Teachers Voices: A Qualitative Study on Burnout in the Portuguese Educational System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for letting me read your paper. In the abstract, you stated it was a qualitative study yet you presented significant quantitative data which go against the methodology you chose. This substantial issue would need to be addressed.

Author Response

Point 1: In the abstract, you stated it was a qualitative study yet you presented significant quantitative data which go against the methodology you chose. This substantial issue would need to be addressed.

Response to Point 1: Thank you for identifying this gap in our work. The presentation of quantitative data is not, in itself, against qualitative methodology. In this study, we use a mixed methodology, as the qualitative data are somehow quantified. This information was not present in the article, and has now been included. Please see the revisions made under the subheading Method.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is coherent and well-structured. It is very readable and interesting. The presentation of a large corpus of qualitative data into readily accessible tables is to be commended. The extensive process of analysis and checking consistency in categorisation of data is rigorous. When discussing the data, the authors do remember to acknowledge that the target participants were teachers already identified as experiencing burn-out and stress. However, this needs to be checked throughout the paper to ensure that the reader knows that generalisations can not extend to the entire teacher population. As stated by the authors, this study does provide insights into different variables that contribute to teacher burn-out, but there still seems to be lack of clarity for further research and what the significance of this particular study is. This could be strengthened to ensure that this paper has a major impact and contributes more to our knowledge of this topic. I feel that this paper is acceptable for publication in its current from and hence my recommendation for acceptance, as it is a very coherent and carefully designed project. Some further words to emphasise the significance of this paper, and why the sample consisted only of teachers identified by principals and school leaders as being stressed, would make this paper more interesting to a wider readership. But it is also publishable in its current form.

Author Response

Point 1: As stated by the authors, this study does provide insights into different variables that contribute to teacher burn-out, but there still seems to be lack of clarity for further research and what the significance of this particular study is. This could be strengthened to ensure that this paper has a major impact and contributes more to our knowledge of this topic. I feel that this paper is acceptable for publication in its current from and hence my recommendation for acceptance, as it is a very coherent and carefully designed project. 

Response to Point 1: Thank you for helping us to value our article. This comment has been taken into account in the subheading Conclusions.

Point 2: Some further words to emphasise the significance of this paper, and why the sample consisted only of teachers identified by principals and school leaders as being stressed, would make this paper more interesting to a wider readership.

Responde do Point 2: The reason why the sample consisted only of teachers identified by principals and school leaders is stated in the subheading 2.1 Participants: "School principals were asked to forward our calls to teachers that, in their opinion, showed signs of significant stress and exhaustion. It was thus intended to incorporate participants that could be considered good insiders regarding the burnout phenomenon" - Therefore, we believe no other changes must be performed regarding this point.

Reviewer 3 Report

The introduction of the topic is correct, the facts of the article begin in the method, specifically this section does not open indicating what the research design has been, which is the first thing that the reader should be informed. Regarding the sample, there is a segment in it towards the female gender, so the Simpson effect of the same can occur, which is why the authors must justify that this bias does not cause or induce errors in the results obtained.
If the research is of a qualitative nature, they should indicate how the data collected has been analyzed, since it is a questionnaire with open questions, therefore an interview that is of a qualitative nature that is analyzed with programs such as Atlas Ti, NEt vivo, Aquad, etc.

Author Response

Poin 1: The facts of the article begin in the method, specifically this section does not open indicating what the research design has been, which is the first thing that the reader should be informed. 

Response to Point 1: Thank you for identifying this gap in our work. In this study, we use a mixed methodology, as the qualitative data are somehow quantified. This information was not present in the article, and has now been included. Please see the revisions made under the subheading Method.

Point 2: Regarding the sample, there is a segment in it towards the female gender, so the Simpson effect of the same can occur, which is why the authors must justify that this bias does not cause or induce errors in the results obtained.

Response to Point 2: This is not a bias, given the predominance of women either in the professional class (more than 70% in Portugal) or in the condition of burnout. Nevertheless, this fact must be taken into account when interpreting the results and therefore, we have mentioned it in the article. Please see the revisions made under the subheading Limitations.

Point 3: If the research is of a qualitative nature, they should indicate how the data collected has been analyzed, since it is a questionnaire with open questions, therefore an interview that is of a qualitative nature that is analyzed with programs such as Atlas Ti, NEt vivo, Aquad, etc.

Response to Point 3: Thank you for identifying this gap in our work. In this study, the coding of categories and subcategories was done manually. This information was added in the subheading Data Analysis.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Much improved

Author Response

Thank you very much for noticing our efforts to improve the article. We have added bibliographical references to support the methodology used. The article was also, again, revised by a native English speaker.

Reviewer 3 Report

If the authors indicate that the syndrome is more common in Protugal, I must assume that there is scientific literature that supports that more women than men present it, this is what justifies that there is no gender bias, therefore it should be indicated what scientific literature supports that there is a feminized sample like this

Author Response

Thank you very much for noticing our efforts to improve the article. We believe that your point regarding the gender bias is relevant and, therefore, we used recent literature to support data on the predominance of females, in the teaching profession and in the condition of burnout, based on your suggestion.
"Even though there is a predominance of women, either in the teaching profession (more than 72% in Portugal) [45] or in the burnout condition [8], we cannot make gender comparisons since the sample in this study is predominantly female." (subheading Limitations).