ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea)

https://www.revistaespacios.com Pag. 160

Vol. 45 (03) 2024 • May-Jun • Art. 11

Recibido/Received: 26/04/2024 • Aprobado/Approved: 20/05/2024 • Publicado/Published: 31/05/2024

DOI: 10.48082/espacios-a24v45n03p11

Burnout syndrome in university professors in the COVID-19

post-pandemic period

Síndrome de burnout en el docente universitario en el período postpandemia COVID-19

MOHAMED-AMAR, Horía

MOHAMED-AMAR, Rachida

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply impacted higher education, increasing stress and emotional

exhaustion among university faculty. The sudden transition to online teaching and the need to adapt to

a changing academic environment have heightened tensions. High levels of burnout are evident in 71%

of faculty, with 24% experiencing moderate levels, and 5% low levels. It is recommended that

universities implement prevention programs and support policies to improve the mental health and

well-being of the faculty.

Key words: university professor, burnout syndrome, post-pandemic covid-19

Resumen

La pandemia de COVID-19 ha impactado profundamente la educación superior, incrementando el estrés

y el agotamiento emocional entre los docentes universitarios. La transición repentina a la enseñanza en

línea y la necesidad de adaptarse a un entorno académico cambiante han elevado las tensiones. Se

evidencian altos niveles de burnout en un 71% de los docentes, 24% moderados y 5% bajos. Se

recomienda que las universidades implementen programas de prevención y políticas de apoyo para

mejorar la salud mental y el bienestar del profesorado.

Palabras clave: docente universitario, síndrome burnout, postpandemia covid-19

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted lives globally, taking center stage in social, health, economic,

and political spheres and marking a historical before and after, triggering an economic and multisectoral crisis

worldwide. This exceptional situation led to increased pressure, anxiety, fear of contagion, frustration, isolation,

and uncertainty about the near future, exacerbating existing issues and contributing to increased physical and

mental fatigue, anxiety, stress, and exhaustion among university faculty. The negative psychological effects

directly linked to confinement conditions, the pandemic’s characteristics, and associated factors qualify

Dra. Profesora Departamento de Marketing y Comunicación, F.CC. Sociales y Comunicación Universidad de Cádiz. Contacto: horia.mohamed@uca.es

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7895-5817

Dra. Profesora Departamento de Marketing y Comunicación, F.CC. Sociales y Comunicación Universidad de Cádiz. Contacto: rachida.mohamed@uca.es

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3827-5742

ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 45, Nº 3, Año 2024 • May-Jun

MOHAMED-AMAR H. & MOHAMED-AMAR R. «Burnout syndrome in university professors in the COVID-19

post-pandemic period»

Pag. 161

confinement as a high psychosocial stress adversity, impacting psychological well-being more significantly than

typical life events (Sandín & Chorot, 2017).

Factors like the ambiguity and uncontrollability of the threat (i.e., the coronavirus), its invisible and unpredictable

nature, the lethality of the invader, or potential inaccuracies in media-reported information can themselves

cause psychological disturbances related to the perception of personal health threats. Concerns, fears, and

anxiety among the confined may also relate to secondary factors like the health of loved ones, potential

healthcare system collapse, employment issues, and income losses, and the global spread of the virus with its

economic and social consequences (Sandín et al., 2020).

Universities had to quickly adapt to the new scenario overnight to continue providing quality education, facing

complex challenges in resuming face-to-face classes. Post-pandemic, university faculty burnout must be urgently

addressed as it correlates with a wide range of emotional and physical problems, significantly linked to job

performance (Leal, 2022).

Empirical studies have consistently shown the prevalence of burnout syndrome among university faculty.

However, research focusing on the prevalence of university faculty burnout during and post-COVID-19 remains

scarce, despite the complete disruption of their work from one day to the next since March 2020. While there

are numerous studies on pandemic burnout among healthcare workers, less attention has been paid to other

critical services like firefighters and police, with emerging research focusing on non-university teaching staff. This

paper aims to explore and analyze the state and prevalence of burnout syndrome among faculty at public

universities in Andalusia during the post-pandemic period, with no prior studies addressing the discussion of the

results obtained.

