individual's psychological structure and their occupational environment, affecting their wellbeing (2).

Occupational stress has been considered a major health risk factor for workers worldwide, and more recently for teachers, as well. In this sense, different authors have indicated that occupational stress causes a general deterioration in health status by generating conditions such as gastritis, gastrointestinal diseases (3), hypertension (4), depression (5), and heart disease (6). For organizations, stress can cause work accidents, relationship problems, excessive delays and absences, sick leave, and high turnover, leading the economic costs of stress at work to reach hundreds of billions of dollars a year in many parts of the world (7).

In the last 20 years, research on academic and general staff of universities shows that the phenomenon of occupational stress in universities is alarmingly widespread as a consequence of the increasing pressure to attract external funds, “publish or perish” effect (8), excessive workload (9), poor working conditions (8), low recognition, low wages (10), poor interpersonal relationships and difficulties to deal with student behavior (11).

In the last 3 years, teachers have been subjected to additional sources of stress such as teaching online as a result of COVID. During the lockdown, they had to quickly and profoundly change their teaching methods and how they provided instructional materials to students (12). Contrary to the benefits of online technology in teaching, research has shown that the use of online teaching methods has been associated with teacher stress with negative impacts on teaching effectiveness (13).

In addition to the numerous factors mentioned above that can generate stress, it has also been argued that individual variables such as gender, can influence it. Although studies from different countries support this view, research on the relationship between stress and gender among university professors is still inconclusive. For example, while recent research with university professors in Spain (14), as well as Brazil (15) found higher stress scores in women compared to men, a survey by Fang et al. (2) with Chinese university professors found that job stress scores were significantly higher in men than in women. Lastly, no statistically significant differences were found among university professors in Bulgaria regarding gender (16).

In Brazil, political and economic changes over the last 25 years have led to significant transformations in the university system, particularly within public universities (17). These changes include an increase in enrollment numbers, larger class sizes, and the creation of evening and distance learning courses, all without a proportional adjustment in infrastructure or the number of required professors (18). Given these changes, and the above-mentioned literature, it is likely that university professors in Brazil, especially those in the public universities, are experiencing intensified workloads and deteriorating work conditions, placing them at high risk of occupational stress and its consequences (19). Despite these findings, research on occupational stress among Brazilian university professors remains in its early stages.

Based on these considerations, this research focuses in two main objectives: Firstly, to evaluate the incidence and the forgotten effects (20), sources, and symptoms of occupational stress in a sample of professors from a Brazilian public university. Secondly, to analyze the effect of gender on the relationship between the sources of stress and its symptoms.

The data revealed that, with regard to lifestyle and health status, only 2.5% of respondents reported regular smoking. The majority (74.1%) consumed alcoholic beverages and 86.7% of this group stated to consume 1–5 units of alcoholic beverages per week. The majority (63%) stated that they performed physical activities three to four times a week. Finally, 37% of the participants reported having some health problem such as hypertension (33.3%), gastritis (16.7%), depression (13.3%) and anxiety (10%), during the 6 months prior to this research.

Table 1 shows that 70.4% of the surveyed professors had some level of stress and 24.7% had intense to very intense stress (17.3% had intense stress, and 7.4% had very intense stress).

Related to the stress sources, participants have medium-high levels on individual factors and low levels on work factors.

The symptoms of stress scoring above 3 (in a 1–5 scale) were fatigue (3.07) and nervousness (3.04). On the other hand, all the sources of stress at the individual level, except “Having to do work activities well above technical capacity and/or recent learning activities, which you still do not fully master” scored above 3. The highest scores were “Take life in a very fast pace, doing more and more work in less time” (3.78), “Having a busy day with a series of commitments, with little or no free time” (3.64) and “Not being able to disconnect from work activities” (3.62). For the work dimension, only 2 sources scored above 3, “Carrying out several activities at the same time, with a high degree of demand” (3.44) and doing “A complex job, and it leaves me worn out/very tired” (3.25).

The main objective of this research was to identify the sources and symptoms of occupational stress among Brazilian university professors and examine the impact of gender on this relationship.

The analysis of occupational stress among university professors in this study revealed that 70.4% experienced some level of stress. These findings align with previous research conducted in Brazil, which reported similar results (8, 19).

It is important to note that the majority of recent studies on occupational stress in Brazil have concentrated on healthcare professionals or primary and secondary school teachers (24). A significant gap persists in the literature concerning university professors, as recent studies addressing this group are descriptive and do not account for the mechanisms that explain the relationship between different types of stressors and physical and psychological responses. This highlights the need for more research to understand the unique stressors and challenges faced by university professors.

The primary physical and psychological symptoms of stress identified among the participants, such as neck and shoulders muscle pain and tension headache, specially during COVID-19 period (10), as well as common mental disorders as fatigue, nervousness, anxiety, or anguish (25), have also been noted in prior studies.

Additionally, this research analyzed the forgotten effects to uncover hidden relationships between sources of stress (causes) and stress symptoms (effects) among university professors. Through matrix analysis, we identified significant indirect associations where high workload and demands contribute to behaviors like smoking and alcohol use for stress relief, as well as symptoms such as discrete chest pain and feelings of panic. These stressors were also linked to difficulties in disconnecting from work and managing multiple commitments.

The meta-analysis by Heikkilä (26) already indicated that smoking and drinking habits were associated with work stress, though not causally. A recent Canadian study, encompassing over 35,000 participants, revealed that average alcohol consumption was significantly higher among individuals with poorer mental health perceptions and elevated work stress levels. Furthermore, alcohol consumption showed a positive association with smoking behaviors (27). Consistent with these findings, recent research among university professors in Brazil also identified alcohol as the substance most commonly associated with work-related stress (28).

The present research goes further by revealing how stressors such as workload demands contribute to behavioral responses and psychological symptoms. This deeper understanding enhances our grasp of workplace stress dynamics, suggesting targeted interventions that address both direct stressors and underlying contextual factors to effectively promote the wellbeing of academic professionals. In this sense, our findings are consistent with those of Amstrong et al. (29), who demonstrated that organizational stress in firefighters indirectly influences outcomes through mediating factors, highlighting the broader impact of workplace stress on individuals' wellbeing and performance.

Gender was found to moderate the relationship between work-derived stress sources and their associated symptoms. The effect of work-related stress on women was more intense compared to men as the sources of stress increased. Previous studies (30) have indicated that while both male and female teachers (specifically high school teachers) perceived similar levels of overload and emotional exhaustion, female teachers were more likely to adopt inadequate coping strategies, experiencing more severe and pronounced symptoms of stress.

The differential use of cigarettes for stress relief between men and women can be explained by two distinct substance use pathways. Men are more likely to follow the escapist path, using cigarettes to avoid or escape stress. In contrast, women tend to follow the presenteeism path, using cigarettes to maintain productivity and presence despite experiencing stress (31).

Finally, our study reveals a significant forgotten effect associated with “Living with ‘spreaders' (stressed, anxious, emotionally unbalanced individuals) in the organizational context.” This finding suggests that the social and emotional context of the personal environment can significantly influence perceived stress levels among female teachers, as previously noted by Yeom and Lee (32).

These insights highlight the critical need for developing targeted interventions that address the specific coping mechanisms and stress responses of female teachers to mitigate their risk of heightened stress levels.

By employing a framework that identifies forgotten effects, this research enhances understanding of how specific stressors indirectly contribute to stress symptoms, beyond direct causal links. Such insights are pivotal for developing targeted interventions that address both overt stressors and underlying, less obvious contributors to workplace stress. In this sense, the present research contributes to the consolidation of available knowledge about occupational stress in university professors in Brazil, including gender as a moderator.

The main limitation of the present study is the fact that the sample, despite being statistically representative, is small and was taken from a single public university in Brazil. Thus, future research should advance on this topic by involving professors from public and private universities, at both national and international levels, to map the propensity to occupational stress and its consequences in this professional category globally, thereby consolidating the literature on the subject.

The findings of the present research have significant practical implications for university administrators and policymakers. Implementing interventions to address both individual and work-related stressors (high workloads and organizational demands) can help mitigate the negative impact of stress (both physical and psychological) on university professors.

Additionally, indirect effects, such as smoking and alcohol use as coping mechanisms, were unveiled, shedding light on the broader behavioral and psychological consequences of workplace stress.

Finally, given the results obtained regarding gender differences, gender-sensitive strategies should be employed to support female faculty members, who may be more vulnerable to the effects of work-related stress. By effectively recognizing and managing occupational stress, universities can foster a healthier and more supportive work environment for their academic staff, ultimately benefiting both faculty and students.