Fig 1.
A. Study protocol. B. Flowchart of the study in accordance with the burnout state. C. Psychopathological pathways of the four groups, highlighted in grey (healthy, exhausted, resilient, and burnout). Burnout was defined as a BMS score greater of 2.4. BMS, Burnout Measure, Short Version; D, day.
Table 1.
Characterisation of burnout in participants on D0. A. Psychopathological parameters of burnout. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM. Results with p < 0.10 for analysis of variance are highlighted in bold. B. Factorial analysis of studied variables on day 0. Factorial weights are displayed. Factorial weights with absolute value higher than 0.50 are in bold. C. Pearson correlation data between D0 BMS scores and the factorial analysis’s factors and variables. r2 higher or equal to 0.10 are in bold. BMS, Burnout Measure, Short Version; D, day; Flexcop, coping flexibility; FMI, Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; PCL-5, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5; PSS, Perceived Stress Scale.
Fig 2.
Burnout changes in participant groups.
A. BMS scores on D0. B. BMS scores on D21. C. BMS score changes from D0 to D21. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM. **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001; based on post-hoc tests. BMS, Burnout Measure, Short Version; D, day.
Fig 3.
Psychological characterisation of participant groups.
A. FMI scores. One participant in the Resilient group did not complete the FMI questionnaire. B. Acceptance dimension of FMI scores. C. Presence dimension of FMI scores. D. Coping flexibility scores. E. Adaptation dimension of coping flexibility scores. F. Evaluation dimension of coping flexibility scores. G. Perceived stress scale scores. H. Factor 1 of the initial factorial analysis. I. Factor 2 of the initial factorial analysis. J. Factor 3 of the initial factorial analysis. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM. t: p < 0.10, *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01; based on post-hoc tests. Flexcop, coping flexibility; FMI, Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory.
Fig 4.
Psychological profiles in relation to sleep of participant groups.
A. Fast awakening scores. B. Easy awakening scores. C. Tiredness during the day. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM. *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01; based on post-hoc tests.
Fig 5.
Electrophysiological characterisation of participant groups.
The recordings were carried out during the emotional exposure protocol on D0. A. VLF normalised. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM. *: p < 0.05; based on post-hoc tests. VLF, very low frequencies. B. LF normalised. LF, low frequencies. The central line in the boxplot indicates the median, while bottom and top edges indicate 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively. Whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers, and if present, outliers are plotted individually as circles. *, p < 0.05; based on post-hoc tests for Kruskal-Wallis test. C. Height of phasic electrodermal activity. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM. *: p < 0.05; based on post-hoc tests.