Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Assessment of burnout in medical undergraduate students in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

  • 1Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 2
BMC Medical Education201919:34

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1468-3

  • Received: 11 September 2017
  • Accepted: 16 January 2019
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

To assess the prevalence of burnout symptoms among preclinical and clinical medical students studying at AlFaisal University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted using Maslach Burnout Inventory questionnaire on 276 medical students from Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The study was approved by Alfaisal University research ethics committee. Chi-square test was used to identify statistically significant differences, and binary logistic regression was used to identify predictors of burnout.

Results

276 entered into final data analysis with a mean age 20.62 ± 1.58, of whom 54% were males, and 46% were females. The overall burnout prevalence was 13.4%, of which PA was the most prevalent domain of burnout with 64.9%. Female gender was a significant predictor of EE and DP [OR = 4.34; 95% Cl 1.86–10.13; P-value 0.001] and [OR = 2.01; 95% Cl 1.07–3.79; P-value 0.030] respectively as per multivariate analysis for demographic characteristics. Regarding the total level of burnout, females (75.7%) had significantly higher levels of burnout compared to males (41.4%); (P-value < 0.001).

Conclusion

Burnout is prevalent among medical student. Gender was found to exhibits effect on the burnout. Mutual proactive strategies and reactive coping mechanisms between the students and the universities are encouraged to prevent and reduce burnout among medical students.

Keywords

  • Burnout
  • Medical students
  • Anxiety
  • Depression
  • Depersonalization

Background

Medical schools aim to graduate professional physicians equipped and trained with the knowledge, competency to promote the nation health and well-being, and to advance medical science. Besides, medical colleges make every effort to support medical students during their study. Medical schools carry out robust selection procedures to recognize altruistic and intelligent students with a resilient obligation to abovementioned goals [1].

Medical undergraduate training is lengthy and emotionally demanding. Several studies have shown high levels of psychological problems in medical students at different points of their training and academic life [2, 3]. Hence, Medical students are always vulnerable to burnout syndrome due to psychosocial stressors throughout the academic and training life [4]. Burnout is a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and low professional efficacy that frequently occurs among individuals who do ‘people work’ of some kind [5]. The term is useful to reflect on peoples who participate in activities that are mentally and psychologically similar to work, like students [6, 7].

Previous literature reported worsened mental health after medical students begin school and continue so during their training and after their graduation [8]. Medical school is a stressful learning environment since students are always expected to learn and memorize an enormous sum of information within a limited amount of time [911]. Students also face financial stressors such as having to secure scholarships, repaying or managing student debt loans, amongst other things which further increases the burden of work demands. Moreover, a dearth of time for relaxation and leisure, family and friends, preparation for the residency program, the choice of a specialty and the late monthly income also exacerbate stress among medical students [4, 12]. As a result, stress, burnout, and sleep disorders (such as insomnia) gradually develop throughout the academic years [9, 11, 13]. All of these are interconnected problems which influence each other and could lead to serious health consequences such as “anxiety disorders, depression, substance abuse, suicidal ideation, thoughts of dropping out, reduced empathy, low motivation for learning, and low academic conduct” [11, 14]. Studies have also shown that medical students have a poor mental quality of life when compared to individuals of the same age in the general public [13].

A varied range of burnout levels among medical students have been reported worldwide. Recent studies indicated a high prevalence of burnout is reaching 71% and up to 76.8% [9, 15, 16]. However, other studies showed lesser levels of burnout ranging between 10 and 55% [1, 13, 1720]. Researches from Saudi Arabia have identified a high prevalence of burnout among medical students [13, 2123]. Generally, the prevalence of burnout is considerably dissimilar across countries. The Middle East and Oceania countries have a higher prevalence of burnout than other countries in other continents [24]. The varied levels and differences of burnout may perhaps be explained by the diversity of instruments used to measure burnout levels or due to the different social and circumstantial determining factors of burnout.

Although various literature has been reporting burnout among health care professionals, including, physicians and nurses [2528], the in-depth literature review showed a scarcity in the epidemiological studies exploring the prevalence and impact of burnout among medical students per se in Saudi Arabia [21, 23]. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of burnout symptoms among preclinical and clinical medical students studying at AlFaisal University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Hence, this study will be an added value to the Saudi literature that may encourage and enable the scientific community to early detect burnout syndrome and to adopt proactive and preventive measures.

Methods

Study design and setting

A cross-sectional study was conducted between January and February 2016 at the College of Medicine at AlFaisal University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. AlFaisal University is a private non-profit institute set up under the patronage of King Faisal Foundation. The college of medicine inducted its first batch in 2008. The medical program comprises of a 6-year MBBS degree. The preclinical phase comprises of several basic science courses delivered during the first three years of the program. The clinical phase comprises of fourth and fifth years, where students rotate within different hospital departments for 9 weeks each. The Internship is considered as the sixth year. The student body within AlFaisal is composed of various ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Participants, sampling method, and sample size

Using a stratified convenient sampling technique, we recruited medical students from the preclinical and clinical years. For preclinical students, the surveys were distributed on campus following lectures and during break hours by the authors. Whereas, for clinical students, the surveys were distributed in King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center and Security Forces Hospital. A total of 276 participants volunteered to fill the paper-based questionnaire out of 400 students approached based on stratification per academic year; first year (n = 87), second year (n = 77), third year (n = 66), fourth year (n = 28), and fifth year (n = 18) undergraduate medical students. The sample size of 278 medical students was determined valid by Rao Soft® sample size calculator at 80% power and 5% margin of error.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board at AlFaisal University under exempt approval category. Study information sheet was attached to the questionnaire indicating that students’ participation is voluntary and the identity will not be collected so their information can never be matched to their responses. Verbal consent was obtained from each student before filling out the survey as granted by the institutional review board.

Data collection instrument and procedure

The medical students were asked to fill a structured questionnaire that has been designed and formulated based on the information provided by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) [29], which calculates burnout score using 22-items for three categories of burnout symptoms “EE, DP, PA” [30, 31]. Additionally, the questionnaire has been modified to include demographic data (age, gender, and school year) and questions related to the target population.

The MBI questionnaire was formulated to assess whether a person is at risk of burnout [3032]. The MBI Questionnaire is a 22-item instrument that measures three sections: “EE,” “DP,” “PA.” EE is the feeling of being completely drained, both emotionally and physically, due to extreme overwork [9]. DP is a combination of a negative, skeptical behavior, and a feeling of indifference towards others. Low PA is the propensity to judge oneself badly or unfavorably especially towards one’s own work [32, 33]. EE was measured using seven items (For example: I am at the edge of breaking down due to the responsibilities I have). DP was measured using seven items (For example I feel I look at my colleagues as an object, as a person with no personality or feelings). PA was measured using eight items (For example I accomplish many worthwhile things during the day while attending AlFaisal University, College of Medicine). All survey items were scored on a scale from 0 to 6; (0 = Never, 1 = Few times per year, 2 = Once a month, 3 = Few times per month, 4 = Once a week, 5 = Few times per week, 6 = Everyday). DP and EE are inversely proportional to PA but directly proportional to burnout [33].

MBI assesses a person’s risk of burnout but doesn’t provide a diagnosis. For a definitive diagnosis, a clinical assessment is required alongside MBI [32]. High levels of burnout are represented via high scores of EE and DP and a low score of PA [9]. Moreover, the survey was modified to include demographic data (age, gender and medical school year).

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS version 22. All categorical variables such as age, gender, and medical school year were presented as numbers and percentages. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used interchangeably, and these tests helped determine the significant association between categorical variables. Backward multiple logistics regression analysis was conducted for each of the three MBI component levels to examine the relationship between burnout and general characteristics of the participants. The odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were also calculated. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to be of statistical significance.

Results

A total of 276 students participated in the study with a mean age 20.62 ± 1.58, of whom 149 (54%) were male. Slightly more than Two-Thirds were between the age group (19–21). About 230 (83.4%) were preclinical, and 46 (16.6%) were clinical medical undergraduates Table 1.
Table 1

Demographic characteristics of the participants (n = 276)

Characteristics

Categories

n (%)

Age

16–18

14 (5.1)

19–21

190 (68.8)

> 21

72 (26.1)

mean ± SD

20.62 ± 1.58

Gender

Male

149 (54)

Female

127 (46)

School Year

First

87 (31.5)

Second

77 (27.9)

Third

66 (23.9)

Fourth

28 (10.1)

Fifth

18 (6.5)

About one-third of the students reported moderate level of EE and 17,4% reported moderate-high levels; however, the students EE mean subscale score was 18.53 ± 10.25 indicating moderate levels. The majority of the students 157 (56.9%) reported a higher level of DP. The DP mean subscale score was 14.20 ± 9.22 indicating high level. Moreover, about 14.9% of the students showed low levels of PA and 20.3% showed moderate PA levels Table 2.
Table 2

Mean scores and levels of MBI subscales

Characteristics

mean subscales score

n (%)

Emotional Exhaustion

18.53 ± 10.25

 

 ≤ 17 (Low-Level)

 

138 (50)

 18–29 (Moderate-Level)

 

90 (32.6)

 ≥30 (High-Level)

 

48 (17.4)

Depersonalization

14.20 ± 9.22

 

 ≤ 5 (Low-Level)

 

55 (19.9)

 6–11 (Moderate-Level)

 

64 (23.2)

 ≥12 (High-Level)

 

157 (56.9)

Personal Accomplishment

28.73 ± 9.51

 

 ≤ 33 (High-Level)

 

179 (64.9)

 34–39 (Moderate-Level)

 

56 (20.3)

 ≥40 (Low-Level)

 

41 (14.9)

Table 3 summarizes the distribution of burnout level according to participants’ demographics. The majority of the students who indicated high EE were among the age group 19–21 year. 34 (70.8%) females reported higher levels of EE than males 14 (29.2%). The levels of EE were found decreasing as the school year progress.
Table 3

Comparison of burnout levels with students’ demographics

 

Emotional Exhaustion

Depersonalization

Personal Accomplishment

 

≤ 17

18–29

≥ 30

≤ 5

6–11

≥12

≤ 33

34–39

≥40

(Low)

(Moderate)

(High)

(Low)

(Moderate)

(High)

(High)

(Moderate)

(Low)

Age

16–18

6 (4.3%)

3 (3.3%)

5 (10.4%)

1 (1.8%)

3 (4.7%)

10 (6.4%)

9 (5.0%)

5 (8.9%)

0

18–21

91 (65.9%)

68 (75.6%)

31 (64.6%)

39 (70.9%)

42 (65.6%)

109 (69.4%)

126 (70.4%)

38 (67.9%)

26 (63.4%)

> 21

41 (29.7%)

19 (21.1%)

12 (25.0%)

15 (27.3%)

19 (29.7%)

38 (24.2%)

44 (24.6%)

13 (23.2%)

15 (36.6%)

Gender

Male

91 (65.9%)

44 (48.9%)

14 (29.2%)

35 (63.6%)

41 (64.1%)

73 (46.5%)

88 (49.2%)

34 (60.7%)

27 (65.9%)

Female

47 (34.1%)

46 (51.1%)

34 (70.8%)

20 (36.4%)

23 (35.9%)

84 (53.5%)

91 (50.8%)

22 (39.3%)

14 (34.1%)

School year

First

35 (25.4%)

30 (33.3%)

22 (45.8%)

16 (29.1%)

17 (26.6%)

54 (34.4%)

51 (28.5%)

22 (39.3%)

14 (34.1%)

Second

38 (27.5%)

28 (31.1%)

11 (22.9%)

16 (29.1%)

18 (28.1%)

43 (27.4%)

59 (33.0%)

10 (17.9%)

8 (19.5%)

Third

30 (21.7%)

23 (25.6%)

13 (27.1%)

6 (10.9%)

16 (25.0%)

44 (28.0%)

51 (28.5%)

10 (17.9%)

5 (12.2%)

Fourth

21 (15.2%)

7 (7.8%)

0

12 (21.8%)

8 (12.5%)

8 (5.1%)

9 (5.0%)

11 (19.6%)

8 (19.5%)

Fifth

14 (10.1%)

2 (2.2%)

2 (4.2%)

5 (9.1%)

5 (7.8%)

8 (5.1%)

9 (5.0%)

3 (5.4%)

6 (14.6%)

Moreover, the highest percentages of the students who reported low 39 (70.9%), moderate 68 (75.6%) and high 109 (69.4%) DP were between the age 19–21. More than half of the students who reported high DP were females; on the other hand, 41 (64.1%) of the students who reported moderate DP were males. Again, the highest percentages of students who reported higher levels of DP were in the preclinical years when compared to the students who were in the clinical years. The majority of the students who reported low PA were males and between the age group 19–21, 27 (65.9%) and 26 (63.4%) respectively. The PA levels were higher among students in the preclinical years compared to students in the clinical years Table 3.

Table 4 shows the comparison of differences in the burnout levels according to students’ demographics. A significant difference was found in the EE levels and gender (p = < 0.001) and school year (p = 0.008). Moreover, a significant difference was found in the DP levels and gender (p = 0.016) and school year (p = 0.015). However, a significant difference was noted in the PA levels and school year (p = < 0.001).
Table 4

Comparison of differences in the burnout levels according to students’ demographics

 

Emotional Exhaustion

Depersonalization

Personal Accomplishment

 

P-value

P-value

P-value

Age

16–18

0.212

0.665

0.197

18–21

> 21

Gender

Male

< 0.001*

0.016*

0.081

Female

School year

First

0.008*

0.015*

< 0.001*

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

*Significant at p-value< 0.005

Table 5 shows the tabulation of the student’s demographics and high levels of EE, DP, and LPA. The tabulation revealed that a significant difference was found between gender and high levels of EE, DP, and PA (p = 0.015).
Table 5

Tabulation of the student’s demographics and high levels of EE, DP, and PA

  

Emotional Exhaustion

Depersonalization

Personal Accomplishment

p- value

Age

16–18

5 (10.4%)

10 (6.4%)

9 (5.0%)

0.983

18–21

31 (64.6%)

109 (69.4%)

126 (70.4%)

> 21

12 (25.0%)

38 (24.2%)

44 (24.6%)

Gender

Male

14 (29.2%)

73 (46.5%)

88 (49.2%)

0.015*

Female

34 (70.8%)

84 (53.5%)

91 (50.8%)

School year

First

22 (45.8%)

54 (34.4%)

51 (28.5%)

0.710

Second

11 (22.9%)

43 (27.4%)

59 (33.0%)

Third

13 (27.1%)

44 (28.0%)

51 (28.5%)

Fourth

0

8 (5.1%)

9 (5.0%)

Fifth

2 (4.2%)

8 (5.1%)

9 (5.0%)

*Significant at p-value< 0.005

Female gender was a significant predictor of emotional exhaustion [OR = 4.34; 95% Cl 1.86–10.13; P-value 0.001] as per multivariate analysis for demographic characteristics and emotional exhaustion. Similarly, female gender was a significant predictor of depersonalization [OR = 2.01; 95% Cl 1.07–3.79; P-value 0.030] as per multiple regression analysis for demographic characteristics and depersonalization Table 6.
Table 6

logistic regression analysis for burnout subscales and students’ demographics

 

EE

DP

PA

Parameter

OR

P – value

95% C.I

OR

P – value

95% C.I

OR

P – value

95% C.I

Age

1.22

0.622

[0.553–2.696]

2.017

0.116

[0.841–4.836]

1.46

0.394

[0.611–3.498]

Gender

2.01

0.030*

[1.070–3.791]

4.338

0.001*

[1.858–10.129]

0.50

0.056

[0.247–1.019]

School Year

0.84

0.338

[0.591–1.198]

0.706

0.097

[0.467–1.066]

1.06

0.756

[0.726–1.554]

*Significant at p-value< 0.005

Discussion

Utilization of the MBI scale in this cross-sectional study was acceptable and feasible to assess medical students’ burnout levels. Medical students participated in the present study revealed frequent emotional exhaustion, high levels of depolarization, and high personal accomplishment. The gender may predict medical students’ emotional exhaustion and depolarization.

Our study revealed that the level of burnout decreased as the students advanced to from pre-clinical to clinical years. The study noted a significant correlation between gender and burnout subscales. Comparing our findings with the previously reported studies in the literature could not be done appropriately, mainly due to curriculum difference between medical schools worldwide [9, 10, 13, 32, 3442].

The present study found that a large proportion of the female medical students observed a relatively higher emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in contrast to male medical students. Whereas, female students had lower rates of personal accomplishment comparing to male medical students. This highlights the fact that females are more burnout across all the 3 domains assessing burnout. In this study, females had three times greater predisposition to burnout in comparison to the males. ALMalki et al. (2017) and showed that medical students’ gender was not a risk factor for EE, DP, and PA among medical students [21, 23]. However, a systematic review study has reported gender as a significant predictor of burnout or for one of the burnout subscales [43]. A study carried out on osteopathic medical students revealed that gender had a significant impact on burnout, mainly via influencing its three dimensions. The osteopathic female students had a relatively 1.5 times higher burnout rates than male students. They also exhibited higher rates of EE and lower rates of PA compared to males [33]. The majority of the studies agreed that the female gender was significantly more predisposed to developing high levels of stress and burnout when compared to their male counterparts. Nevertheless, the cause remains unclear [29]. Some studies are currently available in the literature; however, they provide contradictory results regarding the influence of gender on burnout. Several studies suggested that females have a higher likelihood to view challenging or threatening situations as stressful, compared to males [9, 37]. In contrast, other studies showed no association between gender and burnout [32, 41].

The explanation for the higher levels of burnout among female medical students in Saudi Arabia could be contributed to cultural, social, and religious factors and hence influence their PA and EE. The Saudi cultural norm does not permit intermingling of the sexes, which could affect their exposure in medical training [44]. Besides, Saudi females are preserving family life. Therefore, female students need to make an additional effort to reach their goals with extra physical and mental hours’ expended coping with study and family needs [45]. This could be a potential factor for the increasing the prevalence of stress and burnout among female medical students when compared to male students [45].

Burnout gradually progresses over the years of medical education. Medical students; during the preclinical and clinical periods are expected to be more responsible toward patients and expose to an extensive volume of knowledge and practice. The rates of burnout among preclinical medical students (32.4%) and clinical medical students (2.7%) are in accordance with previous studies [9, 10, 13, 46]. Feras et al., (2016) stated that there is a high level of burnout (75%) among preclinical medical students at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon. In addition, the article mentioned that female student, as well as first-year medical students, exhibited higher rates of burnout in comparison to male students and the rest of the academic years, which correlated with our study’s results [9]. Moreover, Guthrie et al. and Sreeramareddy et al. reported similar results whereby the first year medical students have higher levels of burnout in comparison to second-year medical students [37, 42]. Sreeramareddy et al. noted that second-year medical students have a lower rate of burnout as a result of the improved gradual adaptation an individual experience with time throughout the pressure living environment [42].

Our study showed that the prevalence of EE, DP, and PA is decreasing as the medical students’ progress from preclinical to clinical years and that academic year was not a risk factor for burnout. Interestingly, a study done in Spain exhibited different findings. It stated that the prevalence of burnout was significantly lower among preclinical medical students (14.8%) as compared to clinical students (37.5%) [32]. However, AlMalki et al. have reported a negative trend between the level of EE, DP, and PA compared to an academic year, and that academic year was not a predictor for burnout [21].

Our study found high levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization among themedical students. A study conducted by West et al. revealed an important reciprocal relation between emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, burnout and high-impact outcomes such as suicide, low personal welfare, professionalism, and commitment among medical students and physicians [29, 30]. Another study showed the negative influence burnout has on the psychological and physical welfare of preclinical medical students. It indicated that high emotional exhaustion is linked to low physical well-being [11, 14]. Burnout also seems to influence the quality of life of undergraduate medical students, which in turn affects health care yet the quantitative effect remains unknown [14, 15].

Our study aimed to measure the rate of burnout amongst preclinical and clinical medical students in Saudi Arabia. However, this study has some limitations, since it is not representative of all the national undergraduate medical student burnout level, as it measures the burnout level in only one university in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the medical students were not approached on the basis of random sampling but rather on the basis of convenience sampling, which means that students with higher levels of burnout might have been missed as they refused to fill in the survey. This might be especially true for students in clinical years, as several fourth and fifth-year students refused to fill in the survey and were difficult to approach. Moreover, since the research is a cross-sectional study, it was not able to determine the causal relationships. The participation in this study was, and participants were recruited non-randomly, therefore hosting selection bias. Although we stratified distributed the sample size equally across the preclinical and clinical years, the response rate was small among the first and second years.

Recommendations

High levels of burnout were observed among participants. Several actions need to be implemented to reduce student burnout, as students graduating medical school with high levels of burnout have an increased likelihood of developing severe burnout during residency training, and this may lead to detrimental repercussions in regards to student careers and patient healthcare. Persistent burnout can lead to other mental and physical health care problems such as depression, drug abuse, alcoholism amongst other consequences.

Several strategies were proposed to cope and manage stressors and burnout. Strategies that encompass engagement process such as problem solving, positive reflection and expression of emotion, enable students’ adaptation [9, 47, 48] that lessens anxiety and depression and their impacts on students’ mental integrity [49] and physical well-being [48]. Involving music and physical exercise are extracurricular activities that have been linked to reduced stress and burnout levels in medical students [9].

Moreover, organizational strategies have shown significant reduction in burnout amongst medical doctors [50]. An essential component of these strategies is the continuing assessment of mental health outcomes across all four years of the curriculum. Efforts should be focused at changing the educational and clinical environments to lessen avoidable stressors and construct more optimistic environments for teaching and clinical practice [24].

Conclusion

Considerable levels of burnout were observed among study participants especially depolarization levels. Although the prevalence of burnout levels was decreasing as the school year progress, years of school was not a risk factor for burnout. Several strategies are needed to reduce medical students’ burnout, as it may accumulate over the years and lead to detrimental repercussions in regards to student careers. Longitudinal studies are required to explore the pattern of burnout among medical students from school admission until graduation.

Abbreviations

DP: 

Depersonalization

EE: 

Emotional Exhaustion

MBI: 

Maslach Burnout Inventory-Educators Survey

OR: 

Odds Ratios

PA: 

Personal Accomplishment

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We would like to express their gratitude and appreciation to Mr. Isamme AlFayyad for his assistance and support in revising and updating the statistical analysis and improving the quality of the manuscript.

Funding

No funding was obtained for the study.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

The first and second author had an equal contribution. YA (1st author): Idea generation, Literature review, Survey design, data collection, manuscript writing. WA (2nd author): Literature review, proposal writing, data collection & data entry, major contribution in manuscript writing. SA (3rd author): Literature review, proposal writing, Survey design, data collection & data entry, abstract writing, manuscript writing. MA (4th author): Literature review, proposal writing, data collection, abstract writing, manuscript writing. FY (5th author): Literature review, data collection & data entry, manuscript writing. AO (6th author): Conducted a comprehensive manuscript review for content and statistical analysis and assisted with study design. MA (7th author): Provided an assessment of study feasibility, contribution to study design, performed statistical analysis and contributed to manuscript review and writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board at AlFaisal University under exempt approval category. Anonymous data collection such as using an anonymous questionnaire with no sensitive data for the study population does not oblige written consent. However, a study information sheet was attached to the questionnaire to reassure and make the participants feel more comfortable about participating. Consent was not documented because the research fits within the minimal risk category of and includes neither harm to participants nor procedures for which written consent is usually needed within the research perspective as per Research ethics code. The information sheet indicated that students’ participation is voluntary and the identity will not be collected so their information can never be matched to their responses and confidentiality is highly maintained. Verbal consent was granted by the institutional review board and was obtained from each student before filling out the survey.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, P.O. Box 50927, Takhasusi Road, Riyadh, 11533, Saudi Arabia
(2)
Clinical & Applied Research Department, Research Center, King Fahad Medical City, P.O. Box 59046, Riyadh, 11525, Saudi Arabia

References

  1. Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Shanafelt TD. Systematic review of depression, anxiety, and other indicators of psychological distress among US and Canadian medical students. Acad Med. 2006;81(4):354–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Erschens R, Keifenheim KE, Herrmann-Werner A, Loda T, Schwille-Kiuntke J, Bugaj TJ, Nikendei C, Huhn D, Zipfel S, Junne F. Professional burnout among medical students: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Med Teach. 2018;14:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1457213.
  3. Rotenstein LS, Ramos MA, Torre M, Segal JB, Peluso MJ, Guille C, Sen S, Mata DA. Prevalence of depression, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2016;316(21):2214–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Tarnowski M, Carlotto MS. Burnout syndrome in students of psychology. Temas em Psicologia. 2007;15(2):173–80.Google Scholar
  5. Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Occup Behav. 1981;2(2):99–113.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Prins JT, Hoekstra-Weebers JE, Gazendam-Donofrio SM, Dillingh GS, Bakker AB, Huisman M, et al. Burnout and engagement among resident doctors in the Netherlands: a national study. Med Educ. 2010;44(3):23647.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Schaufeli WB, Martinez IM, Pinto AM, Salanova M, Bakker AB. Burnout and engagement in university students - a cross-national study. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2002;33(5):464–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Abdulghani HM, AlKanhal AA, Mahmoud ES, Ponnamperuma GG, Alfaris EA. Stress and its effects on medical students: a cross-sectional study at a college of medicine in Saudi Arabia. J Health Popul Nutr. 2011;29(5):516.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Fares J, Saadeddin Z, Al Tabosh H, Aridi H, El Mouhayyar C, Koleilat MK, Chaaya M, El Asmar K. Extracurricular activities associated with stress and burnout in preclinical medical students. Journal of epidemiology and global health. 2016;6(3):177–85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Chigerwe M, Boudreaux KA, Ilkiw JE. Assessment of burnout in veterinary medical students using the Maslach burnout inventory-educational survey: a survey during two semesters. BMC medical education. 2014;14(1):255.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Pagnin D, Queiroz V. Influence of burnout and sleep difficulties on the quality of life among medical students. Springerplus. 2015;4(1):676.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Aguiar SM, Vieira APGF, Vieira KMF, No ‘b JO, Aguiar SM. Prevalência de sintomas de estresse em estudantes de medicina. J Bras Psiquiatr. 2009;58(1):34–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Chang E, Eddins-Folensbee F, Coverdale J. Survey of the prevalence of burnout, stress, depression, and the use of supports by medical students at one school. Acad Psychiatry. 2012;36(3):177–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Pagnin D, de Queiroz V, Carvalho YT, Dutra AS, Amaral MB, Queiroz TT. The relation between burnout and sleep disorders in medical students. Acad Psychiatry. 2014;38(4):438–44.Google Scholar
  15. Mazurkiewicz R, Korenstein D, Fallar R, Ripp J. The prevalence and correlations of medical student burnout in the pre-clinical years: a crosssectional study. Psychol Health Med. 2012;17(2):188–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. El-Masry R, Ghreiz SM, Helal RM, Audeh AM, Shams T. Perceived stress and burnout among medical students during the clinical period of their education. Ibnosina J Med Biomed Sci. 2013;5(4):179–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Muzafar Y, Khan HH, Ashraf H, Hussain W, Sajid H, Tahir M, et al. Burnout and its associated factors in medical students of Lahore, Pakistan. Curēus. 2015;7(11):e390.Google Scholar
  18. Dahlin ME, Runeson B. Burnout and psychiatric morbidity among medical students entering clinical training: a three year prospective questionnaire and interview-based study. BMC Med Educ. 2007;7:6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Costa EF, Santos SA, Santos AT, Melo EV, Andrade TM. Burnout syndrome and associated factors among medical students: a cross-sectional study. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(6):573–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Youssef FF. Medical student stress, burnout and depression in Trinidad and Tobago. Acad Psychiatry. 2016;40(1):69–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Almalki SA, Almojali AI, Alothman AS, Masuadi EM, Alaqeel MK. Burnout and its association with extracurricular activities among medical students in Saudi Arabia. Int J Med Educ. 2017;8:144–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Aboalshamat K, Alzahrani M, Rabie N, Alharbi R, Joudah R, Khulaysi S, Alansari W. The relationship between burnout and perfectionism in medical and dental students in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Dental Specialities. 2017;5(2):122–7.Google Scholar
  23. Albalawi AE, Alhawiti TS, Aldahi AS, Mohammed Y, Alshehri SK, Mirghani HO. The assessment of the burnout syndrome among medical students in Tabuk University, a crosssectional analytic study. BRJMCS. 2015;6(1):14–9.Google Scholar
