BackgroundSeveral studies have shown that the risk of burnout is high for people working in health professions. Many physiotherapists have either suffered from burn out personally or have seen colleagues suffer from it. In Switzerland, there is a lack of evidence concerning the risk factors and symptoms for burnout among physiotherapist.The aim of this study was to empirically identify risk factors and symptoms of burnout in physiotherapists working in the canton of Bern.MethodBased on interview guidelines, three semi-structured interviews with physiotherapists who experienced burn out themselves were conducted. The questions were divided into two main categories: risk factors and symptoms. For analysis, the interviews were transcribed and assigned to individual categories.ResultsHigh personal expectations and the pressure that comes with working on patients with chronic complaints were the most common answers from the participants. In this study these factors can be considered as important risk factors. In particular, emotional exhaustion and depression seem to be relevant burnout symptoms which lead to a decrease in personal performance.ConclusionIn this study physiotherapists with burn out working in an acute care hospital tend to suffer from symptoms of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. For physiotherapists, sensitization to symptoms and risk factors of burnout is essential in daily work as well as in education. The results of this study might be of interest for physiotherapist or physiotherapists students to prevent and sensitive them for burnout symptoms.

Although it is believed that physical activity, sedentary, and dietary behavior (i.e., energy balance-related behavior) may decrease the risk of burn-out, the association between both is currently not well understood. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to synthesize studies investigating the relationship between energy balance-related behavior and burn-out risk. A systematic literature search was conducted in four databases, resulting in 25 included studies (ten experimental and 15 observational studies). Nine out of ten experimental studies showed that exercise programs were effective in reducing burn-out risk. Fourteen out of fifteen observational studies found a negative association between physical activity and burn-out risk, whereas one study did not find a relation. Two of the 15 observational studies also showed that being more sedentary was associated with a higher burn-out risk, and two other studies found that a healthier diet was related to a lower burn-out risk. No experimental studies were found for the latter two behaviors. It can be concluded that physical activity may be effective in reducing burn-out risk. The few observational studies linking sedentary and dietary behavior with burn-out risk suggest that being more sedentary and eating less healthy are each associated with higher burn-out risk. More high-quality research is needed to unravel the causal relationship between these two behaviors and burn-out risk.

This study validated the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and the Context-specific Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (CSBQ) against accelerometry among parents-to-be. Sex-differences in potential misreporting of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) were also investigated. Self-reported total PA (TPA), light-intensity PA (LPA), moderate-intensity PA (MPA), vigorous-intensity PA (VPA), moderate-to-vigorous-intensity PA (MVPA), and SB of 91 parents-to-be (41 men and 50 women) were compared with Actigraph data according to sex. Furthermore, the extent of misreporting was compared between sexes. Strong correlations for TPA and weak-to-moderate correlations for LPA, MPA, VPA, MVPA, and SB were observed. Participants underestimated TPA by 1068 min/week (=17.8 h/week; −50%), LPA by 1593 min/week (=26.6 h/week; −83%), and SB by 428 min/week (=7.1 h/week; −11%) and overestimated MPA by 384 min/week (=6.4 h/week; +176%) and MVPA by 525 min/week (=8.8 h/week; +224%). Males overreported VPA more than females in absolute minutes per week (238 min/week, i.e., 4.0 h/week vs. 62 min/week, i.e., 1.0 h/week), whereas, in relative terms, the opposite (+850% vs. +1033%) was true. The IPAQ and CSBQ can be used with caution to estimate TPA and SB among parents-to-be considering a strong correlation but low agreement for TPA and a weak-to-moderate correlation but acceptable agreement for SB. We disadvise using these self-reports to estimate PA on the distinct intensity levels.

BackgroundDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, schools were closed, teachers had to teach from home and after a while, they had to return to the classroom while the pandemic was still on-going. Even before the pandemic, teachers were already more at risk for burn-out syndrome compared to the general population. Furthermore, not much research pertaining to this population has been carried out during the pandemic and so the impact of the pandemic on teachers' risk of burn-out syndrome and recovery need remains unclear. The aim of the current study was to fill this knowledge gap and map out the impact on risk of burn-out syndrome and recovery need at different time points during the pandemic.Methods and findingsAt baseline, 2,167 secondary school teachers in Flanders were included in this prospective study. Questionnaire data were obtained at ten different time points between September 2019 and August 2021. To assess risk of burn-out syndrome and its dimensions, the Utrecht Burn-out Scale for Teachers was administered. Need for recovery was assessed using questions adopted from the Short Inventory to Monitor Psychosocial Hazards. The results revealed an initial positive effect of the first lockdown (Mar/Apr 2020) with a decrease in risk of burn-out syndrome [Odds ratio (OR) Jan/Feb 2020–Mar/Apr 2020 = 0.33, p < 0.001], emotional exhaustion (EMM Jan/Feb 2020–Mar/Apr 2020 = −0.51, p < 0.001), depersonalization (EMM Jan/Feb 2020–Mar/Apr 2020 = −0.13, p < 0.001) and recovery need [Estimated marginal mean (EMM) Jan/Feb 2020–Mar/Apr 2020 = −0.79, p < 0.001]. No significant effect on personal accomplishment was found (p = 0.410). However, as the pandemic went on, higher risk of burn-out syndrome, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and recovery need, and lower personal accomplishment were observed.ConclusionsDespite the initial positive impact on risk of burn-out syndrome, its dimensions and recovery need, a negative long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic became visible. This study highlights once again the importance for interventions to reduce teachers' risk of burn-out syndrome, especially in such difficult times as a pandemic.