Page 101 - GHES-1-2

Global Health Econ Sustain Burnout syndrome in the public and private sectors

2. Materials and methods questionnaire, the participants received the de-information
form appended with details about the data withdrawal
2.1. Sampling procedure and study participants procedure and a thanking note. The research proposal was
Convenience sampling was adopted in this study to approved by the ethics committee of the Scientific College
collect sample. The study participants were recruited from of Greece (number TER2023178).
public and private agencies. More specifically, educators
(educators, social educators, and social workers) were 2.4. Statistical analysis
enrolled from the public sector, whereas administrators The normality of the quantitative variable data was tested
were enrolled from private sector. There were no specific using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Normally distributed
requirements with regard to the framework of public data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD),
and private bodies selected in this study. A total of 112 while non-normally distributed data are presented as
individuals, comprising 70 women, 41 men, and one median and interquartile range. Absolute (N) and relative
belonging to the non-binary gender, participated. All (%) frequencies are used to describe qualitative variables.
participants voluntarily took part in the survey, which was To test the relationship between the quantitative variables,
conducted using a questionnaire form. the Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficient was used.
Two-tailed test was employed to assess the significance
2.2. Materials and tools levels, and P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.
The questionnaire constitutes several demographic Statistical program SPSS 26.0 was used for data analysis.
questions about age, gender, occupation, and educational
and academic status of the respondents. The survey also 3. Results
includes a standardized tool called burnout assessment The sample consists of 112 participants. The majority of
tool (BAT) version 2.0 (Schaufeli et al., 2019), which the participants, amounting to 50.0%, were those in the
contains 30 multiple-choice questions with the choices age group of 40 – 64 years. Table 1 shows the demographic
available from a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = Never, 5 = Always). and occupational data of the participants. The female and
This standardized instrument measures the principal male participants account for 62.5% and 36.6% of the
symptoms of burnout, including exhaustion, mental sample, respectively, and 60.7% of them were single, while
distance, cognitive and emotional impairment, as well as the rest (39.3%) have married. One-third (33.9%) of the
secondary symptoms such as psychological distress and participants have a Master’s degree and 7.1% of them hold
psychosomatic symptoms. This tool was also properly a PhD degree or were, at the time of the survey, engage
translated and weighted in Greek by the researchers. in a postdoctoral fellowship. Furthermore, 75.0% of the
Furthermore, the brief resilience scale (BRS) (Smith et al., surveyed respondents worked in the private sector, and
2008) was incorporated into the survey to measure mental specifically, 57.1% of them worked as employees. Full
resilience of the respondents. This scale consists of six details are presented in Table 1.
items, and each question is responded with either “agree” 3.1. Measurement of burnout scale using BAT
or “disagree.” The score range for this scale is between
6 and 30. The Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Table 2 depicts the descriptors of the dimensions of
Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q) tool, created in 1993 by Jean the burnout scale. The scale consists of 4 dimensions
Endicott, was also integrated as part of the survey. This corresponding to the chief symptoms such as exhaustion,
questionnaire contains 16 items to measure the level and mental distance, cognitive impairment, and emotional
degree of satisfaction that individuals experience in various impairment, as well as two dimensions corresponding to
areas of their lives (Endicott et al., 1993), and it is weighted. secondary symptoms such as psychological distress and
psychosomatic symptoms. Each dimension was measured
2.3. Research process from a scale of 1 – 5. A higher score indicate a higher level
Participants were asked to answer 62 questions in Microsoft of burnout for each dimension.
forms through the Internet, after having provided online The exhaustion dimension ranged from 1.8 to 5.0 points
written consent and received an identification number with a mean value of 3.1 points (SD = 0.7 points). The mental
for eventual data withdrawal. This study did not pose distance dimension ranged from 1.0 to 5.0 points with a
a threat to the safety, physical integrity, mental health, mean value of 2.4 points (SD = 0.9 points). The cognitive
or well-being of the participants. The online survey was impairment dimension ranged from 1.0 to 5.0 points with
conducted by requesting respondents to answer a set of a mean value of 2.3 points (SD = 0.8 points). The emotional
questionnaires encompassing a short demographic section, impairment dimension ranged from 1.0 to 5.0 points with a
the BAT, the BRS, and the Q-LES-Q. After completing the mean value of 2.2 points (SD = 0.8 points). The overall score

Volume 1 Issue 2 (2023) 3 https://doi.org/10.36922/ghes.1751