  24. Frajerman A, Morvan Y, Krebs MO, Gorwood P, Chaumette B. Burnout in medical students before residency: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Psychiatry. 2019;55:36–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Aldrees T, Badri M, Islam T, Alqahtani K. Burnout among otolaryngology residents in Saudi Arabia: a multicenter study. Journal of surgical education. 2015;72(5):844–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Agha A, Mordy A, Anwar E, Saleh N, Rashid I, Saeed M. Burnout among middle-grade doctors of tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. Work. 2015;51(4):839–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Al Sareai NS, Al Khaldi YM, Mostafa OA, Abdel Fattah MM. Magnitude and risk factors for burnout among primary health care physicians in Asir Province, Saudi Arabia; 2013.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Aldrees TM, Aleissa S, Zamakhshary M, Badri M, Sadat-Alid M. Physician well-being: prevalence of burnout and associated risk factors in a tertiary hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Annals of Saudi medicine. 2013;33(5):451.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Maslach C, Leiter MP. Understanding the burnout experience: recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry. 2016;15(2):103–11.Google Scholar
  30. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Satele DV, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. Concurrent validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout assessment. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(11):1445–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. Single item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization are useful for assessing burnout in medical professionals. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(12):1318.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Galán F, Sanmartín A, Polo J, Giner L. Burnout risk in medical students in Spain using the Maslach burnout inventory-student survey. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2011;84(4):453–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Lapinski J, Yost M, Sexton P, LaBaere RJ. Factors modifying burnout in osteopathic medical students. Acad Psychiatry. 2016;40(1):55–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Guthrie E, Black D, Bagalkote H, Shaw C, Campbell M, Creed F. Psychological stress and burnout in medical students: a five-year prospective longitudinal study. J R Soc Med. 1998;91(5):237–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Huschka MM, Lawson KL, Novotny PJ, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. A multicenter study of burnout, depression, and quality of life in minority and nonminority US medical students. InMayo clinic proceedings. 2006;Vol. 81, No. 11:1435–42 Elsevier.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Eacker A, Harper W, Massie FS, Power DV, Huschka M, Novotny PJ, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. Race, ethnicity, and medical student well-being in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(19):2103–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Harper W, Massie F, Power DV, Eacker A, Szydlo DW, Novotny PJ, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. The learning environment and medical student burnout: a multicentre study. Med Educ. 2009;43(3):274–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. McMurray JE, Linzer M, Konrad TR, Douglas J, Shugerman R, Nelson K. The work lives of women physicians. Results from the physician work live study. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;200(15):372–80.Google Scholar
  39. Peisah C, Latif E, Wilhelm K, Williams B. Secrets to psychological success: why older doctors might have lower psychological distress and burnout than younger doctors. Aging Ment Health. 2009;13(2):300–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson GE. Stresses on women physicians: consequences and coping techniques. Depression and anxiety. 2003;17(3):180–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Santen SA, Holt DB, Kemp JD, Hemphill RR. Burnout in medical students: examining the prevalence and associated factors. South Med J. 2010;103(8):758–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Sreeramareddy CT, Shankar PR, Binu VS, Mukhopadhyay C, Ray B, Menezes RG. Psychological morbidity, sources of stress and coping strategies among undergraduate medical students of Nepal. BMC Medical education. 2007;7(1):26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Chunming WM, Harrison R, MacIntyre R, Travaglia J, Balasooriya C. Burnout in medical students: a systematic review of experiences in Chinese medical schools. BMC medical education. 2017;17(1):217.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Hamdan A. Women and education in Saudi Arabia: challenges and achievements. Int Educ J. 2005;6(1):42–64.Google Scholar
  45. Abdulghani HM, Irshad M, Al Zunitan MA, Al Sulihem AA, Al Dehaim MA, Al Esefir WA, Al Rabiah AM, Kameshki RN, Alrowais NA, Sebiany A, Haque S. Prevalence of stress in junior doctors during their internship training: a cross-sectional study of three Saudi medical colleges’ hospitals. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014;10:1879.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Fang DZ, Young CB, Golshan S, Moutier C, Zisook S. Burnout in premedical undergraduate students. Acad Psychiatry. 2012;36(1):11–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Moffat KJ, McConnachie A, Ross S, Morrison JM. First year medical student stress and coping in a problem-based learning medical curriculum. Med Educ. 2004;38(5):482–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Park CL, Adler NE. Coping style as a predictor of health and well-being across the first year of medical school. Health Psychol. 2003;22:627–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:397–422.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, Shanafelt TD. Interventions to prevent and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;388(10057):2272–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Advertisement