Burnout and well-being among Thai medical educators: a national survey by psychiatric speciality

Introduction to the research questionOccupational burnout is a major challenge in medical education, where faculty members must balance heavy clinical loads with teaching demands. Chronic stress in this environment often leads to exhaustion and psychological strain. While many assume that psychiatric training provides professionals with better coping skills and emotional resilience, there is little empirical evidence to confirm this in an academic setting. Understanding how burnout manifests differently across specialities is key to creating effective support systems within medical schools to ensure the sustainability of the academic workforce.

Aims

This national survey aimed to determine burnout prevalence and identify associated factors among Thai medical educators. Specifically, the study sought to compare burnout levels and psychological well-being between psychiatrists and other medical specialists.

Methods

A national cross-sectional online survey of 506 Thai medical educators was conducted between May and September 2025. Burnout was assessed using the Thai version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (T-CBI), covering personal, work-related, and client-related domains. Well-being was measured via the Thai version of the PERMA (Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment) Profiler. Socio-demographic and occupational data were also systematically collected. Data were analysed using multivariable ordinal logistic regression to identify independent predictors, reporting adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Summary of resultsAmong 506 participants (57% female, 17% psychiatrists), 30% reported moderate-to-high burnout. Excessive overtime was a risk factor for overall burnout (aOR 2.31, 95% CI 1.05–5.06, p = 0.037). Mid-career educators with 5–9 years of experience faced a significantly higher risk of total burnout (aOR 1.81, 95% CI 1.03–3.16, p = 0.030) and personal burnout (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.07–3.04, p = 0.028). Geographically, working outside Bangkok (aOR 1.72, 95% CI 1.01–2.96, p = 0.047) and in affiliated teaching hospitals (aOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.12–3.70, p = 0.020) predicted higher client-related burnout. Interestingly, clinical-track educators reported lower work-related burnout (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27–0.96, p = 0.036) than preclinical faculty. High global well-being scores strongly predicted lower burnout (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59–0.90, p = 0.004). While psychiatrists showed significantly lower work-related burnout (crude OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37–0.99, p = 0.045), their well-being scores did not differ from other groups (Median 7.13 vs 7.06, p = 0.721).

ConclusionsBurnout is prevalent among Thai medical educators, driven largely by workload and institutional factors. The higher risk in the 5–9 year group suggests a ‘vulnerability window’ as administrative and academic responsibilities peak during mid-career. Meanwhile, the lower burnout in clinical settings may stem from the meaning-making effect of direct patient care, which potentially buffers against exhaustion compared to purely preclinical roles. Although psychiatrists demonstrate specific resilience against work-related burnout, the lack of difference in well-being scores highlights that professional expertise does not shield one from systemic stress. Interventions must focus on workload reduction and targeted support for regional and preclinical faculty, ultimately fostering a healthier academic environment.

References

No references