Page 64 - GHES-2-3

Global Health Economics and
Sustainability
Emotional skills and burnout

to 0.86 (‘Evaluation and recognition of emotions in others’ although the results were not statistically significant. As for
and ‘Use of emotions to facilitate performance’). Studies the regulation of own emotions, most of the participants
using this scale have shown predictive validity in relation responded the questions by choosing 4 (agree) (M = 3.76)
to important organizational variables, such as satisfaction and were also above average in this dimension (Table 2).
and performance, as well as convergent validity with
other EI measures and discriminant validity in relation to 3.2. Rs
personality variables (Law et al., 2004; Wong & Law, 2002). About coping, the majority of the participants answered
The Brief Coping Resilience Scale (Sinclair & Wallston, 3 (Often), revealing a median coping (M = 3.21), that is,
2004) was translated and adapted for the Portuguese that they use adapted coping strategies on a daily basis
population by Ribeiro & Morais in 2010. The EBCR is a (Table 3).
one-dimensional self-report scale made up of four items 3.3. Burnout
that seek to understand the individual’s ability to cope with
stress in an adapted way (α = 0.53). The items are answered Participants were above average (2) for total burnout
using a five-point Likert scale (from 1 ‘Almost Never’ to 5 (M = 2.40). The values for detachment (M = 2.32) and
‘Almost Always’). All the items are worded positively (e.g., exhaustion were also above average (M = 2.48). In this
‘I believe I can grow positively by dealing with difficult parameter, the higher the value, the greater the individual’s
situations’). In the present study, it had a Cronbach’s α of perception of BS (Table 4).
0.78. 3.4. Bivariate correlation
The OLBI (Demerouti & Nachreiner, 1998) was From the bivariate correlation analysis, there were
translated and adapted for the Portuguese context by Sinval positive correlations between EI and Rs (p = 0.000), both
et al. in 2019. The OLBI is a self-report scale made up of 16 in the overall EI values and in the four dimensions that
items that assess two dimensions: detachment (items 1, 3, make it up (evaluation and expression of own emotions;
6, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15; e.g., “I increasingly talk negatively evaluation and recognition of emotions in others;
about my work”; α = 0.91) and exhaustion (items 2, 4, 5, 8, regulation of own emotions; and use of emotions to
10, 12, 14 and 16; e.g., “After work I feel tired and without facilitate performance) and negative correlations between
energy”; α = 0.87) (total OLBI, α = 0.93). It has inverted EI and BS (p = 0.000), both in the overall values of EI and
items (1; 5; 7; 10; 13; 14; 15; 16). The items are answered BS, in the four dimensions of EI and in the two dimensions
using a five-point Likert scale (from 1 ‘Strongly Disagree’
to 5 ‘Strongly Agree’) (Sinval et al., 2019). In this study, Table 2. Emotional intelligence of participants
the inventory showed adequate reliability, with Cronbach’s
alphas ranging from 0.85 (Distancing) to 0.91 (Total M SD
Burnout). WLEIS-Assessment of your own emotions 3.88 0.66

2.3. Statistical analysis WLEIS-Assessment of others’ emotions 3.95 0.56
WLEIS-Regulation of one’s own emotions 3.76 0.71
The data collected were entered into the EXCEL program
and the results were statistically processed using the WLEIS-Use of emotions to facilitate performance 3.33 0.77
SPSS program (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences WLEIS-Total 3.73 0.48
version 28.0 of 2021 for Windows). Notes: M: Mean; SD: Standard deviation.

3. Results Table 3. Resilience of participants
3.1. EI M SD

The 1363 individuals who took part in the study showed that EBCR_Total 3.21 0.76
they are above average (3) in terms of overall EI (M = 3.73). Notes: M: Mean; SD: Standard deviation.
In terms of assessing their own emotions, they showed
that they can make a good assessment of their emotions Table 4. Burnout of participants
daily (M = 3.88). Regarding assessing and perceiving the M SD
emotions of others, most participants chose option 4
(agree) (M = 3.95), showing that they can accurately assess OLBI_Distancing 2.32 0.51
the emotions of others. In terms of using own emotions OLBI_Exhaustion 2.48 0.46
to facilitate performance, the participants showed greater OLBI_Total 2.40 0.43
weakness compared to the previous domains (M = 3.33), Notes: M: Mean; SD: Standard deviation.

Volume 2 Issue 3 (2024) 5 https://doi.org/10.36922/ghes.2738