1.1. Conceptualization

In the literature on burnout syndrome, there is unanimous agreement that Freudenberger was the precursor of

the term "burnout" in 1974 (Shirom, 2003; Serrano et al., 2002; Maslach et al., 2001). Burnout negatively impacts

the physical and psychological health of those affected (Gil-Monte, 2003; Laschinger, 2001), and while it has

primarily been associated with the professional sphere, many scholars argue it can develop in non-work domains,

affecting individuals’ work and personal life (Peeters et al., 2005; Lacovides et al., 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2001;

Demerouti et al., 2000; Hellesøy et al., 2000).

Since Freudenberger (1974) first defined the syndrome as "a feeling of failure and an exhausted or worn-out

existence resulting from an overload of demands on energy, personal resources, or spiritual strength of the

worker" (pp. 160), numerous definitions have been proposed, though the definitions by Cherniss (1980), Maslach

and Jackson (1981), Pines & Aronson (1988), and Shirom (1989) have been most frequently cited and used in

empirical research, with Maslach and Jackson’s (1981) gaining significant traction in recent years.

According to Maslach and Schaufeli (1993), despite differences in application and precision, most definitions

share five common elements: a) predominance of fatigue symptoms such as emotional and mental exhaustion;

b) presence of various atypical physical exhaustion symptoms; c) burnout symptoms are related to work; d)

symptoms manifest in individuals without prior psychopathologies; and e) a decrease in effectiveness and

performance deterioration due to negative behaviors and attitudes.

The lack of a consensus definition and conceptualization of burnout presents significant challenges for its study

and has resulted in a fragmented theoretical framework, primarily due to the numerous definitions linked to its

symptomatology and generalized incidence across all occupational fields (Gil-Monte, 2003; Shirom & Ezrachi,

2003; Fogarty et al., 2000; Guerrero, 2001).

ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 45, Nº 3, Año 2024 • May-Jun

MOHAMED-AMAR H. & MOHAMED-AMAR R. «Burnout syndrome in university professors in the COVID-19

post-pandemic period»

Pag. 162

According to Garcés de los Fayos (1999), "since Freudenberger's definition in 1974, and following contributions

by Maslach and Jackson (1981), and those made by Pines et al., (1981), there have been few original

contributions to the definition of burnout, revolving mostly around these three, including nuances specific to the

context in which research was conducted without substantially altering the originals" (pp. 8-9).

Efforts to clarify the concept of burnout have involved significant research to identify and differentiate it from

other concepts like stress, adjustment disorders, chronic fatigue syndrome, anxiety, and depression (Shirom et

al., 2005; Shirom & Ezrachi, 2003; Lacovides et al., 2003; Serrano et al., 2002; Maslach et al., 2001).

Regarding stress, although there is consensus in the literature that they are distinct concepts, the boundaries

that separate them are not very clear, as they share some characteristics but also have important differences

(Shirom et al., 2005), and the debate continues. Essentially, the controversy surrounding burnout and stress

arises from the broad acceptance of the conceptualization of burnout as a process triggered by chronic exposure

to work-related stress, as previously seen.

1.2. Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter's Modelization (2001)

For Maslach et al. (2001), the primary contributions of the pioneers in the study of burnout were: a) Identifying

the foundations of the phenomenon and naming it. b) Recognizing that it was a common response among

individuals, not just isolated cases among those suffering from burnout and its consequences. c) Conducting

research of a descriptive and qualitative nature, using techniques such as interviews, case studies, and on-site

observations.

During this initial period, this syndrome was considered specific to professionals working in social and health

services, as one of the attributed causes of burnout was direct contact with others to whom aid services were

provided.

Regarding the empirical phase, according to Maslach et al. (2001), this second phase began in the 1980s and

differed from the first in that burnout research became "systematically more empirical, using questionnaires and

surveys as methodologies, studying broader subject populations, and focusing mainly on measuring the

syndrome with the development of various measures" (Maslach et al., 2001, pp. 401).

During this period, significant advances occurred in the way burnout was measured, utilizing more sophisticated

statistical methodologies and tools. Notably, there was acceptance that the burnout problem affects more and

more people daily, regardless of their profession—whether or not they are social service professionals (Burke &

Richarden, 1991; Leiter & Schaufeli, 1996; Schaufeli, et al., 1996; Maslach et al., 2001). Evidence of this is the

new version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory—the most widely used measurement instrument globally—which

was limited to professionals having direct and constant contact with people receiving such professional services,

thus allowing the inventory to measure burnout in any type of professionals.

The explanatory models provided by different researchers vary—except for the process model of Cherniss

(1980)—in terms of the order of occurrence of the three components of the burnout syndrome: emotional

exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. Although there is no unanimous

acceptance of the conceptual definition of the construct, the opposite occurs when admitting that emotional

exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment, as outlined by Maslach and Jackson

(1981), constitute the components of the burnout syndrome, accepting its three-dimensional nature.

Emotional exhaustion refers to feelings of having exhausted emotional resources due to continuous interactions

that workers must maintain among themselves and with clients (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Wright & Hobfoll,

2004; Shirom, 2003; Blanch et al., 2002; Schaufeli et al., 2001; Guerrero, 2001). For Maslach et al. (2001), "the

ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 45, Nº 3, Año 2024 • May-Jun

MOHAMED-AMAR H. & MOHAMED-AMAR R. «Burnout syndrome in university professors in the COVID-19

post-pandemic period»

Pag. 163

exhaustion component represents the basic dimension of stress" (pp. 399), while depersonalization represents

"the dimension of the interpersonal context" (pp. 399). The depersonalization component would involve the

development of cynical attitudes toward the people to whom the workers provide services. Gil-Monte and Peiró

(1999) specify that this dimension is associated with excessive detachment from others, silence, use of disdainful

attitudes, and attempts to blame others for one's own frustration.

Lastly, reduced personal accomplishment represents, in the opinion of Maslach et al. (2001, pp. 399), "the self-

evaluation dimension of burnout." This dimension would represent a loss of confidence in personal

accomplishment and the presence of a negative self-concept as a result, and "can lead to a rejection of oneself

and personal achievements, as well as feelings of failure and low self-esteem" (Salanova et al., 2005, pp.170).

2. Methodology

The study was conducted using a quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional design. The Maslach Burnout

Inventory (MBI) Spanish version questionnaire (Ferrando and Pérez, 1996) was used as the data collection tool.

The study population consisted of faculty at public universities in Andalusia. The sample was obtained through

non-probabilistic intentional sampling, with a sample size of 298 faculty members. The selection criterion was

that the faculty member had worked from the start of the pandemic until June 2023, without any type of leave

during that period. The fieldwork was carried out during June and July 2023. Data was protected at all times

under strict confidentiality, participation was voluntary based on informed consent, and responses were

anonymous. Data treatment and analysis used SPSS software version 27, following the criteria established by

Maslach and Jackson (1986) regarding the cutoff points for the dimensions of the burnout syndrome, as shown

in tables 1 and 2.

The Spanish version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), intended to assess and quantify the prevalence of

burnout syndrome among faculty, consists of 22 items in the form of statements that assess the three dimensions

of the syndrome: emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal accomplishment (PA). The

items included in the MBI inventory are collected in table 2. Subjects rate each questionnaire item on a Likert

scale, indicating how often they have experienced the situation described in the item over the last year, and the

scores given for each dimension are summed. This frequency scale has 7 grades, ranging from 0 (never) to 6

(every day). The instrument enjoys excellent internal consistency and reliability, measured through Cronbach's

α, with an α of 0.9 for the Emotional Exhaustion dimension, an α of 0.79 for Depersonalization, and an α of 0.71

for Personal Accomplishment at work, according to the manual by Seisdedos (1997). The scores obtained in each

dimension are calculated by summing the values assigned by respondents to the items encompassing that

dimension.

Table 1

Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) Spanish Version

Item

Statement

Dimension

I feel emotionally drained by my work.

I feel tired at the end of the workday.

When I get up in the morning and face another workday, I feel fatigued.

I find it easy to understand how my students feel.

I think I am treating some students as if they were impersonal objects.

I feel that working all day with students is a great effort and tires me out.

I believe I deal very effectively with the problems of my students.

I feel that my work is wearing me out. I feel burned out by my job.

ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 45, Nº 3, Año 2024 • May-Jun

MOHAMED-AMAR H. & MOHAMED-AMAR R. «Burnout syndrome in university professors in the COVID-19

post-pandemic period»

Pag. 164

Item

Statement

Dimension

I believe that with my work, I am making a positive impact on my students' lives.

I have become more callous toward people since I took this job.

I think this job is making me emotionally tougher.

I feel energetic in my job.

I feel frustrated in my job.

I think I work too much.

I really don't care what happens to some of my students.

Working directly with students stresses me out.

I feel that I can create a pleasant climate with my students.

I feel motivated after working closely with students easily.

I believe that I achieve many valuable things in this job.

I feel finished at my job, at the limit of my capabilities.

At work, I handle emotional problems very calmly.

I believe that students blame me for some of their problems.

Source: Ferrando and Pérez (1996)

----

Table 2

Procedure and Indicators of Burnout

Evaluated Aspect

Questions to Evaluate

Total Value Obtained

Indicators of Burnout

Emotional Exhaustion

1-2-3-6-8-13-14-16-20

Σ items CE

> 26

Depersonalization

5-10-11-15-22

Σ items DP

> 9

Personal Accomplishment

4-7-9-12-17-18-19-21

Σ items RP

< 34

Source: Maslach and Jackson (1986)

----

Table 3

Reference Values

Evaluated Dimension

Low

Medium

High

Emotional Exhaustion

0 – 18

19 – 26

27 – 54

Depersonalization

0 – 5

6 – 9

10 – 30

Personal Accomplishment

0 – 33

34 – 39

40 – 56

Source: Maslach and Jackson (1986)

3. Results, discussion and conclusions

To verify the reliability of the instrument and its dimensions, Cronbach's Alpha technique was used. In this study,

the overall reliability analysis yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.92, with the Emotional Exhaustion dimension

scoring a Cronbach's alpha of 0.9, the Depersonalization dimension a Cronbach's alpha of 0.85, and the Personal

Accomplishment dimension a Cronbach's alpha of 0.84. Therefore, all values obtained in the global reliability

analysis and for each dimension are excellent.

ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 45, Nº 3, Año 2024 • May-Jun

MOHAMED-AMAR H. & MOHAMED-AMAR R. «Burnout syndrome in university professors in the COVID-19

post-pandemic period»

Pag. 165

The results for each dimension are presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5, along with their respective graphs. Scores for

each dimension should be kept separate and not summed into a single score, and each dimension should be

evaluated according to the cutoff criteria set by Maslach and Jackson (1986). Subsequently, the prevalence of

burnout syndrome is assessed for each subject in the sample, considering that higher scores in the AE and DP

dimensions, and lower scores in the RP dimension, indicate a higher level of burnout. Conversely, low burnout is

characterized by low levels of AE and DP, and high levels of RP. Medium levels of burnout are found in other

combinations of these scores.

Table 4

Emotional Exhaustion Dimension

Level

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative

Percentage

High

241

81%

Medium

14%

95%

Low

100%

Total

298

100%

The faculty studied show a high degree of emotional exhaustion, with 81% experiencing high levels, 14% at a

medium level, and only 5% showing a low degree of prevalence in the emotional exhaustion dimension. The 81%

prevalence reflects feelings of extreme fatigue, exhaustion, and lack of energy. The teachers have experienced

overwhelming emotional wear due to the demands of their job. According to the sample, emotional exhaustion

arises from: work overload, emotional tiredness, constant fatigue, psychological wear, feeling burned out by

teaching duties, frustration, sensation of lacking energy, job wear, excessive effort and dedication to students,

feeling of having reached the limit of their capabilities at work, as well as high levels of tension and pressure from

both teaching and research activities.

The dimensions of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were the aspects of burnout that showed a high

degree of prevalence, with 81% for emotional exhaustion and 76% for depersonalization, whereas only 3%

exhibited a high degree in personal accomplishment.

