Risk Factors Affecting Stress and Burnout Among Teachers: A Cross-Sectional Study From Chonburi, Thailand
2024 Volume 46 Issue 2 Pages 203-213
Details
2024 Volume 46 Issue 2 Pages 203-213
This study aimed to investigate the risk factors affecting stress and burnout among teachers after the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand. The sample comprised 400 school teachers in the municipality of Chonburi province. The results found that the factors affecting stress were working more than 8 hours per day (2.03; 95%CI, 1.01–4.09), and being sick but having to come to work (2.30; 95%CI, 1.12–4.70). Factors affecting teacher burnout in the emotional exhaustion dimension were having frequent or almost constant time pressure (2.57; 95%CI, 1.92–6.73), a low level of job satisfaction (4.00; 95%CI, 1.55–10.34), and a low level of their own ability to work (2.57; 95%CI, 1.92–7.17). Factors affecting the cynicism dimension were having daily conflicts at work or having a moderate to high level of work-related problems (5.55; 95%CI, 1.71–18.04), and a low level of their own ability to work (3.40; 95%CI, 1.41–8.17). It is recommended that the schools’ personnel development department allocate work to suit the needs and expertise of teachers so that they can work to their full potential.
Teachers perform duties related to the teaching and learning process, supervision, educational administration, and other work related to education. A previous study in Thailand found that teachers were performing school-related work for up to 40 hours per week, but they were teaching only a mean of 21.2 ± 4.9 hours per week [1]. Teachers have additional responsibilities, such as monitoring the safety of students [2], especially in primary schools. Thus, teachers in primary education have heavy workloads and are required to spend additional work hours taking care of students. Yet if teachers fail to manage their time well enough, it can have a negative impact on their mental wellbeing.
With regard to the mental wellbeing of teachers, 8 systematic reviews during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that 30% of teachers reported having stress, 19% reported having depression, and 18% reported having anxiety. The prevalence of these conditions was found to be higher in Asia than in any other continent. The prevalence was higher among school teachers than among university teachers [3]. One reason for this may be that primary school teachers have to take more responsibility when caring for students aged 6 to 12 than they do for students in their adolescence. Caring for young children typically requires extra effort from the teacher, such as creating activities that will capture the students’ attention, ensuring safety precautions, and engaging in practical exercises (such as eating lunch, walking down from the building). In the long term, these added responsibilities can result in job burnout or job resignation [4].
The factors that cause stress and burnout are factors related to work [5], the school environment [6], and personal situations [1]. A report on 48 previous literature reviews concluded that workplace-related factors such as poor work environment, excessive work demands, and poor work-life balance were significantly associated with burnout/stress [7]. The heads of the subject group were also associated with these mental outcomes [8]. Another study reported that time pressure has a significant effect on the dimensions of teacher burnout [6].
The sensitivity to stimuli often differs between sexes. Males tend to hide their emotions more than females, and females show more patience than males. A study by Zhou et al reported that burnout and stress in females were 1.34 times (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.20–1.50) higher than in males [7]. In working societies, gender discrimination can also cause burnout, and gender differences in cortisol can affect stress [9]. The sexes are an important variable to be controlled. This variable was therefore taken into account in the analysis [1].
The World Health Organization (WHO) declared an end to COVID-19 as a global health emergency concern in May 2023 [10], but the recent COVID-19 situation has had a profound effect on teaching in schools. Teachers have had to adapt quickly, as the workload is different from what it was in the past and the pattern of the environment has changed based on the new normal [11]. These factors can affect how teachers feel. Therefore, this study examined the personal and work-related factors that affect teachers’ experience of stress and burnout after the official end of COVID-19 as a global health concern. This research can contribute to monitoring the trend of teachers’ mental wellbeing so that activities that promote the mental wellbeing of teachers can be planned and actions can be taken to prevent teacher stress and burnout.
