Thai psychiatrists and burnout: A national survey.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the prevalence and factors that contribute to burnout among Thai psychiatrists.
BACKGROUND: The practice of psychiatry can lead to emotional fatigue. As rates of emotional illness in Thailand continue to climb, increasing demands are placed on a limited number of psychiatrists. This can lead to burnout, and multiple negative physical and mental health outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic questionnaires were sent to all 882 Thai psychiatrists and residents via a private social media group managed by the Psychiatric Association of Thailand. The questionnaire included demographic data, the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Proactive Coping Inventory, and questions about strategies that Thai psychiatrists believed reduce/prevent burnout.
RESULTS: Questionnaires were sent and 227 (25.7%) responded. According to MBI, 112 (49.3%) of respondents reported high level of emotional exhaustion, and 60 (26.4%) had a high level of depersonalization. Nearly all respondents (99.6%) maintained a high level of personal accomplishment. Working more than 50 hours per week (p = 0.003) and more patients per day (p = 0.20) were associated with higher levels of burnout. Feeling satisfied with work (p<0.001) and having a good support system from family (p = 0.027) and colleagues (p = 0.033) were associated with lower levels of burnout. The coping mechanisms related to lower levels of burnout included more emotional support seeking (p = 0.005), more proactive coping (p = 0.047), and less avoidance (p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a previous study on burnout among Thai psychiatrists in 2011, in this study, the prevalence of high levels of burnout had increased dramatically from 17.1% to 49.3%. An intervention to decrease workload, strengthen social support and encourage proactive coping mechanisms may be beneficial for relieving burnout.

Introduction

Burnout is a syndrome of emotional exhaustion (feelings of mental fatigue and a lack of positive energy), depersonalization (negative attitudes toward work and patients), and a negative view of personal accomplishment (dissatisfied feelings about self-efficacy) [1]. Burnout may have physical, mental and occupational consequences. Physical effects of burnout include metabolic syndromes, chronic somatic symptoms, severe injuries and mortality under the age of 45 years [2]. Mental health outcomes include insomnia, depressive symptoms, the use of psychotropic medications and even hospitalization [2, 3]. Burnout can result in job dissatisfaction and career deterioration [2].

Psychiatrists have daily interactions with mentally ill patients and are at high risk of burnout [3]. A 2011 national survey of Thai psychiatrists demonstrated that nearly half (44.7%) of the respondents had moderate to high levels of burnout [4], which was consistent with findings from other countries. Multiple studies have reported high levels of emotional exhaustion in psychiatrists from New Zealand, Finland, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States [5-9], whereas Psychiatrists from Japan, Austria, Italy and Germany experience low to moderate levels of emotional exhaustion [9, 10].

Factors associated with burnout among psychiatrists include the lack of support systems, the negative characteristics of patients and their relatives, suicidal death in their patients, long working hours, limited experience in the field, and excessive workload [11]. In contrast, factors associated with job satisfaction include work autonomy, supportive environments, and being valued [11].

Coping mechanisms are the strategies that people use to manage their stress [12]. While traditional, reactive conceptions of coping mechanisms focus on dealing with preexisting stress, proactive coping mechanisms emphasize anticipating potential stress and planning to prevent undesirable outcomes of the situation [13]. Proactive coping mechanisms are associated with a low level of burnout [14]. Therefore, we aimed to explore burnout, factors associated with burnout and the relationship between coping style and burnout in Thai psychiatrists.

Materials and methods

Respondents and procedure

In June 2018 online questionnaires were sent to all 882 Thai psychiatrists and psychiatric residents via a closed social media group operated by the Psychiatric Association of Thailand. Participation in the study was voluntary, anonymous and no financial or other incentives were provided. The Siriraj Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol (Certificate of Approval Number: Si 333/2018).

Questionnaire

The questionnaire comprised four domains: (1) sociodemographic data and job satisfaction, (2) burnout, (3) coping mechanisms, and (4) strategies that Thai psychiatrists believed could help reduce their burnout. (S1 and S2 Appendices).

Sociodemographic data and work-related aspects

The participants were requested to rate their job satisfaction and income satisfaction on a score from 0 to 10 (0 = unsatisfied, 10 = most satisfied). Furthermore, the participants were asked to categorize the quality of their perceived social supports (e.g. family, friends) as good, poor, or unavailable.

Burnout

Burnout was measured using the Thai version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) questionnaire [1, 15]. The MBI consists of 22 items divided into three dimensions: emotional exhaustion (feelings of being emotionally overextended and exhausted by one’s work), depersonalization (unsympathetic and impersonal responses toward the recipients of one’s care or service), and personal accomplishment (feelings of competence and successful achievement in one’s work with people) [1]. For the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization subscales, higher mean scores correspond to higher degrees of burnout (emotional exhaustion score: 0–16 = low, 17–26 = moderate, > 26 = high; depersonalization score: 0–6 = low, 7–12 = moderate, > 12 = high). Lower mean scores of personal accomplishment correspond to higher degrees of burnout (personal accomplishment score: > 38 = low, 32–38 = moderate, 0–31 = high). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of each domain in the Thai version of MBI is between 0.65–0.92 [15].

Coping mechanisms

The Thai version of the Proactive Coping Inventory (PCI) questionnaire [16, 17] is a multidimensional instrument that consists of 55 items divided into seven scales. The literature supports that burnout is associated with two major coping strategies: problem-focused coping and emotional-focused coping. Problem-focused coping includes proactive coping, directive coping, and plan resolution strategies. Emotional-focused coping covers positive reappraisal, seeking social support, and avoidance [18-20]. Because each PCI scale is independent from each other, the authors selected four scales to make the questionnaire more concise. Scale #1 is proactive coping defined as the combination of autonomous goal setting with self-regulatory goal attainment cognition and behavior. Scale #2 is strategic planning defined as the process of generating a goal-oriented schedule of action in which extensive tasks are broken down into more manageable tasks. Scale #3 is emotional support seeking defined as the regulation of temporary emotional distress by disclosing feelings to others, evoking empathy and seeking companionship from one’s social network. Last, Scale #4 is avoidance coping defined as the illusion of action in a demanding situation by delaying action. There was no cut-off point for each scale; a higher score indicated a greater degree of each coping mechanism. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of each PCI domain in the Thai version is between 0.70–0.81 [17].

Strategies that Thai psychiatrists believed could ameliorate their burnout

Guided by a review of the literature, the investigators identified 21 issues that psychiatrists are concerned about. (Part 4 of S2 Appendix). Each issue was rated from 1 to 10: 1 was “should be reduced as much as possible”, 5 was “no need to change”, and 10 was “should be increased as much as possible”. Space to write additional comments was provided at the end of the questionnaire.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, chi-square tests and ANOVAs. Spearman correlations were calculated between the MBI subscales and the PCI subscales. We performed multiple linear regressions to test the correlations between individual sociodemographic factors and MBI subscales. The missing values were treated as missing. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 21 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). The two-sided level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

The associations between individual sociodemographic factors and MBI scores were determined by using multiple linear regressions. The factors entered into the model included sociodemographic factors and coping mechanisms according to the PCI subscales. Variables were included by a stepwise selection procedure (entry p < 0.05).

Results

Sociodemographic and work-related aspects

The response rate was 25.7% (n = 227). The majority of participants were female (70.5%) and were aged between 25 and 64 years (mean = 36.4; SD = 8.4) with an average of 8.9 years of experience as a psychiatrist. Most of the respondents were general psychiatrists (58.1%), single (55.9%) and had no children (71.9%). (Table 1).

Table 1

Sociodemographic variables and work-related aspects of participants.

	Participants (n = 227) (%) a	All Thai psychiatrists b (n = 882) (%)
Age (years), mean ± SD	36.4 ± 8.4	N/A
Sex
Male	67 (29.5)	395 (44.8)
Female	160 (70.5)	487 (55.2)
Marital status
Single	124 (55.9)	N/A
Married	89 (40.1)	N/A
Widow/divorced	9 (4.1)	N/A
Number of children
None	161 (71.9)	N/A
1	27 (12.1)	N/A
>1	36 (16.1)	N/A
Experience as a psychiatrist (years), mean ± SD	8.9 ± 9.1	17
Position
General psychiatrist	132 (58.1)	614 (69.6)
Child and adolescent psychiatrist	39 (17.2)	158 (17.9)
Psychiatry resident	56 (24.7)	110 (12.5)
Death of patients who committed suicide
None	124 (54.6)	N/A
≤ 1 month	6 (2.6)	N/A
> 1 month—< 1 year	31 (13.7)	N/A
≥ 1 year	66 (29.1)	N/A
Working hours per week
< 40 hours	38 (16.8)	N/A
40 - < 50 hours	112 (49.6)	N/A
≥ 50 hours or more	76 (33.6)	N/A
Number of shifts per month, mean ± SD	8.5 ± 5.7	N/A
Number of patients per day, mean ± SD	27.1 ± 21.1	N/A
Days off per month
0–2	23 (10.1)	N/A
3–5	76 (33.5)	N/A
6–8	83 (36.6)	N/A
9–10	41 (18.1)	N/A
>10	4 (1.8)	N/A
Workplace
Regional hospital	36 (15.9)	127 (14.4)
General hospital	48 (21.1)	158 (17.9)
Community hospital	7 (3.1)	4 (0.5)
Psychiatric hospital	45 (19.8)	151 (17.1)
Medical school/Teaching hospital	85 (37.4)	195 (22.1)
Private hospital/clinic	60 (26.4)	99 (11.2)
Unknown	0 (0)	148 (16.8)

a. Percentage of the total number of valid values for each variable.

b. Data from the registration office of the Psychiatric Association of Thailand

Job satisfaction and quality of social support

The mean job satisfaction score was rated as 6 out of 10 (SD 2.49), and the mean income satisfaction score was rated as 6.81 out of 10 (SD 2.04). When facing stress, the respondents chose to consult their friends, themselves, their partners, their family members, the chiefs of the psychiatric department, and social media. Good family support was available to 93.8% of the respondents, while 85% of respondents stated that they received good support from psychiatrist friends and other colleagues. Almost two third (64%) of respondents reported receiving good support from their department chiefs and doctors in other departments. In contrast, 46.7% of respondents reported they received good support from the hospital administrative staff.

According to the MBI, 112 (49.3%) of the respondents had a high level of emotional exhaustion, whereas 60 (26.4%) had a high level of depersonalization. The mean MBI score for emotional exhaustion was 26.26 (SD 12.521), and the mean score for depersonalization was 7.96 (SD 7.137). However, most of the respondents (99.6%) still had a high level of personal accomplishment. The mean score for personal accomplishment was 9.7 (SD 6.469). (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Burnout rates according to the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) subscales.

Correlation between coping mechanisms and MBI subscales

There were statistically significant correlations between each coping mechanism and burnout. (Table 2). Higher skill levels of proactive coping, strategic planning and emotional seeking were associated with less emotional exhaustion, less depersonalization, and greater personal accomplishment (r = -0.168 to -0.433). On the other hand, higher avoidance coping scores were associated with more emotional exhaustion (r = 0.241), more depersonalization (r = 0.300), and less personal accomplishment (r = 0.189) (Table 2).

Table 2

Correlation between coping mechanisms and Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) subscales.

Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) subscales	Coping mechanisms (r)
	Proactive coping	Strategic planning	Emotional support seeking	Avoidance coping
Emotional exhaustion	-.370**	-.206**	-.298**	.241**
Depersonalization	-.385**	-.185**	-.168*	.300**
Personal accomplishment	-.433**	-.250**	-.197**	.189**

r, Spearman correlation coefficient;

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed);

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Factors associated with burnout

Emotional exhaustion was increased in participants who worked more than 50 hours per week (B = 2.958, p = 0.003). (Table 3) A higher caseload was associated with higher levels of emotional exhaustion (B = 0.07, p = 0.02). However, greater work satisfaction (B = -3.035, p<0.001) and more support from families (B = -3.263, p = 0.041) were associated with less emotional exhaustion. Emotional support seeking (B = -0.569, p = 0.008) was the only coping mechanism associated with less emotional exhaustion.

Table 3

Factors associated with burnout: Multiple linear regression analysis.

Emotional exhaustion	Unstandardized coefficients		95% CI	p
	B	Std. Error
Working more than 50 hours per week	2.803	0.946	0.937; 4.668	0.003
Number of patients per day	0.070	0.030	0.011; 0.129	0.020
Good support from families	-3.432	1.541	-6.469; -0.394	0.027
Being satisfied with work	-3.323	0.333	-3.978; -2.667	<0.001
Emotional support seeking	-0.571	0.202	-0.969; -0.174	0.005
Depersonalization
Avoidance coping mechanism	0.634	0.225	0.191; 1.077	0.005
Number of patients per day	0.092	0.092	0.055; 0.130	<0.001
Good support from colleagues	-1.468	0.686	-2.820; -0.116	0.033
Having more than one child	-1.301	0.544	-2.374; -0.228	0.018
Being satisfied with work	-1.002	0.221	-1.438; -0.566	<0.001
Proactive coping mechanism	-0.150	0.075	-0.298; -0.002	0.047
Personal accomplishment
Being satisfied with work	-1.092	0.210	-1.505; -0.679	<0.001
Proactive coping mechanism	-0.275	0.069	-0.412; -0.139	<0.001

Variables included by a stepwise selection procedure (entry p < 0.05).

Depersonalization was higher in the participants who had a higher number of patients per day (B = 0.092, p = 0.000) and who used more avoidance coping mechanisms (B = 0.634, p = 0.005). In contrast, having good support from colleagues (B = -1.468, p = 0.033), being satisfied with work (B = -1.002, p<0.001), and having more than one child (B = -1.301, p = 0.018) were associated with less depersonalization. Additionally, the proactive coping mechanism (B = -0.150, p = 0.047) was found more often in individuals with less depersonalization. Finally, being satisfied with work (B = -1.092, p<0.001) and proactive coping (B = -0.275, p<0.001) were associated with more personal accomplishment.

Strategies that could help reduce burnout

Respondents reported they would like to increase workplace welfare, number of staff members, support from the head of the department, the departmental budget (median = 8; range 1–10), followed by good relationship among team members (median = 7; range 2–10), good relationship with the head of the department, support for new projects and innovation in the department, participation in changing of the organization, the income, workplace equipment and training for psychiatrists and team colleagues (median = 7; range 1–10), good relationship among psychiatrists (median = 6.5; range 1–10) and number of days off (median = 6; range 1–10). Respondents indicated they would like to decrease the amount of paperwork (median = 3; range 1–10) and the number of patients per day (median = 4; range 1–10). Other strategies are to change the number of working hours per day, number of shifts, administrative role in the department and the hospital as well as the amount of general practice work, e.g., emergency room shift, general patient examination (median = 5; range 1–10).

Discussion

Psychiatrists have a high risk of burnout due to their work. A 2011 study from Thailand [4], reported that 17.1% of psychiatrists had high-level emotional exhaustion compared to 49.3% in this survey. Additionally, the mean emotional exhaustion score increased from 16.4 to 26.26. High-level depersonalization also increased from 5.5% in 2011 [4] to 26.4%, and the mean depersonalization score increased from 3.45 to 7.96. Our study showed a considerably higher burnout rate compared to other studies (19%-40%) among psychiatrists using the MBI questionnaire [21, 22].

Higher levels of emotional exhaustion was associated with working for more than 50 hours/week and treating more patients per day. In a study by Kumar in 2010, working long hours had the most significant association with a high emotional exhaustion score [23]. A study in psychiatric trainees from 22 countries arrived a similar conclusion [24]. Caring for higher numbers of patients per day was also found to be associated with higher emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that higher caseloads were associated with burnout in many studies [21]. In our study, higher caseload and working long hours were also related to higher levels of emotional exhaustion, but more cases were not associated with more working hours (F = 3.020, p = 0.051). It is possible that having more patients can cause psychiatrists to work longer hours. However, seeing fewer patients with challenging problems may need longer working hours as well. Further details are needed to explain this relationship.

Being satisfied with work, receiving support from families, and practicing emotional support seeking were associated with lower levels of emotional exhaustion. Being satisfied with work seemed to lower the level of burnout, both in terms of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. This finding was consistent with previous studies in Thailand [4], Switzerland [9], New Zealand [25], the United Kingdom [26], Sweden [27], and the United States [28]. Feeling valued, having a variety of tasks and being supported in the clinical oversight role contribute to job satisfaction [28].

More support from families and good support from colleagues were also significant factors. A previous national survey in Thailand found that a lack of support from colleagues was associated with higher emotional exhaustion scores [4]. Furthermore, a study in Japanese psychiatrists showed that social support was the strongest factor associated with low burnout rates [10]. Our result was consistent with a study in Taiwan that showed that greater workplace social support was associated with lower depression scores in physicians [29]. In addition, a survey among Finnish psychiatrists reported that an inability to consult a colleague and a lack of work supervision increased burnout [6]. A 1999 meta-analysis reported on the role of social support in the process of work stress. Social support reduced workplace strain, attenuated perceived stressors, and moderated the stressor-strain relationship [30].

Our findings support the value of emotional support seeking and receiving social support to reduce burnout. This is consistent with a study by Looney et al in 1980, which found that getting support from others was an effective coping mechanism for stress management [31]. Dallender et al noted that the most commonly used coping mechanism among psychiatrists in the United Kingdom was seeking support from loved ones and colleagues [32]. In our study, using more proactive coping mechanisms and less avoidance coping mechanisms was associated with lower burnout levels. This finding suggests that these coping mechanisms might be helpful in managing the stress levels of psychiatrists and psychiatry residents.

Despite high emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scores, most participants still had a high sense of personal accomplishment. This was also seen in a 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis of burnout among mental health professionals that reported overall mean score of 21.11 for emotional exhaustion, 6.76 for depersonalization and 34.60 for personal accomplishment [21]. In Maslach’s study in 1987, the Personal Accomplishment subscale was independent of the other subscales [1]. In our study, being satisfied with work and a proactive coping mechanism predicted more personal accomplishment.

Participants’ perspectives towards the strategies that could help reduce burnout are consistent with results in other studies [3-10]. However, the wide range of scores suggests that each psychiatrist needs different strategies to reduce burnout. This is in line with the need of other healthcare professionals [33]. A review on preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers suggests that interventions should focus on stressors that are specific to each organization [33].

One limitation of our study was the small number of participants, which may limit the generalizability of our findings. We attempted to compare the characteristics of the respondents with the non-responders, but there are no official data of the general characteristics of Thai psychiatrists in the whole country. We did obtain data from the registration office of the Psychiatric Association of Thailand. (Table 1). The Psychiatric Association data suggest that 45% of Thai psychiatrists while 30% of our respondents were male. The Psychiatric Association reports that the mean years of experience of all psychiatrists is 17 years, while our respondents reported a mean of 8.9 years’ experience. Moreover, since there are only 882 psychiatrists in Thailand, 112 (49.3%) of the respondents with a high level of burnout accounted for approximately 12.7% of all psychiatrists in the country.

Our survey suggests that high levels of burnout are present and may be increasing in Thai psychiatrists. There is an urgent need to address this situation. We did not directly investigate the details of longer working hours and suggest exploring this issue in future studies. Our findings have been shared with the Psychiatric Association of Thailand, a professional body that helps establish work policies for psychiatrists in Thailand. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the correlation between coping mechanisms and burnout in Thai psychiatrists.

Conclusion

Levels of burnout among Thai psychiatrists are high and may be increasing. Proactive coping strategies including emotional support seeking should be taught during residency training and encouraged in the workplace. Efforts to limit working hours to less than 50 hours per week and to improve social supports are needed. The outcomes of burnout, such as the impact on work efficacy and physical health problems merit further study.

Thai version Questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

English version Questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Thai version minimal dataset.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

English version minimal dataset.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

18 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-31990

Thai psychiatrists and burnout: a national survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pariwatcharakul,

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.

Your paper has been assessed by one acknowledged expert in the field, who remarked the potential of the study, but asks for some improvements related to, e.g., additional analyses on the information used for contrasting the results, the scale selection and other further rationales that are required from you. Moreover, other comments -most of them relatively minor- should be also addressed and responded in the rebuttal letter.

Please see below. the full set of comments provided by the reviewer.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 01 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.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. In particular, the 20 issues included in the fourth section of the questionnaire “Strategies which Thai psychiatrists believed could ameliorate their burnout” should be specified.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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: No

**********

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

**********

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 a second national burnout survey of Thai psychiatrists. The first national survey published in a Thai journal in 2011 by Lerthattasilp et al received a similarly low response rate of 27.8% (181/650), compared with the present study that has 27.15% (227/836). Despite the low response rate, the findings are still useful but characteristics of the responders should be compared with that of the non-responders if possible. Alternatively, the characteristics of all Thai psychiatrists is avaiable in the national registry and should be presented alongside with the characteristics of the responders to this survey.

While the first national survey used only the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the present survey added the Proactive Coping Inventory (PCI) in order to investigate the relationship between coping style and burnout in Thai psychiatrists. The authors need to provide a rationale how these 4 of the 7 PCI scales were selected: proactive coping, strategic planning, emotional support seeking, and avoidance coping.

The correlation between MBI and PCI subscales were assessed by using Pearson's correlation coefficients. As the MBI contains 22 items in 3 subscales whereas the PCI contains 55 items in 7 subscales (but 26 items in 4 subscales were selected in this study, normality of both variables had to be checked.

**********

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: Yes: Assist. Prof. Dr. Krit Pongpirul, MD, MPH, PhD.

[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.

31 Jan 2020

Dear Assist. Prof. Dr. Krit Pongpirul,

We are very thankful to you for the helpful comments and advice. We have addressed all comments as requested. Attached please kindly find a copy of the revised manuscript entitled “Thai psychiatrists and burnout: a national survey” (Ms. No. PONE-D-19-31990) by Neshda Nimmawitt, Kamonporn Wannarit, and Pornjira Pariwatcharakul, which we are submitting for publication as a Research Article in the PLOS ONE.

We are explaining all the changes made and responding in detail to each point, as follows.

1) This is a second national burnout survey of Thai psychiatrists. The first national survey published in a Thai journal in 2011 by Lerthattasilp et al received a similarly low response rate of 27.8% (181/650), compared with the present study that has 27.15% (227/836). Despite the low response rate, the findings are still useful but characteristics of the responders should be compared with that of the non-responders if possible. Alternatively, the characteristics of all Thai psychiatrists is available in the national registry and should be presented alongside with the characteristics of the responders to this survey.

We really appreciated your suggestion. Accordingly, we tried to find the characteristics of all Thai psychiatrists, but there were no official data available. We requested raw data from the registration office of the Psychiatric association of Thailand and categorized into the demographic data in Table 1, then compared with the characteristics of the respondents. As the provided data were limited and outdated, we clarified the reliability of the data in our manuscript. We added the following sentences to the 7th paragraph of the Discussion section.

“One limitation of our study was the small number of participants, which may limit the generalizability of our findings. We attempted to compare the characteristics of the respondents with the non-responders, but there are no official data of the general characteristics of Thai psychiatrists in the whole country. We did obtain raw data from the registration office of the Psychiatric Association of Thailand. (Table 1) However, these data were outdated, incomplete and may not be reliable. The Psychiatric Association data suggest that 45% of Thai psychiatrists while 30% of our respondents were male. The Psychiatric Association reports that the mean years of experience of all psychiatrists is 18 years, while our respondents reported a mean of nine years experience.”

2) While the first national survey used only the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the present survey added the Proactive Coping Inventory (PCI) in order to investigate the relationship between coping style and burnout in Thai psychiatrists. The authors need to provide a rationale how these 4 of the 7 PCI scales were selected: proactive coping, strategic planning, emotional support seeking, and avoidance coping.

Thank you for this comment. We modified the Materials and Methods section to emphasize the rationale how we selected these scales. We added the following sentences to the 5th paragraph of the Materials and Methods section.

“The literature supports that burnout is associated with two major coping strategies. Problem-focused coping includes proactive coping, directive coping, and plan resolution strategies. Emotional-focused coping covers positive reappraisal, seeking social support, and avoidance [18-20]. Therefore, we selected only 4 scales to make the questionnaire more concise.”

3) The correlation between MBI and PCI subscales were assessed by using Pearson's correlation coefficients. As the MBI contains 22 items in 3 subscales whereas the PCI contains 55 items in 7 subscales (but 26 items in 4 subscales were selected in this study, normality of both variables had to be checked.

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We checked both of the variables and the results showed that both of them were non-normality data. Therefore, we reanalyzed with the Spearman correlation and corrected our manuscript. The new analysis showed the same significant findings.

Thank you very much again for your helpful comments.

Best regards,

Pornjira Pariwatcharakul, MD, MSc, MA, FRCPsychT, MRCPsych (UK)

Associate Professor

Department of Psychiatry

Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University

2 Wanglang Road, Siriraj, Bangkoknoi, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.

Tel: 0-2419-4293-8, Fax: 0-2419-4298; Mobile: +6681-483-7041

E-mail: pornjira.par@mahidol.edu, pornjirap@gmail.com

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

25 Feb 2020

Thai psychiatrists and burnout: a national survey

PONE-D-19-31990R1

Dear Dr. Pariwatcharakul,

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 #1: 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 #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: All of my comments were addressed. Nonetheless, I believe this manuscript should also be reviewed by a psychiatrist.

**********

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 #1: Yes: Krit Pongpirul

9 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-31990R1

Thai psychiatrists and burnout: a national survey

Dear Dr. Pariwatcharakul:

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