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

Table 3.

The distribution of work environment of the participants in relation to the presence of workplace burnout syndrome.

Variables Has WBS (n = 290) Does Not Have WBS (n = 201) p-Value
Institutions, n (%)
Šekspirova 77 (26.6%) 53 (26.4%) 0.057
Zvečanska 92 (31.7%) 76 (37.8%)
Sremčica 30 (10.3%) 8 (4%)
Beograd 91 (31.4%) 64 (31.8%)
Occupation, n (%)
Healthcare worker 119 (41%) 85 (42.3%) 0.114
Expert worker 83 (28.6%) 71 (35.3%)
Professional associate 24 (8.3%) 17 (8.5%)
Associate 64 (22.1%) 28 (13.9%)
Work experience in the field, median (range) 17 (3–40) 14 (3–41) 0.032
Time spent in current position, median (range) 13.0 (2–40) 11 (2–41) 0.111
Overtime, n (%) 106 (36.6%) 48 (23.9%) 0.003
Shifts work, n (%) 209 (72.1%) 144 (71.6%) 0.918
Management position, n (%) 31 (10.7%) 30 (14.9%) 0.162
Sufficient resources, n (%) 151 (52.1%) 148 (73.6%) <0.001
Spacious and pleasant rooms, n (%) 164 (56.6%) 161 (80.1%) <0.001
Commuting, n (%)
Up to 30 min 83 (28.6%) 66 (32.8%) 0.282
30–60 min 110 (37.9%) 75 (37.3%)
>60 min 97 (33.4%) 60 (29.9%)
Means of transport, n (%)
Public 216 (74.5%) 152 (75.6%) 0.958
Car 57 (19.7%) 38 (18.9%)
Cycling/on foot 17 (5.9%) 11 (5.5%)