Scholarlink

<p> The purpose of this study was to identify burnout risk profiles of university students from a Dutch university using burnout primary (i.e., exhaustion, mental distance, cognitive and emotional impairment) and secondary symptoms (i.e., psychological distress and psychosomatic complaints). A cluster analysis revealed four profiles: <i>No risk</i> (27.4%), <i>Low risk</i> (26.7%), <i>High risk on secondary symptoms</i> (27.8%), and <i>High risk</i> (18.1%). The first cluster showed no likelihood of burnout complaints. The low risk profile was at low risk of experiencing burnout symptoms. The third group was at heightened risk of showing secondary symptoms. The high risk cluster was at high risk of experiencing all burnout complaints. Group difference analyses revealed that high risk students reported greater frustration and lower satisfaction of the psychological needs than the other groups. In the no risk cluster, a higher percentage of male and Dutch students was found. Instead, a more female and international students were detected in the high risk on secondary symptoms profile. Our findings shed light on the importance of providing interventions that take into account the varying degrees of burnout risk for primary and secondary symptoms as well as the needs and challenges faced by different student populations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Burnout Risk Profiles Among University Students: Exploring Burnout Configurations Using a Person-Oriented Approach

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月9日

查看全文
  • Piermarco Consiglio,
  • Marjon Fokkens-Bruinsma,
  • Ellen P. W. A. Jansen,
  • Joke Fleer

摘要

The purpose of this study was to identify burnout risk profiles of university students from a Dutch university using burnout primary (i.e., exhaustion, mental distance, cognitive and emotional impairment) and secondary symptoms (i.e., psychological distress and psychosomatic complaints). A cluster analysis revealed four profiles: No risk (27.4%), Low risk (26.7%), High risk on secondary symptoms (27.8%), and High risk (18.1%). The first cluster showed no likelihood of burnout complaints. The low risk profile was at low risk of experiencing burnout symptoms. The third group was at heightened risk of showing secondary symptoms. The high risk cluster was at high risk of experiencing all burnout complaints. Group difference analyses revealed that high risk students reported greater frustration and lower satisfaction of the psychological needs than the other groups. In the no risk cluster, a higher percentage of male and Dutch students was found. Instead, a more female and international students were detected in the high risk on secondary symptoms profile. Our findings shed light on the importance of providing interventions that take into account the varying degrees of burnout risk for primary and secondary symptoms as well as the needs and challenges faced by different student populations.