Occupational Burnout Prevalence and Its Determinants Among Physical Education Teachers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burnout can be defined as an occupational syndrome resulting from poorly managed chronic workplace stress. It is characterized by three dimensions: feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion; increased mental distance from one's job, or feelings of negativism or cynicism related to one's job; and reduced professional efficacy. Teachers are among the human service professionals particularly vulnerable to occupational burnout. Teaching is a highly demanding and challenging task, in that requires constant confrontation with different stakeholders (students and their parents, administrators). Among teachers, physical education teachers have been particularly understudied even though a recently published systematic review has found that they are exposed to high levels of stress. To better explore burnout syndrome among physical education teachers, the present systematic review was undertaken, searching up to six languages. Fifty-six studies were included in the present review. The reported rate of high emotional exhaustion ranged from 11.52 to 60.6%, according to the single study. Pooling together 12 studies and totaling 2,153 physical education teachers, the prevalence rate of high emotional exhaustion was computed to be 28.6 [95% CI 21.9–35.8]. The reported rate of high depersonalization ranged from 3.6 to 45.2%, according to the single study. Pooling together 11 studies and totaling 2,113 physical education teachers, the prevalence rate of high depersonalization was computed to be 14.5% [95% CI 8.0–22.4]. The reported rate of low personal accomplishment ranged from 13.63 to 55.6%, according to the single study. Pooling together 12 studies and totaling 2,153 physical education teachers, the prevalence rate of low personal accomplishment was computed to be 29.5% [95% CI 23.8–35.4]. The reported rate of overall burnout ranged from 10.0 to 51.6%, according to the single study. Pooling together 7 studies and totaling 1,101 physical education teachers, the prevalence rate of overall burnout was computed to be 23.9% [95% CI 13.6–36.0]. No evidence of publication bias could be found, both visually inspecting the funnel plot and conducting the Egger's linear regression test. Burnout imposes a significant burden among physical education teachers. Based on the information contained in the present systematic review and meta-analysis, tailored interventions could be designed to mitigate such a burden. However, due to the limitations of the studies included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis, further research in the field is urgently warranted. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/69ryu/ , identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/69RYU.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".