Skip to main content
. 2024 Mar 19;60(3):499. doi: 10.3390/medicina60030499

Table 2.

The distribution of social–demographic and social–economic characteristics of the participants in relation to the presence of workplace burnout syndrome.

Variables Has Workplace Burnout Syndrome
(n = 290)
Does Not Have Workplace Burnout Syndrome
(n = 201)
p-Value
Gender, n (%)
Male 28 (9.7%) 32 (15.9%) 0.037
Female 262 (90.3%) 169 (84.1%)
Age, am ± SD 46.8 ± 9.7 44.6 ± 11.0 0.021
Age categories, n (%)
20–30 24 (8.3%) 24 (11.9%) 0.029
31–40 45 (15.5%) 55 (27.4%)
41–50 111 (38.3%) 53 (26.4%)
51–60 93 (32.1%) 54 (26.9%)
over 60 17 (5.9%) 15 (7.5%)
Residence, n (%)
City 251 (86.6%) 179 (89.1%) 0.408
Country 39 (13.4%) 22 (10.9%)
Marital status, n (%)
Married 85 (29.3%) 73 (36.3%) 0.145
Single 134 (46.2%) 96 (47.8%)
Divorced 43 (14.8%) 19 (9.5%)
Widowed 15 (5.2%) 9 (4.5%)
Other 13 (4.5%) 4 (2.0%)
Education, n (%)
High School 156 (53.8%) 77 (38.3%) 0.002
College 41 (14.1%) 43 (21.4%)
Specialist studies/vocational 19 (6.6%) 11 (5.5%)
BSc/BA, MSc/MA, PhD 74 (25.5%) 70 (34.8%)
Пoтoмствo, n (%) 223 (76.9%) 138 (68.7%) 0.042
Children in family, median (range) 2 (0–5) 1 (0–4) 0.142
Family members, median (range) 4 (1–8) 4 (1–12) 0.549
Homeowner, n (%) 209 (72.1%) 139 (69.2%) 0.485
Sole provider, n (%) 123 (42.4%) 71 (35.3%) 0.114
Self-assessment of monthly income, n (%)
Very bad 23 (7.9%) 4 (2%) <0.001
Bad 60 (20.7%) 29 (14.4%)
Average 165 (5.9%) 122 (60.7%)
Good 39 (13.4%) 41 (20.4%)
Very good 3 (1%) 5 (2.5%)