Study design and participants
In this cross-sectional study, the sample size was calculated using the G*Power program [12], where data were analyzed using Regression, α equal to 0.05, power (1– β) equal to 0.95, and the OR as determined from Kabito and Wami was 1.61 [13]. The researcher added additional data to prevent data loss because using a questionnaire for participants to answer on their own resulted in a teacher response rate of 10%. This time, the sample comprised 400 teachers using simple random sampling. The inclusion criteria were a) having been teaching for at least 6 months, b) teachers are regularly employed and paid monthly, and foreign teachers who teach in English or can read and comprehend the English questionnaire, and c) voluntarily participating in the project. Exclusion criteria were absence from work on the date of data collection.
This study studied a sample of foreign teachers who taught a variety of courses in English, including English language, science, and mathematics. This is because Thailand’s Ministry of Education encourages students to learn from and familiarize themselves with international teachers. As a result, foreigners come to teach various subjects in English in well-prepared institutions that generate their own income. Other language teachers are mostly volunteer teachers or teachers who take a semester break in their home country and then come to Thailand to teach and travel. They are not full-time teachers and were therefore excluded from the sample used in this study. The study was reviewed by the Human Ethics Committee of Bansomdejchaopraya Rajabhat University (certificate of approval No. BSRU-REC 660802).
Research tools
The research tool comprised two versions of a questionnaire, namely a Thai version for Thai teachers and an English version for foreign teachers. The questionnaire was obtained from a literature review [5, 7, 9] and a standardized assessment form and was divided into five parts: participant characteristics, work history, teachers’ feelings towards work, stress, and burnout. The five parts are detailed below:
Part 1: Participant characteristics: 7 items consisting of sex, age, height, weight, number of responsibilities for dependents, exercise, and drinking alcohol.
Part 2: Work history: 10 items, teacher period of year, duration of work per day, working over-time, sleepless from work, sick but to come to work, job flexibility, resources support, conflicts of work, working according to the plan, and time pressure at work.
Part 3: Teachers’ feelings towards work: 3 items, namely job satisfaction, ability to work, and refusal of work beyond the scope. Choices were placed on a Likert scale measuring job satisfaction and the ability to work on one’s own. The scale ranged from 0 to 10, where 0 signified very dissatisfied/does not meet my abilities, and 10 signified very satisfied/work at my best. For ability to refuse work beyond the scope, participants gave a score ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated very difficult to turn down the job and 5 meant very easy to turn it down.
Part 4: Stress: 5 items on the standardized assessment form ST-5 of the Thai Department of Mental Health [14], which covers sleep problems, decreased concentration, irritability, restlessness, distraction, boredom, and not wanting to meet people. These were symptoms or feelings that had occurred in the past month. The options were divided into 4 levels on a Likert scale: very little/nothing, sometimes, often, and regularly.
Part 5: Burnout at work: 22 items on the standardized assessment from the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) [15]. The survey covers feelings of despair, exhaustion, hopelessness, treatment by colleagues, emotions and feelings, and tolerance of and dealing with negative situations. The options were divided into 7 levels: never felt, 2–3 times a year, once a month, 2–3 times a month, once a week, 2–3 times a week, and every day.
Research tool quality
The entire questionnaire was assessed by three experts with regards to the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC). The IOC ranged from 0.67 to 1.00. The questionnaire was translated into English by a Thai teacher who was studying English. After that, foreign teachers read and revised the language before trying it out with 30 other educational personnel teaching at the primary level. The reliability of the questionnaires on stress and burnout were 0.77 and 0.81, respectively.
Interpretation of the questionnaire
The form of the Likert scale questionnaires was teachers’ feelings towards work, stress, and burnout. The results were interpreted as follows:
1. Interpretation of teachers’ feelings towards work was divided into three aspects according to the questionnaire, namely job satisfaction, ability to work, and refusal of work beyond the scope. Interpretation was based on the quartile (Q) values of the samples. Interpretations of teachers’ feelings towards tasks was divided into 2 groups: the low group had a score < Q2, and the high group had a score ≥ Q2.
2. Interpretation of stress included five items. The options provided for the level of stress were very little/rarely, occasionally, often, and regularly. The scores were given as 0, 1, 2, and 3, and the total scores ranged between 0 and 15. The results were categorized into 2 levels: a score of 0–4 indicated low stress, and a score of 5 and above indicated moderate to high stress.
3. Interpretation of burnout at work. There were 22 items of burnout with 7 levels of options ranging from never to being felt every day. The scores ranged from 0 to 6. The assessment was divided into 3 dimensions: dimension i, emotional exhaustion (Items 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 20), dimension ii, cynicism (Items 5, 10, 11, 15, 22), and dimension iii, professional efficacy (Items 4, 7, 9, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21), with the third dimension giving the scores of opposite options, i.e. not feeling like that at all, giving 6 points, and feeling like that every day giving 0 points. The interpretation of the results was grouped for regression analysis. Each aspect was divided into 2 groups, namely the low group and the moderate–high group.
In the emotional exhaustion dimension, possible scores ranged from 0 to 54, low (≤ 10 points), moderate–high (> 10 points). In the cynicism dimension, possible scores ranged from 0 to 30, with low (≤ 5 points) and moderate–high (> 5 points). In the professional efficacy dimensions, possible scores ranged from 0 to 48, with low (≥ 30 points), moderate–high (< 30 points). Levels of burnout were classified as low, medium, and high in three dimensions. The characterization of the levels was based on the interpretation of occupational burnout [16], and has been employed in several research studies across multiple occupational groups [16–18].
Statistical analysis
Continuous data, namely teachers’ feelings of stress and burnout, also underwent the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to measure the distribution of the data. Normally distributed data were used to test inferential statistics. In this study, two groups of statistics were used. The descriptive statistics calculated frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation and quartile. The inference statistics were used to compare personal factors, work history, teachers’ feelings stress, and burnout among males and females, and were analyzed using a Chi-squared test. For factors affecting teachers’ feelings stress and burnout, univariate (unadjusted) logistic regression was used, and statistical significance was set at a P-value < 0.05.
Personal factors
Most of the study participants (85.8%) were female, with an average age of 35.19 ± 9.27 years and an average body mass index (BMI) of 24.10 ± 4.72 kg/m 2, and 63.9% of whom were BMI classified as overweight. A total of 36.7% had children or relatives for whom they were responsible, and 84.5% had 1–2 dependents. Teachers who got sufficient physical exercise totaled 48.5%, and 19.8% consumed alcohol.
Work history
The teachers in the study had been teaching for an average of 8.95 ± 7.93 years; 66.2% had a workload related to school work of more than 8 hours per day, (average 9.53 ± 2.43 hours per day); they had overtime related to school work for an average of 5.53 ± 4.62 hours per week. A total of 56.9% had little flexibility in their current job; 81.4% expressed that the school lacked resources; 91.2% had no problems or experienced few conflicts each day. About 2 out of 3 (63.5%) could control the work according to the plan. For 81.2% of teachers, their work did not cause time pressure or did so only at a slight level.
A comparison of males and females showed consistent results, although males were found to experience sleeplessness from work-related concerns (past 2 months) significantly more than females did ( P < 0.05) (Table 1).
| Work history | Male, n (%) | Female, n (%) | Total, n (%) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length of work related to school (hours) | ||||
| 8 or fewer | 12(21.8) | 108(36.0) | 120(33.8) | 0.059 |
| More than 8 | 43(78.2) | 192(64.0) | 235(66.2) | |
| Sleeplessness from work-related concerns (past 2 months) | ||||
| No | 25(43.9) | 204(59.8) | 229(57.5) | 0.035* |
| Yes | 32(56.1) | 137(40.2) | 169(42.5) | |
| The work that I do is flexible | ||||
| No/less | 35(62.5) | 184(55.9) | 219(56.9) | 0.440 |
| Yes/can change quite a lot | 21(37.5) | 145(44.1) | 166(43.1) | |
| Resources for work | ||||
| Enough/always | 44(77.2) | 280(82.1) | 324(81.4) | 0.484 |
| Rarely/sometimes | 13(22.8) | 61(17.9) | 74(18.6) | |
| Conflicts or problems at work, day-to-day | ||||
| No/less | 54(94.7) | 309(90.6) | 363(91.2) | 0.445 |
| Often/almost all the time | 3(5.3) | 32(9.4) | 35(8.8) | |
| Able to control work/work according to plan | ||||
| No/less | 20(35.1) | 125(36.8) | 145(36.5) | 0.925 |
| Often/almost all the time | 37(64.9) | 215(63.2) | 252(63.5) | |
| Time pressure at work | ||||
| No/less | 42(73.3) | 278(82.5) | 320(81.2) | 0.164 |
| Often/almost all the time | 15(26.3) | 59(17.5) | 74(18.8) | |
*P < 0.05
The feelings of teachers towards work
A high percentage (69.8%) of teachers were satisfied with their work, with 76.0% reporting that they were able to work according to their own abilities and were able to easily reject work that exceeded their own scope of work (68.2%). There was little difference between males and females in these respects (Table 2).
| Feelings | Male, n (%) | Female, n (%) | Total, n (%) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job satisfaction | ||||
| Low (less than 8 points) | 19(33.3) | 102(29.7) | 121(30.3) | 0.695 |
| High (8 points or more) | 38(66.7) | 241(70.3) | 279(69.8) | |
| mean ± SD | 7.91 ± 1.49 | 7.92 ± 1.39 | 7.92 ± 1.40 | |
| Own ability to work | ||||
| Low (less than 8 points) | 17(29.8) | 79(23.0) | 96(24.0) | 0.345 |
| High (8 points or more) | 40(70.2) | 264(77.0) | 304(76.0) | |
| mean ± SD | 7.98 ± 1.24 | 8.16 ± 1.32 | 8.13 ± 1.31 | |
| Rejection of work beyond scope | ||||
| Difficult (less than 2 points) | 9(32.1) | 76(31.8) | 85(31.8) | 0.971 |
| Easy (2 points or more) | 19(67.9) | 163(68.3) | 182(68.2) | |
| mean ± SD | 2.26 ± 0.85 | 2.36 ± 0.95 | 2.32 ± 0.94 | |
Job satisfaction and own ability to work (Q2 was equal to 8 points), Rejection of work beyond scope (Q2 was equal to 2 points).
Stress and burnout
Teachers had low stress levels (51.3%). Burnout was separated into three dimensions, and the results showed that teachers had moderate to high emotional exhaustion (52.0%) and cynicism (41.8%) and most teachers had moderate to high levels of professional efficacy (88.8). There was little difference between males and females in these dimensions (Table 3).
| Stress and burnout | Male, n (%) | Female, n (%) | Total, n (%) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stress | ||||
| Low | 25(43.9) | 180(52.5) | 205(51.3) | 0.228 |
| Moderate-high | 32(56.1) | 163(47.5) | 195(48.8) | |
| mean ± SD | 4.82 ± 2.73 | 4.19 ± 2.85 | 4.28 ± 2.84 | |
| Burnout | ||||
| Emotional exhaustion | ||||
| Low | 26(45.6) | 166(48.4) | 192(48.0) | 0.806 |
| Moderate-high | 31(54.4) | 177(51.6) | 208(52.0) | |
| mean ± SD | 14.64 ± 10.27 | 14.03 ± 102.03 | 14.12 ± 11.79 | |
| Cynicism | ||||
| Low | 33(57.9) | 200(58.3) | 233(58.3) | 0.953 |
| Moderate-high | 24(42.1) | 143(41.7) | 167(41.8) | |
| mean ± SD | 5.15 ± 4.92 | 5.51 ± 5.42 | 5.46 ± 5.34 | |
| Professional efficacy | ||||
| Low | 6(10.5) | 39(11.4) | 45(11.2) | 0.852 |
| Moderate-high | 51(89.5) | 304(88.6) | 355(88.8) | |
| mean ± SD | 13.50 ± 8.62 | 12.09 ± 10.80 | 12.29 ± 10.52 | |
Factors affecting stress among teachers
The results of the univariate logistic regression analysis, showing crude OR and 95%CI, are presented in Table 4. In calculating the OR value, the group at low risk of stress was selected as the reference group. The results of the study found that the statistically significant factors affecting stress ( P < 0.05) were working more than 8 hours per day (2.03; 95%CI, 1.01–4.09) and being sick but having to come to work (2.30; 95%CI, 1.12–4.70).
| Variable | Stress | |
|---|---|---|
| OR | (95%CI) | |
| Personal factors | ||
| Nationality (Ref: Thai) | ||
| Foreign | 1.64 | (0.79, 3.43) |
| Body Mass Index (Ref: Normal) | ||
| Thin/Obese | 1.31 | (0.56, 2.62) |
| Exercise (Ref: No) | ||
| No | 1.75 | (0.91, 3.35) |
| Drinking alcohol (Ref: No) | ||
| Yes | 1.08 | (0.48, 2.46) |
| Work history factors | ||
| Teacher period (years) (Ref: 10 or fewer) | ||
| More than 10 | 0.82 | (0.40, 1.68) |
| Length of work related to school (hours) (Ref: 8 or fewer) | ||
| More than 8 | 2.03* | (1.01, 4.09) |
| Sick but have to come to work (Ref: No) | ||
| Yes | 2.30* | (1.12, 4.70) |
| Working during the holidays (Ref: No) | ||
| Yes | 1.15 | (0.54, 2.45) |
| Sleeplessness from work-related concerns (past 2 months) (Ref: No) | ||
| Yes | 1.43 | (0.72, 2.84) |
| The work that I do is flexible (Ref: Yes/can change quite a lot) | ||
| No/less | 0.53 | (0.27, 1.03) |
| Resources for work (Ref: Enough/always) | ||
| Rarely/sometimes | 1.36 | (0.59, 3.12) |
| Conflicts or problems at work, day-to-day (Ref: No/less) | ||
| Often/almost all the time | 1.76 | (0.51, 6.04) |
| Able to control work/work according to plan (Ref: Often/almost all the time) | ||
| No/less | 1.44 | (0.72, 2.86) |
| Time pressure at work (Ref: No/less) | ||
| Often/almost all the time | 1.74 | (0.70, 4.28) |
| The feelings of teachers towards work factors | ||
| Job satisfaction (Ref: High) | ||
| Low | 1.51 | (0.65, 3.54) |
| Own ability to work (Ref: High) | ||
| Low | 2.19 | (0.86, 5.52) |
| Rejection of work beyond scope (Ref: Easy) | ||
| Difficult | 0.90 | (0.44, 1.83) |
*P < 0.05, OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval, Ref: reference group. Univariate logistic regression which was unadjusted for analysis.
Factors affecting burnout among teachers
The results of the univariate logistic regression analysis, showing crude OR and 95%CI, are presented in Table 5. In calculating the OR value, the group at low risk was selected as the reference group. The three dimensions of burnout were emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efficacy.
