Organizational Factors Affecting Burnout in Veterinary Nurses: A Systematic Review

Figures & data

Figure 1. Organizational factors drive burnout whereas individual factors can moderate susceptibility to burnout.

Table 1. Organizational themes outlined in Leiter and Maslach’s (1999) six Areas of Worklife (AoW).

AoW domain	Examples of organizational risk factors for burnout
Workload	Demands of the job exceed an individual’s capacity. For example:  ⁃ Quantitative: Chronic high work levels with no opportunity to rest and recover  ⁃ Qualitative: Repetitive or unchallenging work that does not offer opportunities for change or development
Control	Lack of control or capacity to influence an individual’s work. For example:  ⁃ Decision making: Lack of opportunity to participate in decision making or propose solutions to problems  ⁃ Role conflict: Unclear expectations, or conflicting demands from multiple authority figures
Reward	Organizational rewards do not meet employee expectations. For example:  ⁃ Intrinsic rewards: Lack of opportunities to fully utilize skills and knowledge  ⁃ Extrinsic rewards: Low remuneration or expected unpaid overtime
Community	Poor quality social interactions in the workplace. For example:  ⁃ Support: Lack of support from supervisors and/or co-workers  ⁃ Respect: Lack of respect from colleagues, supervisors, and/or clients
Fairness	Perception of inequity in decision making and treatment. For example:  ⁃ Treatment: Different pay for the same work, effort, and expertise  ⁃ Decision making: Lack of fairness or transparency in promotion opportunities
Values	Values conflict between the individual and workplace or client. For example:  ⁃ Ethical dilemmas: Reduced capacity to provide appropriate patient care due to financial constraints  ⁃ Work–life balance: Conflict between working late to care for sick patients or leaving to meet family commitments

Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram.

Table 2. Quality assessment results of studies included in the systematic review (n = 12), using Appraisal Tool for Cross-sectional Studies (AXIS) and the 10-item Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for qualitative research.

	Black et al. (2011)	Deacon and Brough (2017)	Foster and Maples (2014)	Hayes et al. (2020)	Holowaychuk and Lamb (2023)	Irwin et al. (2022a)	Johnson (2022)	Kimber and Gardner (2016)	Kogan et al. (2020)	Smith (2016)	Varela and Correia (2023)	Wallace and Buchanan (2019)
AXIS assessment questions
Were the aims/objectives of the study clear?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Was the study design appropriate for the stated aim(s)?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Was the sample size justified?	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	1
Was the target/reference population clearly defined? (Is it clear who the research was about?)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Was the sample frame taken from an appropriate population base so that it closely represented the target/reference population under investigation?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Was the selection process likely to select subjects/participants that were representative of the target/reference population under investigation?	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Were measures undertaken to address and categorise non-responders?	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured appropriate to the aims of the study?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured correctly using instruments/measurements that had been trialed, piloted, or published previously?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0
Is it clear what was used to determine statistical significance and/or precision estimates (e.g., p-values, confidence intervals)?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Were the methods (including statistical methods) sufficiently described to enable them to be repeated?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Were the basic data adequately described?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Does the response rate raise concerns about non-response bias?	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0
If appropriate, was information about non-responders described?	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Were the results internally consistent?	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1
Were the results presented for all the analyses described in the methods?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Were the authors’ discussions and conclusions justified by the results?	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Were the limitations of the study discussed?	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Were there any funding sources or conflicts of interest that may affect the authors’ interpretation of the results?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Was ethical approval or consent of participants attained?	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0
JBI assessment
Is there congruity between the stated philosophical perspective and the research methodology?			1			1						1
Is there congruity between the research methodology and the research question or objectives?			1			1						1
Is there congruity between the research methodology and the methods used to collect data?			1			1						1
Is there congruity between the research methodology and the representation and analysis of data?			1			1						1
Is there congruity between the research methodology and the interpretation of results?			1			1						1
Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically?			1			1						1
Is the influence of the researcher on the research, and vice- versa, addressed?			1			1						1
Are participants, and their voices, adequately represented?			1			1						1
Is the research ethical according to current criteria or, for recent studies, and is there evidence of ethical approval by an appropriate body?			1			1						0
Do the conclusions drawn in the research report flow from the analysis, or interpretation, of the data?			1			1						1
Overall methodological quality and bias	13/20	16/20	22/30	18/20	16/20	23/30	15/20	15/20	14/20	17/20	15/20	21/30
	65%	80%	73%	90%	80%	77%	75%	75%	70%	85%	75%	70%
Overall quality and bias rating*	Fair	Very good	Good	Very good	Very good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Very good	Good	Good

Note: Yes = 1 and No/Unsure = 0, except for Q13 and 19 where Yes = 0 and No/Unsure = 1.

*Methodological quality: < 50% (weak), 50%–69% (fair), 70%–79% (good), and 80%–100% (very good).

Table 3. Selected characteristics of included studies.

Study	Study design	Population (participants/setting/location)	Areas of Worklife identified as predictors for burnout (reference code for measured items)	Measures used	Burnout instrument	Burnout prevalence Mean ± SD (Score range)
Black et al. (2011)	Cross-sectional survey	127 veterinary nurses working in veterinary hospitals (37%), veterinary clinics (59.1%), and animal shelters (5%) in South Australia	Workload Job demands (JD) General workload (GW) Control Job control (JC) Community Amount of contact with clients (CC) Social support from co-workers and supervisors (SS) Values Exposure to euthanasia (Ex)	JD and GW: Six items from the Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek et al., 1998) JC: Nine items from the Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek et al., 1998) CC: Single item self-report question (researcher developed) SS: Five items from the Job Content Questionnaire (Karasek et al., 1998) Ex: Single item self-report question (researcher developed)	Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (work-related subscale only) (Kristensen et al., 2005)	Not reported*
Deacon and Brough (2017)	Cross-sectional survey	144 veterinary nurses working in veterinary service providers in Queensland, Australia (86% worked in general practice)	Workload Generic job demands (GD) Control Job control (JC) Community Workplace social support (SS) Values Exposure to suffering / death of patients and euthanasia (ES)	GD: Five item Perceived Work Demands scale (Boyar et al., 2007) JC: 10 item job control measure from the 5-Factor Measurement Model (Wall et al., 1995) SS: Eight item Workplace Social Support scale (O'Driscoll et al., 2004) ES: Seven items from the Nursing Stress Scale (Gray-Toft & Anderson, 1981)	Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (work-related subscale only) (Kristensen et al., 2005)	49.48 ± 20.88 (range: 0–100) 53% of participants scored in the high burnout range (≥ 75)
Foster and Maples (2014)	Cross-sectional mixed-methods study	79 veterinary nurses working in veterinary settings in Alabama, USA	Workload General workload including caring for people in addition to animals; overtime; client expectations Control Uncertainty concerning treatment plans Undefined and ever-changing duties Community Conflict with veterinarians Values Death and dying	All quantitative factors: 33 item Modified for Veterinary Support Staff Nursing Stress Scale (Foster & Maples, 2014) adapted from Gray-Toft & Anderson (1981) Qualitative phase: Five pre-determined open-ended questions probing participants work experiences to support and add clarity to quantitative data (researcher developed)	Modified for Veterinary Support Staff Nursing Stress Scale (Foster & Maples, 2014) adapted from Gray-Toft & Anderson (1981)	42.20 ± 17.8 (range: 0–102) 73% of participants scored in the high stress range (> 31)
Hayes et al. (2020)	Cross-sectional survey	256 veterinary nurses working in referral teaching hospitals in North America	Workload Unmanageable patient load Shift length Control Lack of support when busy or to help lift heavy patients Inability to implement solutions to problems Reward Compensation package Intellectual enrichment Community Fear/anxiety around supervisor communications Poor co-worker relationships Values Ethical conflict	All factors: Questions were selected from three previous burnout studies (Bursch et al., 2017; Poncet et al., 2007; Upton et al., 2012) and grouped by category: personal characteristics and lifestyle (six items) compensation package (10 items) workload and schedule (11 items) interpersonal relationships (nine items) intellectual enrichment (six items) ethical conflict exposures (three items) physical characteristics of work environment (7 items)	Maslach Burnout Inventory - Human Services Survey (Maslach & Jackson, 1996)	EE: 30.73 ± 10.71 (range: 0–63) DP: 8.25 ± 5.82 (range: 0–35) PA^†: 32.39 ± 7.37 (range: 0–56) Burnout profile: Overextended
Holowaychuk and Lamb (2023)	Cross-sectional survey	363 veterinary nurses (from a total sample of 1,204 emergency veterinary care providers) working in emergency veterinary practices based internationally	Areas of Worklife domains scoring < 3.0 (range: 1–5) Workload Fairness	All factors: 28 item Areas of Worklife Scale (Leiter & Maslach, 2003)	Maslach Burnout Inventory - Human Services Survey (Maslach & Jackson, 1996)	EE: 3.53 ± 1.31 (range: 0–6) DP: 2.22 ± 1.29 (range: 0–6) PA^†: 4.37 ± 0.92 (range: 0–6) Burnout profile: Burned out
Irwin et al. (2022a)	Cross-sectional mixed-methods study	82 veterinary nurses (from a total sample of 252 veterinary professionals) working in veterinary practices in UK and Ireland	Community Client incivility	Client, co-worker, and senior colleague incivility: 10 item adapted Workplace Incivility Scale (Cortina & Magley, 2009), 12 items from the Coping with Harassment Questionnaire (Cortina & Magley, 2009), three adapted items from author’s previous research (Irwin et al., 2022a).	Single self-identification question: “I feel burned out from my work” (Irwin et al., 2022b)	4.76 ± 1.39 (range: 1–7)
Johnson (2022)	Cross-sectional survey	284 veterinary nurses working in general practices (52%), emergency specialty centers (26%), specialty centers (4.5%), urgent care clinics (1%), and other veterinary settings (12%) across North America	Workload Overnight shifts (S) Number of shifts per week (S) Reward Remuneration (R) Values Euthanasia (Ex)	S: Two questions identifying average shift frequency and pattern R: One question identifying annual household income Ex: One question identifying average number of euthanasias or deaths per shift All questions were researcher developed	Professional Quality of Life Scale (burnout subscale) (Stamm, 2010)	3.21 ± 0.49 (range: 1–5)
Kimber and Gardner (2016)	Cross-sectional survey	182 veterinary nurses recently or currently working in New Zealand veterinary clinics	Workload Job demands (JD) Reward Development opportunities (Re) Management recognition (Re) Community Team relationships (TR) Values Work to family enrichment (WFE)	JD: 12 items from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (Pejtersen et al., 2010) Re: Nine items from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (Pejtersen et al., 2010) TR: 10 items from the Team Member Exchange Quality Scale (Seers et al., 1995) WFE: 18 items from the Work-Family Enrichment Scale (Carlson et al., 2006)	Maslach Burnout Inventory (EE and Cy subscales only) (Maslach & Jackson, 1981)	EE: 3.10 ± 1.24 (range: 0–6) Cy: 1.63 ± 1.09 (range: 0–6) Burnout profile: Overextended
Kogan et al. (2020)	Cross-sectional survey	1,642 veterinary nurses working in companion/small animal practices (43.0%), specialty hospitals (17.4%) or emergency hospitals (15.7%) based internationally (87.8% USA, 10.4% Canada, 1.8% other countries)	Control Overtime and shift length (OT) Opportunity to effect change (OC) Reward Opportunities for learning and success (OL) Using skills and knowledge (SK) Lack of veterinary awareness of skills and knowledge (SK) Pay and scheduling (RS) Community Respect from other veterinary technicians and support staff (RSS) Respect from veterinarians (RV)	OT: Two questions measuring perceived control over shift length and overtime OC: One question measuring perceived opportunity to affect change OL: Two questions measuring perceived opportunities for development SK: Two questions measuring perceived opportunities to utilize skills and veterinarian awareness of skills RS: Two questions indemnifying current salary and flexibility of schedule RSS: Two questions measuring level of support from veterinary technicians and support staff RV: One question measuring level of respect from vets All questions were researcher developed	Maslach Burnout Inventory - General Scale (Maslach & Jackson, 1996)	EE: 3.47 ± 1.44 (range: 0–6) Cy: 2.55 ± 1.58 (range: 0–6) PE^†: 4.82 ± 1.95 (range: 0–6) 58.3% of participants scored above the burnout threshold (EE ≥ 3.0) Burnout profile: Burned out
Smith (2016)	Cross-sectional survey	992 veterinary nurses practicing in the UK	Values Work life balance (WLB)	WLB: Three items from the Professional Quality of Life Scale (Stamm, 2010)	Professional Quality of Life Scale (Stamm, 2010)	28.84 ± 4.42 (range: 5–50) 92.8% of participants scored at moderate to high risk of burnout
Varela and Correia (2023)	Cross-sectional survey	95 veterinary nurses (from a total sample of 325 veterinary professionals) working in private sector (87.5%) and public sector (12.5%) veterinary settings in Portugal	Workload General workload (GW) Reward Meaningful work (MW) Professional identification (PI) Remuneration (R) Fairness Perception of justice (PJ) Values Affective empathy (AE)	GW: One item from the Areas of Worklife Survey (Leiter & Maslach, 2003) MW: Two items from the Work and Meaning Inventory (Steger et al., 2012) PI: One item from the Measure of Organizational Identification (Postmes et al., 2013) R: One item adapted from the European Social Survey (European Social Survey, 2018) PJ: Three items from the Personal Belief in a Just World Scale (Dalbert, 1999) and three items from the General Belief in a Just World Scale (Dalbert et al., 1987) AE: Three items from the Basic Empathy Scale Short Version (Carré et al., 2013) and 12 items from the Animal Empathy Scale (Paul, 2000)	Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (Demerouti, 1999)	Exhaustion: 3.48 ± 0.69 (range: 1–5) Disengagement: 2.74 ± 0.83 (range: 1–5)
Wallace and Buchanan (2019)	Cross-sectional mixed-methods study	261 veterinary nurses (from a total sample of 647 veterinary professionals) registered and practicing in Alberta, Canada	Control Lack of autonomy and discretionary power (A) Autonomy over own work tasks (A) Reward Challenging work (CW) Community Co-worker strain, including lack of respect and trust from vets (CS) Fairness Fear of interactions with vets (CS) Fear of speaking up due to risk of losing their job (CS)	A: Four items (Knudsen et al., 2003) CW: Seven items (Koltai & Schieman, 2015; Mirowsky & Ross, 2003) CS: Seven items from the Task and Relationship Conflict Scale (Friedman et al., 2000) Qualitative phase comprised three open-ended questions probing positive and negative aspects of participants' roles to corroborate and complement quantitative data (researcher developed)	Scale of Veterinarian Work Stress (Bartram et al., 2009) and Task and Relationship Conflict Scale (Friedman et al., 2000) (With interpersonal (IP) strain measured as a contributor to burnout)	IP strain (clients): 2.63^‡ (range: 1–5) IP strain (co-workers): 2.55^‡ (range: 1–5)

Note: EE = Emotional Exhaustion; DP = Depersonalisation; PA = Personal Accomplishment; Cy = Cynicism; PE = Professional Efficacy.

*Authors contacted for results, but data no longer available.

^† PA scale is reverse coded, with low scores indicative of high burnout.

^‡ SD not reported.

Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1999). Six areas of worklife: A model of the organizational context of burnout. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 21(4), 472–489.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Black, A. F., Winefield, H. R., & Chur-Hansen, A. (2011). Occupational stress in veterinary nurses: Roles of the work environment and own companion animal. Anthrozoös, 24(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303711X12998632257503

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Deacon, R. E., & Brough, P. (2017). Veterinary nurses’ psychological well-being: The impact of patient suffering and death. Australian Journal of Psychology, 69(2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12119

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Foster, S. M., & Maples, E. H. (2014). Occupational stress in veterinary support staff. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 41(1), 102–110. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0713-103R

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hayes, G. M., LaLonde-Paul, D. F., Perret, J. L., Steele, A., McConkey, M., Lane, W. G., Kopp, R. J., Stone, H. K., Miller, M., & Jones-Bitton, A. (2020). Investigation of burnout syndrome and job-related risk factors in veterinary technicians in specialty teaching hospitals: A multicenter cross-sectional study. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care, 30(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.12916

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Holowaychuk, M. K., & Lamb, K. E. (2023). Burnout symptoms and workplace satisfaction among veterinary emergency care providers. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care, 33(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.13271

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Irwin, A., Hall, D., & Ellis, H. (2022a). Ruminating on rudeness: Exploring veterinarians’ experiences of client incivility. Veterinary Record, 190(4), e1078. https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.1078

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Johnson, C. E. H. (2022). The impact of compassion fatigue on anxiety and depression among veterinary nurses: A study on the moderating effect of compassion satisfaction [Doctoral dissertation]. Hood College. ProQuest One Academic. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2754495823?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

 Google Scholar

Kimber, S., & Gardner, D. H. (2016). Relationships between workplace well-being, job demands and resources in a sample of veterinary nurses in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 64(4), 224–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2016.1164092

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kogan, L. R., Wallace, J. E., Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., Hellyer, P. W., & Richards, M. (2020). Veterinary technicians and occupational burnout. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00328

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Smith, N. (2016). A questionnaire based study to assess compassion fatigue in UK practising veterinary nurses. The Veterinary Nurse, 7(7), 418–425. https://doi.org/10.12968/vetn.2016.7.7.418

 Google Scholar

Varela, M., & Correia, I. (2023). Empathy and burnout in veterinarians and veterinary nurses: Identifying burnout protectors. Anthrozoös, 36(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2022.2074189

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wallace, J. E., & Buchanan, T. (2019). Status differences in interpersonal strain and job resources at work: A mixed methods study of animal health-care providers. International Journal of Conflict Management, 31(2), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-08-2019-0135

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 322–355. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.3.4.322

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Kristensen, T., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. (2005). The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work and Stress, 19(3), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500297720

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Boyar, S., Carr, J., Mosley, D., & Carson, C. (2007). The development and validation of scores on perceived work and family demand scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406288173

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Mullarkey, S. (1995). Further evidence on some new measures of job control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(5), 431–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160505

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

O'Driscoll, M., Brough, P., & Kalliath, T. (2004). Work/family conflict, psychological well-being, satisfaction and social support: A longitudinal study in New Zealand. Equal Opportunities International, 23(1/2), 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610150410787846

 Google Scholar

Gray-Toft, P., & Anderson, J. G. (1981). The Nursing Stress Scale: Development of an instrument. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 3(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01321348

 Google Scholar

Bursch, B., Lloyd, J., Mogil, C., Wijesekera, K., Miotto, K., Wu, M., Wilkinson, R., Klomhaus, A., Iverson, A., & Lester, P. (2017). Adaptation and evaluation of military resilience skills training for pediatric residents. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2382120517741298

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Poncet, M. C., Toullic, P., Papazian, L., Kentish-Barnes, N., Timsit, J.-F., Pochard, F., Chevret, S., Schlemmer, B., & Azoulay, É. (2007). Burnout syndrome in critical care nursing staff. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 175(7), 698–704. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200606-806OC

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Upton, D., Mason, V., Doran, B., Solowiej, K., Shiralkar, U., & Shiralkar, S. (2012). The experience of burnout across different surgical specialties in the United Kingdom: A cross-sectional survey. Surgery, 151(4), 493–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2011.09.035

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1996). Leiter MP Maslach Burnout Inventory manual. California Consulting Psychological Press.

 Google Scholar

Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2003). Areas of worklife: A structured approach to organizational predictors of job burnout. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Emotional and physiological processes and positive intervention strategies (Vol. 3, pp. 91–134). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3555(03)03003-8

 Google Scholar

Cortina, L., & Magley, V. (2009). Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 272–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014934

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Irwin, A., Silver-MacMahon, H., & Wilcke, S. (2022b). Consequences and coping: Investigating client, co-worker and senior colleague incivility within veterinary practice. Veterinary Record, 191(7), e2030. https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.2030

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stamm, B. H. (2010). The concise ProQOL manual. Pocatello. https://proqol.org/proqol-manual

 Google Scholar

Pejtersen, J. H., Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., & Bjorner, J. B. (2010). The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3 Suppl), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494809349858

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and traditional management: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group & Organization Studies, 20(1), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601195201003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jans, L. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12006

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

European Social Survey. (2018). ESS Round 9 Source Questionnaire. University of London. https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round9/fieldwork/source/ESS9_source_questionnaires.pdf

 Google Scholar

Dalbert, C. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world scale's validity. Social Justice Research, 12(2), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022091609047

 Google Scholar

Dalbert, C., Montada, L., & Schmitt, M. (1987). Glaube an eine gerechte welt als motiv: Validierungskorrelate zweier skalen [belief in a just world as a motive: Validation correlates of two scales]. Psychologische Beiträge, 29(4), 596–615.

 Google Scholar

Carré, A., Stefaniak, N., d'Ambrosio, F., Bensalah, L., & Besche-Richard, C. (2013). The Basic Empathy Scale in Adults (BES-A): Factor structure of a revised form. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032297

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Paul, E. S. (2000). Empathy with animals and with humans: Are they linked? Anthrozoös, 13(4), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279300786999699

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Demerouti, E. (1999). Oldenburn Burnout Inventory. https://doi.org/10.1037/t01688-000

 Google Scholar

Knudsen, H. K., Aaron Johnson, J., Martin, J. K., & Roman, P. M. (2003). Downsizing survival: The experience of work and organizational commitment. Sociological Inquiry, 73(2), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-682X.00056

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Koltai, J., & Schieman, S. (2015). Job pressure and SES-contingent buffering: Resource reinforcement, substitution, or the stress of higher status? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 56(2), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146515584151

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2003). Education, social status, and health. Aldine Transaction. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=3v_jnQEACAAJ

 Google Scholar

Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S. T., Currall, S. C., & Tsai, J. C. (2000). What goes around comes around: The impact of personal conflict style on work content style on work conflict and stress. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 32–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022834

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bartram, D. J., Yadegarfar, G., & Baldwin, D. S. (2009). A cross-sectional study of mental health and well-being and their associations in the UK veterinary profession. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 44(12), 1075–1085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-009-0030-8

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar