Burnout is one of the psychological stresses that affects workers’ health and well-being. Therefore, the World Health Organization (Prada-Ospina 2019) describes burnout as a psychological reaction to long-term work-related stress. It is a workplace psychological stress syndrome characterised by emotional, physical and mental exhaustion, reduced work efficiency and lower job satisfaction (Alsalhe et al. 2021; Maryani & Gazali 2024). Burnout causes psychological trauma, leading to negative behaviours such as decreased attention, withdrawal from colleagues and increased absenteeism (Dobson et al. 2020; Johnson 2023a; Johnson & Newman 2023; Smith, Mullins-Jaime & Balogun 2025). This phenomenon can significantly jeopardise team dynamics and organisational effectiveness, thereby potentially undermining the quality of work output and increasing the risk of workplace conflicts (Maryani & Gazali 2024; Van Jaarsveldt & Jacobs 2024). In the 21st century, universities have intensified their pursuit of excellence and work demands. Insurmountable pressure is often placed on academic staff to achieve expected outcomes, which can heighten stress. Because of increasing expectations for academic staff, it has been authoritatively argued that working in a university setting is no longer stress-free (Smith et al. 2025). This emanates from the fact that the responsibilities expected of academics have become extensive. The situation is much more intense among medical and health academic staff, with high expectations for not only clinical and classroom teaching and research but also community engagement to increase the number of medical personnel and improve patient outcomes. Professionals in the health field continue to engage in clinical practice to maintain their clinical skills and enhance their ability to supervise health professional students. However, because of heavy workloads and demands, many staff are stressed, which makes their work challenging and affects their career progression (Kocatepe, Kocatepe & Yildirim 2024). The role of academics has grown significantly in response to increased demands from various stakeholders, including university administrations, research councils and government bodies (Dobson & Schnall 2018; Gordon & Schnall 2018; Landsbergis & Schnall 2018). Researchers have documented increased responsibilities, including teaching, research, academic duties and other service roles (Francis, Bin Ahmad & Abdullah 2021; Meilani, Bernarto & Nahar 2022; Mohammad Alrifae & Wahab 2023). Moreover, the tasks extend beyond teaching to include supervising students, publishing, compiling reports, performing administrative duties and presenting at conferences (Dobson et al. 2020; Kocatepe et al. 2024; Landsbergis & Schnall 2018; Zizka & Probst 2024). Academics are further required to participate in research projects, serve on scientific committees and review scholarly papers, while also fulfilling other obligations outside academia, such as family, friendships and social engagements (Ameri & Mohammadi 2024; Luzipho, Joubert & Dhurup 2023; Valkov & Peeva 2020). This has dramatically increased pressure among academics, perpetuating a spike in burnout. In addition, the increase in workload has been linked to growing student populations, increased demands for research output, and the adoption of performance-based funding models (Francis et al. 2021; Meilani et al. 2022; Mohammad Alrifae & Wahab 2023). This noticeable increase in workload has become a cause for concern, plunging academics into an emotional quandary that ultimately leads to occupational stress and burnout (Katz et al. 2018; Kelly et al. 2020; Ostrow et al. 2022). Furthermore, the institutions benefit immensely from the increased workload for academic staff, but the same cannot be said of the latter. For example, improved research outputs attract funding from various stakeholders, including the government, the private sector and non-governmental organisations (Boitet et al. 2025; Rogers et al. 2025; Underdahl, Ditri & Duthely 2024). These stakeholders are generally interested in funding academic institutions such as universities that pursue research on national issues, innovation and societal development. On the other hand, an increased workload can lead to significantly high academic stress levels. In contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the academic community must recognise its role in addressing the effects of burnout, promoting good health and well-being (SDG 3) and decent work (SDG 8). University management must implement effective strategies to address burnout, and we, as academic professionals, can contribute by promoting healthy work–life balance, offering mental health resources and fostering supportive work environments (Abadi & Hasanuddin 2024; Akerstrom et al. 2021). Also, according to Brown et al. (2021) and Strauss et al. (2021), considering the challenges confronting health professional academics in universities in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), more comprehensive studies must be conducted based on the Maslach model to assess the growing burnout concern among academia and develop effective management strategies (Elliott 2025; Johnson 2023b). It is essential to note that much of the research on burnout dimensions and associated demographic variables is predominantly found in developed countries, where the issue is taken more seriously. There is a notable contrast between developed and developing countries in terms of stress and burnout. In sub-Saharan African universities, there is limited attention to burnout, particularly among new and emerging institutions that are struggling to gain attention in the global academic arena. Building on this view, the authors investigated burnout among academic staff in the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at Walter Sisulu University (WSU).

The results of the survey, with a brief description, are presented here.

Table 2 shows that fewer than half of the respondents (n = 22, 46.8%) reported EE at moderate levels, the most significant proportion. It was noted that less than 30% of respondents (n = 14, 29.8%) reported low levels of burnout, while high levels were the least frequent, affecting 11 respondents (23.4%). This distribution indicates that nearly half of the respondents experience some emotional fatigue, suggesting that moderate EE is a prevalent concern. However, extreme burnout is comparatively rare, suggesting varying levels of resilience or coping mechanisms within the group. Respondents’ DP levels are relatively balanced, with a slightly higher concentration at low and moderate burnout levels. Low burnout was reported by 18 respondents (38.3%), followed by 19 respondents (40.4%) who reported moderate burnout. High levels of Depersonalisation were the least common, affecting 10 respondents (21.3%). This pattern suggests that, while Depersonalisation is not uncommon, most respondents experience it at lower levels, indicating that extreme feelings of detachment or cynicism are relatively rare within the group. Personal accomplishment burnout levels reveal that most respondents fall within the low or moderate categories. Low burnout was reported by 19 respondents (40.4%), while a slightly higher proportion, 20 respondents (42.6%), experienced moderate burnout. High burnout was the least frequent, affecting only eight respondents (17.0%). This distribution indicates that most respondents maintain a reasonable sense of competence and achievement in their work, with relatively few experiencing severe burnout in their sense of PA. Most respondents experience moderate levels of EE and low-to-moderate levels of DP and PA burnout. The differences observed across these dimensions do not exhibit a statistically significant relationship, as evidenced by the chi-square test’s high p-value (0.820). This suggests that the three dimensions of burnout may operate independently, capturing distinct facets of burnout rather than being closely interconnected. These findings highlight the multifaceted nature of burnout and underscore the importance of addressing each dimension separately to better understand and manage burnout within this population.

Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations (s.d.) for the three burnout dimensions across the sociodemographic variables. Burnout scores by age group show that EE ranges from a mean of 13.50 in the 18–30 age group (the lowest) to 23.20 in the 51–60 age group (the highest), suggesting that older respondents (51–60) experience more emotional strain. Depersonalisation scores range from 3.92 in the > 60 group (the lowest) to 8.83 in the 31–40 group (the highest), indicating greater detachment or cynicism among middle-aged respondents. Personal accomplishment scores range from 6.46 in the > 60 group (the lowest) to 12.00 in the 18–30 group (the highest), reflecting greater feelings of accomplishment among younger respondents. However, the p-values for all dimensions (EE: 0.466, DP: 0.414, PA: 0.467) indicate no statistically significant differences across age groups. Burnout scores by gender show that males have slightly higher mean scores than females across all dimensions: EE with 17.96 versus 17.63, DP with 6.54 versus 5.63, and PA with 9.18 versus 9.05. These differences suggest that males report marginally more emotional strain, detachment and feelings of accomplishment. However, the p-values for all dimensions (EE: 0.917, DP: 0.593, PA: 0.952) indicate that there are no statistically significant differences in burnout scores between male and female participants. Burnout scores by degree type show that PhD respondents have slightly higher mean scores across all dimensions compared to Master’s respondents: EE with 18.20 versus 17.81, DP with 6.80 versus 6.00, and PA with 9.27 versus 9.10. These differences suggest that PhD respondents may experience marginally more emotional strain, detachment and feelings of accomplishment. However, the p-values for all dimensions (EE: 0.909, DP: 0.657, PA: 0.939) indicate no statistically significant differences in burnout scores between the two degrees. Also, burnout levels by academic position reveal that EE scores are relatively similar across roles, ranging from 17.00 for Full Professors to 18.69 for Lecturers, with no statistically significant differences (p = 0.982). Depersonalisation scores range from 4.60 for Full Professors to 6.85 for Associate Professors, suggesting slightly higher detachment or cynicism among Associate Professors; however, these differences are not statistically significant (p = 0.907). Personal accomplishment scores decline with seniority, ranging from 10.77 for Lecturers to 5.80 for Full Professors, suggesting that higher positions may be perceived as less accomplished. Nevertheless, these differences are also not statistically significant (p = 0.430). The similar scores across academic roles indicate that the emotional strain individuals experience is consistent regardless of position, suggesting that workload and stressors may not differ substantially between Lecturers and Full Professors. While Associate Professors report slightly higher detachment or cynicism than other roles, the lack of statistical significance suggests these differences are not robust, and overall detachment levels are relatively uniform across positions. The decline in PA scores with seniority suggests that higher-ranking academics, such as Full Professors, may feel less effective or accomplished than those in junior positions. However, the lack of statistical significance indicates that this trend may not be consistent or strong enough to draw firm conclusions. Burnout levels by years of experience indicate that EE scores generally rise with years of experience, starting at 12.67 for those with 1–5 years of experience, peaking at 21.78 for those with 11–15 years of experience, and then slightly declining for those with over 16 years of experience. However, these differences are not statistically significant (p = 0.730). Similarly, DP scores increased from 4.00 in the 1–5-year group to 7.11 in the 11–15-year group before slightly decreasing among those with 16+ years, though these differences are also insignificant (p = 0.951). Personal accomplishment scores remain uniformly low across all experience levels, ranging from 1.33 for those with 1–5 and 6–10 years to 1.75 for individuals with 16–20 years, with no statistically significant differences observed (p = 0.905). The increase in EE scores with work experience, peaking at 11–15 years and slightly declining after 16 years, may reflect the cumulative strain of academic responsibilities over time. However, the lack of statistical significance difference suggests that EE is inconsistent across individuals. The increase in DP scores with experience, followed by a slight decline, might indicate that mid-career academics (11–15 years) experience higher detachment or cynicism, potentially because of the demands of their profession. However, the insignificant differences imply that DP levels are relatively stable across experience levels. The consistently low PA scores across all experience levels indicate a pervasive issue in which academics, regardless of their years of experience, feel diminished in their effectiveness or achievement. This may suggest systemic factors in the academic environment that impact feelings of accomplishment.

According to Figure 1, the analysis of overall burnout status revealed that most of the sample (70.2%) falls into the ‘No Burnout’ category, indicating that most individuals do not exhibit significant signs of burnout. However, a smaller but notable portion of the sample (14.9% each) is either ‘At Risk for Burnout’ or experiencing ‘Moderate Burnout’, highlighting individuals who may require attention to prevent further progression. Notably, no cases are recorded as experiencing severe burnout in this dataset, suggesting that the most extreme form of burnout is not prevalent in this sample.

Higher learning institutions in SSA have recently experienced noticeable growth, especially in South Africa. Despite the rising global ratings of South African universities, research on the wellness of academics in these rankings is limited. This study arose from anecdotal reports that burnout has become rampant among academics in South Africa. This mainly was reported among healthcare professional academics who combine various academic expectations with patient care in academic hospitals (Dlamini & Dlamini 2024; Frantz et al. 2019; Oluwadiya et al. 2023). The social, psychological and health-related issues associated with burnout are substantial. However, there is a paucity of data on the sociodemographic variables of medical academic staff associated with burnout dimensions, creating a significant scholarly gap in this important niche (Dubale et al. 2019). Some emerging Universities in South Africa were experiencing burnout because of the university management’s high-level programmes to compete with other universities. Academics are significantly affected by work demands and, as a result, often experience undue burnout (Dlamini & Dlamini 2024; Luzipho et al. 2023). All academics require investigation into burnout; however, assessing burnout among health professional academics becomes more critical because they are also involved in direct patient care (Oluwadiya et al. 2023). This also aligns with a study at the University of the Free State (UFS) that found that physician burnout can lead to adverse patient outcomes (Van der Merwe et al. 2023). Similarly, addressing burnout among health professionals is essential to reducing burnout in clinical practice. Based on this premise, the authors investigated burnout dimensions and their associated sociodemographic variables among health professional academics at WSU in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. The findings reveal critical aspects of burnout among healthcare academics in the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, reflecting the varied nature of the issue. Findings indicate that most respondents do not suffer from severe burnout (70.2%) but rather experience moderate burnout or are at risk (14.9%). This finding is inconsistent with those of Coetzee, Maree and Smit (2019), who reported chronic fatigue syndrome and burnout among academics in another South African university. A Nigerian study by Oluwadiya et al. (2023) reported a 30.8% moderate-to-high-level of EE among health professionals, which is lower than the rate reported in the current study. Emotional exhaustion is a factor in burnout. According to our findings, the highest score among the three dimensions substantially contributed to the toll of work-related stress on the overall well-being of healthcare academics. This finding supports Smith’s (2024) position that academic work is not stress-free. Other studies in Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Ghana reported similar burnout among university academics (Akuffo, Addy & Mensah; Chigeda, Ndofirepi & Steyn 2022; Oluwadiya et al. 2023). Emotional exhaustion can significantly impact an individual’s health and negatively affect team performance and patient care (Alsalhe et al. 2021; Maryani & Gazali 2024). The cumulative stress experienced throughout the day may necessitate interventions focused on workload management and supportive measures that allow staff time to recuperate after their shifts.

When healthcare academics feel emotionally drained, their capacity for compassion and empathy with patients, medical students and colleagues diminishes, potentially compromising the quality of care (Boitet et al. 2025; Van der Merwe et al. 2023). This psychological fatigue underscores the need for interventions that foster emotional resilience and promote effective workplace self-care. This finding is closely related to the assertion that burnout occurrence can negatively impact team dynamics, organisational effectiveness and workplace conflict (Maryani & Gazali 2024; Van Jaarsveldt & Jacobs 2024). Depersonalisation scored lower, which means that even though respondents felt that their work efforts were draining, contributing to a sense of futility, they still managed to do the work and roles at work, even though this perception can lead to decreased job satisfaction, as individuals may feel that their contributions are unrecognised or undervalued. Addressing this issue requires cultivating a culture of recognition and appreciation in which staff members feel their hard work is acknowledged and rewarded. Implementing regular feedback mechanisms and opportunities for professional growth can also help mitigate feelings of being unproductive.

Personal accomplishment was scored more moderately; many respondents desired to perform better despite these significant challenges. This statistic reveals a strong commitment to their roles, even in the face of burnout. However, the disconnect between their aspirations and current energy levels highlights a critical intervention. Resources such as stress management training, mentorship programmes and enhanced support systems could help bridge this gap, empowering academics to pursue their professional goals more effectively.

Regarding burnout dimensions and the associated sociodemographic variables among medical academics, findings suggest that older staff experience more EE. This finding differs significantly from previous studies on burnout. The finding is inconsistent with a multicentre study in Italy by La Torre et al. (2021) and El-Menyar et al. (2021), which reported that burnout among medical professional academics is associated with a younger age. In another study on burnout and sociodemographic variables among academic clinicians, younger faculty experienced greater EE (Nassar et al. 2020).

However, a study by Ozkula and Durukan (2017) at the Baskent University Ankara Hospital corroborates our finding. In the Ankara Hospital study among 258 physicians, burnout was reported to be associated with older age, among other variables. Also, age was inversely correlated with EE in a study conducted at King Saud University and its affiliated hospital (Almeneessier & Azer 2023).

Findings revealed that DP was common among middle-aged academics, while younger academics reported a greater sense of PA. Younger academics are often enthusiastic about their job, driven by a sense of personal interest. The authors can infer that younger lecturers may find the work interesting, despite a higher workload, which contributes to a sense of PA. However, they may also experience emotional stress, similar to that of senior colleagues, as they progress in their academic careers.

Regarding gender across all burnout dimensions: In comparison, different studies have reported contrasting outcomes of burnout between men and women. According to La Torre et al. (2021), women experience more EE, while men experience more DP. Conversely, Nassar et al. (2020) reported that women experienced DP more than men. These differences may be attributed to differences in research methods or in the independent variables across studies. Additionally, our findings revealed that men reported more PA than women. Findings also suggest that individuals with PhD degrees experience higher levels of burnout. Emotional exhaustion tends to increase with years of experience, while PA tends to decrease with seniority. There is a gross paucity of data to compare burnout dimensions across academic degrees, positions and years of experience.

Acknowledging the need for assistance among medical and health professional academics signifies a critical area for intervention within the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Proactively addressing the needs of this demographic through targeted support systems, mentorship, and leadership training is essential for sustaining high standards in teaching, research and clinical practice. Fostering a supportive culture that prioritises well-being will enhance both immediate and long-term outcomes for the faculty and the healthcare system.

Burnout profoundly impacts job satisfaction, performance and the personal lives of academics. The academics have an imaginary closing time. They work in the faculty and at home to meet some deadlines. The findings indicate that academics are either at risk for burnout or are experiencing moderate burnout, whereas severe burnout is rare among this cohort. They are resilient, with coping mechanisms enabling them to remain active. However, university management must address the burden of burnout among academic staff by promoting the achievement of the SDGs outlined in Agenda 2030.