| Variable | Burnout | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emotional exhaustion | Cynicism | Professional efficacy | ||||
| OR | (95%CI) | OR | (95%CI) | OR | (95%CI) | |
| Personal factors | ||||||
| Nationality (Ref: Thai) | ||||||
| Foreign | 0.47 | (0.21, 1.04) | 0.51 | (0.23, 1.13) | 0.22* | (0.07, 0.64) |
| Body Mass Index (Ref: Normal) | ||||||
| Thin/Obese | 1.65 | (0.80, 3.41) | 1.33 | (0.67, 2.66) | 1.81 | (0.60, 5.45) |
| Exercise (Ref: No) | ||||||
| No | 1.44 | (0.72, 2.88) | 1.86 | (0.96, 3.62) | 1.24 | (0.42, 3.61) |
| Drinking alcohol (Ref: No) | ||||||
| Yes | 1.48 | (0.72, 3.46) | 1.03 | (0.46, 2.30) | 0.58 | (0.16, 2.05) |
| Work history factors | ||||||
| Teacher period (years) (Ref: 10 or fewer) | ||||||
| More than 10 | 0.91 | (0.43, 1.90) | 0.83 | (0.40, 1.71) | 0.47 | (0.15, 1.48) |
| Length of work related to school (hours) (Ref: 8 or fewer) | ||||||
| More than 8 | 1.39 | (0.67, 2.88) | 0.73 | (0.36, 1.44) | 1.26 | (0.37, 4.21) |
| Sick but have to come to work (Ref: No) | ||||||
| Yes | 1.28 | (0.61, 2.71) | 0.99 | (0.45, 1.91) | 1.36 | (0.43, 4.31) |
| Working during the holidays (Ref: No) | ||||||
| Yes | 2.61 | (1.21, 5.60) | 0.98 | (0.47, 2.01) | 0.58 | (0.14, 2.25) |
| Sleeplessness from work-related concerns (past 2 months) (Ref: No) | ||||||
| Yes | 1.73 | (0.83, 3.63) | 1.20 | (0.59, 2.45) | 2.55 | (0.75, 8.68) |
| The work that I do is flexible (Ref: Yes/can change quite a lot) | ||||||
| No/less | 1.14 | (0.57, 2.27) | 1.77 | (0.90, 3.49) | 0.42 | (0.12, 1.44) |
| Resources for work (Ref: Enough/always) | ||||||
| Rarely/sometimes | 1.54 | (0.63, 3,75) | 0.47 | (0.19, 1.13) | 0.34 | (0.10, 1.06) |
| Conflicts or problems at work, day-to-day (Ref: No/less) | ||||||
| Often/almost all the time | 0.77 | (0.21, 2.77) | 5.55* | (1.71, 18.04) | 0.80 | (0.14, 4.58) |
| Able to control work/work according to plan (Ref: Often/almost all the time) | ||||||
| No/less | 1.31 | (0.65, 2.65) | 0.92 | (0.46, 1.82) | 2.83* | (1.79, 10.06) |
| Time pressure at work (Ref: No/less) | ||||||
| Often/almost all the time | 2.57* | (1.92, 6.73) | 1.06 | (0.42, 2.66) | 0.87 | (0.21, 3.57) |
| The feelings of teachers towards work factors | ||||||
| Job satisfaction (Ref: High) | ||||||
| Low | 4.00* | (1.55, 10.34) | 1.09 | (0.47, 2.56) | 0.39 | (0.10, 1.51) |
| Own ability to work (Ref: High) | ||||||
| Low | 2.57* | (1.92, 7.17) | 3.40* | (1.41, 8.17) | 0.69 | (0.17, 2.76) |
| Rejection of work beyond scope (Ref: Easy) | ||||||
| Difficult | 0.45* | (0.21, 0.98) | 0.51 | (0.24, 1.07) | 1.37 | (0.37, 5.04) |
*P < 0.05, OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval, Ref: reference group. Univariate logistic regression which was unadjusted for analysis.
In the first dimension, the factors affecting emotional exhaustion that were statistically significant ( P < 0.05) were teachers frequently or almost always having time pressure at work (2.57; 95%CI, 1.92–6.73), a low level of job satisfaction (4.00; 95%CI, 1.55–10.34), a low level of self-efficacy at work (2.57; 95%CI, 1.92–7.17), and a low level of ability to refuse work beyond scope (0.45; 95%CI, 0.21–0.98).
In the second dimension of cynicism, the factors affecting cynicism that had statistical significance ( P < 0.05) were teachers having a moderate to high level of conflicts or problems at work (5.55; 95%CI, 1.71–18.04) and a low level of their own ability to work (3.40; 95%CI, 1.41–8.17).
In the third dimension of professional efficacy, the factor that significantly ( P < 0.05) affected professional efficacy was being a foreign teacher (0.22; 95%CI, 0.07–0.64). In other words, foreign teachers had 77.8% efficacy compared to Thai teachers. Teachers’ ability to control work/work according to plan affected their professional efficacy (2.83; 95%CI, 1.79–10.06).
Several studies have been carried out abroad on the subject of stress and burnout among teachers [6, 7, 11], but the differing contexts of each country, such as welfare, workload, and economy, are factors that may cause different psychological outcomes. In 2021, a study on the teaching occupation was published in Thailand on the correlations between demographics, health history, resiliency, and mental health [1]. The present study differs from that study in that this one focuses on the causal factors in both Thai and foreign teachers working in Thailand, and thus serves to extend the body of knowledge on stress and burnout among teachers.
The current COVID-19 status in Thailand is better than in previous years. As a result, the Thai government has announced that COVID-19 has been reclassified from a serious infectious disease to a disease requiring surveillance, prompting policy changes [19]. According to Thailand’s data for 2024, there were an average of 88 persons infected with COVID-19 per day [20]. However, the statistics may represent less than what is now known, because the government agency was not notified when the disease was designated to require surveillance. In addition, teachers afflicted with COVID-19 must use their sick leave, and extended sick leave may lead to a decrease in future leave entitlements. Prior to the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic’s end, educators could take 10-14 days off without it impacting their leave balance. Consequently, there are presently teachers on sick leave due to COVID-19 infection. Upon recovery from symptoms, they are required to return to work, potentially experiencing ongoing illness effects for several days. The obligation to attend work while still unwell may heighten stress and disengagement from work duties.
This study yielded several key findings. The factors affecting stress were working more than 8 hours per day (OR=2.03) and teachers’ experiences of being sick but having to come to work (OR=2.30). A study by Kidger et al revealed that teacher well-being did not affect stress, but that work factors could affect stress and reduce quality of life [21]. Those results indicate that being exposed to a source of stress at work for a prolonged period can increase teachers’ stress. According to our study, one of the main causes of stress was teachers having to come to work despite being ill. This result is in line with the findings of Olejniczak et al, who compared teachers, nurses, and private workers and found that teachers had problems with illness, but still had to come to work and that this factor had more statistical significance for teachers than it did for those of other occupational groups [22]. Since school teachers are typically required to supervise students at all times, when they are sick and there are no other personnel to handle the students, teachers have no choice but to come to work. Having to work when in a poor physical condition can, in turn, have a negative impact on a teacher’s mental wellbeing.
Burnout was divided into 3 dimensions: emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efficacy. In the first dimension, the factors affecting emotional exhaustion that were statistically significant ( P < 0.05) were teachers frequently or almost always having time pressure at work (OR=2.57), low job satisfaction (OR=4.00) and own ability to work (OR=2.57). This study was consistent with a European systematic review and meta-analysis that reported that teachers with a poor work environment (OR=2.06), poor work-life balance (OR=1.93) [7], and high self-efficacy were negatively associated with stress and burnout [23].
The second dimension was cynicism, and the factors affecting cynicism that had statistical significance ( P < 0.05), were working with conflicts day to day or having a moderate to high level of work-related problems (OR=5.55). This is consistent with a study by Skaalvik et al [24], where in-depth interviews with 16 teachers revealed that teamwork could serve as a challenge and a source of stress for teachers. This is because working as a team often leads to conflicts, disagreements and sometimes quarrels in front of students. Since teachers may not be able to choose their teammates, team members can vary widely in terms of their goals, values, and approaches to handling tasks. Moreover, in the context of the school in which this study was conducted, public activities such as school-related events make it necessary to appoint workers who are not elected by their own co-workers. Collaborating with people whose personal habits are unknown may cause conflicts, which can, in turn, lead to dissatisfaction on the part of teachers, who may lose the motivation to engage in school activities, or even to ignore them.
Having a low level self-efficacy affected cynicism (OR=3.40), which was similar to the results of several previous studies [7, 24]. Our results showed that reported low self-efficacy (OR=2.13) was associated with increased odds of burnout/stress [7]. Similarly, a qualitative study on Norwegian teachers reported a loss of self-efficacy and a feeling of reduced accomplishment [24]. In the schools we studied, teachers have various responsibilities such as teaching, public activities, and activities related to local festivals, where the school is asked to participate in the community activities. Sometimes these activities fall outside of the teachers’ level of training or expertise. Such activities could involve finance, accounting, materials, arts and crafts, etc. This can increase teachers’ feelings of low level of self-efficacy, and having to engage in these activities despite not wanting to can lead to cynicism.
The third dimension, professional efficacy, is a positive dimension. The factor that was found to significantly affect professional efficacy ( P < 0.05) was being a foreign teacher (OR=0.22). The foreign teachers had 77.8% job efficiency, which was higher than that of the Thai teachers. The work control factor, or being able to carry out work as planned (OR=2.83), also affected professional efficacy. The work being referred to here may have differed from school-related work. Foreign teachers are hired to teach English as their main task, and foreign teachers who cannot communicate in Thai end up mainly doing work that focuses on teaching. The foreign teacher has planned the teaching and is thus able to proceed according to plan. On the other hand, Thai teachers are responsible not only for teaching but also for documentation, communicating with parents, and various other school activities. Having numerous work functions makes it less likely for teachers to succeed at accomplishing everything according to plan. Consistent with a report by Ghanizadeh et al [25], our study found that organizational adjustments such as reduction of non-teaching paperwork, making an action plan, or implementing a lesson plan are the main strategies that can reduce excess workload and work pressure. This leads to reduced stress and increased teacher efficiency.
Previous research indicates that there are differences in psychological outcomes between genders. Females tend to have more thoughts, worries, or mental states compared to males [7]. This study initially analyzed gender variables separately and compared them before incorporating other variables into the advanced statistical tests. The study results indicated that there were no significant differences between males and females in terms of work and psychological factors. However, given the current COVID-19 situation, both male and female teachers must adapt quickly to increased school-related work demands. The gender factor in normal circumstances, when there are no outbreaks or significant changes in teaching and learning, may still need further examination in future studies.
This study, which set out to explore stress and burnout after the COVID-19 situation ended, has its strengths. The research is up-to-date and covers the current situation. The sample size of 400 teachers was sufficient to answer the research objectives. Even though this investigation used standard measurement tools, using self-reported information to quantify burnout and stress may create bias because responses can be influenced by individual perceptions and current mood. To validate findings, one should try complementing self-report measures with objective data or third-party assessments, and then use scientific testing to corroborate the results, including tests for the hormone cortisol or blood pressure. Other studies also highlight the limits of cross-sectional methods in demonstrating causal relationships and provide suggestions for future longitudinal studies.
Based on the research findings, we concluded that applications should consider the context of similar areas. This study was conducted in Chonburi Province, which is part of Thailand’s Eastern Economic Corridor, which indicates that the research findings should be applied mostly to industrial areas or those in which parents work in the city. Parents will send children to school early and pick them up late. Teachers are consequently burdened with tutoring at schools, extending their working hours for the safety of students who stay at school while waiting for their parents to pick them up. Other school-related documents or tasks may need to be completed over the holidays.
The statistically significant factors affecting stress and burnout were working more than 8 hours per day, being sick but having to go to work, frequent or almost constant time pressure at work, job-satisfaction, the teachers’ ability to reject assignments that go beyond the scope of their work, conflicts or problems at work, and controlling the work or working as planned. We recommend that the personnel development departments in the schools ensure appropriate work allocation that matches teachers’ expertise so that teachers can work to their full potential. Finally, if teachers are ill, a system should be established to allow for flexible time off from work.
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to restriction related to the approbation of the study protocol by Human Ethics Committee No. BSRU-REC 660802. Which cannot provide raw or individual data. The information published from an overall analysis only.
