Understanding the role of regulatory flexibility and context sensitivity in preventing burnout in a palliative home care team.

Although burnout syndrome has been investigated in depth, studies specifically focused on palliative home care are still limited. Moreover, there is still a lack of evidence regarding the interplay between emotional flexibility and sensitivity to context in preventing burnout in home care settings. For these reasons, the aims of this study were to examine burnout symptoms among practitioners specializing in palliative home care and to investigate the role of regulatory flexibility and sensitivity to context in understanding burnout. An exploratory cross-sectional design was adopted. A convenience sample (n = 65) of Italian specialist palliative care practitioners participated in this study. Participants were recruited between February and April 2019 from two palliative home care services that predominantly cared for end-of-life cancer patients. The Italian version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Flexible Regulation of Emotional Expression (FREE) scale (a measure of emotional flexibility), and the Context Sensitivity Index (CSI) (a measure of sensitivity to context) were administered. Analyses of variance were conducted using the three MBI factors as dependent variables and profession as an independent variable. Subsequently, three identical analyses of covariance were conducted with age, work experience, flexibility and sensitivity to context as covariates. The results showed a low burnout risk for all three of the MBI factors, and there were no gender differences. An ANOVA revealed a significant effect of profession type and age on the emotional exhaustion factor of the MBI, and an ANCOVA indicated that these effects persisted after covariates were accounted for. The results also showed a significant effect of the FREE score on emotional exhaustion. These findings can help explain the differential contributions of profession type and age to the burnout symptoms investigated. In addition, the emotional flexibility component, as an aspect of resilience, represents a significant and specific factor of emotional exhaustion. Interventions to prevent burnout must consider these relationships.

Introduction

Burnout syndrome is defined as a state of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment, and this syndrome can occur among individuals in many human services professions [1]. Palliative care workers continuously care for patients and support their suffering relatives with the aim of improving their quality of life. Many studies have shown that burnout can negatively impact the quality of patient care and health-care systems [2]. To date, research on the prevalence of burnout among palliative care practitioners has produced contradictory results. Past studies have found a prevalence ranging from 17 percent to 62 percent, with most burnout stemming from emotional exhaustion [3-5]. Various risk factors exist for the development of burnout among palliative care practitioners, and several studies have documented considerable variability in sources of burnout across clinician types and practice settings [4, 6–8]. Previous studies have shown that working on a palliative care mobile team can lead to a higher risk of developing burnout and psychological morbidity (e.g., depression) than working in an actual palliative care unit [3, 9].

Synthesizing the aforementioned research findings is very difficult due to the range of burnout risk factors that have been examined. Investigating the differential role that these factors play in the palliative home care setting is also challenging. Practitioner- and setting-related variables have also impacted studies on the efficacy of interventions to prevent and reduce burnout symptoms [10-13]. Most of these studies have utilized samples of physicians and paid less attention to other health-related professions such as nurses, psychologists, social workers, or physiotherapists. However, the field of palliative care employs a multidimensional team approach to address the needs of patients and their families [14], and palliative care practitioners endure traumatic experiences that disrupt their sense of continuity of their own lives [15]. In addition, the absence of an accurate statistical model explaining burnout syndrome makes it problematic to ascribe the findings to specific factors. In light of this perspective, a recent study involving a sample of 185 palliative care nurses was the first to provide a model with good fit [16]. The authors demonstrated that psychological, work-related and demographic factors were associated with burnout.

In recent years, a growing number of studies have examined the role that resilience plays in the identification and reduction of burnout symptoms among palliative care practitioners [17-23]. Resilience is a multifaceted construct with different definitions in the context of individuals or organizations [24]. In the context of palliative care, however, the absence of a clear and consistent definition of resilience across studies has resulted in significant variability among assessment instruments. In this light, Bonanno and colleagues introduced the concept of expressive flexibility for understanding an individual’s ability to enhance or suppress emotion across different contexts [25]. Bonanno explained resilience very simply as a stable trajectory of healthy functioning following highly adverse and stressful events. From the perspective of this framework, resilience reflects the ability to maintain a stable equilibrium after exposure to stressful and traumatic situations. Past theories and studies have mistakenly assumed that coping and emotion regulation strategies are always beneficial or maladaptive [26]. Therefore, adaptation depends on one’s ability to flexibly enhance or suppress emotional expression in accordance with contextual demands [27]. The extent to which people possess these characteristics could explain how people respond to stressful events. Findings from several studies have indicated that regulatory flexibility represents a central component of mental health in healthy subjects and people after traumatic or adverse events [28-33]. Currently, however, little is known about the roles of expressive flexibility and sensitivity to context in the development of burnout symptoms among home palliative care practitioners. It is logical to assume that these components can play a role in reducing one’s risk for experiencing burnout. Due to the contradictory results on the prevalence of burnout among palliative care practitioners, it is useful to examine the differential risks for burnout among different practitioner types. As previously stated, most studies to date have focused on physicians; however, few researchers have specifically examined burnout in the palliative home care setting, where the burnout risk may be higher.

The first aim of this study was to compare burnout by gender in a sample of practitioners specializing in palliative home care. We hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between males and females. The second aim of this study was to examine the risk of burnout in a sample of practitioners specializing in palliative home care. We hypothesized a medium-to-high risk percentage for the three factors of burnout. The third aim of this study was to explore the relation between the type of professional practitioner and burnout risk. We hypothesized that we would find differences between the palliative home care specialists based on their different contributions to the treatment team. Finally, the fourth aim of this study was to examine the effect of expressive flexibility and sensitivity to context on the three factors of burnout. We hypothesized that these individual variables would significantly influence burnout risk.

Materials and methods

Participants

The study was conducted with a sample of 67 Italian practitioners specializing in palliative care and working in two palliative home care services in Sicily, Italy. Both palliative care services operate in the cities of Messina and Agrigento and are included in the Local Health Unit of the Italian National Health Service (INHS). All the participants worked in teams of two, and the palliative home care services were provided predominantly to end-of-life cancer patients. A plenary meeting was conducted to present the aims of the study and administer the self-report instruments. It was explained to participants that study enrolment was voluntary and that participation in the study would not influence the nature or conduct of their work. Before the beginning of the study, all participants gave written consent. Sixty-seven participants took part in the research, but 2 did not return the completed form at the end. However, the final sample represents 70 percent of the combined number of palliative care workers from the two services. The inclusion criteria were current employment in palliative home care services with a full-time contract and no prior affiliation with any aspect of the present study. The exclusion criterion was a positive anamnesis for any psychiatric disorder included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) [34].

A post hoc power analysis, conducted using G*Power (version 3.1.9.4) [35], ensured that the statistical power was adequate to provide statistically significant results. Hence, statistical power was computed as a function of the significance level α and population effect size used in this study [36, 37]. For these reasons, we selected the F test and ANCOVA with fixed effects, main effects and interactions as settings in G*Power. Consequently, a statistical power of .88 (with a critical F of 4.01) was obtained by entering a significant finding (at the .05 level), a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.40), a total sample size of 65, 6 groups, and 4 covariates.

Procedure

The study was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. A self-report questionnaire was administered to collect data on age, gender, level of education, work experience, and professional role. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee for Psychological Research of the University of Messina (n. 93113).

Measures

The following three self-report measures were administered.

1. The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) is a 22-item self-report questionnaire assessing the symptoms of burnout [38, 39]. The items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (every day). The questionnaire includes the following three subscales (the Cronbach’s alpha scores derived from this sample are reported in parentheses): Emotional Exhaustion (EE; α = .85), which measures reduced energy and emotional and cognitive distancing from the job; Depersonalization (D; α = .73), which measures lack of engagement, cynicism, and distancing from patients; and Personal Achievement (PA; α = 77), which measures the ability to work well with others, the ability to effectively deal with problems at work, and the perception of having a positive influence on others. In the present study, a validated Italian version of the MBI was used [40]. Scores for the EE subscale can be categorized as follows: scores ≥ 23 indicate a high risk, while scores ranging from 14 to 22 indicate a medium risk. Regarding the DP subscale, scores ≥ 6 indicate a high risk, while scores ranging from 3 to 5 indicate a medium risk. Regarding the PA subscale, scores ≤ 31 indicate a high risk, scores ranging from 32 to 38 indicate a medium risk, and scores ≥ 39 indicate a low risk.

2. The Flexible Regulation of Emotional Expression (FREE) scale is a 16-item scenario-based questionnaire assessing flexibility in self-regulatory behaviours [27]. The FREE scale evaluates individuals’ perceived ability to modulate their emotional expressions. This component of regulatory flexibility is an important aspect for adjusting to stressful life events. The FREE scale is self-report measure, and the items are rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (unable) to 6 (very able). The FREE scale has three subscales: one measures the ability to enhance emotional expression (FREE Enhance), one measures the ability to suppress emotional expression (FREE Suppress), and one measures overall expressive flexibility (FREE Flexibility). The degree of reliability of the three subscales in the present sample was good, with a Cronbach’s α of .77 for the FREE Enhance subscale, .78 for the FREE Suppress subscale, and .79 for the FREE Flexibility subscale.

3. The Context Sensitivity Index (CSI) is a 20-item scenario-based questionnaire assessing context sensitivity, which is the ability to perceive cues to contextual demands across different situations [41]. Context sensitivity has been identified as a crucial component of successful self-regulation. The CSI consists of two subscales measuring the ability to capture sensitivity to the presence of contextual cues (CSI Cue Presence index) and sensitivity to the relative absence of cues (Cue Absence index). An overall CSI score is calculated by averaging the Cue Presence and Cue Absence indices. The CSI is a self-report measure, and the items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The degree of reliability of the factors in the present sample was good, with a Cronbach’s α of .74 for the Cue Presence index and .72 for the Cue Absence index.

Statistical analyses

The data were analysed using SPSS v. 22 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) statistical software and Excel software v.16.0 (Microsoft Corp. 2016). Data obtained from this study were checked, and descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were then conducted. An independent samples t-test was employed to verify any statistically significant gender differences for the observed variables. The Bonferroni correction was applied to address type 1 errors. Gender differences were examined because burnout was often linked to female gender [42, 43], even if these categorizations seem to be unfounded with respect to work-related burnout [44]. The one-sample t-test was used to compare the results of this sample with the cut-off score established by the Italian version of the MBI [40].

We conducted a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the three MBI factors as dependent variables and profession as the independent variable. An identical analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was subsequently performed, controlling for participant age and work experience. Finally, the FREE and CSI scores were added to the analyses. The CSI subscales, namely, the Cue Presence index and the Cue Absence index, and the FREE subscales, namely, the Enhance and Suppress subscales, were used to verify the Cronbach’s alpha scores and gender differences. However, for the purpose of this study, only the FREE Flexibility and CSI overall scores were used for the ANOVA and ANCOVA. Despite the lack of consensus regarding the minimum sample size for conducting multivariate analysis, Bujang and colleagues [45] argued that the ideal sample size is at least 300 for non-experimental studies. However, in this study, ANCOVA was conducted for descriptive model building without the implication of causality between variables [46].

Results

The demographic characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1. The study was conducted with a sample of 65 Italian practitioners specializing in palliative care who ranged in age from 22 to 63 years (M = 36.49 ± 9.94). All the participants worked in teams of two, and the palliative home care services were provided predominantly to end-of-life cancer patients.

Table 1

Demographic characteristics; work experience; and MBI, FREE, and CSI scores of the participants by gender.

Variable	Entire sample (n = 65)	Male (n = 31)	Female (n = 34)	t-test
Age in years (SD)	36.49 (9.94)	35.13 (10.39)	37.74 (9.49)	-1.057
Education level in years (SD)	19.65 (4.06)	20.03 (3.92)	19.29 (4.21)	0.729
Work experience in months (SD)	17.57 (21.42)	22.29 (28.34)	13.26 (10.94)	1.722
MBI EE (SD)	11.65 (9.44)	12.23 (10.06)	11.12 (8.96)	0.470
MBI D (SD)	2.95 (4.00)	3.03 (4.00)	2.88 (4.06)	0.150
MBI PA (SD)	40.34 (6.42)	39.35 (6.74)	41.24 (6.08)	-1.183
FREE Enhance (SD)	4.14 (0.73)	4.21 (0.74)	4.07 (0.72)	0.777
FREE Suppress (SD)	3.89 (0.79)	4.02 (0.85)	3.77 (0.72)	1.269
FREE Flexibility (SD)	7.31 (1.50)	7.36 (1.61)	7.26 (1.41)	0.262
CSI Cue Presence (SD)	47.09 (7.29)	48.61 (7.97)	45.71 (6.41)	1.626
CSI Cue Absence (SD)	42.34 (8.57)	41.19 (9.23)	43.38 (7.92)	-1.029
CSI (SD)	44.72 (3.72)	44.90 (3.67)	44.54 (3.80)	0.387

*p < 0.05

**p < 0.01

EE = Emotional Exhaustion; D = Depersonalization; PA = Personal Achievement

The final sample consisted of 34 females and 31 males working in two palliative home care services in Sicily, Italy. The average level of formal education was 19.65 years (SD = 4.06). Thirty-eight percent of the respondents were specialist palliative care nurses (n = 25), 25% were healthcare assistants (n = 16), 14% were physiotherapists (n = 9), 14% were clinical psychologists (n = 9), 6% were social workers (n = 4), and 3% were specialists in palliative medicine (n = 2). The average work experience s was 17.57 months (SD = 21.42). As shown in Table 1, the results from t-tests showed no significant differences between males and females for any of the considered variables.

Statistical comparisons through a series of t-tests with Bonferroni correction revealed no significant gender differences. For twelve comparisons, the new critical alpha level was .004 (.05 divided by 12). These results also showed that the sample was well matched for age, education level, and work experience, as well as for level of burnout, flexibility, and context sensitivity.

Table 2 illustrates the level of burnout symptoms reported in the entire sample of palliative home care workers and their burnout symptoms based on the Italian version of the MBI. One-sample t-tests showed significant differences between scores for the sample of palliative care workers and the cut-off score for burnout symptoms on the Italian MBI [40]. These results were confirmed by descriptive statistics that highlighted a low level of burnout symptoms for the three MBI factors.

Table 2

Results of burnout symptoms in the sample of palliative home care practitioners.

Variable	M	SD	t (df = 64)	Burnout symptoms
MBI EE	11.65	9.44	-9.699**	Low
MBI D	2.95	4.00	-6.143**	Low
MBI PA	40.34	6.42	11.726**	Low

*p < 0.05

**p < 0.01

EE = Emotional Exhaustion; D = Depersonalization; PA = Personal Achievement

Table 3 presents the results of the ANOVA for the three MBI factors. The first ANOVA was carried out using the score of the Emotional Exhaustion subscale of the MBI as the dependent variable and profession as the independent variable. Here, we observed a significant univariate main effect for profession [F(5, 59) = 2.873, p = 0.022, n = 0.196], with physiotherapists scoring significantly higher than the other specialist palliative care practitioners on the Emotional Exhaustion subscale. Subsequently, an identical ANCOVA was performed, controlling for participant age and work experience. The results showed a significant univariate effect of participant age [F(1, 57) = 4.878, p = 0.031, n = 0.079]. Finally, an identical ANCOVA was conducted with the FREE and CSI scores used as covariates. The results showed that the univariate effects for profession and participant age persisted F(5, 55) = 6.259, p = 0.000, n = 0.363 and F(1, 55) = 6.815, p = 0.012, n = 0.110, respectively). In addition, a significant univariate effect was found for the FREE scores [F(1, 55) = 11.084, p = 0.002, n = 0.168]. The effect of CSI scores on emotional exhaustion approached statistical significance (p = 0.054).

Table 3

Results of the ANOVA and ANCOVA for the three factors of the MBI.

1. Emotional Exhaustion
	F	np2
Profession	6.259**	0.363
Age	6.815*	0.110
Work experience	1.802	0.032
FREE	11.084**	0.168
CSI	3.892	0.066
2. Depersonalization
	F	np2
Profession	1.328	0.108
Age	3.786	0.064
Work experience	0.485	0.009
FREE	0.065	0.001
CSI	1.005	0.018
3. Personal Achievement
	F	np2
Profession	2.022	0.155
Age	3.044	0.052
Work experience	0.396	0.007
FREE	0.001	0.000
CSI	0.007	0.000

*p < 0.05

**p < 0.01

FREE = Flexible Regulation of Emotional Expression; CSI = Context Sensitivity Index

An additional ANOVA was conducted using the Depersonalization score as the dependent variable, and no significant univariate effect for profession was found. Moreover, participant age and work experience were not significant covariates. Furthermore, no significant effect was found after adding the FREE and CSI scores as covariates.

A third ANOVA was conducted using the Personal Achievement score as the dependent variable with profession as the independent variable. An identical ANCOVA was run, controlling for participant age and work experience. The FREE and CSI scores were added as covariates as well, but no univariate effect was found.

Discussion

In the present study, we examined burnout symptoms in a sample of palliative home care practitioners. Sensitivity to context and emotional flexibility were considered to explain burnout symptoms. Personality characteristics (i.e., neuroticism, hardiness, locus of control) might be a relevant factor associated with the development of work distress and burnout [42, 47–52]. In this context, the field of palliative care could be very stressful for all practitioners who are involved in the daily care of terminal patients [53]. In this regard, one study reported a 62 percent burnout rate among palliative care practitioners [4], even though evidence on burnout rates is inconsistent [54]. Patients in palliative care units wish for a personal and warm patient-physician relationship, so they expect their symptoms to be attended to with emotional care [55]. On the other hand, the experience of accompanying patients in death can expose palliative care practitioners to burnout risk [11].

In light of this perspective, the first aim of this study was to compare burnout in male and female practitioners specializing in palliative care. Past studies have shown inconsistent results [43, 56], even though burnout was often associated with female gender [41, 42]. In line with the initial hypothesis, the results clearly confirm that females do not have a higher burnout risk than males.

In this context, the second aim of this study was to investigate the risk of burnout among practitioners specializing in palliative home care. In fact, the clinical setting was found to be a significant predictor of burnout, so working on a palliative home care team represents a significant risk factor [8, 9]. Hence, we hypothesized a moderate risk for all symptoms of burnout. In contrast, we found a low burnout risk for emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal achievement. These results could have depended in part on the characteristics of our sample, as the group of practitioners had a mean work experience of approximately 18 months. The relationship between years of experience and burnout has been investigated in depth in numerous research studies [57]. However, evidence from a meta-analysis highlighted only a small negative correlation between work experience and emotional exhaustion [57]. Recently, another study found that years in practice did not distinguish significantly between burned-out and not burned-out specialist palliative care practitioners [58].

In addition, the two palliative home care services in our study had a structured programme in place to support all practitioners. In fact, empirical research has indicated that both individual-focused and structural interventions can reduce burnout among physicians [12]. Unfortunately, interventions to address or prevent burnout in palliative care are still sporadic and mainly focused on individual strategies [59]. Nevertheless, communication among health care providers is often inadequate [60]. From this perspective, coordination staff periodically sought interventions to manage stress and prevent burnout. Structural and organizational interventions adopted to prevent burnout are mainly focused on periodic group discussion, the limitation of weekly working hours for all staff, and the learning of communication skills with patients and colleagues [12]. However, the principal focus of this study is on individual-level factors, and consequently, future studies should also consider organizational factors to explain burnout risk. Despite the notable amount of research conducted in the context of burnout prevention among healthcare practitioners, there is still a lack of studies taking into account both organizational- and individual-level factors [12]. Therefore, further research is needed to evaluate whether these strategies are effective in reducing burnout among specialist palliative care practitioners.

The third aim of this study was to explore the differential contribution of the type of professional practitioner. A majority of studies to date have examined only physicians; however, they have examined only one of the types of professionals found on a palliative care team [54]. For this reason, we decided to examine in more depth the role of profession type in burnout risk. The results showed a significant effect for profession type, with physiotherapists scoring significantly higher than others on emotional exhaustion. One critical factor that may at least partially account for this finding is physiotherapists’ level of competence in the communication skills. The physiotherapist often plays a pivotal role on the palliative care team, but further research is needed to examine the impact of communication effectiveness [61, 62]. This effect of profession type persisted even after controlling for participant age and work experience. However, practitioner age also had a significant effect on emotional exhaustion.

The last aim of this study was to explore the role of sensitivity to context and regulatory flexibility on burnout risk. As Bonanno and Burton stated, regulatory flexibility is associated with mental health status and represents an important ability in one’s effort to adapt to stressful life events [32]. We hypothesized that the two examined components would have a significant effect on all symptoms of burnout. The results from the ANCOVA indeed revealed a significant effect of regulatory flexibility on emotional exhaustion.

No significant effects were found on the other two burnout factors, depersonalization or personal achievement. These results seem to be consistent with studies that have highlighted different risk factors for the three components of burnout [7]. Moreover, emotional exhaustion showed a strong relationship with individual variables that future research in palliative care should address.

Burnout is a complex syndrome involving several dimensions encompassing both individual and organizational variables. This study’s findings can be very useful in the development of more tailored and efficacious interventions to prevent and reduce burnout.

This study has some limitations that should be addressed by future research. First, this study adopted a cross-sectional design that did not allow us to infer causal relationships between the observed variables. Longitudinal studies would better explain the impact of emotional flexibility and sensitivity to context on burnout development among palliative care practitioners. Second, our sample size was small despite the enrolment of 70 percent of all the palliative care practitioners of the two involved services. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to other palliative home care services.

Third, a control group could be necessary for comparing the obtained results. The fourth limitation regards the use of self-assessment measures to evaluate the risk of burnout, even though the MBI is a well-established and standardized tool in the literature [38–41, 55]. Several previous studies on burnout risk have reported that social desirability could result in the underrating of symptoms [3, 49, 63]. However, the FREE scale and the CSI, which were employed to evaluate regulatory flexibility and context sensitivity, respectively, are scenario-based indices that do not require participants to possess an exact awareness of their own abilities [41]. In fact, these measures were constructed to identify participants’ hypothetical ability rather than their recalled history of engagement in regulatory behaviours.

The present study also has relevant strengths. This study is the first attempt to explore the role of sensitivity to context and emotional flexibility in the development of burnout among practitioners working in the palliative home care setting. Moreover, the composition of our sample was highly representative of the different percentages of professional roles working in the two palliative care services. Hence, future research is needed to more thoroughly examine these important findings.

Conclusion

The results indicated that profession type and age were associated with a higher prevalence of emotional exhaustion among palliative home care practitioners. The results also highlighted a significant effect of regulatory flexibility on emotional exhaustion. To date, this is the first attempt to explore the interplay between emotional flexibility, as a central tenet of resilience, and burnout in palliative home care. Given the relationship between emotional flexibility and burnout, prevention interventions based on resilience could help decrease burnout among palliative home care practitioners. However, there are a number of limitations that should be addressed by future research. A major limitation was the size of the sample. Consequently, the sample may not be representative of other palliative home care practitioners.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

20 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-33880

Understanding the role of regulatory flexibility and context sensitivity in preventing burnout in a palliative home care team

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Lenzo,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 03 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,

Tim Luckett

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. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: 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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: 1) This is paper should be analyzed and included by the authors: Rizo-Baeza M, Mendiola-Infante SV, Sepehri A, Palazón-Bru A, Gil-Guillén VF, Cortés-Castell E. Burnout syndrome in nurses working in palliative care units: An analysis of associated factors. J Nurs Manag. 2018;26:19-25. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12506.

2) Abstract: you should include this information:

a. Background.

b. The country and dates of the study.

c. A summary of the statistical methods.

d. The factors which you analyzed.

3) Introduction should be shortened a lot. In general a scientific paper has a maximum of 800 words for this section.

4) Which hospitals were included? You only indicated Sicilia.

5) “The consent form informed participants of their right to withdraw from the study.” Patients?

6) More information is necessary for the sample size calculation: method and design effect and their parameters.

7) Profession type was not defined, as well as the other covariables not based on questionnaires.

8) Please, take into account that you can only include six predictors in the multivariate models.

9) I will review the rest of the paper once the authors apply my own comments.

Reviewer #2: Please justify the use of MANCOVA with such a small sample. See Bujang, M. A., Sa’at, N., & Bakar, T. M. I. T. A. (2017). Determination of minimum sample size requirement for multiple linear regression and analysis of covariance based on experimental and non-experimental studies. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health, 14(3).

Results

Table 1 Why were you examining differences in study measures by gender?

Table 2 Why did you conduct multiple t-tests? How did you address risk of type 1 errors?

Discussion

Personality traits can be considered as vulnerability factors in the

development of work distress and burnout. Provide references to support this statement.

Field and environment are two different things. Do you mean that the practice of the profession is stressful? If so, what aspects?

Operational tasks linked to diagnostic and therapeutic practices,

however, should be considered as strictly related to psychological tasks just as maintaining concordance among patients and their relatives [43]. This sentence is ambiguous. Do you mean there is a psychological component to practice for the health care professional?

The relationship between years of experience and burnout has been

investigated in-depth across numerous research studies - references to support this statement.

Structural and organisational interventions adopted to prevent burnout are mainly focused on periodical group discussion, limit of weekly working hours for all staff, and learning communication skills with patients and colleagues. - references to support statement.

Why are you reporting on structural factors in your discussion when you are looking at individual level factors?

Please provide reference for the limitations of self-assessment measures.

Please provide a conclusion section to this paper.

**********

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: No

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.

3 Mar 2020

Authors' Responses to Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer #1:

Reply: We thank the reviewer for careful reading of the manuscript. We have wisely taken the comments on board to ameliorate and make clear the manuscript. Please, see below a detailed point-by-point response to all comments (reviewer’s comments in violet, our replies in red).

1) This is paper should be analyzed and included by the authors: Rizo-Baeza M, Mendiola-Infante SV, Sepehri A, Palazón-Bru A, Gil-Guillén VF, Cortés-Castell E. Burnout syndrome in nurses working in palliative care units: An analysis of associated factors. J Nurs Manag. 2018;26:19-25. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12506.

Reply: We want to thank the reviewer for the suggested article that is very interesting for our study. So, we have included citation to the Rizo-Baeza and colleagues’ paper to acknowledge this original work in addition to the others papers. In this regard, we have added three sentences to highlight the following critical point in the literature: (a) the lack of research evaluating burnout in nurses; (b) the need for research to provide goodness of fit of statistical models.

Consequently, we have attentionally revised studies on burnout among palliative care practitioners.

However, we feel that some points of weakness are strictly related to complexity of research in palliative care. For example, it is often difficult to find well-balanced sample demographic and work-related variables (e.g., gender).

2) Abstract: you should include this information:

a. Background.

b. The country and dates of the study.

c. A summary of the statistical methods.

d. The factors which you analyzed.

Reply: We have included this information in the abstract, as kindly suggested.

3) Introduction should be shortened a lot. In general a scientific paper has a maximum of 800 words for this section.

Reply: We agree that introduction should be shortened a lot. We have now restructured the introduction section in order to be about 800 words. Now, introduction section comprises 804 words.

4) Which hospitals were included? You only indicated Sicilia.

Reply: We apologise for this vague information. So, we have provided additional information on structures where this research took place. Two palliative care reference services operating in the regional territory belonging to the Italian National Health Service (INHS) were involved in this study. We would point out that the two services deliver exclusively palliative home care. These palliative home care services assist about eight hundred patients and their caregivers every year.

5) “The consent form informed participants of their right to withdraw from the study.” Patients?

Reply: Sorry. We have removed the sentence from the manuscript.

6) More information is necessary for the sample size calculation: method and design effect and their parameters.

Reply: Many thanks for the opportunity to improve and clarify this point. We have carefully considered this issue on the sample size calculation and statistical power. Hence, following the Cohen’s guidelines (1988), we decided to reconsider our power analysis. In fact, application of analysis of covariance in our research was for descriptive model building, without implication of causality because it is not substitute for conducting experiment (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013).

Consequently, we calculated statistical power with post hoc type analysis (Cohen, 1988). Therefore, statistical power is computed as a function of significance level α, sample size, and population effect size. More specifically, we obtained a statistical power of .88 (with a critical F of 4.01) by inserting a significant finding (at the .05 level), a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.40), a total sample size of 65, 6 number of groups, and 4 covariates. Undoubtedly, we selected F test and ANCOVA with fixed effects, main effects and interactions, as settings.

7) Profession type was not defined, as well as the other covariables not based on questionnaires.

Reply: We feel the reviewer may have misconceived us here. Profession type, age, and work experience were defined in results section. Since this premise a more deeply delineation of the sample was done (i.e., number and not only percentage for profession type was added). In addition, we have acknowledged in the discussion section that we focalized on individual level factors and hence this limitation should be addressed by future research.

8) Please, take into account that you can only include six predictors in the multivariate models.

Reply: Certainly, we have conducted three ANOVA using the MBI factors as dependent variables with profession as the only independent variable. Subsequently, an identical ANCOVA was carried out with two covariates (age and work experience). Lastly, we performed ANCOVA by adding FREE and CSI. So, the final model included 1 independent variable and four covariates.

9) I will review the rest of the paper once the authors apply my own comments.

Reply: Thank you so much for the time invested and the important contributions suggested, which have helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We hope that you give us next suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

Reply: We thank the reviewer for constructive remarks and important considerations about the manuscript. We have sagely taken the comments on board improve the manuscript. Please find below a detailed point-by-point response to all comments (reviewers’ comments in black, our replies in blue).

Please justify the use of MANCOVA with such a small sample. See Bujang, M. A., Sa’at, N., & Bakar, T. M. I. T. A. (2017). Determination of minimum sample size requirement for multiple linear regression and analysis of covariance based on experimental and non-experimental studies. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health, 14(3).

Reply: Thank you for your precious suggestion related to the use of analysis of covariance with a small sample. We find very interesting the paper by Bujang and colleagues (2017) for the simplicity and useful and we have inserted it in the manuscript. We will also take it into consideration for our next research.

The authors stated that the ideal sample size shall preferably be at least 300 for non-experimental studies. At this regard, we would to highlight that application of analysis of covariance in our research was for descriptive model building. In light of this perspective, for instance, Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) pointed out that the covariances improve prediction of the dependent variable, without implication of causality because analysis of covariance is not a substitute for conducting an experiment. In addition, burnout research in palliative care is strictly related to some methodological inherent difficulties, especially in home care setting (e.g. in our research two samples were involved but the sample size was 67). At this regard, several studies have utilized small sample, even after power analysis. Moreover, most of them have conducted regression analyses or others multivariate techniques. Please see, for example, the following papers:

- Coffey, M. (1999). Stress and burnout in forensic community mental health nurses: an investigation of its causes and effects. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 6(6), 433–443. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2850.1999.00243.x

- Galeazzi, G. M., Delmonte, S., Fakhoury, W., & Priebe, S. (2004). Morale of mental health professionals in Community Mental Health Services of a Northern Italian Province. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale, 13(3), 191–197. doi:10.1017/s1121189x00003456

- Dunwoodie, D. A., & Auret, K. (2007). Psychological morbidity and burnout in palliative care doctors in Western Australia. Internal Medicine Journal, 0(0), 070521010100003–??? doi:10.1111/j.1445-5994.2007.01384.x

- Bressi, C., Porcellana, M., Gambini, O., Madia, L., Muffatti, R., Peirone, A., … Altamura, A. C. (2009). Burnout Among Psychiatrists in Milan: A Multicenter Survey. Psychiatric Services, 60(7), 985–988. doi:10.1176/ps.2009.60.7.985

- Madathil, R., Heck, N. C., & Schuldberg, D. (2014). Burnout in Psychiatric Nursing: Examining the Interplay of Autonomy, Leadership Style, and Depressive Symptoms. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 28(3), 160–166. doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2014.01.002

Consequently, on the basis of these considerations, we have clarified the use of analysis of covariance in the statistical analyses section. Moreover, we have deeply recognized in the discussion section that the results may not generalize. Finally, we have underlined in the discussion section that the cross-sectional design of this study did not allow to make inference of causality between the observed variables.

Results

Table 1 Why were you examining differences in study measures by gender?

Reply: Many thanks for the opportunity to explain this point. Several past studies have examined the relationship between burnout and gender (for a recent review see the following papers:

- Purvanova RK, Muros JP. Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis. J Vocat Behav. 2010;77(2):168–85. do: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.006

- O’Connor K, Muller Neff D, Pitman S. Burnout in mental health professionals: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and determinants. Eur Psychiatry. 2018; 53:74–99. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.06.003) with inconsistent results.

In addition, burnout was frequently associated to female gender (see for example the following papers:

- Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job Burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):397–422. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

- Burns KEA, Fox-Robichaud A, Lorens E, Martin CM. Gender differences in career satisfaction, moral distress, and incivility: a national, cross-sectional survey of Canadian critical care physicians. Can J Anaesth. 2019;66(5):503–11. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-019-01321-y).

For these reasons, we decided to examine gender differences for the burnout factors. Results from this well-balanced sample for gender (31 males vs 35 females without significant differences for age, education, and work experience) have not shown differences for any subscales of the MBI.

We have briefly discussed these results in the discussion section with the aim to make more easily understandable this choice for readers. Consequently, we have added this comparison as the first aim of this study. We feel that this change did not influence the nature of our work because comparison by gender was already inserted in the statistical section and results sections.

Table 2 Why did you conduct multiple t-tests? How did you address risk of type 1 errors?

Reply: As stated above, multiple t-tests were conducted to examine gender difference. We fully understand the reviewer’s viewpoint about risk of type 1 errors. Therefore, we have adopted a conservative approach using the Bonferroni correction.

Discussion

Personality traits can be considered as vulnerability factors in the

development of work distress and burnout. Provide references to support this statement.

Reply: We revised the terminology, in order to avoid misinterpretation, and added references. Actually, cited studies were mostly designed as cross-sectional. In this vein, we think it could be speculative to talk about vulnerability factors. This has been emphasized in the revised manuscript.

Hence, we have replaced the phrase above with the follow and provided references to support:

“Personality characteristics (i.e., neuroticism, hardiness, locus of control) might be a relevant factor associated with the development of work distress and burnout [42,47-52].

42. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job Burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):397–422. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

47. Purvanova RK, Muros JP. Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis. J Vocat Behav. 2010;77(2):168–85. do: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.006

48. Swider BW, Zimmerman RD. Born to burnout: A meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. J Vocat Behav. 2010; 76(3):487–506. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.01.003

49. Armon G, Shirom A, Melamed S. The Big Five Personality Factors as Predictors of Changes Across Time in Burnout and Its Facets. J Pers. 2012; 80(2): 403–27. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00731.x

50. Armon G. Type D personality and job burnout: The moderating role of physical activity. Pers Individ Differ. 2014; 58:112–5. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.020

51. De la Fuente-Solana EI, Gómez-Urquiza JL, Cañadas GR, Albendín-García L, Ortega-Campos E, Cañadas-De la Fuente GA. Burnout and its relationship with personality factors in oncology nurses. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2017; 30: 91–6. doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2017.08.004

52. Gama G, Barbosa F, Vieira M. Personal determinants of nurses’ burnout in end of life care. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014; 18(5):527-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2014.04.005

Field and environment are two different things. Do you mean that the practice of the profession is stressful? If so, what aspects?

Reply: Certainly, we have amended this part to be clearer utilizing the word “field” across the manuscript. We mean just that professional practice is stressful. In fact, burnout is frequent in fields of medicine with high patient mortality rates. For instance, Kamal and colleagues [4] reported a burnout rate of 62 percent among hospice and palliative care clinicians. However, this is one of the highest rates reported among palliative care.

Operational tasks linked to diagnostic and therapeutic practices,

however, should be considered as strictly related to psychological tasks just as maintaining concordance among patients and their relatives [43]. This sentence is ambiguous. Do you mean there is a psychological component to practice for the health care professional?

Reply: We agree with the reviewer that this sentence is unclear. Undoubtedly, psychological component plays a fundamental role in palliative home care practice and impacts patients’ quality of life. So, we have revised this part to point out the significance of the psychological aspects in palliative home care. On the other hand, we have marked psychological effect for palliative care practitioners. For these reasons, we have included citations to the Masel and colleagues (2016) and to the Rugnone and colleagues (2017) papers.

The relationship between years of experience and burnout has been

investigated in-depth across numerous research studies - references to support this statement.

Reply: Many thanks to the reviewer for this precious indication. As stated, this relationship has been examined in several papers. Therefore, we include citation to a recent systematic review including 33 studies (O’Connor K, Muller Neff D, Pitman S. Burnout in mental health professionals: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and determinants. Eur Psychiatry. 2018; 53:74–99. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.06.003). It is to be emphasized that the relationship between years of experience and burnout was not consistent across the studies. Consequently, we have included citations to the Brewer and colleagues (2004) and Marchalik and colleagues (2019) papers to point out this question.

Structural and organisational interventions adopted to prevent burnout are mainly focused on periodical group discussion, limit of weekly working hours for all staff, and learning communication skills with patients and colleagues. - references to support statement.

Reply: We have added the following reference to support statement:

12. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, Shanafelt TD. Interventions to prevent and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2016;388(10057):2272–81. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31279-x

Why are you reporting on structural factors in your discussion when you are looking at individual level factors?

Reply: We agree that it is essential to make this distinction clear. So, we apologize for the confusion. We have amended this part of discussion by clarifying we focalized only on individual level factors. In fact, this is now better explained as follow:

“Structural and organisational interventions adopted to prevent burnout are mainly focused on periodical group discussion, limit of weekly working hours for all staff, and learning communication skills with patients and colleagues [12]. However, the principal focus of this study is on individual level factors and consequently future studies should also consider organisational factors to explain burnout risk. Despite the notable amount of research conducted in the context of burnout prevention among healthcare practitioners, there is still a lack of studies taking account both organisational and individual level factors [12]. Therefore, further research is needed to evaluated if these strategies are effective to reduce burnout among specialist palliative care practitioners.”

Please provide reference for the limitations of self-assessment measures.

Reply: We have provided additional information to clarify limitations of self-assessment measures in this study. In fact, self-report measures can be influenced by social desirability, and for this reason, past studies have indicated that social desirability can result in underreporting of symptoms of burnout. This is highly probable for smaller organizations such as those involved in our study. Hence, we have restructured the part of manuscript as follow: “The fourth limitation regards the use of self-assessment measures to evaluate the risk of burnout even though the MBI is a well-established and standardised tool in the literature [36-39,51]. Several previous studies on burnout risk have reported that social desirability could result in underrating of symptoms [3,47,59]. However, the FREE and the CSI, employed to evaluate regulatory flexibility and context sensitivity, are scenario-based indices that did not require participants to possess an exact awareness of their own abilities [39]. In fact, these measures were constructed to identify their hypothetical ability rather than their reminisced history of engaging in regulatory behaviours.”

3. Koh MYH, Chong PH, Neo PSH, Ong YJ, Yong WC, Ong WY, et al. Burnout, psychological morbidity and use of coping mechanisms among palliative care practitioners: A multi-centre cross-sectional study. Palliat Med. 2015;29(7):633–42. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269216315575850

39. Bonanno GA, Maccallum F, Malgaroli M, Hou WK. The Context Sensitivity Index (CSI): Measuring the Ability to Identify the Presence and Absence of Stressor Context Cues. Assessment. 2018;107319111882013. doi: 10.1177/1073191118820131

47. Armon G. Type D personality and job burnout: The moderating role of physical activity. Pers Individ Differ. 2014; 58:112–5. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.020

49. Lapa TA, Carvalho SA, Pinto-Gouveia J. Psychological distress, burnout and personality traits in Dutch anaesthesiologists. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017; 34(1) 41–42. doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000000500

Please provide a conclusion section to this paper.

Reply: A conclusion section restating the main findings and limitations was added.

Language was deeply revised by authors, as preciously suggested by the Reviewer.

Nevertheless, authors kindly point out that they previously received assistance from a professional editing service.

Thank you so much for the time invested and the important contributions suggested, which have helped us to ameliorate the quality of the manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

13 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-33880R1

Understanding the role of regulatory flexibility and context sensitivity in preventing burnout in a palliative home care team

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Lenzo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. I am pleased to confirm that you have successfully addressed the reviewers' comment. However, your submission still requires substantial editing for English grammar and usage. We ask that you please have the manuscript copy-edited by either a native-English speaking colleague or a professional copy-editing service. While you may approach any qualified individual or any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with American Journal Experts (AJE) to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. AJE has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that AJE has edited, AJE will re-edit the text for free. To take advantage of this special partnership, use the following link: https://www.aje.com/go/plos/."

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 27 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,

Tim Luckett

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

27 Apr 2020

Vittorio Lenzo

University of Cassino and South Latium

Località Folcara

Cassino, Lazio, Italy 03043

vlenzo@unime.it

Tim Luckett

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

April 27, 2020

Dear Dr. Luckett:

I am pleased to submit the revised version of the research article entitled “Understanding the role of regulatory flexibility and context sensitivity in preventing burnout in a palliative home care team (PONE-D-19-33880R1)” for publication in PLOS ONE.

As you requested, we sent the manuscript for substantial editing for English grammar and usage. We have included the Editing Certificate by the America Journal Experts (AJE). Also, we carefully revised the manuscript for any error once again. We added the full citation of the using statistical program and of an article we have forgotten in the last revision.

There is no change in our conflicts of interest disclosure.

Once again, we want to thank you for your valuable support and precious support.

Sincerely,

Vittorio Lenzo, PhD

Post-doctoral research fellow, Department of Human, Social and Health Sciences

University of Cassino and South Latium

30 Apr 2020

Understanding the role of regulatory flexibility and context sensitivity in preventing burnout in a palliative home care team

PONE-D-19-33880R2

Dear Dr. Lenzo,

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,

Tim Luckett

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

7 May 2020

PONE-D-19-33880R2

Understanding the role of regulatory flexibility and context sensitivity in preventing burnout in a palliative home care team

Dear Dr. Lenzo:

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. Tim Luckett

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE