Front. Public Health Frontiers in Public Health Front. Public Health 2296-2565 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1464268 Public Health Original Research Surviving the storm: exploring gender-based burnout in Lebanon during the COVID-19 pandemic Abi-Gerges Aniella 1 † Dimassi Hani 2 Boueri Myriam 1 Feghali Edwin 1 Malham Melissa Bou 1 Salem Marie Josee 1 Harb Ranime 2 Nassar Elma 3 Mourad Jana 4 Sfeir Myriam 5 Karaoui Lamis R. 6 * † 1Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine, Lebanese American University, Byblos, Lebanon 2Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Lebanese American University, Byblos, Lebanon 3Graduate Studies & Research Office, Lebanese American University, Byblos, Lebanon 4Public Economics Unit, University of Kassel, Faculty of Economics and Management, Kassel, Germany 5Arab Institute for Women, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon 6Department of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy, Lebanese American University, Byblos, Lebanon

Edited by: Mustafa F. Ozbilgin, Brunel University London, United Kingdom

Reviewed by: Marcela Alina Farcasiu, Politehnica University of Timișoara, Romania

Aline Yacoubian, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Lebanon

 *Correspondence: Lamis R. Karaoui, lamis.karaoui@lau.edu.lb

†ORCID: Aniella Abi-Gerges, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5841-8408

Lamis R. Karaoui, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7857-7374

 17 02 2025 2025 13 1464268 13 07 2024 10 01 2025 Copyright © 2025 Abi-Gerges, Dimassi, Boueri, Feghali, Malham, Salem, Harb, Nassar, Mourad, Sfeir and Karaoui. 2025 Abi-Gerges, Dimassi, Boueri, Feghali, Malham, Salem, Harb, Nassar, Mourad, Sfeir and Karaoui

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.

 Background

COVID-19 has worsened burnout, marked by exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy. In Lebanon, economic collapse, political instability, the Beirut Port explosion, and social unrest have compounded this, with limited gender-specific data. This study evaluates burnout levels in Lebanese women and men during COVID-19, exploring gender differences and related factors, including burnout mitigation strategies.

 Methods

A cross-sectional survey included 423 adult participants aged 18 or older from Lebanon, recruited via online snowball sampling during July 2021 to August 2022. Utilizing the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS), participants reported exhaustion (≥ 12), cynicism (≥ 11), and low professional efficacy (≤ 21). Burnout was defined as exhaustion with either cynicism or low efficacy. The survey gathered demographic, family, and professional data, stressors, and burnout mitigation strategies. Analyses were gender-stratified, using descriptive statistics and Pearson’s chi-squared test. Bivariate associations between burnout indicators and sample characteristics were tested using Pearson’s chi-square. Odds ratios (OR) and adjusted ORs for burnout were estimated via logistic regressions.

 Results

Lebanese women experienced higher rates of burnout compared to men during the pandemic, with significant differences observed in emotional exhaustion (p = 0.006). Factors associated with burnout varied between genders, with women more likely to exhibit exhaustion when residing in the Beqaa, Mount or North Lebanon governorates, being single, having children aged 10–15 years, and most interestingly when lacking support from their boss/institution. Stressors such as the Lebanese economic crisis and the Beirut Port Explosion were significantly linked to burnout in both genders, with the economic crisis particularly associated with higher levels of exhaustion in men (p = 0.011) and cynicism in both genders (p = 0.001 for men, p = 0.039 for women). Coping strategies, including COVID-19 precautions, social activities, and religious practices, were effective in reducing burnout among both women and men who experienced burnout (p = 0.039 and 0.03, respectively).

 Conclusion

The study contributes to public health efforts, emphasizing the importance of recognizing gender dimensions in addressing burnout during the pandemic, designing targeted interventions and fostering supportive, inclusive environments for collective resilience namely for women at the workplace.

 burnout gender mental health Lebanon good health and well-being section-at-acceptance Public Mental Health Introduction

Burnout is an occupational phenomenon characterized by a persistent reaction to ongoing emotional and interpersonal workplace stressors. It is characterized by three fundamental components: exhaustion, cynicism, and low professional efficiency (1). The first aspect, exhaustion, pertains to the experience of stress, particularly persistent fatigue arising from overwhelming work requirements. The second aspect, depersonalization or cynicism, involves an indifferent or detached approach toward work and colleagues, resulting in a diminished interest in one’s tasks and a sense that the significance of work has decreased. Lastly, a deficiency in professional efficacy signifies diminished feelings of effectiveness, achievement, and success, both within one’s role and the broader organizational context. Emotional exhaustion and cynicism are both categorized as types of occupational strains and viewed as the core components of burnout (1).

Literature review

The advent of the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted all aspects of human life, particularly the mental health and overall well-being of the population through diverse challenges such as isolation and loneliness, job loss, financial instability, as well as illness, death, and grief. Individuals were forced into confinement and social distancing, transitioned to the “new normal” of work, and tried to adapt to unfamiliar circumstances that may have led to emotional, physical, and mental exhaustion, and ultimately burnout. The risk of burnout was elevated as a result of several factors such as the decline in social support, heightened workloads, and rapidly evolving public health directives (2). More so, Pietrabissa et al. showed that social isolation and the associated emotional and psychological challenges have been significant sources of burnout during the pandemic (3). For instance, resignations hit a record rate and have been attributed to people making changes to their work-life balance and exiting the workforce at a faster pace and in greater numbers due to various factors, such as seeking better childcare options and tending to family caregiving responsibilities (4). Parents faced significant challenges in the care and management of their children during the pandemic and are recognized as a population at risk for developing burnout. Despite studies indicating that the health crisis has not led to a surge in cases of parental burnout, numerous parents did express feelings of exhaustion (5).

While burnout has traditionally been considered gender-neutral, recent evidence suggests that the pandemic’s impact may have been disproportionately borne by women due to their dual burden of professional obligations and increased caregiving duties at home (6, 7). Disasters often amplify existing inequalities, leading to poorer mental health, greater unemployment, and social isolation among women and girls (8).

Lebanon is a small coastal eastern Mediterranean country, uniquely blending both eastern and western cultures, has been hit by multiple layers of crises. Lebanon’s economic collapse, compounded by political instability and social unrest, presents a compelling case for studying burnout. The collapse of the banking system, currency devaluation, hyperinflation, and widespread poverty have led to job losses, salary cuts, and financial insecurity, exacerbating mental health issues. In fact, the nation’s real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita declined for the eleventh successive year in 2021, accompanied by a substantial devaluation of the exchange rate. Thus, Lebanon, previously classified as an “Upper-Middle Income” country for nearly a quarter of a century, was reassigned to the “Lower-Middle Income” category (9). Amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic turmoil, the devastating explosion of the Beirut port on August 4, 2020 resulted in more than 200 fatalities, left more than 6,500 injured and rendered 300,000 others homeless (10). Furthermore, the strain on the healthcare system and breakdown of social support networks intensified feelings of helplessness and isolation, further contributing to burnout among individuals and communities. These snowballing crises have led to a deteriorating quality of life, and collective suffering and uncertainty in the Lebanese population. Burnout in Lebanon has been mostly assessed in the healthcare professions of medicine (11–14), pharmacy (15), under stable non-crisis conditions and during the COVID-19 pandemic (16). To the best of our knowledge, limited data is published about gender differences and burnout in Lebanon, and more specifically during a time of crisis such as COVID-19. This study is pivotal in filling the gap in understanding burnout in Lebanon, particularly among women and men during times of compounded crises. By focusing on gender differences, it provides valuable insights into how societal roles, economic pressures, and crisis conditions shape the burnout experience. Such findings could inform targeted interventions and policies to mitigate burnout in Lebanon and similar settings facing multifaceted challenges. In light of the myriad adverse consequences experienced by women and men during the pandemic, this study aims to assess the level of burnout among Lebanese women and men during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify gender differences and other related factors including mitigation strategies adopted during the lockdown. It examines the levels of burnout among Lebanese women and men during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how gender differences and related factors contribute to burnout.

The study offers new insights into the interplay between gender, crisis conditions, and burnout, emphasizing the importance of context-specific strategies to address occupational stress. By exploring mitigation strategies adopted during the lockdown, this research contributes to a framework for effective crisis adaptation and mental health resilience, particularly in fragile socio-economic environments.

 Materials and methods Study population

A cross-sectional snowball convenience sample of 423 adult women and men, 18 years or older, who witnessed the COVID-19 pandemic, was recruited from the general Lebanese population through an anonymous online survey that required 15–20 min to be completed. The online survey, which was created using Google Forms platform, was shared through social media channels such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and WhatsApp. Data collection took place upon the participants’ consent during the period between July 2021 and August 2022.

 Study design

The online self-administered Google questionnaire consisted of a total of 51 close-ended questions distributed as follows: 11 questions were about the respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics and their personal lifestyle; eight questions tackled the traveling history of participants, their experience in sharing household responsibilities, contribution to the online education of their children and the impact of the latter on their level of stress and satisfaction; 14 questions assessed the participants’ work style during COVID-19 (office or remote work; schedule, etc.), their access to resources, productivity, and satisfaction rate; 16 questions were adopted from the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory™—General Survey (MBI-GS) (17) to assess the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on burnout in Lebanese women and men; and the last 2 questions identified the stress factors and the mitigation strategies adopted by the respondents during COVID-19. The beginning of the questionnaire included an informed consent form that clearly stated the purpose of the research and emphasizes the importance of voluntary participation, confidentiality, and anonymity of the information. The survey questions were accessible exclusively to individuals who consented to participate in this study. The contact information of the principal investigator/corresponding author of this study and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) committee at the Lebanese American University (LAU) were also included should the respondents wish to ask questions or withdraw from the study. The questionnaire was pilot-tested and edited before its online administration. The English questionnaire was translated to Arabic and back translated to English for consistency and validity by a certified translator. The consenting participants were given the choice to use either the English or Arabic questionnaire. Reminder emails were also sent to participants in a timely manner. By choosing to complete the survey, participants provided their informed consent to participate in the study. The study was approved by the IRB committee at LAU and granted exempt status under the code number LAU.SOP.LK1.21/Jun/2021.

 Statistical analysis

Data collected was coded and entered into SPSS V29 for analysis. The 16 items of the MBI-GS questionnaire were scored on a scale of 0 to 6, with 7 indicating inapplicable. MBI-GS questionnaire included three subscales: (1) exhaustion was measured with five items with a possible score of 0–30, where a score of ≥12 indicates the presence of exhaustion; (2) cynicism was measured with five items with a possible score of 0–30, where a score of ≥11 indicates presence of cynicism; (3) professional efficacy was measured with six items with a possible score of 0–36, where a score of ≤21 indicates low professional efficacy (15). Burnout was considered present if exhaustion was identified coupled with either cynicism and/or low professional efficacy. All analyses were stratified by gender. Descriptive statistics were summarized using counts and percentages and compared using the Pearson’s chi-squared test. A bivariate association between exhaustion, cynicism, and low professional efficacy and sample characteristics were tested using Pearson’s chi-square. Odds ratio (OR) and adjusted OR for burnout with all sample characteristics were estimated using simple and multivariable logistic regressions. Confidence intervals and p values were also reported. Statistical significance was determined at the 5% level.

 Results Characteristics of the surveyed population

Four hundred and twenty-three adults consented to participate in the study and their characteristics are presented in Table 1. The average age of the surveyed population was 37.9 ± 11.9 years, with the average age of men being 35.7 ± 13.3 years (n = 120), and the average age of women being 38.8 ± 11.1 years (n = 303). Most of the respondents, irrespective of their gender, had either completed a bachelor’s degree or pursued postgraduate studies (e.g., MS, MD, and PhD) and were mainly from the Beirut and Mount Lebanon governorates. More males (17.5%) were living alone during the lockdown compared to females (10.2%; p = 0.040). Around 38% of women and men had help at home provided by either the family (36.7% help for men vs. 21.8% for women; p = 0.002) or the helper (6.7% for men vs. 20.8% help for women vs.; p < 0.001). The respondent’s marital status was split between single (59.2% men vs. 36.3% women) and married (40.8% men vs. 63.7% women; p < 0.001). More than 85% of both men and women reported having kids of different ages and less than 15% were expecting a baby.

Characteristics of the surveyed population by gender (n = 423).

Female Male p-value
N % N %
Age
18–39 years old 154 50.8% 75 62.5%
≥ 40 years old 149 49.2% 45 37.5% 0.030
Level of education
Up to high school 23 7.6% 13 10.8%
Technical/vocational school 9 3.0% 10 8.3%
Bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA, BS) 132 43.9% 48 40.0%
Higher studies (e.g., MS, MD, PhD) 137 45.5% 49 40.8% 0.067
Lebanese governorate
Beirut 75 24.8% 22 18.3%
Beqaa 42 13.9% 11 9.2%
Mount Lebanon 142 46.9% 69 57.5%
North Lebanon 23 7.6% 11 9.2%
South Lebanon 21 6.9% 7 5.8% 0.246
Living alone during the lockdown
No 272 89.8% 99 82.5%
Yes 31 10.2% 21 17.5% 0.040
Help at home
No 187 61.7% 73 60.8%
Yes 116 38.3% 47 39.2% 0.866
Provider of help at home
Family 66 21.8% 44 36.7% 0.002
Helper 63 20.8% 8 6.7% <0.001
Others 5 1.7% 2 1.7% 0.990
Marital status
Single 110 36.3% 71 59.2%
Married 193 63.7% 49 40.8% <0.001
Having kids
No 25 12.1% 9 15.0%
Yes 182 87.9% 51 85.0% 0.550
Number of kids
1 33 18.1% 15 29.4%
2 81 44.5% 14 27.5%
3 51 28.0% 16 31.4%
≥ 4 17 9.3% 6 11.8% 0.289
Kids age range
0–5 years 45 14.9% 17 14.2% 0.858
5–10 years 52 17.2% 16 13.3% 0.334
10–15 years 45 14.9% 9 7.5% 0.041
15–20 years 45 14.9% 4 3.3% 0.001
20–25 years 17 5.6% 13 10.8% 0.059
25 years + 50 16.5% 13 10.8% 0.140
Expectancy of a baby
No 181 87.4% 51 85.0%
Yes 26 12.6% 9 15.0% 0.622
Personal lifestyle changes during COVID-19 lockdown and pandemic

Changes in the personal lifestyle of participants were ascertained by a set of eight questions displayed in Table 2. More women (61.5%) were involved in the online learning of their children as compared to men (41%; p = 0.009) and reported higher levels of stress (11.8% of men vs. 34.9% of women expressed the highest level of stress; p = 0.022). No differences were reported in the satisfaction level of both men and women participants with respect to the online learning of their children. More than 83% of the respondents stated that their spouse was residing in Lebanon during the lockdown; however only around half of the participants of both genders shared responsibilities equally at home. No differences between men and women were reported regarding the traveling history and its frequency during the lockdown. Finally, only 2.6% of women and 1.7% of men reported experiencing domestic violence (p = 0.552).

Family and professional duties by gender.

Female Male p-value
N % N %
Family duties
Involvement in children online learning
No 70 38.5% 30 58.8%
Yes 112 61.5% 21 41.2% 0.009
Level of stress experienced due to the online learning of children
1 (Lowest Level) 20 13.4% 11 32.4%
2 11 7.4% 4 11.8%
3 36 24.2% 9 26.5%
4 30 20.1% 6 17.6%
5 (Highest Level) 52 34.9% 4 11.8% 0.022
Satisfaction with respect to children’s online learning
1 (Lowest Level) 25 16.9% 7 20.6%
2 24 16.2% 5 14.7%
3 60 40.5% 13 38.2%
4 24 16.2% 3 8.8%
5 (Highest Level) 15 10.1% 6 17.6% 0.616
Residency of spouse in Lebanon
No 27 13.0% 10 16.7%
Yes 180 87.0% 50 83.3% 0.474
Sharing responsibilities equally at home
No 103 49.8% 26 43.3%
Yes 104 50.2% 34 56.7% 0.381
Traveling abroad
No 276 91.1% 105 87.5%
Yes 27 8.9% 15 12.5% 0.266
Frequency of travel
Frequent 11 42.3% 7 46.7%
Not Frequent 15 57.7% 8 53.3% 0.786
Experiencing domestic violence
No 295 97.4% 118 98.3%
Yes 8 2.6% 2 1.7% 0.552
Professional duties
Working during lockdown
No 102 33.8% 39 32.5%
Yes 200 66.2% 81 67.5% 0.802
Occupation during lockdown
Blue Collar 18 9.0% 15 18.5%
White Collar 155 77.5% 51 63.0%
Healthcare 27 13.5% 15 18.5% 0.029
Type of work contract during lockdown
Part Time 51 25.5% 18 22.2%
Full Time 149 74.5% 63 77.8% 0.563
Work situation during lockdown
Working at the office 40 20.0% 28 34.6%
Working remotely from home 103 51.5% 24 29.6%
Working remotely and at the office (hybrid) 57 28.5% 29 35.8% 0.002
COVID-19 restrictions at workplace
No 14 14.4% 9 15.8%
Yes 83 85.6% 48 84.2% 0.820
Compliance with professional deadlines
No 30 15.0% 12 14.8%
Yes 170 85.0% 69 85.2% 0.969
Support from institution/boss
No 55 27.5% 26 32.1%
Yes 145 72.5% 55 67.9% 0.441
Similar working schedule while working from home
No 117 60.6% 53 67.9%
Yes 76 39.4% 25 32.1% 0.259
Working hours from home
< 2 Hours 8 7.0% 10 20.4%
2–4 Hours 31 27.0% 11 22.4%
5–7 Hours 32 27.8% 10 20.4%
8–10 Hours 24 20.9% 3 6.1%
> 10 Hours 20 17.4% 15 30.6% 0.007
Working on weekends from home
No 74 37.9% 31 39.7%
Yes 121 62.1% 47 60.3% 0.783
Easy access to technology (laptop, desktop, smartphone, other)
No 22 10.9% 15 18.5%
Yes 179 89.1% 66 81.5% 0.088
Easy access to Internet
No 51 25.4% 18 22.2%
Yes 150 74.6% 63 77.8% 0.578
Satisfaction with professional productivity
1 6 3.0% 7 8.6%
2 31 15.4% 13 16.0%
3 72 35.8% 25 30.9%
4 65 32.3% 22 27.2%
5 27 13.4% 14 17.3% 0.238
More time spent on task
Strongly disagree 12 6.0% 7 8.6%
Disagree 32 15.9% 13 16.0%
Neutral 36 17.9% 24 29.6%
Agree 88 43.8% 26 32.1%
Strongly agree 33 16.4% 11 13.6% 0.159
Professional status and productivity during COVID-19 lockdown and pandemic

Table 2 also shows the work style of both men and women during COVID-19 as well as their productivity, and satisfaction rate. More than 66% of men and women respondents were working during the COVID-19 lockdown on a full-time basis. While most of them were white collar workers (77.5% of women vs. 63.0% of men), a minority was reported to be working in the healthcare sector (18.5% of men vs. 13.5% of women; p = 0.029). The work situation during the lockdown was split between working at the office (34.6% of men vs. 20.0% of women) where the majority reported that the COVID-19 safety measures were taken seriously at their workplace, remotely from home (29.6% of men vs. 51.5% of women) and hybrid (35.8% of men vs. 28.5% of women; p = 0.002). When asked about whether they were able to meet the professional deadlines, 85% of the respondents agreed, irrespective of their gender, and the majority confirmed that they were getting the needed support from their boss/institution (67.9% of men vs. 72.5% of women, p = 0.441). Furthermore, 67.9% of men and 60.6% of women reported not being able to adopt the same office working schedule (Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.) while working from home with 30.6% of men compared to 17.4% of women working more than 10 h daily (p = 0.007) and around 60% of both men and women working during weekends. More than 70% of the participants, irrespective of their gender, had easy access to technology and internet. Around 44% of the participants, irrespective of their gender, reported high satisfaction with respect to their overall professional productivity during the pandemic/lockdown (average satisfaction score in both men and women was 2.2 ± 1.8) although 45.7% of men and 60.2% of women felt that they spent more time to complete the same task that they used to complete before the lockdown.

 Effect of COVID-19 pandemic on Lebanese women and men’s burnout

The effect of COVID-19 pandemic on Lebanese women and men’s burnout was ascertained by a set of 16 questions that were adopted from the validated MBI-GS (Tables 3, 4; Figures 1, 2).

Factors associated with exhaustion, cynicism, and low professional efficacy stratified by gender.

Exhaustion Cynicism Low professional efficacy
Female Male Female Male Female Male
N % P N % P N % P N % P N % P N % P
Age
18–39 years old 79 70.5% 21 45.7% 65 58.0% 18 39.1% 24 21.4% 17 37.0%
≥ 40 years old 58 65.2% 0.417 20 57.1% 0.306 37 41.6% 0.020 17 48.6% 0.395 29 32.6% 0.075 8 22.9% 0.174
Level of education
Up to high school 8 88.9% 8 88.9% 7 77.8% 6 66.7% 4 44.4% 3 33.3%
Technical/vocational school 2 66.7% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 2 33.3%
Bachelor’s degree (BA, BS) 60 75.9% 13 44.8% 46 58.2% 9 31.0% 18 22.8% 7 24.1%
Higher studies (MS, MD, PhD) 67 61.5% 0.099 18 48.6% 0.092 49 45.0% 0.030 17 45.9% 0.262 30 27.5% 0.362 13 35.1% 0.808
Lebanese governorate
Beirut 30 54.5% 4 40.0% 27 49.1% 3 30.0% 16 29.1% 3 30.0%
Beqaa 18 81.8% 2 22.2% 15 68.2% 2 22.2% 7 31.8% 4 44.4%
Mount Lebanon 73 73.0% 29 60.4% 53 53.0% 24 50.0% 20 20.0% 12 25.0%
North Lebanon 12 80.0% 2 25.0% 6 40.0% 3 37.5% 5 33.3% 5 62.5%
South Lebanon 4 44.4% 0.027 4 66.7% 0.095 1 11.1% 0.054 3 50.0% 0.486 5 55.6% 0.138 1 16.7% 0.209
Living alone during the lockdown
No 121 68.0% 35 51.5% 91 51.1% 30 44.1% 47 26.4% 18 26.5%
Yes 16 69.6% 0.878 6 46.2% 0.725 11 47.8% 0.766 5 38.5% 0.706 6 26.1% 0.974 7 53.8% 0.050
Help at home
No 83 66.9% 29 55.8% 66 53.2% 25 48.1% 30 24.2% 15 28.8%
Yes 54 70.1% 0.637 12 41.4% 0.214 36 46.8% 0.372 10 34.5% 0.236 23 29.9% 0.375 10 34.5% 0.599
Provider of help
Family 31 73.8% 0.377 12 44.4% 0.432 20 47.6% 0.649 10 37.0% 0.428 12 28.6% 0.716 9 33.3% 0.734
Helper 26 60.5% 0.222 0 0.0% 0.038 17 39.5% 0.097 0 0.0% 0.074 14 32.6% 0.299 2 50.0% 0.395
Others 3 100.0% 0.233 1 50.0% 0.986 1 33.3% 0.543 0 0.0% 0.212 0 0.0% 0.296 1 50.0% 0.553
Marital status
Single 57 80.3% 21 51.2% 45 63.4% 20 48.8% 13 18.3% 15 36.6%
Married 80 61.5% 0.006 20 50.0% 0.913 57 43.8% 0.008 15 37.5% 0.306 40 30.8% 0.055 10 25.0% 0.259
Having kids
No 13 61.9% 3 33.3% 11 52.4% 4 44.4% 7 33.3% 4 44.4%
Yes 73 61.3% 0.961 21 52.5% 0.299 53 44.5% 0.506 14 35.0% 0.595 36 30.3% 0.778 12 30.0% 0.404
Number of kids
1 17 60.7% 6 42.9% 13 46.4% 5 35.7% 9 32.1% 11 78.6%
2 35 62.5% 7 63.6% 23 41.1% 2 18.2% 14 25.0% 0 0.0%
3 17 65.4% 6 60.0% 13 50.0% 3 30.0% 9 34.6% 1 10.0%
≥ 4 4 44.4% 0.729 2 40.0% 0.491 4 44.4% 0.890 4 80.0% 0.188 4 44.4% 0.599 0 0.0% <0.001
Kids age range
0–5 years 20 57.1% 0.124 6 40.0% 0.362 17 48.6% 0.777 3 20.0% 0.044 9 25.7% 0.923 4 26.7% 0.697
5–10 years 26 70.3% 0.760 7 46.7% 0.735 19 51.4% 0.935 3 20.0% 0.044 7 18.9% 0.255 5 33.3% 0.819
10–15 years 12 48.0% 0.021 2 28.6% 0.222 11 44.0% 0.471 1 14.3% 0.106 11 44.0% 0.033 1 14.3% 0.320
15–20 years 13 54.2% 0.117 2 66.7% 0.571 12 50.0% 0.938 1 33.3% 0.725 10 41.7% 0.070 0 0.0% 0.238
20–25 years 2 40.0% 0.171 5 55.6% 0.753 4 80.0% 0.185 5 55.6% 0.428 2 40.0% 0.484 2 22.2% 0.552
25 years + 19 65.5% 0.741 4 66.7% 0.414 12 41.4% 0.275 4 66.7% 0.228 8 27.6% 0.872 2 33.3% 0.892
Involvement in children online learning
No 25 55.6% 12 52.2% 18 40.0% 11 47.8% 15 33.3% 8 34.8%
Yes 48 64.9% 0.312 9 52.9% 0.962 35 47.3% 0.437 3 17.6% 0.048 21 28.4% 0.568 4 23.5% 0.443
Level of stress experienced due to the online learning of children
1 (Lowest Level) 7 63.6% 5 62.5% 5 45.5% 4 50.0% 1 9.1% 1 12.5%
2 2 25.0% 4 100.0% 3 37.5% 2 50.0% 2 25.0% 1 25.0%
3 14 56.0% 3 50.0% 7 28.0% 3 50.0% 9 36.0% 1 16.7%
4 14 73.7% 1 20.0% 9 47.4% 0 0.0% 4 21.1% 1 20.0%
5 (Highest Level) 26 74.3% 0.079 3 75.0% 0.159 21 60.0% 0.180 1 25.0% 0.344 13 37.1% 0.353 1 25.0% 0.979
Satisfaction with respect to children’s online learning
1 (Lowest Level) 9 64.3% 3 50.0% 7 50.0% 2 33.3% 2 14.3% 1 16.7%
2 8 50.0% 1 20.0% 8 50.0% 1 20.0% 4 25.0% 0 0.0%
3 28 68.3% 6 75.0% 17 41.5% 4 50.0% 16 39.0% 3 37.5%
4 13 72.2% 2 66.7% 6 33.3% 0 0.0% 5 27.8% 1 33.3%
5 (Highest Level) 5 55.6% 0.644 4 80.0% 0.269 7 77.8% 0.253 2 40.0% 0.558 2 22.2% 0.441 0 0.0% 0.327
Expectancy of a baby
No 77 64.7% 23 56.1% 57 47.9% 17 41.5% 37 31.1% 13 31.7%
Yes 9 42.9% 0.058 1 12.5% 0.024 7 33.3% 0.217 1 12.5% 0.120 6 28.6% 0.817 3 37.5% 0.749
Residency of spouse in Lebanon
No 8 47.1% 4 44.4% 9 52.9% 4 44.4% 4 23.5% 6 66.7%
Yes 78 63.4% 0.194 20 50.0% 0.763 55 44.7% 0.523 14 35.0% 0.595 39 31.7% 0.493 10 25.0% 0.016
Sharing responsibilities equally at home
No 42 65.6% 13 56.5% 34 53.1% 6 26.1% 18 28.1% 8 34.8%
Yes 44 57.9% 0.349 11 42.3% 0.321 30 39.5% 0.106 12 46.2% 0.146 25 32.9% 0.542 8 30.8% 0.765
Traveling abroad
No 121 68.0% 35 51.5% 91 51.1% 30 44.1% 42 23.6% 23 33.8%
Yes 16 69.6% 0.878 6 46.2% 0.725 11 47.8% 0.766 5 38.5% 0.706 11 47.8% 0.013 2 15.4% 0.187
Frequency of travel
Frequent 7 70.0% 1 20.0% 5 50.0% 1 20.0% 5 50.0% 2 40.0%
Not frequent 9 69.2% 0.968 5 62.5% 0.135 6 46.2% 0.855 4 50.0% 0.279 6 46.2% 0.855 0 0.0% 0.052
Experiencing domestic violence
No 134 67.7% 40 50.0% 101 51.0% 34 42.5% 51 25.8% 25 31.3%
Yes 3 100.0% 0.233 1 100.0% 0.320 1 33.3% 0.543 1 100.0% 0.249 2 66.7% 0.110 0 0.0% 0.501
Working during lockdown
No 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Yes 136 68.0% 41 50.6% 102 51.0% 35 43.2% 53 26.5% 25 30.9%
Occupation during lockdown
Blue collar 12 66.7% 9 60.0% 8 44.4% 8 53.3% 3 16.7% 3 20.0%
White collar 105 68.2% 26 51.0% 79 51.3% 22 43.1% 40 26.0% 17 33.3%
Health 18 66.7% 0.982 6 40.0% 0.547 14 51.9% 0.853 5 33.3% 0.543 9 33.3% 0.458 5 33.3% 0.601
Type of work contract during lockdown
Part time 30 58.8% 9 50.0% 27 52.9% 11 61.1% 15 29.4% 8 44.4%
Full time 106 71.1% 0.104 32 50.8% 0.953 75 50.3% 0.748 24 38.1% 0.082 38 25.5% 0.585 17 27.0% 0.157
Work situation during lockdown
Working at the office 31 77.5% 15 53.6% 25 62.5% 12 42.9% 15 37.5% 7 25.0%
Working remotely from home 68 66.0% 14 58.3% 47 45.6% 13 54.2% 26 25.2% 6 25.0%
Working remotely and at the office (hybrid) 37 64.9% 0.351 12 41.4% 0.436 30 52.6% 0.186 10 34.5% 0.354 12 21.1% 0.179 12 41.4% 0.310
COVID-19 restrictions at workplace
No 11 78.6% 4 44.4% 9 64.3% 5 55.6% 4 28.6% 5 55.6%
Yes 57 68.7% 0.454 23 47.9% 0.848 46 55.4% 0.536 17 35.4% 0.255 23 27.7% 0.947 14 29.2% 0.123
Compliance with professional deadlines
No 24 80.0% 7 58.3% 23 76.7% 6 50.0% 9 30.0% 5 41.7%
Yes 112 65.9% 0.126 34 49.3% 0.562 79 46.5% 0.002 29 42.0% 0.607 44 25.9% 0.638 20 29.0% 0.380
Support from institution/boss
No 48 87.3% 17 65.4% 43 78.2% 16 61.5% 16 29.1% 6 23.1%
Yes 88 60.7% <0.001 24 43.6% 0.068 59 40.7% <0.001 19 34.5% 0.022 37 25.5% 0.609 19 34.5% 0.297
Similar working schedule while working from home
No 82 70.1% 25 47.2% 61 52.1% 23 43.4% 29 24.8% 19 35.8%
Yes 50 65.8% 0.531 15 60.0% 0.290 37 48.7% 0.639 10 40.0% 0.777 21 27.6% 0.659 4 16.0% 0.073
Working hours from home
< 2 Hours 6 75.0% 4 40.0% 6 75.0% 4 40.0% 2 25.0% 6 60.0%
2–4 Hours 21 67.7% 5 45.5% 13 41.9% 6 54.5% 12 38.7% 3 27.3%
5–7 Hours 22 68.8% 5 50.0% 18 56.3% 4 40.0% 7 21.9% 4 40.0%
8–10 Hours 21 87.5% 3 100.0% 16 66.7% 3 100.0% 4 16.7% 1 33.3%
> 10 Hours 12 60.0% 0.322 5 33.3% 0.320 7 35.0% 0.109 4 26.7% 0.179 3 15.0% 0.258 4 26.7% 0.483
Working on weekends from home
No 48 64.9% 17 54.8% 43 58.1% 16 51.6% 21 28.4% 9 29.0%
Yes 85 70.2% 0.433 22 46.8% 0.488 56 46.3% 0.109 18 38.3% 0.246 29 24.0% 0.494 15 31.9% 0.787
Easy access to technology (laptop, desktop, smartphone, other)
No 16 72.7% 9 60.0% 15 68.2% 10 66.7% 7 31.8% 5 33.3%
Yes 121 67.6% 0.626 32 48.5% 0.421 87 48.6% 0.083 25 37.9% 0.042 46 25.7% 0.539 20 30.3% 0.819
Easy access to Internet
No 35 68.6% 10 55.6% 27 52.9% 11 61.1% 16 31.4% 7 38.9%
Yes 102 68.0% 0.934 31 49.2% 0.635 75 50.0% 0.717 24 38.1% 0.082 37 24.7% 0.348 18 28.6% 0.403
Satisfaction with professional productivity
1 5 83.3% 5 71.4% 5 83.3% 5 71.4% 3 50.0% 4 57.1%
2 24 77.4% 6 46.2% 21 67.7% 6 46.2% 10 32.3% 5 38.5%
3 47 65.3% 11 44.0% 40 55.6% 13 52.0% 20 27.8% 10 40.0%
4 44 67.7% 8 36.4% 26 40.0% 6 27.3% 17 26.2% 5 22.7%
5 17 63.0% 0.648 11 78.6% 0.095 10 37.0% 0.019 5 35.7% 0.223 3 11.1% 0.232 1 7.1% 0.093
More time spent on task
Strongly disagree 7 58.3% 4 57.1% 7 58.3% 2 28.6% 1 8.3% 3 42.9%
Disagree 21 65.6% 5 38.5% 12 37.5% 6 46.2% 6 18.8% 2 15.4%
Neutral 25 69.4% 9 37.5% 17 47.2% 7 29.2% 13 36.1% 11 45.8%
Agree 56 63.6% 15 57.7% 42 47.7% 13 50.0% 26 29.5% 6 23.1%
Strongly agree 28 84.8% 0.221 8 72.7% 0.266 24 72.7% 0.052 7 63.6% 0.293 7 21.2% 0.228 3 27.3% 0.262

Association between burnout and participants characteristics stratified by gender.

Burnout
Female Male
Bivariate Unadjusted OR (95% CI) p-value Multivariate Adjusted* OR (95% CI) p-value Unadjusted OR (95% CI) p-value Adjusted* OR (95% CI) p-value
Age
18–39 years old Ref Ref
≥ 40 years old 0.049 1.221 (0.486–3.071) 0.671
Level of education
Up to high school Ref Ref Ref
Technical/vocational school ^ – Ref 0.250 (0.028–2.237) 0.215
Bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA, BS) 0.157 (0.019–1.317) 0.088 Ref 0.190 (0.038–0.950) 0.043
Higher studies (e.g., MS, MD, PhD) 0.088 (0.011–0.728) 0.024 0.550 (0.300–1.000) 0.050 0.240 (0.051–1.128) 0.071
Help at home
No Ref Ref Ref
Yes 0.833 (0.471–1.474) 0.531 0.356 (0.124–1.020) 0.054 0.220 (0.050–0.900) 0.035
Marital status
Single Ref Ref
Married 0.554 (0.308–0.994) 0.048 0.535 (0.211–1.359) 0.189
Involvement in children online learning
No Ref Ref Ref
Yes 1.627 (0.759–3.485) 0.211 0.173 (0.032–0.939) 0.042 0.020 (0.001–0.250) 0.003
Work situation during lockdown
Working at the office Ref Ref
Working remotely from home 0.466 (0.220–0.985) 0.045 1.080 (0.348–3.349) 0.894
Working remotely and at the office (hybrid) 0.540 (0.237–1.232) 0.143 0.810 (0.269–2.441) 0.708
Compliance with professional deadlines
No Ref Ref
Yes 0.347 (0.150–0.801) 0.013 0.468 (0.135–1.617) 0.230 *
Support from institution/boss
No Ref Ref Ref Ref
Yes 0.189 (0.093–0.383) <0.001 0.210 (0.100–0.430) <0.001 0.227 (0.084–0.615) 0.004 0.190 (0.040–0.920) 0.039
Satisfaction with professional productivity
1 Ref Ref Ref
2 0.420 (0.043–4.087) 0.455 0.250 (0.034–1.819) 0.171 0.030 (0.001–0.720) 0.030
3 0.189 (0.021–1.701) 0.137 0.225 (0.036–1.405) 0.111 0.050 (0.002–1.110) 0.058
4 0.142 (0.016–1.286) 0.083 0.118 (0.017–0.802) 0.029 0.010 (0.000–0.360) 0.012
5 0.100 (0.010–0.989) 0.049 0.160 (0.021–1.192) 0.074 0.020 (0.001–0.660) 0.027
COVID coping strategies
No Ref Ref Ref Ref
Yes 0.460 (0.227–0.934) 0.032 0.440 (0.200–0.960) 0.039 0.455 (0.176–1.182) 0.106 0.243 (0.070–0.870) 0.030

*Adjusted to covariates that remained statistically significant in the multivariable logistic regression, with the exception of “compliance with professional deadlines” that remain the model for male due to impact of significance of “support from institution/boss.” Ref: stands for reference group in reading the OR, in the multivariate logistic regression for female the education variable was recategorized to compare higher education group with all others. ^model did not produce OR due to 0 cell.

Bar chart representing exhaustion, cynicism, low professional efficacy, and burnout by gender.

Venn diagram depicting exhaustion, cynicism and low professional efficacy for female and male gender.

Figure 1 shows the proportion of men and women respondents who experienced burnout with an analysis of its three components: emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and diminished professional efficacy. More women participants reported burnout compared to men (34.6% of men vs. 48.3% of women; p = 0.036) with a specifically higher percentage experiencing exhaustion (50.6% of men vs. 68.2% of women; p = 0.006) while there was no difference in cynicism (43.2% of men vs. 50.7% of women; p = 0.252) and low professional efficacy (30.9% of men vs. 26.4% of women; p = 0.445) between both groups.

Table 3 shows factors associated with burnout components (exhaustion, cynicism, and low professional efficacy) stratified by gender. Among women, being a resident of Beqaa, Mount and North Lebanon governorates, being single, having children aged 10–15 years, and lacking boss/institution support were associated with a higher likelihood of individuals exhibiting exhaustion. The percentage of women expressing cynicism differed significantly according to age, level of education, marital status, compliance with professional deadlines, support from the boss/institution and satisfaction with professional productivity. The percentage experiencing low professional efficacy differed significantly according to age of kids and travel. Among men, the proportion of individuals exhibiting exhaustion differed significantly according to the nature of help provided at home and whether they were expecting a baby. The percentage of individuals expressing cynicism significantly correlated with the age of kids, involvement in the online learning of children, support from the boss/institution, and access to technology. The percentage of men experiencing low professional efficacy correlated significantly with whether they were living alone during lockdown, residency of their spouse in Lebanon, and the number of their kids.

Figure 2 shows a Venn diagram that illustrates the percentage of men and women expressing exhaustion, cynicism, and low professional efficacy. Burnout was considered present if exhaustion was experienced with either cynicism and/or low professional efficacy. Among women, 34.8% experienced exhaustion and cynicism, 9.5% showed exhaustion, cynicism, and low professional efficacy, whereas 4.0% expressed exhaustion and low professional efficacy. In men, 24.7% experienced exhaustion and cynicism while 9.9% showed exhaustion, cynicism, and low professional efficacy. No man expressed exhaustion and low professional efficacy together.

OR and adjusted OR for burnout with all sample characteristics were estimated using simple and multivariable logistic regressions (Table 4).

Bivariate analysis showed that a lower odd of women experiencing burnout significantly correlated with age above 40 years, university level of education, being married, working remotely from home, compliance with professional deadlines, being provided with the needed support from the boss/institution, being satisfied with their professional productivity and adopting COVID-19 coping strategies. After adjustment, a decrease in the prevalence of burnout in women was still significantly associated with post graduate studies (odds ratio and confidence interval of 0.55 [0.30–1.00]; p = 0.05), being provided with the needed support from the boss/institution (odds ratio and confidence interval of 0.21 [0.10–0.43]; p < 0.001) and adopting COVID-19 coping strategies (odds ratio and confidence interval of 0.44 [0.0–0.96]; p = 0.039).

Based on the bivariate analysis, the prevalence of burnout was lower among men who had a university degree, were involved in their children online learning, received support from the boss/institution and were satisfied with their professional productivity. After adjustment, a decrease in the prevalence of burnout in men significantly associated with help at home (odds ratio and confidence interval of 0.22 [0.05–0.90]; p = 0.035), involvement in the online learning of their children (odds ratio and confidence interval of 0.02 [0.001–0.25]; p = 0.003), support provided by the boss/institution (odds ratio and confidence interval of 0.19 [0.04–0.92]; p = 0.039), satisfaction with professional productivity (odds ratio and confidence interval of 0.02 [0.001–0.66]; p = 0.027), and adopting COVID-19 coping strategies (odds ratio and confidence interval of 0.243 [0.07–0.87]; p = 0.030).

 Stress factors and coping strategies adopted during COVID-19 pandemic

The surveyed population was asked to identify the stressors that they experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The different stressors were cross-tabulated with the 16 questions of the MBI-GS to evaluate the association between burnout and the stress factors in both men and women (data not shown). Around half of the surveyed women (52.1%) reported being stressed by the COVID-19 pandemic, Lebanon’s economic crisis and the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion. Among men, the highest number expressing burnout reported the Lebanese economic crisis as the main stressor (40.6%; p = 0.006), followed by the COVID-19 pandemic (37.5%) then the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion (34.0%). Among the three stressors, the Lebanese economic crisis was significantly linked with a higher percentage of exhaustion (56.5% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.011) in men and cynicism in both men (50.7% vs. 0%; p = 0.001) and women (52.7% vs. 23.1%; p = 0.039).

Different coping strategies were employed by the respondents during the COVID-19 pandemic, including COVID-19 precautions (hygiene, social distancing andwearing masks), entertainment and social activities (chatting with family and friends, browsing social media, watching television, reading, cooking, online shopping, sleeping) and religious practices (praying). Coping strategies were helpful in both women and men who had burnout (p = 0.039 and 0.03 respectively).

 Discussion

The current study explores gender-based burnout predictors in Lebanon during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite common features, differences in burnout experiences between Lebanese women and men were observed. More women reported burnout with specifically a higher prevalence of exhaustion compared to men while there were no gender-related differences in cynicism and low professional efficacy. The COVID-19 pandemic has not only presented unprecedented challenges to global health but has also significantly impacted various aspects of our lives, including work and mental well-being. As we navigated through these uncertain times, it was crucial to examine how different demographic groups were affected, and one such dimension is gender. Burnout, a state of chronic physical and emotional exhaustion often related to work-related stressors, has been on the rise, and understanding its manifestations in women and men can provide valuable insights into developing targeted interventions and support systems. Employers, policymakers, and individuals must address the unique challenges faced by women and men, providing resources to mitigate burnout and promote mental well-being. While complete elimination of burnout is unrealistic, organizations can foster growth, empowerment, shared governance, enhanced communication, and gender equity to improve job satisfaction (18). Creating supportive, inclusive workplaces, particularly for women, is essential for resilience and warrants further study.

The higher prevalence of exhaustion in women is consistent with the results of a comprehensive meta-analysis of 180 studies, which found that women are more likely to report exhaustion-type burnout while men are more likely to report depersonalization-type burnout (19). The gender-specific patterns of burnout observed among the study participants during the COVID-19 pandemic could be attributed to family dynamics, societal, occupational, or individual factors. Women and men respondents reported similarities with respect to help provided at home and equal distribution of household responsibilities. However, with the closure of schools, Lebanese women were more involved in their children’s online learning compared to men and consequently reported higher levels of stress. This is supported by emerging research suggesting that women have provided more childcare than men during the COVID-19 pandemic even while continuing to work (20, 21). Furthermore, numerous studies have documented the pervasive impact of stress on the family system, with parenting stress affecting parent–child interactions, and concurrently children’s stress impacting parents’ stress, sense of parenting competence, and overall well-being (22–24). With the increased caregiving demands for children, women who traditionally shouldered diverse roles at home and in the workplace faced an exacerbated burden during the pandemic in balancing professional responsibilities with caregiving duties (25). This was problematic both for women who had the privilege to work from home and even more so for women who were essential employees. For those that can work from home, the expectations on women to manage domestic family needs while also managing full-time careers and work may be unreasonable. Importantly, our findings showed that women were mainly working remotely from home, compared to the majority of men who were working either at the office or in a hybrid mode. With remote work blurring the boundaries between professional and personal life, the expectation to excel in both arenas has intensified contributing to heightened stress levels (26).

Despite meeting professional deadlines and getting the needed support from their boss/institution, the majority of women and men respondents reported not being able to adopt the same office-working schedule while working from home, spending more time to complete the same task they used to complete before the lockdown and were even compelled to work during weekends. Consequently, less than half of the participants, irrespective of their gender, reported high satisfaction with respect to their overall professional productivity during the pandemic/lockdown.

Importantly, certain factors had varying impacts on burnout and its components for women and men. One of the most prominent findings of our study is that the support from boss/institution and adoption of COVID-19 coping strategies decreased the prevalence of burnout in both women and men. This was in agreement with previous studies that focused on both the human aspect of work and the value of human resources that play a primordial role in meeting the worker’s needs (27) and eventually the job expectations. A workplace that fosters empowerment enhances employees’ organizational commitment and boosts their sense of self-efficacy. As such, women who experience a more positive diversity environment encounter decreased conflict with both coworkers and managers. Furthermore, they demonstrate elevated job engagement and reduced levels of burnout (28).

The current data showed that experiences of burnout specifically differed in women with respect to their level of education and in men depending on whether they received help at home, were involved in the online learning of their children and satisfied with their professional productivity. Men, while facing challenges similar to women in terms of remote work and blurring boundaries, may also contend with traditional expectations of being the primary breadwinners. Hence, maintaining job performance during economic uncertainty may have alleviated burnout in Lebanese men. Interestingly, men who have taken on increased caregiving responsibilities during the pandemic experienced less burnout than those who did not. This may suggest that these men adjusted to non-traditional roles, succeeded in striking a balance between work and family life and enjoyed parental interactions. Indeed, increased positive emotions in parenting as well, including feelings of closeness to children and gratitude was reported during COVID-19 lockdown (24).

An extensive body of literature has investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on burnout among healthcare providers (29) and academicians (30) while focusing on gender differences. The current study assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on burnout among Lebanese men and women, however its findings should be interpreted in light of the peculiar situation of Lebanon, as the country has been struggling for the past 4 years with an unprecedented compounded crisis that has reverberated across all facets of life. In addition to the COVID-19 pandemic, Lebanon’s economic crisis and the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion were reported as the main stressors by both women and men. Therefore, one cannot dissociate the effect of those on the burnout levels that we report herein. Job insecurity and financial stress may add to the burnout experienced by many Lebanese women and men, hence amplifying feelings of helplessness and anxiety. Indeed, several studies have actually examined the mental health difficulties in Lebanon resulting from the aftermath of the compounded crisis, mostly investigating post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, stress, somatic symptom disorders, and functional impairment (31–33) but not burnout. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that explores the level of burnout and gender-related factors in Lebanese men and women during the pandemic and in light of a multifaceted crisis.

 Limitations

However, the authors acknowledge the following limitations of this study. The data was collected through a snowball sampling method and an online questionnaire, potentially excluding individuals without internet access or limited social media presence. This may restrict the generalizability of the findings. Another notable limitation is the high educational level of our participant cohort, which could have introduced selection bias. Additionally, the data is limited to a cross-sectional design, making it challenging to account for unobservable and time-invariant factors that could significantly influence the gender difference in burnout. Replicating the study results using longitudinal data would be valuable in eliminating potential bias associated with these factors. Furthermore, this study focuses exclusively on workers in Lebanon. While developed countries generally exhibit similar market and institutional conditions, individual cultural and environmental factors can possibly influence the perception of job burnout. Consequently, the study findings may be extrapolated to countries with a similar institutional and social fragility (34). The current study sample of respondents included a small number of healthcare professionals which represent a unique occupational group with an increased risk of burnout. For such group, the authors acknowledge that the Maslach Burnout Inventory – Human Services for Medical Personnel (MBI-HSS (MP)) constitutes a more valid tool to measure burnout in such category of workers but was not the focus of the study.

 Conclusion

This research enriches existing literature by identifying burnout risk factors and informing targeted interventions in Lebanon, with a focus on the gender dimensions of burnout during the pandemic.

Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to understand the long-term effects of crises on burnout and mental health. Qualitative studies exploring personal experiences and cultural influences, along with investigations into the effectiveness of targeted interventions like gender-specific support programs, are critical. Additionally, comparative research across different socio-economic contexts and studies on intersectional factors such as age and caregiving responsibilities can provide deeper insights into burnout prevention and management.

 Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

 Ethics statement

The study involving humans was approved by Lebanese American University Institutional Review Board: LAU.SOP.LK1.21/Jun/2021. 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.

 Author contributions

AA-G: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HD: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MB: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. EF: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MM: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MaS: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RH: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. EN: Data curation, Software, Writing – review & editing. JM: Resources, Writing – review & editing. MyS: Resources, Writing – review & editing. LK: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

 Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The acquisition of funding to procure the MBI-GS survey from Mind Garden was secured through the Arab Institute for Women at the Lebanese American University.

The authors wish to acknowledge the Lebanese American University Arab Institute for Women for supporting this work. During the revision of this work, the authors used ChatGPT 4.0 to improve readability and language. After using this tool/service, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

 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.

 References Maslach C Schaufeli WB Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. (2001) 52:397–422. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397, PMID: 11148311 Lau SSS Ho CCY Pang RCK Su S Kwok H Fung S . Measurement of burnout during the prolonged pandemic in the Chinese zero-COVID context: COVID-19 burnout views scale. Front Public Health. (2022) 10:1039450. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1039450, PMID: 36438233 Pietrabissa G Simpson SG. Psychological consequences of social isolation during COVID-19 outbreak. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:2201. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02201, PMID: 33013572 Gittleman M. The great resignation in perspective. U.S: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly Labor Review (2022). Lebert-Charron A. Impact de la Covid-19 Sur les situations de burn-out parental [impact of Covid-19 on parental burnout situations]. Soins Pediatr Pueric. (2021) 42:38–40. doi: 10.1016/j.spp.2021.09.010 Alon T Doepke M Olmstead-Rumsey J Tertilt M. The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality. (2020). Available at: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26947/w26947.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2024. Bulog I Pepur S Smiljanic AR. Women’s overload during the pandemic: unpaid care work, financial well-being, and stress. Management. (2022) 27:123–50. doi: 10.30924/mjcmi.27.1.8 Stevenson K Holtermann-Entwistle O Alameddine R Ghattas H DeJong J Singh N . Prioritising women’s and girls’ health in disaster settings: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and the overlapping crises affecting Beirut. Lebanon Glob Public Health. (2022) 17:794–9. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2022.2043924, PMID: 35188878 World Bank Group, Data. Lebanon. (2025). Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/country/LB (Accessed January 27, 2025). World Health Organization. Lebanon emergency appeal. (2020). Available at: https://www.who.int/emergencies/funding/appeals/lebanon-explosion-2020. Accessed January 5, 2024. Ashkar K Romani M Bachir R Musharrafieh U. Prevalence of burnout in Lebanese practicing physicians: experience of a developing country. J Med Liban. (2018) 66:260–266. doi: 10.12816/0053910 Jardaly M Antoun J Sakr R Doumiati H Shaarani I. Financial literacy and wellbeing among medical students, residents, and attending physicians in Lebanon: results from a nationwide multi-centered survey. Inquiry. (2024) 61:469580241294135. doi: 10.1177/00469580241294135, PMID: 39568101 Yacoubian A Demerouti E Degheili JA El Hajj A. A survey-based study about burnout among postgraduate medical trainees: implications for leaders in healthcare management. Front Public Health. (2023) 11:1209191. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1209191, PMID: 37501948 Talih F Warakian R Ajaltouni J Shehab AAS Tamim H. Correlates of depression and burnout among residents in a Lebanese academic medical center: a cross-sectional study. Acad Psychiatry. (2015) 40:38–45. doi: 10.1007/s40596-015-0400-3, PMID: 26246222 Abilmona R Dimassi H Aboulhosn R Chamoun N. Burnout and coping strategies among health system pharmacists in Lebanon: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. (2023) 23:424. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09422-7, PMID: 37131192 Safwan J Halat DH Akel M Younes S Rahal M Mourad N . The impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of Lebanese pharmacists: a national cross-sectional study. Front Public Health. (2023) 11:1156840. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1156840, PMID: 37124813 Schaufeli WB Leiter PM Christina Maslach C Jackson SE. The Maslach burnout inventory: test manual. Palo Alto, CA, USA: Consulting psychologists press (1996). Galletta M Portoghese I Ciuffi M Sancassiani F Aloja ED Campagna M. Working and environmental factors on job burnout: a cross-sectional study among nurses. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. (2016) 12:132–41. doi: 10.2174/1745017901612010132, PMID: 27990173 Purvanova RK Muros JP. Gender differences in burnout: a meta-analysis. J Vocat Behav. (2010) 77:168–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.006 Collins C Landivar LC Ruppanner L Scarborough WJ. COVID-19 and the gender gap in work hours. Gend Work Organ. (2021) 28:101–12. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12506, PMID: 32837019 Zamarro G Camp A Fuchsman D McGee J. Understanding how COVID-19 has changed teachers’ chances of remaining in the classroom. In: Education Reform Faculty and Graduate Students Publications. (2021). Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/edrepub/127/ Accessed January 5, 2024. Neece CL Green SA Baker BL. Parenting stress and child behavior problems: a transactional relationship across time. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. (2012) 117:48–66. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-117.1.48, PMID: 22264112 Nelson JA O’Brien M Blankson AN Calkins SD Keane SP. Family stress and parental responses to children’s negative emotions: tests of the spillover, crossover, and compensatory hypotheses. J Fam Psychol. (2009) 23:671–9. doi: 10.1037/a0015977, PMID: 19803603 Kerr ML Rasmussen HF Fanning KA Braaten SM. Parenting during COVID-19: a study of parents’ experiences across gender and income levels. Fam Relat. (2021) 70:1327–42. doi: 10.1111/fare.12571, PMID: 34548726 Kantamneni N. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on marginalized populations in the United States: a research agenda. J Vocat Behav. (2020) 119:103439. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103439, PMID: 32390658 Stefanova V Farrell L Latu I. Gender and the pandemic: associations between caregiving, working from home, personal and career outcomes for women and men. Curr Psychol. (2021) 42:17395–411. doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-02630-6, PMID: 35002182 Leiter MP Day A Oore DG Spence Laschinger HK. Getting better and staying better: assessing civility, incivility, distress, and job attitudes one year after a civility intervention. J Occup Health Psychol. (2012) 17:425–34. doi: 10.1037/a0029540, PMID: 23066695 Sliter M Boyd E Sinclair R Cheung J McFadden A. Inching toward inclusiveness: diversity climate, interpersonal conflict and well-being in women nurses. Sex Roles. (2014) 71:43–54. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0337-5 Kuhlmann E Bruns L Hoeper K Richter M Witte T Ernst D . Work situation of rheumatologists and residents in times of COVID-19: findings from a survey in Germany. Z Rheumatol. (2023) 82:331–41. doi: 10.1007/s00393-021-01081-5, PMID: 34535820 Berge JM Freese R Macheledt KC Watson S Pusalavidyasagar S Kunin-Batson A . Intersectionality and COVID-19: academic medicine faculty’s lived experiences of well-being, workload, and productivity during the pandemic. J Women’s Health (Larchmt). (2023) 32:1351–62. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2023.0045, PMID: 37930683 Grey I Makki Z Kahale C Abi Habib R Tohme P. The influence of multiple community level traumatic event types on mental health outcomes. Psychol Rep. (2023) 1–20. doi: 10.1177/00332941231204796, PMID: 37751432 Tohme P Grey I El-Tawil MT El Maouch M Abi-Habib R. Prevalence and correlates of mental health difficulties following the Beirut port explosion: the roles of mentalizing and resilience. Psychol Trauma. (2024) 16:30–8. doi: 10.1037/tra0001328, PMID: 35878088 Farran N. Mental health in Lebanon: tomorrow’s silent epidemic. Ment Health Prev. (2021) 24:200218. doi: 10.1016/j.mhp.2021.200218, PMID: 34660191 Word Bank. Classification of fragile and conflict-affected situations. (2023). Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/brief/harmonized-list-of-fragile-situations. Accessed January 5, 2024.