Table 5

Depersonalization Dimension

Level

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative

Percentage

High

226

76%

Medium

20%

96%

Low

100%

Total

298

100%

The depersonalization dimension, statistically positively correlated with the emotional exhaustion dimension,

presents with a high degree in 76% of cases, a medium degree in 20%, and a low degree in 4%. This component

is characterized by cynicism, pessimism, and negativity, as well as insensitivity and indifference, leading to the

development of distant attitudes toward students. The 76% prevalence implies the adoption of a distant and

cynical attitude towards students, colleagues, and the educational institution in general. Teachers may become

insensitive to the needs and concerns of others, often resulting in impersonal or even hostile treatment of

students.

ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 45, Nº 3, Año 2024 • May-Jun

MOHAMED-AMAR H. & MOHAMED-AMAR R. «Burnout syndrome in university professors in the COVID-19

post-pandemic period»

Pag. 166

Table 6

Personal Accomplishment Dimension

Level

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative

Percentage

High

Medium

12%

15%

Low

253

85%

100%

Total

298

100%

The prevalence of 85% in the low degree in the personal accomplishment dimension indicates perceptions of

personal and professional failure, and the feeling that the work performed lacks value. Teachers feel they are

not achieving their goals, that their work is not rewarding, and that they have lost motivation and satisfaction in

their educational role. Regarding the personal accomplishment dimension, the research undertaken shows a

prevalence of 3% in high degree, 12% in medium degree, and 85% in low degree. In this component, teachers

assess their feelings and emotions regarding understanding, altruism, motivation, energy, creating a good

atmosphere in the classroom, effectiveness in student care, esteem towards their work, and emotional calm in

solving workplace problems. Therefore, 73% of the teachers feel discontent regarding achievements, motivation,

and job performance. It is alarming that more than 80% of the studied teachers exhibit high emotional exhaustion

and low personal accomplishment.

The prevalence of burnout syndrome among teachers is derived from the scores obtained in each dimension of

the construct, considering that higher scores in the dimensions of Emotional Exhaustion (AE) and

Depersonalization (DP), and lower scores in Personal Accomplishment (RP), indicate a higher level of burnout.

Similarly, low burnout is characterized by low levels of AE and DP, and high levels of RP. Medium levels of burnout

are found in other combinations of these scores.

The study reveals a prevalence of high-degree burnout syndrome in 71% of the studied teachers, medium degree

in 24%, and low degree in 5%, as recorded in Table 6. This implies that 71% of the teachers scored high in the

dimensions of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and low in the dimension of personal

accomplishment. 24% of teachers scored at the medium level in terms of personal exhaustion, depersonalization,

and personal accomplishment. Finally, 5% of teachers scored at the low level in the dimensions of emotional

exhaustion and depersonalization, and high scores in the personal accomplishment dimension.

Table 7

Prevalence of Burnout Syndrome

Burnout Syndrome Level

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative

Percentage

High

212

71%

Medium

24%

95%

Low

100%

Total

298

100%

The mental health of Spanish university faculty in the post-pandemic period is a critical issue requiring careful

attention. The research highlights the importance of addressing factors such as workload, autonomy, resilience,

social support, and work flexibility to prevent burnout syndrome. Implementing wellness programs, coping skills

ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 45, Nº 3, Año 2024 • May-Jun

MOHAMED-AMAR H. & MOHAMED-AMAR R. «Burnout syndrome in university professors in the COVID-19

post-pandemic period»

Pag. 167

training, and institutional support policies is crucial for promoting faculty mental health and well-being.

Addressing these factors comprehensively is essential for ensuring a healthy and sustainable work environment

in universities.

The pandemic has underscored the importance of addressing university faculty mental health and developing

specific strategies to tackle the challenges posed by a global crisis situation. It is vital that universities provide

support, training, and resources that enable faculty to adapt to the new realities of university teaching and

maintain a healthy work-life balance. In the constantly changing post-pandemic context, it is fundamental for

educational institutions to continue evaluating and adjusting their burnout prevention strategies to meet the

changing needs of faculty. Additionally, focusing on faculty well-being and mental health not only benefits

professionals but also enhances the quality of education provided to students. Caring for faculty mental health

is a key component in promoting a robust educational system.

The results show a high depletion of university faculty's emotional resources due to job demands, a high degree

of cynicism and distancing attitudes towards students, and a low degree of efficiency, motivation, and personal

accomplishment in teaching performance. Workload, faculty autonomy, resilience, social support, work

flexibility, and training in coping skills and mental health are interconnected elements that should be considered

holistically.

The comprehensive design of institutional programs at universities, aimed at promoting faculty mental health,

imperatively must consider the determining factors in the existence and prevalence of burnout syndrome:

Workload and working hours: These are fundamental factors influencing the development of burnout syndrome

among Spanish university faculty in the post-pandemic period. Implementing effective workload management

strategies is crucial. This includes equitable task distribution among faculty, efficient planning of academic

activities, and promoting a healthy work-life balance. Additionally, educational institutions may consider

implementing policies that limit working hours and promote a culture that respects faculty's free time.

Faculty Autonomy: This is a critical factor in preventing burnout. Faculty who have greater control over their

pedagogical practices, including the choice of teaching methods and content design, experience less burnout.

Resilience and recovery capacity: These personal attributes play a crucial role in preventing burnout. Faculty

with higher levels of resilience are more able to withstand stress and adapt to changing situations. To promote

resilience, educational institutions can implement training programs in coping skills, mindfulness, and

psychological support. These programs can help faculty develop effective coping strategies, improve emotional

self-regulation, and learn to maintain a healthy work-life balance.

Work flexibility: Its effective management requires universities to balance institutional needs with individual

needs. This involves allowing faculty to adjust their schedules and responsibilities according to their personal

needs and circumstances.

Training in coping skills and mental health: Effective training in preventing burnout is essential. The pandemic

has highlighted the importance of providing faculty with the necessary tools to handle stress, anxiety, and other

mental health concerns. Faculty who have acquired these skills can manage stress more effectively and maintain

optimal mental health. Training programs addressing stress management, emotional self-regulation, self-care,

and mental health promotion should be implemented. It is crucial to allocate resources for access to mental

health services and emotional support. Promoting a wellness culture that eliminates the stigma associated with

seeking help is crucial.

ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 45, Nº 3, Año 2024 • May-Jun

MOHAMED-AMAR H. & MOHAMED-AMAR R. «Burnout syndrome in university professors in the COVID-19

post-pandemic period»

Pag. 168

References

Blanch, A., Aluja, A. & Biscarri, J. (2002). Síndrome de quemarse en el trabajo (burnout) y estrategias de

afrontamiento: un modelo de relaciones estructurales. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las

Organizaciones, 18(1), 57-74.

https://repositori.udl.cat/bitstream/handle/10459.1/30350/bnt.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Burke, R. J. & Richardsen, E. (1993). Psychological Burnout. En Golembiewski, R.T. (Ed): Handbook of

Organizational Behavior, 263-298. Marcel Dekker.

Buunk, B. P. & Schaufeli, W. (1993). Burnout: A Perspective from Social Comparison Theory. En Schaufeli et al.,

[Eds] (1993). Op. Cit.

Cherniss, C. (1980). Professional Burnout in Human Service Organization. Praeger.

Demerouti, E, Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2000). A Model of Burnout and Life Satisfaction

amongst Nurse. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(2), 454-464. https://doi.org/ 10.1046/j.1365-

2648.2000.01496.x

Ferrando J. & Pérez J. (1996). Un instrumento para medir quemazón profesional en los docentes: adaptación

catalana del Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). Revista de Psiquiatría de la Facultad de Medicina, 23(1),11-

18.

Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). “Staff Burnout”. The Journal of Social Issues, 30(1), 159-166.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974.tb00706.x

Fogarty, T. J., Singh, J., Rhoads, G. K. & Moore, R. N. (2000). Antecedents and Consequences of Burnout in

Accounting: Beyond the Role Stress Model”. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 12, 31-67.

http://faculty.weatherhead.case.edu/jxs16/docs/Singh_BRA_2000_ANTECEDENTS%20AND%20CONSEQUE

NCES%20OF%20BURNOUT.pdf

Garcés de los Fayos, E. (1999). Burnout en deportistas: un estudio de la influencia de variables de personalidad,

sociodemográficas y deportivas en el síndrome. (Tesis doctoral). Universidad de Murcia.

http://hdl.handle.net/10803/95888

Gil-Monte, P. R. & Peiró, J. Mª. (1999). Perspectivas Teóricas y Modelos Interpretativos para el Estudio del

Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo. Anales de Psicología, 15(2), 261-268.

https://www.um.es/analesps/v15/v15_2pdf/12v98_05Llag2.PDF

Gil-Monte, P. R. (2003). El Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo (Síndrome de Burnout) en Profesionales de

Enfermería. Revista Electrónica InterAção Psy, I(1), 19-33.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263161122_El_sindrome_de_quemarse_por_el_trabajo_sindr

ome_de_burnout_en_profesionales_de_enfermeria

Guerrero, E. (2001). Una investigación con docentes universitarios sobre estrés laboral y síndrome del

"quemado". Revista iberoamericana de Educación, 25(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.35362/rie2512911

Hellesøy, O., Grønhaug, K. & Kvitastein, O. (2000). Burnout: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Findings from a

New Research Setting. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 16, 233-247. https://doi.org/

10.1016/S0956-5221(99)00028-7

ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 45, Nº 3, Año 2024 • May-Jun

MOHAMED-AMAR H. & MOHAMED-AMAR R. «Burnout syndrome in university professors in the COVID-19

post-pandemic period»

Pag. 169

Janssen, P. M., Schaufeli, W. B. & Houkes, I. (1999). Work-Related and Individual Determinants of Three

Burnout Dimensions. Work & Stress, 13(1), 74-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/026783799296200

Kushnir, T. & Melamed, S. (1992). The Gulf Ward and its Impact on Burnout and Well-Being of Working

Civilians. Psychology Medicine, 22(4), 987-995. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700038551

Lacovides, A., Fountoulakis, K.N., Kaprinis, S. & Kaprinis, G. (2003). The relationship between job stress,

burnout and clinical depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 75(3), 209-221.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(02)00101-5

Laschinger, H. K. S., Shamian, J. & Thomson, D. (2001). Impact of Magnet Hospital Characteristics on Nurses

Perceptions of Trust, Burnout, Quality of Care, and Work Satisfaction. Nursing Economics, 19(5), 209-219.

https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-200105000-00006

Leal, S. (2022). Inteligencia Emocional y Compromiso Laboral en las MiPymes de Ecuador. Ciencias

Administrativas, 116. https://doi.org/10.24215/23143738e116

Leiter, M. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1996). Consistency of the burnout construct across occupations. Anxiety, Stress

& Coping: An International Journal, 9(3), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615809608249404

Manzano García, G. & Fernández Losa, N. (2002). Síndrome de burnout: sus efectos y prevención en las

organizaciones. Capital Humano, 15(151), 50-57.

Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The Cost of Caring. Prentice Hall.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B. & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

Maslach, C. & Jackson, S.E. (1981). MBI: Maslach Burnout Inventory. Manual. University of California,

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Maslach, C., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1993). Historical and conceptual development of burnout. In Schaufeli, W. B.,

Maslach, C. & Marek, T. (Eds.), Professional burnout: recent developments in theory and research, 1–16.

Taylor & Francis.

Melamed, S., Ugarten, U., Shirom, A., Kahana, L., Lerman, Y. & Froom, P. (1999). Chronic Burnout, Somatic

Arousal and Elevated Salivary Cortisol Level. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 46(6), 591-598.

https://doi.org/ 10.1016/s0022-3999(99)00007-0

Pearson, Q. M. (1998). Job Satisfaction, Leisure Satisfaction, and Psychological Health. The Career Development

Quarterly, 46(4), 416-426. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1998.tb00718.x

Peeters, M. C. W., Montgomery, A. J., Bakker, A. B. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Balancing Work and Home: How

Job and Home Demands Are Related to Burnout. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(1),43-61.

https://doi.org/ 10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.43

Peinado, A. I. & Garcés de los Fayos, E. J. (1998). Burnout en cuidadores principales de pacientes con Alzheimer:

el síndrome del asistente desasistido. Anales de Psicología, 14(1), 83-93.

https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=16714108

Pines, A. M., Aronson, E., & Kafry, D. (1981). Burnout: From Tedium to Personal Growth. The Free Press.

ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 45, Nº 3, Año 2024 • May-Jun

MOHAMED-AMAR H. & MOHAMED-AMAR R. «Burnout syndrome in university professors in the COVID-19

post-pandemic period»

Pag. 170

Salanova, M., Martínez, I. Ma., Bresó, E., Llorens, S. & Grau, R. (2005). Bienestar Psicológico en Estudiantes

Universitarios: Facilitadores y Obstaculizadores del Desempeño Académico. Anales de Psicología,

21(1),170–180. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/167/16721116.pdf

Sandín, B., & Chorot, P. (2017). Cuestionario de Sucesos Vitales (CSV). Revista de Psicopatología y

Psicología Clínica, 22, 95-115. https://doi.org/10.5944/rppc.vol.22.num.2.2017.19729

Sandín, B., Valiente, R., García-Escalera, J., & Chorot, P. (2020). Impacto psicológico de la pandemia de COVID-

19: Efectos negativos y positivos en población española asociados al periodo de confinamiento nacional.

Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica, 25(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.5944/rppc.27569

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., Hoogduin, K., Schaap, C. & Kladler, A. (2001). On the Clinical Validity of the

Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Burnout Measure. Psychology and Health, 16, 565-582.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440108405527

Schaufeli, W. B. & Greenglass, E. R. (2001). Introduction to Special Issue on Burnout and Health. Psychology and

Health, 16, 501-510. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440108405523

Schaufeli, W. B., Maslach, C. & Marek, T. (Eds) (1993). Professional Burnout: Recent Development in Theory and

Research. Taylor & Francis.

Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job Demands, Job Resources, and theirb Relationship with Burnout and

Engagement: A Multi-Sample Study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248

Schaufeli, W., Leiter, M., Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. (1996) Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey. In:

Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E. and Leiter, M.P., Eds., The Maslach Burnout Inventory: Test Manual, Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Seisdedos, N. (1997). Manual MBI, Inventario Burnout de Maslach. Ediciones TEA.

Serrano, Mª. F., Rodríguez, G., González, A. Pazos, J. M. & González, L. (2002). Estrés laboral en el personal

sanitario. Fisioterapia, 24 (1), 33-42.

Shirom, A. (1989). Burnout in Work Organizations. En Cooper, C. L. & Robertson, I. (Eds): International Review

of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25-48. Wiley.

Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling Vigorous at Work? The Construct of Vigor and the Study of Positive Affect in

Organizations. En Ganster y Perrewe (Eds) (2003): Research in Organizational Stress and Well-Being, vol. 3.

JAI Press.

Shirom, A. (2003). Job-Related Burnout. En Quick y Tetrick (Eds) (2003): Handbook of Occupational Health

Psychology. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10474-012

Shirom, A. & Ezrachi, Y. (2003). On the Discriminant Validity of Burnout, Depression and Anxiety: A Re-

Examination of the Burnout Measure. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 16(1), 83-97.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1061580021000057059

Shirom, A., Melamed, S., Toker, S., Berliner, S. & Shapira, I. (2005). Burnout, Mental and Physical Health: A

Review of the Evidence and a Proposed Explanatory Model. International Review of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 20, 269-309.

ISSN-L: 0798-1015 • eISSN: 2739-0071 (En línea) - Revista Espacios – Vol. 45, Nº 3, Año 2024 • May-Jun

MOHAMED-AMAR H. & MOHAMED-AMAR R. «Burnout syndrome in university professors in the COVID-19

post-pandemic period»

Pag. 171

Söderfeldt, M., Söderfeldt, B. & Warg, L. E. (1995). Burnout in Social Work. Social Works, 5, 638-645.

https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/40.5.638

Wright, T. A. & Hobfoll, S. E. (2004). Commitment, Psychological Well-Being and Job Performance: An

Examination of Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory and Job Burnout. Journal of Business and

Management, 9(4), 389-406.

Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons

Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional