Assessment of stress among pharmacy educators: Validation of the faculty stress index and 2-year cross-sectional follow-up in a Lebanese pharmacy school

Abstract

Background: Exploring faculty stress and coping strategies among pharmacy educators has not been previously addressed among Lebanese pharmacy schools. The study’s aim was to validate the Faculty Stress Index (FSI) among pharmacy educators and to assess stress and coping strategies in a school of pharmacy in Lebanon. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a self-administered web-based questionnaire. Results: The FSI structure was validated with factor analysis. All items had good factor loading that ranged from 0.561 to 0.926. All models were verified to be adequate with satisfactory KMO measures of sampling adequacy and a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity with p < 0.001. FSI reliability was confirmed by the very good to excellent Cronbach’s alpha values for each stress area that ranged from 0.851 to 0.972. Faculty members had mean total stress scores of 129.43 (±56.90) and 115.59 (±57.34) over 2 academic years, respectively, with higher scores indicating more stress. The greatest stress areas were Time Constraint and Satisfaction with Online Courses. Spending time with family, spirituality, and getting enough sleep were the stress coping strategies considered by the majority of faculty members. Conclusion: This study provided a watchful apprehension of stress levels and key areas precipitating stress among pharmacy educators.

Associations between perceived occupational stressors and symptoms severity of depression, anxiety and stress among academic faculty: First cross-sectional study from Qatar

“…On another end, the perceived stress by faculty due to each of student interaction and professional identity domains received almost one third of the scores for time constraint and about half of the scores for reward and recognition domain. Furthermore, the departmental interaction domain perceived stress scored the least among the five FSI domains, and observations on these three domains deviate from other published data [ 35 ]. For instance, student interaction was perceived to cause highest stress levels among faculty in KSA, according to the findings of Iqbal and Colleagues [ 31 ].…”

“…Exploring occupational stressors of faculty using FSI showed a mean FSI score of 48.8, in stark difference with higher values reported using the same measure in other studies from that tackled public [ 53 ] and private institutions [ 35 ]. Further, multiple factors contribute to faculty stress, as shown by the FSI domains.…”

“…The third section of the survey included the FSI to evaluate perceived stress in academic settings considering different faculty roles, as previously described [ 31 , 34 , 35 ]. Briefly, 28 statements were used to measure the five domains of this instrument: reward and recognition domain was measured by 7 items, time constraint by 10, departmental influence by 3, professional identity by 3, and student interaction by 5.…”

“…To capture these different responsibilities, the FSI measures five domains of perceived faculty stress: (i) reward and recognition domain, which pertains to rewarding external expectations for community and university services; (ii) time constraints domain, which confronts the number of tasks faculty members usually incorporate within their professional lives, including general duties such as paperwork, meetings, phone and visitor interruptions, and sufficient time for professional development, teaching, and services; (iii) departmental influence domain, which focuses on the extent to which faculty perceive their department as controlling over their work or the level of autonomy they have within their departmental facets, such as resolving differences, knowing evaluative criteria, and influencing decisions at departmental/ institutional levels; (iv) professional identity domain, which refers to reputation as a scholar and capability of setting and achieving professional goals, and is established on the basis of publications, presentations at professional meetings, and acquiring research grants; and (v) student interaction domain, which considers classroom instruction, course preparation, test administration, and advising [ 33 , 34 ]. Moreover, the FSI has been recently validated, and showed good internal consistency and reliability as an instrument useful to measure stress among faculty members [ 35 ].…”