Background: Burnout Syndrome has been defined as workplace stress characterized
with a three-dimensional model – emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and
inefficacy. Originally observed among the service professions, burnout is
postulated to be experienced by adolescent students who are among the most
vulnerable groups in aspect of mental
health. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the academic landscape to online learning
which may contribute to burnout. This study explored the presence of burnout
among Filipino adolescent students to determine its relationship with online
learning, its contributory factors, and barriers to online learning.
Methods: This cross-sectional study used the Maslach Burnout Inventory – Student
Survey among 257 Filipino adolescents aged 15-19 years old enrolled in online
high schools in Metro Manila in November – December 2021. Collected data were
measured using the three-dimensional model and analyzed using the chi-square
test.
Results
and Data Analysis: This study showed that 26.8% and 72.8% of the
participants were classified as high-risk and moderate-risk for burnout,
respectively. Risk for burnout is
significantly associated with students taking 6 or more subjects per day (P
< 0.05) and those with grades belonging to the lowest 75% in their year
level (P < 0.05). Mental health difficulties and having to fulfill responsibilities
at home were the most common reported barrier to online learning.
Conclusion
and Recommendations: Is this journal
recommended heading? Burnout Syndrome is present in Filipino adolescent
students in online learning programs amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Further
research on face-to-face classes and broadening the study population are
recommended for baseline comparison. Identifying factors on student burnout is
desirable to improve academic efficacy and to protect the adolescents' mental
wellbeing.
Keywords: Burnout Syndrome; Adolescence; Mental Health; Online Learning; Maslach Burnout Inventory
INTRODUCTION
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines burnout syndrome as a
phenomenon resulting from chronic workplace stress. A widely accepted
three-dimensional theory for burnout has been modeled by researchers
encompassing (1) emotional exhaustion, (2) cynicism or depersonalization, and
(3) efficacy. Emotional exhaustion refers to having a
lack of energy or depletion of one's emotional source. This represents the
basic individual stress component of burnout syndrome. Cynicism or
depersonalization refers to the excessive detachment, withdrawal, or
disconnection of one’s self from others. This
represents the interpersonal component of burnout. Inefficacy or feeling of
reduced personal accomplishment refers to the feeling of incompetence,
decreased productivity, and even failure. This represents the self-evaluation
component of burnout.1,2,3
Burnout syndrome was traditionally observed among the population of
human service professionals (i.e. managers, teachers, physicians, nurses, etc.)
due to their involvement in emotionally exhausting environments.1,2 Students
are not technically employed but the core activities of students can be
considered as work from the psychological perspective. Students participate in
well-structured activities like attending classes, doing assignments, and other
mandatory activities. Burnout is postulated to be observed in students and may
manifest as exhaustion due to study demands, feelings of cynicism and
detachment towards their studies, and feelings of incompetence and study
failures.2
The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) is the most notable tool to assess
the three dimensions of burnout.2,6 It has been widely used in published studies on burnout in
Filipinos.7,8 In a study by George and Reyes on burnout among
Filipinos,8 the MBI achieved to have excellent coefficients of
internal consistency for its subscales with Cronbach alphas ranging from
0.94-0.95.
In March 2020, the Philippine government placed the
country under serial lockdowns due to the Coronavirus Disease or Covid-19
global pandemic hence, the academic landscape in the country suddenly shifted
to online learning.9 Online learning is cost-effective, improves
accessibility to up-to-date information, and addresses faculty shortage. Amidst
these advantages, a national survey done by Baticulon et al.10
identified barriers to online learning (i.e. limited access to devices, internet connectivity, difficulty in learning
styles, mental or physical health issues, no conducive learning spaces, home
responsibilities, administrative or even socioeconomic issues). In addition, a
study by Alibudbud11 presented that mental health issues (i.e.
anxiety, depression, and absenteeism) can be a consequence of online learning
due to an increased demand for new technological skills and productivity,
information overload, and may be worsened by the Covid-19 pandemic.12
Importance has been implicated in
studying this aspect of the adolescent's mental well-being to prevent issues
that may arise from burnout. However, research on burnout usually focuses on
professional occupational groups. Published research on burnout among students in the secondary level are few,7
while published research on burnout among Filipino high school students are
unavailable. The sudden shift in the academic setting to an online platform
suggest further stressors which may affect the mental health of Filipino
adolescents. The study aims to determine the association of Burnout Syndrome
among adolescent senior high school (SHS) students. Specifically, the authors
aim: (1) to determine the prevalence of Burnout Syndrome in adolescent SHS
students in the background of the current online learning curriculum, (2) to determine
factors that contribute to burnout in adolescent SHS students; and (3) to
identify possible barriers to online learning among SHS students amidst the
Covid-19 Pandemic. Understanding and justifying their relationship is greatly
desirable to pave the way in creating future strategies to improve academic
efficacy and above all, to protect the student’s mental welfare and prevent
complications arising from these mental health issues.7,10
METHODOLOGY
Study Design and Inclusion
& Exclusion Criteria:
This was a prospective cross-sectional study, using an online survey,
which was done among Filipino adolescents aged 15-19 years old enrolled in
Grade 11 or 12 in an online curriculum in private Senior High Schools (SHS) in
Metro Manila, Philippines. Excluded in the study are adolescents below and
above the mentioned age range, not enrolled in Private Senior High Schools with
an Online Curriculum, and are known or diagnosed cases of any
neurodevelopmental, neurocognitive, and/or psychological disorders or taking
any psychiatric medications. Participants who are unable to accomplish the
questionnaires or those with incomplete and unsubmitted online forms and those
who opted to drop out or withdraw during the conduction of the study were
withdrawn from the study. Data
collection was done in November to December 2021.
Sample Size Determination:
Sample size determination used the formula by Cohen,13 where
α is the level of significance, 1-β is the power, and ρ is the effect size of
the correlation to be detected. Using a significance level of 0.05, a 90%
power, and a supposed effect size of the correlation to be 0.20, the sample
size needed is 258.65 or 259.
Definition of Procedures
and Measurements of Outcomes:
Convenience and stratified sampling methods were utilized such that
electronic invitation letters were sent out to different private SHS
Administrators in Metro Manila. A total of 10 institutions agreed to
participate in this study. Cluster sampling was used where the school
administrators selected the first 5 - 10 students from each of the SHS Sections
or Classes based on their specific class numbers to participate in this study.
School administrators were sent an online link that contained (1) a brief
introduction regarding the present study, (2) the assent and consent forms, and
(3) the Data Collection form which includes the demographics of the participant
and survey questions regarding their online learning curriculum and possible barriers
to online learning. After completing the data collection form, a separate link
was provided and redirected the participant to a separate, unlinked, and
unidentified Maslach Burnout Inventory – Student Survey form.
The collated data was then sent to a third-party statistician who
completed the data analysis. The collected outcome was measured using the
three-dimensional model of burnout such that burnout syndrome was assessed by
high scores for Emotional Exhaustion (low = 0-1, moderate 10-14, high >14)
and Cynicism (low = 0-1, moderate 2-6, high >6), and low scores for Personal
Efficacy (low <22, moderate 23-27, high >28). 1,2,3,13,14
Statistical Design:
Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze available data using
frequency and proportion to summarize categorical variables, while mean and
standard deviation were utilized to summarize continuous variables. Comparison
between the three-dimensional model of burnout and categorical variables was
performed using the chi-square test.
Ethical Considerations:
The study was reviewed by an accredited ethics review board before its
conduction and implementation. The authors had no conflict of interest nor
received any funding from any institution. The assent and consent forms were
provided by the authors. The assent and consent forms were not collected
personally by the authors. The authors ensured the protection and privacy of
the participant's personal information in compliance with the Philippine Data
Privacy Act of 2012.
The results of the surveys were disclosed to the school administrators
and guidance counselors so that identified students at risk of Burnout may be
properly assisted and referred for prompt intervention. A complete copy of the
study was made available to the administrators as reference for possible
improvement of their respective institution’s implementation of online
curriculum guidelines and policies.
RESULTS
TABLE 1. MBI-SS SUBSCALES AND RISK OF BURNOUT IN SHS
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN ONLINE CURRICULUM (N=257)
MBI-SS |
N (%) |
|
Exhaustion |
Low |
97 (37.7) |
Moderate |
82
(31.9) |
|
High |
78 (30.4) |
|
Cynicism |
Low |
12
(4.7) |
Moderate |
29 (11.3) |
|
High |
216
(84.0) |
|
Efficacy |
High |
4 (1.6) |
Moderate |
33
(12.8) |
|
Low |
220 (85.6) |
|
Overall
Burnout |
Low |
1
(0.4) |
Moderate |
187 (72.8) |
|
High |
69
(26.8) |
A total of 280 participants were recruited for this study. A total of 257 participants were able to submit the survey form with no missing data. Twenty-eight (28) participants were considered dropouts with dropout rate of 8.2%. This study showed that 69 (26.8%) of the participants were classified as high risk for burnout, only 1 (0.4%) was classified as low risk, and 187 (72.8%) were classified as moderate risk or those who did not meet the criteria for high or low risk for burnout. (Table 1)
TABLE 2. DEMOGRAPHICS, ONLINE LEARNING VARIABLES AND CORRELATION OF SELECTED VARIABLES ON BURNOUT USING THE CHI-SQUARE TEST (N=257)
Variables |
N (%) |
BURNOUT N(%) |
p-value |
||
LOW to MODERATE |
HIGH |
|
|||
Gender
Identity |
Female |
193
(75.1) |
141
(73.06) |
52
(26.94) |
0.778 |
Male |
59 (23) |
44
(74.58) |
15
(25.42) |
||
Others
** |
5 (1.9) |
3 (60) |
2 (40) |
||
Age
Group |
< 17 |
97
(37.8) |
67
(69.07) |
30
(30.93) |
0.212 |
17 |
112
(43.6) |
87
(78.38) |
24
(21.62) |
||
> 17 |
48
(18.6) |
31
(67.39) |
15
(32.61) |
||
Academic
Track |
BAMa |
48
(18.8) |
40
(83.33) |
8 (16.67) |
0.316 |
HumSSb |
46
(17.9) |
32
(69.57) |
14
(30.43) |
||
STEMc |
130
(50.7) |
91 (70) |
39 (30) |
||
Others
*** |
32
(12.6) |
24 (75) |
8 (25) |
||
Online
classes per day: |
< 4
hours |
15
(5.9) |
12 (80) |
3 (20) |
0.907 |
4 - 6
hours |
138
(53.7) |
99
(71.74) |
39
(28.26) |
||
6 - 8 hours |
80
(31.1) |
59
(73.75) |
21
(26.25) |
||
> 8
hours |
24
(9.3) |
18 (75) |
6 (25) |
||
Study
time after online classes: |
< 4
hours |
75
(29.2) |
59
(78.67) |
16
(21.33) |
0.527 |
4 - 6
hours |
96
(37.4) |
66
(68.75) |
30
(31.25) |
||
6 - 8
hours |
50
(19.5) |
37 (74) |
13 (26) |
||
> 8 hours |
36
(13.9) |
24
(70.59) |
10
(29.41) |
||
Subjects
per day: |
< 4
subjects/day |
131
(51) |
103
(78.63) |
28
(21.37) |
0.034 |
5
subjects/day |
102
(39.7) |
72
(70.59) |
30
(29.41) |
||
> 6
subjects/day |
24
(9.3) |
13
(54.17) |
11
(45.83) |
||
Extra-curricular
activities: |
1 hour/week |
93
(36.2) |
63
(67.74) |
30
(32.26) |
0.503 |
2
hours/week |
71
(27.6) |
53
(74.65) |
18
(25.35) |
||
3
hours/week |
26
(10.1) |
20
(76.92) |
6
(23.08) |
||
> 4
hours/week |
67
(26.1) |
46
(77.97) |
13
(22.03) |
||
Academic
standing:* |
Highest
25% |
94
(36.6) |
77
(81.91) |
17 (18.09) |
0.022 |
Lowest
75% |
150
(58.3) |
103
(68.67) |
47
(31.33) |
||
General
average:* |
<85% |
25
(9.7) |
11
(57.89) |
8
(42.11) |
0.081 |
85-90% |
60
(23.3) |
43
(71.67) |
17
(28.33) |
||
90-95% |
142
(55.3) |
102
(71.83) |
40
(28.17) |
||
>95% |
30
(11.7) |
27 (90) |
3 (10) |
* Based on the immediate past completed grading period
** Includes Bisexual, Transgender, and Non-Binary
*** Includes General Academic Strand, International Diploma Program,
Arts & Design, Technical Vocational Program
a Business, Accountancy, and Management
b Humanities, Education, Social Sciences
c Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
The majority of the participants belong to the late adolescents age
group. The majority of the participants identified as females. In terms of the
variables of online learning, 138 (53.7%) reported having at least 4 to 6 hours
of online schooling per day. However, 96 (37.4%) of the participants spend
another 4-6 hours of study time outside of the allotted time for online classes
and 93 (36.2%) reported having about 1 hour per week for extra-curricular
activities. Of the 257 participants, 102 (39.7%) reported having at least 5
subjects per day, 150 (58.3) reported that they belong to the lowest 75% in
academic standing for their respective year level while 142 (55.3%) reported
having at least 90-95% of general weighted average during the immediate past
grading period. (Table 2)
Burnout was significantly associated with the number of subjects per day
(p=0.034). This means that a higher incidence of burnout was observed from
those with 6 subjects or more per day compared to their peers taking 5 subjects
and below per day. Burnout was significantly associated with relative academic
standing (p=0.022). This means that there is a higher incidence of burnout
among those in the lowest 75% compared to their peers belonging to the highest
25% in their year level. Demographic factors such as sex, age, academic track,
and other variables of online learning show no significant correlation. (Table
2)
TABLE 3. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SELECTED
SELF-REPORTED BARRIERS TO ONLINE LEARNING
Variable |
Never |
Sometimes |
Often |
Always |
Problems with
internet access? |
12 (4.7) |
142 (55.3) |
83 (32.3) |
20 (7.8) |
Lack of
technical skills? |
66 (25.7) |
135 (52.5) |
49 (19.1) |
7 (2.7) |
No or limited
access to gadgets or devices? |
171 (66.5) |
59 (23) |
23 (8.9) |
4 (1.6) |
Difficulty
adjusting to learning styles? |
18 (7) |
133 (51.8) |
71 (27.6) |
35 (13.6) |
Mental health difficulties? |
26 (10.1) |
71 (27.6) |
80 (31.1) |
80 (31.1) |
Physical health
difficulties? |
61 (23.7) |
108 (42) |
56 (21.8) |
32 (12.5) |
Need to fulfill
responsibilities at home? |
15 (5.8) |
68 (26.5) |
88 (34.2) |
86 (33.5) |
Family
conflicts? |
61 (23.7) |
112 (43.6) |
47 (18.3) |
37 (14.4) |
Limited space
for studying? |
82 (31.9) |
85 (33.1) |
42 (16.3) |
48 (18.7) |
Poor
communication with teachers and instructors? |
55 (21.4) |
135 (52.5) |
50 (19.5) |
17 (6.6) |
Poor quality of
learning materials? |
98 (38.1) |
118 (45.9) |
32 (12.5) |
9 (3.5) |
Limited
interaction with peers? |
41 (16) |
101 (39.3) |
70 (27.2) |
45 (17.5) |
The majority of the participants do not have issues concerning their
access to gadgets or devices for online schooling. The majority of the
participants reported having just some degree of difficulties with internet
access, lack of technical skills, difficulty in adjusting to learning styles,
limitations due to physical health, family conflicts, limited or non-conducive
learning spaces, poor communication between learners and instructors, as well
as poor learning materials, and limited interaction with peers. Of the 257
participants, 160 (62.2%) reported often to always having mental health difficulties
as a barrier to their online learning and 174 (67.7%) reported often to always
having the need to fulfill responsibilities at home as barriers to online
schooling. (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
This study reports firsthand data that Burnout Syndrome is present in
Filipino adolescents aged 15-19 years old enrolled in an online learning
program in private Senior High Schools in Metro Manila, Philippines. The
prevalence of moderate-risk Burnout and high-risk Burnout is 72.8% and 26.8%, respectively.
In the present study, we report that there are no gender differences in
burnout risk. This is in contrast to studies which showed a higher burnout risk
in the female sex.17,18,19 According to Misra and McKean, females
have more effective time management behaviors but experience higher academic
stress and anxiety than males.18 Similar data were published in
Italy17 and Canada.19 In the present study, we report
that there are no age differences in burnout risk. This is in contrast to the
study by Gabola et. al. 20 which showed that burnout risk was found
to be higher in late adolescence than in middle adolescence because as students
move forward in their school trajectories, tasks become more challenging. Aside
from these external stressors, the adolescents’ cognitive control and response
to stress may be influenced by their brain’s structural and functional
development including its neuroendocrine functions.21
It is notable that different studies investigating the relationship of
burnout risk with gender identity and age have varying results, calling for
more investigations on the link between Burnout Syndrome, gender, and age.7,17,18,19,20,23
According to Velasco,7 there is an inverse relationship between
burnout and social support, while Gabola et. al.20 highlighted that
different sociocultural values and different school attitudes and systems
account for cross-cultural differences in burnout risk. The findings
of this present study which showed no significant difference in burnout risk
between gender identity and age in Filipino adolescent SHS students may be due
to the Filipino parental perspective on education as essential to their
children’s success and their willingness to go to great lengths just to support
their children’s education, regardless of gender and age, especially in their
primary through tertiary academic levels.24
Since there has been no available data on burnout in Filipino SHS
students, the present study showed primary data that there is no significant
difference in burnout risk between different academic tracks.
In the present study, high-risk Burnout Syndrome had a significant
association with the number of subjects a student attends per day and the
student’s overall academic standing. This is consistent with the findings of
Velasco wherein the number of university units is positively correlated with
exhaustion. 7 This is also consistent with the claim of Galbraith
and Meril25 that one’s academic load increases the likelihood of
exhaustion. The delivery of lesson topics had to be adjusted for online
schooling such that the same number of topics were covered in a shorter amount
of time and that self-directed learning was utilized more thus students needed
more hours in the online setup as compared to face-to-face classes which may
contribute to student exhaustion. However, student exhaustion and overall
burnout in the usual setup of face-to-face classes have not yet been
investigated thus far.
On the other hand, the student’s overall academic standing which may be
due to ineffectively fulfilling school responsibilities leading to difficulties
in school performance may translate to the inefficacy
subscale of burnout. This is consistent with the findings of Velasco7
wherein the Grade Point Average (GPA) of university students is positively
correlated with academic efficacy and negatively correlated with cynicism. They
claimed that higher academic achievement leads to a positive outlook in
students which also leads to a higher sense of efficacy in fulfilling their
academic work.7 Conversely, study failures or feelings of
incompetence brought about by poor academic standing may lead to feelings of
being withdrawn or detached which translates to Cynicism – forming a vicious
cycle of reciprocal cause and effect on Burnout Syndrome.
This study also presented possible barriers to learning that Filipino
adolescents in SHS experience in online school programs. The present study
showed that only a few participants had problems with internet access and the lack
of technical skills while almost 67% of the participants reported that they
have never experienced having no or limited access to gadgets. This is in
contrast to the study by Baticulon et. al.,10 Nepal, S.,28
and Mukhtar, K.,29 which all reported that internet availability and
lack of technological skills pose a grave barrier to online learning in their
respective respondents. In addition, poor communication with educators and the
quality of learning materials, as well as having to adjust to different
learning styles were not an issue for the majority of the participants. It is
worth noting that the present study was conducted in private institutions where
most students belong to families of higher socioeconomic status hence, these
numbers are not reflective of the whole Filipino SHS demographic.
The present study showed that 62% of the participants reported having
some sort of mental health difficulties, which may have a causal relationship
with Burnout Syndrome. This is consistent with the published data by Baticulon
et. al.10 and Golberstein et. al..30 According to their studies,
the pandemic had caused psychological stress among adolescent students.10,30
Feelings of anxiety, loneliness, and hopelessness were reported making it
difficult for the students to focus on their studies. In the study by Baticulon
et. al.10, their student respondents were reported to be worried
about their online assignments, future plans in their careers, and as well as
the safety of their families from Covid-19.10 Although the present
study did not specifically ask the nature of the mental health difficulty and
even excluded participants with a known psychiatric illness, the inquiry was
only made to elicit a self-reported claim of any physical or psychological
barrier in online learning.
The present study showed that 68% of the participants reported having to
fulfill responsibilities at home as a barrier to their online learning. This is
consistent with the study by Baticulon et. al.10 which implied that
more time spent at home did not equate to productiveness in academic work.
Although the majority of the participants did not report having issues with
family conflicts or having limited space conducive for studying at home, having
the need to fulfill responsibilities at home may distract them from their
online classes and study time. The present study showed that the majority of
the participants did not see having limited interaction with their peers as a
barrier to online learning in contrast to previous studies stating that having
this limitation has negative effects on a student's well-being. Although the
adolescents’ psychosocial development is heavily based on socialization and
deep relations with peer groups21, the contrasting results may be
due to the wider availability of social media platforms allowing them to
socialize and belong to different peer groups.
CONCLUSION
Burnout Syndrome is present in Filipino adolescent online learners. The
risk for burnout is significantly associated with the number of subjects per
day and the student's overall academic standing. Mental health difficulties and
having to fulfill responsibilities at home are reported to be the most common
barrier in the online school setting.
Through this study, the correlation between attendance to an online
curriculum and Burnout Syndrome in Filipino adolescents amidst the Covid-19
Global Pandemic were identified to aid teachers, guidance counselors, and
school administrators as well as government and non-government organizations to
benchmark educational policies and guidelines amidst all modes of conventional
and non-conventional forms of education be set to achieve optimal quality
education that is geared toward the protection of the adolescent learner's
mental wellbeing.
LIMITATIONS
This prospective cross-sectional study only measures associations
between the risk of Burnout Syndrome with the limited variables on online
learning which possess no assumptions that they may be directly in causation.
The long-term mental effects of the lockdown secondary to the Covid-19 Pandemic
cannot be predicted by these results and must not be taken into generalization.
Questionnaires are self-administered hence self-reporting bias may affect the
responses. Self-reported symptoms of Burnout Syndrome may coincide with
symptoms of an undiagnosed or unknown mental health disorder and the indicated
risks of Burnout Syndrome may not always be consistent with evaluations made by
a trained medical health professional.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The study population is limited to SHS students in private and urban settings.
We recommend broadening the population to include SHS students from both
private and public and both in rural and urban areas to compare data among
different demographics and socioeconomic statuses. This study was pursued
during the time when schools are alternatively online. We recommend further
studies in face-to-face classes for baseline comparison. Symptoms of Burnout
Syndrome may be in parallel with symptoms of Anxiety Disorder, Depressive
Disorders, and other Mood Disorders. We recommend further studies on the
correlation of Burnout Syndrome with any other psychological disorders.
REFERENCES
1.
World Health Organization. Burn-out
an "Occupational phenomenon": International Classification of
Diseases. WHO 2019.
www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burn-out-an-occupational-phenomenon-international-classification-of-diseases
(accessed January 14, 2021).
2.
Hu Q, Schaufeli WB. The factorial
validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory–Student Survey in China.
Psychological Reports 2009;105:394–408.
3.
Schaffran P, Kleinert J, Altfeld S,
Zepp C, Kallus KW, Kellmann M. Early risk detection of burnout: Development of
the burnout prevention questionnaire for coaches. Frontiers in Psychology
2019;10.
4.
Aypay A. A positive model for
reducing and Preventing School Burnout in high school students. Educational
Sciences: Theory & Practice 2017.
5.
Tomaszek K, Muchacka-Cymerman A. Sex
differences in the relationship between Student School Burnout and problematic
internet use among adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health 2019;16:4107.
6.
Maslach C, Jackson SE. Maslach
Burnout Inventory--es form. PsycTESTS Dataset 1981.
7.
Velasco J. Millennials in the
university: An inquiry on burnout among Filipino university students. Pertanika
Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 2019;27:18011–1814.
8.
George R, Reyes M. Burnout as a
predictor of quality of life among selected Filipino nurses. Indian Journal of
Health and Wellbeing 2017;8:691–6.
9.
World Health Organization. Who
director-general's remarks at the media briefing on 2019-ncov on 11 February
2020. WHO 2020. www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-2019-ncov-on-11-february-2020
(accessed January 14, 2022).
10.
Baticulon RE, Sy JJ, Alberto NR,
Baron MB, Mabulay RE, Rizada LG, et al. Barriers to online learning in the time
of COVID-19: A national survey of medical students in the Philippines. Medical
Science Educator 2021;31:615–26.
11.
Alibudbud R. On online learning and
mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives from the Philippines.
Asian Journal of Psychiatry 2021;66.
12.
Malolos GZ, Baron MB, Apat FA,
Sagsagat HA, Pasco PB, Aportadera ET, et al. Mental health and well-being of
children in the Philippine setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health
Promotion Perspectives 2021;11:267–70.
13.
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis
for the behavioral sciences. New York: Psychology Press Taylor & Francis
Group; 2009.
14.
Shadid A, Shadid A, Shadid A,
Almutairi F, Almotairi KE, Aldarwish T, et al. Stress, Burnout, and associated
risk factors in medical students. Cureus 2020. doi:10.7759/cureus.6633.
15.
Aranas K, Buenconsejo J, Zalameda C.
Dimensions of school burnout as predictors of symptoms of anxiety, depression,
and suicidal ideation among college students. Brillar 2020;1:33–42.
16.
Puranitee P, Saetang S, Sumrithe S,
Busari JO, van Mook WNKA, Heeneman S. Exploring Burnout and depression of Thai
Medical Students: The psychometric properties of the Maslach Burnout Inventory.
International Journal of Medical Education 2019;10:223–9.
17.
Fiorilli C, Barni D, Russo C,
Marchetti V, Angelini G, Romano L. Students’ burnout at university: The role of
gender and worker status. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health 2022;19.
18.
Misra R, McKean M. College students’
academic stress and its relations to their anxiety, time management, and
leisure satisfaction. American Journal of Health Studies 2000;16:41–51.
19.
Weckworth A, Flynn D. Effect of sex
on perceived support and burnout in university students. College Student
Journal 2006;40:237–49.
20.
Gabola P, Meylan N, Hascoët M, De
Stasio S, Fiorilli C. Adolescents’ school burnout: A comparative study between
Italy and Switzerland. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology
and Education 2021;11:849–59. doi:10.3390/ejihpe11030062.
21.
Kliegman R, Stanton B, W. SGJ, Schor
NF, Behrman RE, Nelson WE, et al. Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics. Philadelphia,
PA: Elsevier Inc.; 2020.
22.
Romeo RD. The teenage brain. Current
Directions in Psychological Science 2013;22:140–5.
23.
Salmela-Aro K, Upadyaya K,
Hakkarainen K, Lonka K, Alho K. The Dark Side of Internet use: Two longitudinal
studies of excessive internet use, depressive symptoms, school burnout and
engagement among Finnish early and late adolescents. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence 2016;46:343–57.
24.
Mamat N, Masnan AH. Parental
involvement in the Philippines: A review of literatures. Southeast Asia Early
Childhood Journal 2017;6:41–50.
25.
Galbraith CS, Merrill GB. Academic
and work-related burnout: A longitudinal study of Working Undergraduate
University Business Students. Journal of College Student Development
2012;53:453–63.
26.
Golu F. Tech fatigue - a new
pandemic. Studia Doctoralia 2021;12:85–7.
27.
Andersson A, Grönlund Å. A
conceptual framework for e-learning in developing countries: A critical review
of research challenges. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in
Developing Countries 2009;38:1–16.
28.
Nepal S, Atreya A, Menezes RG, Joshi
RR. Students’ perspective on online medical education amidst the COVID-19
pandemic in Nepal. Journal of Nepal Health Research Council 2020;18:551–5.
29.
Mukhtar K, Javed K, Arooj M, Sethi
A. Advantages, limitations and recommendations for online learning during
COVID-19 pandemic era. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 2020;36.
30.
Golberstein E, Wen H, Miller BF.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) and Mental Health for Children and
Adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics 2020;174:819.