Predictors of burnout among Belgrade veterinary students: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: To the best of our knowledge, studies are lacking on burnout among veterinary students in Serbia, and this is the first study trying to address such a problem. Therefore, the aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the predictors of burnout among Belgrade veterinary students.
METHODS: Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and anonymous structured questionnaire addressed to personal data, health habits and stressful influence of educational process were applied among 496 respondents from a total of 1113 students from all grades in spring semester 2014 (response rate 44.6%).
RESULTS: The prevalence of burnout was 43.3%. High scores on depersonalization and emotional exhaustion scales of MBI were found among 79.4% and 45.0% students, respectively; low personal accomplishment was reported by 50.5% students. Female students reported higher levels of emotional exhaustion compared to males (p = 0.012). A low score on personal achievement scale of MBI was least frequent among the freshmen and most frequent among sophomores (41.1% and 65.3%, respectively; p = 0.986). There were more students with burnout who considered their health as a worsened vs. pre-study period compared to students with no burnout, both concerning mental (61.4% vs. 38.6%) and physical health (61.1% vs. 38.9%; both p<0.001). There were more smokers among students who suffered from burnout compared to students who did not (52.0% vs. 48.0%; p = 0.013). A multiple regression revealed an independent dose-response effect of perceived stress at exams on the onset of burnout (moderate stress OR = 2.164 and high stress OR = 3.878). Also, students with the moderate and high stressful effect of communication with teaching staff, as well as, those with worse self-perceived physical and mental health had more than two times higher presence of burnout.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of burnout among Belgrade veterinary students is relatively high. Primary prevention should be focused on the revealed predictors of burnout.

Introduction

Numerous negative environmental and psychosocial stressors such as excessive academic obligations, lack of free time, constant pressure to succeed, as well as social determinants of health, including low socioeconomic status, social support, neighborhood environments, exposure to violence, and family conflicts, contribute to emerging health disorders among university students [1-3]. Stress in academic institutions may have a positive effect by increasing self-confidence, but on the other hand, it may negatively affect health in the form of distress [4]. Studying veterinary medicine is often associated with prolonged exposure to academic and non-academic stressors such as: heavy workload [5], efforts to maintain high academic performance [6], difficulty fitting in and unclear expectations [7], hazardous alcohol consumption [8], homesickness and poorer perceived physical health [9] and financial stress [10]. Exposure to work-related stress may continue from academic settings to later veterinarian professional career. Burnout has been increasingly reported in academic and university settings [11-14] and studies from various countries have confirmed that veterinary students have a high risk of burnout [15-17]. The basic characteristics of burnout are feelings of emotional and physical exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal job satisfaction [18].

Concerning health professions, the studies on stress among medical students are dominant, while similar studies among veterinary students are lacking [19,20]. Stress can result in a number of physical and psychological changes which in turn can affect the wellbeing and performance of veterinary students; those who come from calm rural areas to hectic cities are particularly under a raised risk of burnout [21].

There are concerns about the difficulty of a demanding curriculum, time dedicated to learning and the amount of information on all animal species that a veterinary student is expected to adopt [22]. New curricula at the majority of European veterinary schools are adapted to the Bologna process in which greater emphasis is on learning by the student, rather than teaching by the teachers [23]. These curricula introduce a more rigorous program that involves constant checking of students' knowledge through colloquiums and seminars. In addition, the students do not feel academically ready for some of the topics in the first year of studies; it causes loss of interest towards the subjects for which they do not have an adequate knowledge [24,25].

Burnout affects professional development; it may cause reduced professional interest, and further degradation of humanitarian attitudes such as empathy [26]. Monitoring of this syndrome is particularly important at the beginning of studies, when typically, the first symptoms occur. Researches on predictors of burnout are very important for planning and implementation of preventive measures and the use of appropriate coping strategies [27].

In spite of a relatively high risk of burnout among veterinary students, studies of burnout among them are infrequent. For this reason, we have undertaken this very first study on burnout and its correlates among veterinary students in Serbia. We hypothesize that the prevalence of burnout among Belgrade veterinary students is very high.

Method

Study design and sample

We performed a cross-sectional study on 496 students (males = 329; 66.3%), of all grades at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Belgrade during the spring semester 2014. They study according to a five-year curriculum adapted to the Bologna system. A student takes one colloquium per semester for each subject, as well as a large number of laboratory exercises and seminars. The response rate was 44.6% (496 respondents from 1113 students). The distribution of respondents according to grade was as follows: 124—first year in school, 108—second year in school, 83—third year in school, 66—fourth year in school and 115—fifth year in school. Students were recruited during their laboratory classes and participation was voluntary. A paper questionnaire was completed at the beginning of a class and the instructions were given by the first author. Prior to filling out the questionnaire, all students provided written informed consent to anonymously participate in the study, as well as, gave permission to researchers for using the data.

The study was performed with the permission of the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade (decision No. 29/III-16).

Study variables

Students completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and an anonymous questionnaire. The Serbian version of MBI is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring burnout, with strong psychometric characteristics of the study instrument, confirmed in a recent Belgrade study [28]. The overall reliability of the scores is sufficient (Cronbach's α = 0.72) with the highest internal consistency value for the scale of emotional exhaustion (Cronbach's α = 0.91) and similar values for depersonalization (DP) and low personal accomplishment (PA). It demonstrates similar reliability to its corresponding original English form, found by Maslach and Jackson [29]. The MBI is a 22-item instrument describing the feelings of a person about his/her job. It consists of three subscales to evaluate each domain of burnout, namely emotional exhaustion (EE), DP and PA [18]. The question “I feel burned out from my work” refers to EE, and the question “I have become more callous toward people since I took this job” is related to DP. “I deal very effectively with the problems of other people” is the question on personal accomplishment [30] Likert scale of seven degrees of the frequency of occurrence of burnout symptoms (0 = never, 1 = a few times a year; 2 = once a month or less; 3 = a few times a month; 4 = once a week; 5 = a few times a week; 6 = every day) is applied in MBI. Scores on each scale can be categorized as low, average or high levels of burnout according to cut-offs detailed in the MBI manual [29]. High EE is defined as scoring ≥27, high DP score is ≥10, and low PA score is ≤33. A person has a burnout if he/she scores high on EE and DP scales [31]. A structured questionnaire included personal data of each student: gender, year of study, number of passed exams, average grade, smoking and drinking habits, physical activity, perceived stressful influence of exams, colloquiums, communication with the teaching staff, contact with the pet owner and field work, self-assessed physical and mental health

Statistical analysis

The sample size calculation is based on previous studies. It is assumed that the prevalence of burnout in veterinary students is 30%. The sample size of 341 is sufficient to produce a 95% confidence interval with a width of 10% (precision is 5%) when the sample proportion is 30%. In our study sample size reached 496 students in total.

All analyses were performed using SPSS 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago IL). Descriptive statistics included count (percent) or mean (standard deviation) depending on the data type. Groups were compared using Pearson chi-square or Cochran-Armitage test for trend for attributive data (nominal and ordinal) and t-test and ANOVA for numerical data. Numerical data were examined for normal distribution. Normal distribution was evaluated using graphical methods (Q-Q plot, histogram, boxplot), descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation and median) and tests for normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov).

Multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the investigated factors that independently correlate with burnout (gender, self-assessed physical and mental health and stressful influence of exams, communication with the teaching staff and field work). The dependent variable was a high combined score on subscales EE and DP of MBI [31]. Independent variables included significant predictors in univariate analysis. Modeling was performed in several steps. First, the enter method [32] was employed. The probability of alpha error less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The majority of students reported high levels of DP (79.4%); about half of them experienced low levels of PA or high levels of EE (50.5% and 45%, respectively) (Table 1). Overall, 43.3% of participants met the criteria for burnout.

Table 1

MBI subscale scores and burnout prevalence by student gender and year of study.

Variables	Emotional exhaustion (EE)		Depersonalization (DP)		Personal accomplishment (PA)		Burnout n (%)
	Mean±SD	high EE score n (%)	Mean±SD	high DP score n (%)	Mean±SD	low PA score n (%)
All (n = 496)	25.60±11.61	223 (45.0)	15.40±6.56	394 (79.4)	32.18±8.50	271 (50.5)	215 (43.3)
Gender
Male (n = 329)	24.67±11.74	141 (42.9)	15.33±6.57	262 (79.6)	32.65±8.74	151 (49.0)	136 (41.3)
Female (n = 167)	27.44±11.16	82 (49.1)	15.56±6.56	132 (79.0)	31.21±7.94	80 (53.7)	79 (47.3)
p value	0.012a	0.186b	0.710a	0.877b	0.090a	0.350b	0.205b
Year of study (n)
I (124)	24.33±11.37	50 (40.3)	15.64±6.44	104 (83.9)	33.70±8.01	46 (41.1)	50 (40.3)
II (108)	26.12±11.24	52 (48.1)	15.81±6.69	84 (77.8)	29.58±9.14	66 (65.3)	51 (47.2)
III (83)	27.53±11.819	41 (49.4)	15.73±7.10	67 (80.7)	32.21±9.09	37 (48.7)	38 (45.8)
IV (66)	24.80±11.96	29 (43.9)	14.09±6.37	47 (71.2)	32.97±7.26	31 (50.8)	26 (39.4)
V (115)	25.57±11.84	51 (44.3)	15.29±6.27	92 (80.0)	32.59±8.21	51 (47.7)	50 (43.5)
p value	0.367c	0.720d	0.486c	0.325d	0.008c	0.986d	0.952d

SD standard deviation; Burnout if high in EE ≥27 and DP ≥10

Post Hoc Test–mean grades: I vs. III p = 0.034; II vs. IV p = 0.007; III vs. IV p = 0.002; IV vs. V p = 0.029

aIndependent Samples T test

bPearson Chi-Square

cANOVA

dChi-Square test for trend (Cochran Armitage test)

There was no significant impact of gender or year of study on the prevalence of burnout. Females more frequently reported higher levels of EE compared to male students. A low PA score was least frequent among freshmen (41.1%) and most frequent among the second year (65.3%) and fourth-year students (50.8%).

There was no statistically significant difference neither in mean grade (p = 0.811) nor in the number of passed exams (p = 0.809), physical activity (p = 0.785) and alcohol consumption (0.104) between the students with and without burnout (Table 2).

Table 2

Academic achievement, health behavior and self-assessed health status with regard to burnout among Belgrade veterinary students.

Variables	Burnout		p value
	No	Yes
Passed exams	21.88±14.21	22.17±14.01	0.809a
Mean grade	8.07±0.66	8.06±0.74	0.811b
Mental health compared to pre-study period, n (%)			<0.001c
No change	150 (73.9)	53 (26.1)
Better	38 (69.1)	17 (30.9)
Worse	91 (38.6)	145 (61.4)
Physical health compared to pre-study period, n (%)			<0.001c
No change	172 (69.4)	76 (30.6)
Better	22 (75.9)	7 (24.1)
Worse	84 (38.9)	132 (61.1)
Smokers, n (%)			0.013c
No	206 (60.1)	137 (39.9)
Yes	71 (48.0)	77 (52.0)
Physical activity, n (%)			0.785c
No	119 (56.9)	90 (43.1)
Yes	147 (55.7)	117 (44.3)
Alcohol consumption, n (%)			0.104c
No	141 (60.5)	92 (39.5)
Yes	139 (53.3)	122 (46.7)

aMann-Whitney U test

bT test

cχ2test

There were more smokers among students who suffered from burnout (52.0%) compared to students who did not (48.0%, p = 0.013). The majority of students with burnout considered their mental and physical health worsened compared to the pre-study period (p = 0.001) (Table 2).

Student’s responses to the perceived stress impact of exams resulted in a highly significant difference in relation to the presence of burnout (p<0.001) (Table 3).

Table 3

Perceived stressful influence of study activities with regard to burnout among Belgrade veterinary students.

Perceived stress	Burnout (No)	Burnout (Yes)	p valuea
Exams, n (%)			<0.001
Absent	17 (85.0)	3 (15.0)
Mild	45 (84.9)	8 (15.1)
Moderate	123 (63.7)	70 (36.3)
High	93 (41.2)	133 (58.8)
Colloquiums, n (%)			<0.001
Absent	78 (78.8)	21 (21.2)
Mild	112 (58.6)	79 (41.4)
Moderate	70 (43.5)	91 (56.5)
High	17 (44.7)	21 (55.3)
Communication with the teaching staff, n (%)			<0.001
Absent	141 (73.1)	52 (26.9)
Mild	89 (53.3)	78 (46.7)
Moderate	33 (37.19)	56 (62.9)
High	14 (33.3)	28 (66.7)
Field work, n (%)			<0.001
Absent	180 (62.3)	109 (37.7)
Mild	56 (48.3)	60 (51.7)
Moderate	13 (48.1)	14 (51.9)
High	9 (40.9)	13 (59.1)
Contact with pet owners, n (%)			<0.001
Absent	186 (63.1)	109 (36.9)
Mild	55 (50.5)	54 (49.5)
Moderate	21 (39.6)	32 (60.4)
High	5 (35.7)	9 (64.3)

aTrend = Mantel–Haenszel chi square test for trend

The highest percentage of students who perceived exams as very stressful was in the group with burnout (58.8%). Also, students with burnout perceived colloquiums, communications with teaching staff and contact with pet owners as more stressful in comparison to students without burnout (Table 3).

Missing value analysis is performed to evaluate missing values in the database. Majority of variables have percent of missing values less than 1%, but variables Passed exams has 24 missings (4.8%), Mean grade 32 (6.5%), MBIPAsum as well as MBIPAlow 39 (7.9%), Physical activity 23 (4.6%), Field work 42 (8.5%) and Contact with animal owners 25 (5.0%). These missing values are assumed to be missing at random.

Multiple regression analysis revealed an independent dose-response effect of perceived stress at exams on the onset of burnout (moderate stress OR = 2.164 and high stress OR = 3.878). Also, students with the moderate and high stressful effects of communication with teaching staff, as well as, those with worse self-perceived physical and mental health had more than two times higher presence of burnout (Table 4).

Table 4

Multiple regression model with the presence of burnout as a dependent variable and perceived stress of academic activities as independent factors.

Variables	OR (95% CI)	p value
Stressful effect of exam
No	1	0.002
Mild	0.894 (0.182–4.400)	0.890
Moderate	2.164 (0.527–8.884)	0.284
High	3.878 (0.944–15.923)	0.060
Stressful effect of communication with teaching staff
No	1	0.014
Mild	1.724 (1.028–2.892)	0.039
Moderate	2.531 (1.339–4.785)	0.004
High	2.690 (1.126–6.427)	0.026
Stressful effect of field work
No	1	0.208
Mild	1.638 (0.976–2.751)	0.062
Moderate	1.875 (0.732–4.804)	0.190
High	1.045 (0.375–2.914)	0.932
Estimated physical health
No change	1	0.003
Better	0.675 (0.252–1.809)	0.434
Worse	2.110 (1.324–3.364)	0.002
Estimated mental health
No change	1	0.005
Better	1.507 (0.688–3.304)	0.306
Worse	2.307 (1.390–3.830)	0.001
Gender (female)	0.708 (0.444–1.129)	0.147

The model reveals that all predictors except gender are significant to predict burnout outcome. Health worsening (physical and mental) significantly favors burnout outcome. Stress- related to examination and communication with teaching stuff category gradation correlates with higher odds for burnout outcome. Stressful effect of fieldwork has a nearly significant relationship (p = 0.062), but only category “mild” vs. no stress at all.

The presented model has explained variability 28.1% (Nagelkerke R square = 0.281) and the model is calibrated (Hosmer and Lemeshow test p = 0.878). Based on the area under the curve, the model has good discriminative power (c = 0.77195%; CI 0.728–0.815; p<0.001).

Discussion

This study investigated the prevalence of burnout and predictors contributing to its experience among Belgrade veterinary students. Our results indicated that 43.3% of participants met the criteria for burnout; this prevalence is higher compared to a recent study among Australian veterinary students [16] where a high risk of burnout was found among 30% of them. A study among UK veterinary students [17] showed that 58% of the respondents reported low self-esteem and/or depression, which may be the predictors for burnout. They also had poorer wellbeing and a higher degree of mental distress in comparison to the general population [17]. The survey conducted among 289 students of the College of Veterinary Medicine in Tennessee, showed much more common symptoms of depression and stress than in the general population [21]. Another US study conducted among first-year veterinary students of Kansas State University College, reported high levels of depression and anxiety, with significant predictors such as poor physical health, difficulty fitting in among colleagues and high academic expectations [33]. These findings are congruent with our results showing that burnout and poor subjectively estimated physical health may be expected in every second veterinary student.

Many studies have confirmed that females are more susceptible to stress and burnout compared to males [21,34,35]. The results of our study showed that there is no significant impact of gender on the prevalence of burnout, although females more frequently reported higher levels of EE compared to male students. The study conducted in California found that living arrangements, specifically whether a student lived on his/her own was associated with burnout, which suggests that veterinary students may benefit from being a part of a support system whether in a community or at the university [15]. Perhaps the causes of stress should be sought more in the course of their studies. This means that students should better connect with colleagues, mentors and support staff to overcome homesickness. By sponsoring sports events aimed at improving physical health, it would also have a positive effect on students' mental functioning. By providing adequate resources for problem-solving and developing collective empathy, the prejudices associated with seeking help for mental health would be overcome [33].

In our study, the highest mean value of the EE scale was observed in the third year of study when the curriculum is the most comprehensive and when clinical subjects begin. In most veterinary programs, students of the first year do not start clinical rotations and are not exposed to stressors related to clinical work, such as dissatisfied clients, death of pets or diagnostic errors [36]. Adequate mechanisms are needed to help veterinary students to cope with the stress that is more intense and cumulative in higher studies, especially in the third year, which is most stressful given the greater clinical responsibility that students assume, the possible subsequent diagnostic errors, and the death of the patients they encounter [36]. Veterinary students experience psychological and physiological changes during their education due to perceived poor physical health, unclear expectations, difficulties in fitting in and heavy workload. The highest anxiety and depression among US students were found in their second and third year of studying [7]. In our research, the percentage of students with burnout was the highest among sophomores.

Our result of poorer self-estimated physical and mental health in the group of students with burnout compared to the group without burnout has been confirmed as well as in the other studies like a predictor of anxiety and depression in veterinary students [7,33].

Health-related habits such as exercise could play important roles in the mediation between psychological distress and coping styles influencing mental health [37]. Reduced physical activity could be associated with stress among university students [38]. Our results showed no statistically significant differences in physical activity between the students with burnout and without it. Maybe the explanation is in the extremely heavy workload which does not leave students enough free time for physical activity beside rest and sleep [39]. In accordance with the latest recommendations of the Center for Disease Control on the benefits of physical activity for psychological health, it is certainly necessary to encourage students to exercise on a regular basis in order to overcome stress and improve their health [39].

Regarding other aspects of health habits, smoking was more frequent among students with burnout compared to students without it (p = 0.013). Our results on healthy habits support the findings of similar studies indicating the connection between smoking and alcohol consumption with stress [31], but more detailed research to determine this connection is needed. The explanation of this link could be found in the fact that healthcare practitioners are often exposed to a burden of duties and responsibilities at work and use tobacco and alcohol as legal ways of relaxing [40].

There are evidence that major predictors of academic burnout are: the absence of free time, fear of failure, lack of help and support, uncertain future, big pressure due to exams, bad financial situation as well as stressful contacts with patients [41]. Research among medical students showed that stress related to exams, but not to colloquiums and other teaching activities was an important predictor of burnout [42-44]. In our study, both exams, colloquiums, communications with teaching staff and contacts with pet owners were stressful for veterinary students. Finally, the perceived stress at the exams remained as an independent correlate of students’ burnout in a multivariate analysis.

The study conducted in Australia determined that students of veterinary medicine also seem to suffer from high levels of anxiety and stress and have inadequate strategies for coping with adversity [25]. Modifying the curriculum at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, which includes lectures on skills for overcoming stress and stressful situations, may enable future veterinarians to improve their skills in the workplace and their mental health, which would contribute to a higher satisfaction at their workplace. The integration of communication and coping skills and leadership, within education in the curricula of veterinary schools may improve the present situation [45,46]. On-line learning resources [47] together with online tutoring support [48] can incorporate student-centered learning in basic subjects which can help students to overcome stress. Communication skills can also be effectively taught in experimental learning, discussions, and feedback through role-play in small groups of students using simulated clients and trained facilitators [49].

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on burnout and its correlates among veterinary students in Serbia. A variety of different academic and non-academic stressors, such as heavy workload, fitting in with peers, rigorous academic requirements, home sickness, relationship difficulties, and financial strains are common to university students. Thus, the results of our research may be generalized to veterinary students worldwide. However, several limitations should be mentioned. First, the use of cross-sectional design does not allow a causal relationship to be determined among variables. Second, the information on all variables had been self-reported and may have been subject to recall bias. Third, a limitation of the study may be the selection bias because students affected by burnout may be more willing to participate as suggested by other burnout scales not used in our study. Fourth, burnout in the workplace may be also related to administrative policy/procedure that was not measured in our study. Fifth, Serbian students and their families due to a turbulent recent history of heavy economic crisis and war may have improved their resilience to stress compared to the veterinary students from other European regions. Furthermore, resilience, grit and other measures of improved mental wellbeing were not explored in this study, nor the concept of comparing highly and poorly resilient people and their predisposition (or not) to burnout.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding all previously mentioned limitations, our study shows that the prevalence of burnout among Belgrade veterinary students is relatively high. In univariate analysis the main correlates of students’ burnout are female gender, smoking, poor subjectively estimated physical and mental health and perceived stress from academic activities. In a multiple regression analysis, the independent dose-response effect on the onset of burnout remained only for perceived stress at the exams.

The study results indicate that it is possible to determine proneness to burnout among veterinary students. There are some future considerations concerning curriculum adjustment or a different time planning of colloquiums that can leave more time to relax and lower the risk of burnout. The ntroduction of peer support and culture of acceptance and hospitality may be helpful for students’ better adjustment.

30 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-32894

Predictors of burnout among Belgrade veterinary students: a cross-sectional study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Janković,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Two reviewers have assessed your work. Although one of them advises against the consideration of your paper, I would like to say that after a careful review of the manuscript, I believe (also based in the comments provided by the second reviewer) that the work has a certain potential and could be revised by the authors. Thus, based in the comments/suggestions provided by this reviewer, please consider performing an extensive revision of the paper. Afterwards, I will submit it for and a second evaluation from two academic reviewers.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 15 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent.

In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified what type of consent you obtained (for instance, written or verbal) and whether the ethics committee approved this consent procedure.

If verbal consent was obtained please state why it was not possible to obtain written consent and how verbal consent was recorded. If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: this is not an appropriate journal for this type of study. A veterinary or mainstream education journal would be more appropriate. It seems silly for me to keep writing to ensure that minimum characters are met before I can submit this review!!!! PLoS One needs a better system to avoid discouraging reviewers.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. It is an important addition to the veterinary and mental health literature. Please consider these comments for improvement and clarity.

Line 47: "walkability" is not a commonly used English word and does not transmit a known stressor.

Line 49: "eustress" is spot-on but uncommonly used. You may consider defining it or selecting a more common word to indicate your intent.

Line 78: This is the Knowledge Gap and can be more accurate if "still lacking" was changed to "infrequent".

Line 80: This is the Hypothesis and is somewhat vague due to the suggestion that "prevalence...is significant". The remainder of that sentence is not needed as you are not testing interventions.

Line 90 and 91: perhaps changing the word "grade" to "year in school" may be more appropriate.

Line 101: The Belgrade study should be referenced. Is this #28?

Line 105: Should ref #28 here be ref #30? If so, some rearrangement of reference order is needed.

Line 108: Should ref #13 here be ref #18?

Line 121L Statistical analysis: The deficiencies here should be addressed to better understand and clarify your approach. A power calculation was not completed or reported and tests for normality were not mentioned. You have chosen parametric statistics but never indicated proof that your data was normally distributed.

Line 137: Table 1: There are some inconsistencies which make interpretation very questionable. For instance: the number of male (325) and female (165) participants do not equal the total of all genders (496). Also similarly, the number of male (134) and female (79) participants do not equal the total of all genders (215) with burnout. Many of the N and percentages do not match, therefore, please review and revise all the data in this Table. Without that detail, there is too much inconsistency to believe your data and conclusions.

Line 139:Improvement to remind the reader that >= 27 for EE and >=10 for DP are your cut-offs for burnout. "High" is relative and the level at which you analyzed your data and made your interpretations must be crystal clear.

Line 141: "Cocarame" should be "Cochran"

Line 144: Again, relative relationships must be avoided in Results and are better left to the Conclusions. Please provide specific data instead of "low" PA score. This should be the pattern throughout.

Line 154: Please insert a comma between the parameter and "n (%)" throughout this table. Ensure that the "n" is always present. Also in Table 2 and Table 3, the p value is not always clearly indicating which parameters it is comparing. Do you only provide the statistically significant data for the parameter that meets significance? Sometimes the p value appears to be on a specific line and other times it appears to split the line spacing.

Line 177&178: This seems to be a nonsequitor. Perhaps it is the right sentiment but needs more explanation to clarify to the reader.

Line 187: This study from Tennessee ("College" of Veterinary Medicine, not "Faculty") had 289 students not 389 as written. Also, there are contradictory versions of this study depending on the link followed from pubmed - one abstract is the Tennessee description. Another one follows a report from Oregon State University. Please be sure of your reference and trail of information.

Line 189: "Faculty" should read "Kansas State Univeristy College"

Line 200: Ref 33 may suggest investigation into the causes of stress in a students studies or implementation of programs to reduce the stressors is needed - which is it you seek in this line? Please clarify and allow for completion of your thought in this paragraph.

Line 207: This is not a study of veterinary students, please amend as it implies that this is known in DVMs but it is not.

Line 224: The comment "(borderline significance)" is incorrect. Data is either significant upon your predetermined criteria and level or it is not. Amend this, please.

Line 251: The limitations can be improved overall. There are many limitations that were not nor are not measured in your study that may contribute to burnout. You may mention other burnout scales or references that suggest those with burnout are more apt to complete the survey. The mention of the recent war in Serbia could also be viewed to improve resilience and not to lowered their ability to cope. You do not mention resilience, grit, or other measures of improved mental wellbeing anywhere in your manuscript. The limitations may be a good place to introduce that concept as you were not, at the outset, looking to compare highly and poorly resilient people and their predisposition (or not) to burnout. Also recent publications that discuss burnout in the workplace that may be most related to administrative policy/procedure and not work load could be mentioned.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Karl E Jandrey

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

23 Feb 2020

Response to the Reviewer’s Comments

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. It is an important addition to the veterinary and mental health literature. Please consider these comments for improvement and clarity.

We want to extend our appreciation for reviewer#2 taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance. We carefully considered your comments and hope that these revisions improve the manuscript such that you now deem it worthy of publication in PLOS ONE. All our responses are highlighted in yellow.

COMMENTS

Reviewer: Line 47, "walkability" is not a commonly used English word and does not transmit a known stressor.

RESPONSE: The word "walkability" was deleted.

Reviewer: Line 49, "eustress" is spot-on but uncommonly used. You may consider defining it or selecting a more common word to indicate your intent.

RESPONSE: The word "eustress" was replaced with “Stress in academic institutions may have a positive effect by increasing self-confidence “.

Reviewer: Line 78, This is the Knowledge Gap and can be more accurate if "still lacking" was changed to "infrequent".

RESPONSE: The phrase "still lacking" was replaced with “infrequent “.

Reviewer: Line 80, This is the Hypothesis and is somewhat vague due to the suggestion that "prevalence...is significant". The remainder of that sentence is not needed as you are not testing interventions.

RESPONSE: The sentence "prevalence...is significant" was changed into "prevalence...is very high" and the remainder of that sentence is deleted.

Reviewer: Line 90 and 91, perhaps changing the word "grade" to "year in school" may be more appropriate.

RESPONSE: The word "grade" was changed in "year in school" which is more appropriate.

Reviewer: Line 101, The Belgrade study should be referenced. Is this #28?

RESPONSE: The Belgrade study is referenced as 28.

Reviewer: Line 105, Should ref #28 here be ref #30? If so, some rearrangement of reference order is needed.

RESPONSE: The ref #28 is changed into ref #29 (ex ref#30) and we made rearrangement of the reference order.

Reviewer: Line 108, Should ref #13 here be ref #18?

RESPONSE: The ref #13 is #18, as we changed.

Reviewer: Line 121, Statistical analysis: The deficiencies here should be addressed to better understand and clarify your approach. A power calculation was not completed or reported and tests for normality were not mentioned. You have chosen parametric statistics but never indicated proof that your data was normally distributed.

RESPONSE: In methods section, Statistical analysis, explanation regarding normality of data is added to clarify chosen tests. Sample size calculation is, also, added into statistical methodology.

The following is added: “Sample size calculation is based on previous studies. It is assumed that prevalence of burnout in veterinary students is 30%. Sample size of 341 is sufficient to produce 95% confidence interval with a width of 10% (precision is 5%) when the sample proportion is 30%. In our study sample size reached 496 students in total. Numerical data were examined for normal distribution. Normal distribution was evaluated using graphical methods (Q-Q plot, histogram, boxplot), descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation and median) and tests for normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov). “

Reviewer: Line 137, Table 1: There are some inconsistencies which make interpretation very questionable. For instance: the number of male (325) and female (165) participants do not equal the total of all genders (496). Also, similarly, the number of male (134) and female (79) participants do not equal the total of all genders (215) with burnout. Many of the N and percentages do not match, therefore, please review and revise all the data in this Table. Without that detail, there is too much inconsistency to believe your data and conclusions.

RESPONSE: The database was revised and several inconsistencies about data were found (those participants with missing values on Maslach Burnout Inventory were extracted from the database). Consequently, statistical analysis was performed again and changes were made regarding data in all tables. In Results section, new tables are presented instead of the old ones. No significant changes have been observed in new tables, but these tables are consistent and more accurate compared to the old ones.

Still, missing values exists in database as expected in anonymous questionnaires.

Missing value analysis is performed to evaluate missing values in database. Majority of variables have percent of missing values less than 1%, but variables Passed exams has 24 missing (4.8%), Mean grade 32 (6.5%), MBIPAsum as well as MBIPA.low 39 (7.9%), Physical activity 23 (4.6%), Field work 42 (8.5%) and Contact with animal owners 25 (5.0%). These missing values are assumed to be missing at random. The missing value analysis report is added to Results section.

Reviewer: Line 139, Improvement to remind the reader that >= 27 for EE and >=10 for DP are your cut-offs for burnout. "High" is relative and the level at which you analyzed your data and made your interpretations must be crystal clear.

RESPONSE: It was added as suggested to remind the reader that >= 27 for EE and >=10 for DP are cut-offs for burnout.

Reviewer: Line 141, "Cocarame" should be "Cochran"

RESPONSE: We changed "Cocarame" in "Cochran".

Reviewer: Line 144, Again, relative relationships must be avoided in Results and are better left to the Conclusions. Please provide specific data instead of "low" PA score. This should be the pattern throughout.

RESPONSE: We have provided specific data for the required parameters throughout the Results section.

"A low PA score was least frequent among freshmen (41.1%) and most frequent among second year (65.3%) and fourth year students (50.8%)….."

Reviewer: Line 154, Please insert a comma between the parameter and "n (%)" throughout this table. Ensure that the "n" is always present. Also in Table 2 and Table 3, the p value is not always clearly indicating which parameters it is comparing. Do you only provide the statistically significant data for the parameter that meets significance? Sometimes the p value appears to be on a specific line and other times it appears to split the line spacing.

RESPONSE: A comma is inserted between the parameter and n (%) in Table 2 and "n" is always present. We added new tables instead of the old ones. We have arranged Table 2 and Table 3 so that the p value clearly indicates which parameter it is comparing. We provided the statistically significant data for all parameters, not only for those that meet significance.

Reviewer: Line 177 & 178, This seems to be a nonsequitor. Perhaps it is the right sentiment but needs more explanation to clarify to the reader.

RESPONSE: Explanation was added.

Reviewer: Line 187, This study from Tennessee ("College" of Veterinary Medicine, not "Faculty") had 289 students not 389 as written. Also, there are contradictory versions of this study depending on the link followed from pubmed - one abstract is the Tennessee description. Another one follows a report from Oregon State University. Please be sure of your reference and trail of information.

RESPONSE: Thanks for your observation. All suggested changes were made and the reference was checked.

Reviewer: Line 189, Faculty" should read "Kansas State Univeristy College"

RESPONSE: We changed "Faculty" with "Kansas State University College".

Reviewer: Line 200, Ref 33 may suggest investigation into the causes of stress in a students studies or implementation of programs to reduce the stressors is needed - which is it you seek in this line? Please clarify and allow for completion of your thought in this paragraph.

RESPONSE: We clarified ref 33. “This means that students should better connect with colleagues, mentors and support staff to overcome homesickness. By sponsoring sports events aimed at improving physical health, it would also have a positive effect on students' mental functioning. By providing adequate resources for problem solving and developing collective empathy, the prejudices associated with seeking help for mental health would be overcome “.

Reviewer: Line 207, This is not a study of veterinary students, please amend as it implies that this is known in DVMs but it is not.

RESPONSE: The text refers to ref 36, not 37, and it was revised.

Reviewer: Line 224, The comment "(borderline significance)" is incorrect. Data is either significant upon your predetermined criteria and level or it is not. Amend this, please.

RESPONSE: We added the p value for smoking habits and deleted "(borderline significance)". It seems that alcohol consumption was not significant (p=0.104) in terms of new statistical analyses so we deleted it also.

"Regarding other aspects of health habits, smoking was more frequent among students with burnout compared to students without it (p = 0.013). "

Reviewer: Line 251, The limitations can be improved overall. There are many limitations that were not nor are not measured in your study that may contribute to burnout. You may mention other burnout scales or references that suggest those with burnout are more apt to complete the survey. The mention of the recent war in Serbia could also be viewed to improve resilience and not to lowered their ability to cope. You do not mention resilience, grit, or other measures of improved mental wellbeing anywhere in your manuscript. The limitations may be a good place to introduce that concept as you were not, at the outset, looking to compare highly and poorly resilient people and their predisposition (or not) to burnout. Also recent publications that discuss burnout in the workplace that may be most related to administrative policy/procedure and not work load could be mentioned.

RESPONSE: The limitations were revised and improved.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Mar 2020

Predictors of burnout among Belgrade veterinary students: a cross-sectional study

PONE-D-19-32894R1

Dear Dr. Janković,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for carefully re-evaluating your data and updating the manuscript in a more clear and understandable condition. There are aa few very minor language irregularities in some of the newer text which the editor will likely catch and amend. The concept and information you have presented is in a publishable stage.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Karl Jandrey, DVM, MAS, DACVECC

11 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-32894R1

Predictors of burnout among Belgrade veterinary students: a cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Janković:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sergio A. Useche

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE