Predictors of Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization in Teachers After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications for Mental Health and Psychiatric Support in Spanish-Speaking Countries

Abstract

Burnout, characterized by emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, is increasingly recognized as a significant mental health concern with psychiatric implications. This cross-sectional study explored variables associated with current burnout levels among 2004 teachers in 19 Latin American countries and Spain, drawing on retrospective perceptions of COVID-19 pandemic-related changes in work conditions and student behavior. Using a comprehensive survey, researchers gathered demographic information, work-related characteristics, and burnout levels measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Participants were recruited through social media platforms and teacher groups. Participants reported high emotional exhaustion, with 45.9% exceeding the clinical threshold. Moderate depersonalization levels were observed, with 30.2% scoring above the clinical cutoff. Hierarchical regressions indicated that emotional exhaustion was significantly predicted by individual (e.g., gender, age, socioeconomic status, pre-existing mental and chronic illnesses), school (e.g., school level, sector, and workload), and student factors (e.g., behavior and social adjustment problems), accounting for 17.4% of the variance. Depersonalization was similarly associated with individual (e.g., gender, age, education, and pre-existing mental illness), school (e.g., workload and school level), and student characteristics (e.g., educational, behavioral, and family adjustment problems), explaining 6.5% of the variance. These findings contribute to psychiatric and psychological research by identifying specific risk profiles for chronic stress syndromes in educators—an occupational group facing long-term psychological impacts from the COVID-19 crisis. This study underscores the need for interdisciplinary psychiatric approaches to diagnose and prevent burnout and promote teacher well-being through clinical and policy-level interventions.

1. Introduction

COVID-19, or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was declared a pandemic on 11 March 2020, by the World Health Organization (WHO) due to its high level of transmission [1] the severity it posed to many individuals’ health [2], and the limited capacity for clinical action and description available at the time to control it [3]. The declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic [1] recognized the virus’s presence worldwide and the need to implement measures to curb its spread, including lockdowns, states of emergency, isolation, and social distancing. Measures such as lockdowns or quarantines led to the closure of commercial and educational establishments [4], causing certain professionals, including teachers, to alter their work methods.

Initially, these measures’ physical and mental impacts on teachers’ personal and professional lives were not fully understood. The changes they faced, such as distance learning modalities [5], shifts in educational directives [6], limited knowledge of technological tools [7], constant concern for the health of their families and students [8], increased school dropout rates [9], lack of resources for teaching [10,11], balancing family and work life [12], and increased workload [13] contributed to a deterioration in teachers’ emotional well-being [14].

Burnout and occupational stress have long been prevalent among teachers, even prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic [15,16]. Numerous studies conducted before 2020 consistently identified high levels of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and diminished personal accomplishment among educators, underscoring the chronic nature of this issue [17,18]. For example, research from countries such as Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, Lithuania, Spain, Hungary, Sweden, and China highlighted common stressors including excessive workload, low administrative support, adverse psychosocial job conditions, and student behavioral problems [15,16]. In Mendoza, Argentina, educators reported emotional distress stemming from deteriorating working conditions and a strong sense of professional overcommitment [15]. Similarly, in Brazil, a systematic review spanning nearly two decades identified psychosomatic disorders and voice disturbances as common outcomes of poor school environments [19]. Studies in European contexts, such as Hungary and Sweden, also revealed significant associations between burnout and factors like overcommitment, sleep disturbances, and limited job control [17,18]. In Lithuania, workplace bullying and adverse psychosocial characteristics were found to be significant predictors of psychological distress and burnout among teachers [20]. These findings demonstrate that teacher burnout is a widespread, international phenomenon, reflecting structural and systemic challenges across educational systems rather than isolated regional problems.

Regarding psychological well-being, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some studies highlighted the presence of professional burnout among teachers. This syndrome is characterized by a negative emotional state [21] in response to work-related stress [22], affecting their quality of life [23]. Maslach and Jackson [24] state that burnout includes emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. It has also been characterized by emotional fatigue, a cynical attitude toward others, and a sense of incompetence and professional failure [25]. Burnout often leads to a loss of motivation, inability to withstand pressure, and low self-esteem [26]. It is also associated with irritability, dissatisfaction, helplessness, hopelessness, loss of ideals, and withdrawal from family, social, and recreational activities [27].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, various studies examined the incidence of burnout among teachers. For instance, Sánchez-Pujalte and colleagues [21] et al. (2021) conducted a study with 430 secondary school teachers in Spain, finding that burnout levels were tempered by emotional intelligence and socio-emotional competencies, highlighting the importance of these factors in mitigating work-related stress. In Brazil, a study conducted in Minas Gerais found that job dissatisfaction during the pandemic was associated with working conditions and lifestyle [28]. Teachers reported an increase in workload and pressure, negatively impacting their well-being. Similarly, Chirico and colleagues [29] in Italy analyzed data from 391 teachers, finding that 16.9% had high levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. In South Africa, Padmanabhanunni and Pretorius [6] found that fear of COVID-19, role ambiguity, and role conflict were significant predictors of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in 355 teachers, also influenced by gender and age.

In the United States, Pressley [30] analyzed data from teachers from kindergarten to grade 12, concluding that 24.85% experienced burnout-related stress. In Chile, Bravo Lepe and Elizondo Gutiérrez [31] studied 152 teachers at various educational levels, revealing that 93.4% experienced emotional exhaustion and 66.4% depersonalization. Finally, in Peru, Cortez-Silva and colleagues [11] examined 205 teachers during the lockdown, finding a relationship between job dissatisfaction and burnout components, evidenced by emotional fatigue, loss of sensitivity and empathy, deteriorated capabilities, and feelings of failure.

These studies underscore the need for specific interventions to support teachers’ mental health and well-being during crises. However, recent research has shown that burnout can persist for months or even years after the pandemic. For example, Smith et and colleagues [32], in a longitudinal study, examined post-pandemic burnout and resilience levels in teachers, finding that although initial burnout levels were high due to online teaching demands and uncertainty, many teachers showed significant capacity to adapt and develop resilience over time. Institutional support and training in emotional skills were key factors in reducing burnout.

Jones and Lee [33] explored how post-pandemic teaching conditions affected teacher burnout. Their findings indicated that increased workload and lack of adequate resources contributed to burnout. Additionally, unpreparedness for emergencies and job insecurity exacerbated stress and burnout levels. Brown and colleagues [34] studied mental health and burnout levels in teachers a year after the pandemic began. Their results showed that although some teachers could adapt and manage stress, a significant portion continued to experience high levels of burnout. The study highlighted the need for ongoing interventions to support teachers’ mental health and prevent burnout.

García and Martínez [35] studied stress factors and burnout in teachers in the post-pandemic era. They found that adapting to new teaching methods, managing health and safety in the classroom, and balancing work and personal life were significant challenges contributing to burnout. Their research emphasized the importance of educational policies addressing these issues and providing a supportive environment for teachers. Finally, Wilson and colleagues [36] conducted a comprehensive review identifying factors influencing teacher burnout after the COVID-19 pandemic. Key factors included workload, social and organizational support, job expectations, and teachers’ prior mental health. The authors recommended strategies to mitigate burnout, such as reducing workload, fostering a supportive culture, and implementing well-being programs for teachers.

Although there is a good literature base on burnout in teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are very few studies on burnout after the pandemic. A few existing studies have been conducted in Anglo-Saxon populations with very small samples in specific countries. Rather than directly examining the causal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on teacher burnout, the present study aimed to identify individual, institutional, and student-related factors associated with the current levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in a large sample of teachers from 19 Latin American countries and Spain. These associations were interpreted in the context of teachers’ retrospective perceptions of post-pandemic changes to their workload, health, and student behavior. By focusing on correlates of burnout in the years following the acute phase of the pandemic, this study contributes to understanding how enduring educational and psychosocial stressors may relate to teacher well-being in a post-pandemic context.

Burnout has gained recognition within psychiatric research as a serious mental health condition that may overlap with or contribute to disorders such as major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and adjustment disorders. The emotional exhaustion and depersonalization dimensions of burnout are particularly relevant to dynamic and clinical psychiatry, as they reflect sustained emotional dysregulation and interpersonal detachment. Understanding these outcomes in a post-pandemic educational context contributes to interdisciplinary psychiatric efforts to improve the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of chronic psychological distress. By identifying predictors across personal, institutional, and student domains, this study aims to inform mental health professionals, including psychiatrists and psychologists, who work with educators or develop system-level interventions to reduce occupational stress.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 3792 people began the survey. However, 66 did not give informed consent, and 1722 did not complete the survey. Thus, the final sample consisted of 2004 teachers from 19 Latin American countries and Spain, of whom 81.8% were female. The mean age was 44.46 (SD = 9.8) years, and the highest educational level for most of the sample (38.8%) was a bachelor’s degree. They reported having taught online due to the pandemic for an average of 12.67 (SD = 5.81) months. The rest of the demographic characteristics can be found in

Table 1. Demographic information.

	Frequency	Percentage
Marital status
Single (never married)	505	25.2
Married	874	43.6
Widowed	42	2.1
Divorced	179	8.9
Separated	82	4.1
Free union (I am not married but I live with my partner)	322	16.1
Country of origin
Antigua and Barbuda	1	0.0
Argentina	1028	51.3
Barbados	1	0.0
Bolivia	16	0.8
Colombia	282	14.1
Costa Rica	9	0.4
Chile	115	5.7
Ecuador	202	10.1
El Salvador	1	0.0
Guatemala	11	0.5
Honduras	2	0.1
Mexico	91	4.5
Nicaragua	1	0.0
Panama	7	0.3
Paraguay	29	1.4
Peru	39	1.9
Dominican Republic	2	0.1
Uruguay	98	4.9
Venezuela	7	0.3
Spain	62	3.1
Area of residence
Urban area	1837	91.7
Rural area	167	8.3
Highest level of education
Non-university studies (e.g., vocational training, early childhood education technician)	497	24.8
Diploma	264	13.2
Bachelor degree	778	38.8
Master	407	20.3
PhD	54	2.7
Postdoc	4	0.2
Family socioeconomic class
Low lower class	33	1.6
Upper lower class	107	5.3
Medium–low class	1103	55.0
Upper middle class	735	36.7
Lower upper class	23	1.1
Upper upper class	3	0.1
Pre-pandemic illness
Chronic illness	330	16.5
Mental illness	241	12.0
Neurological disorder	44	2.2
School level taught
Primary	870	43.4
Secondary	1134	56.6
Type of school taught
Public	1130	56.4
Private or other	874	43.6
Workload now versus pre-pandemic
Less	114	5.7
Same	411	20.5
More	1479	73.8
Students presenting more problems today versus pre-pandemic (% yes)
Education problems	1850	92.3
Behavior problems	1604	80.0
Emotional problems	1815	90.6
Social problems	1510	75.3
Family problems	1500	74.9

. Inclusion criteria for participating in the study were (a) being an adult (≥18), (b) working as a primary or secondary education teacher in a Latin American country or Spain, and (c) working as a teacher from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to the present (the time they answered the survey).

2.2. Instruments

The survey consisted of questions that gathered the following information: (a) demographic information, (b) work-related characteristics (e.g., workplace, years of experience, etc.), and (c) Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). The MBI is a widely used psychometrically validated tool for measuring burnout in various occupational populations [37,38], including healthcare professionals, teachers, and other workers. Each item of the MBI is rated on a Likert scale, generally from 0 (never) to 6 (always), reflecting the frequency with which individuals experience each symptom related to burnout. The MBI assesses two fundamental dimensions of burnout:

Emotional Exhaustion: This dimension measures feelings of being emotionally drained and overwhelmed by work demands. Items in this subscale evaluate emotional depletion and feeling overloaded and lacking sufficient emotional resources.

Depersonalization: This dimension refers to a negative, insensitive, or overly detached attitude toward service recipients or work. It evaluates the degree to which individuals develop a cynical and dehumanized view of the people they work with.

2.3. Procedure

Researchers from Spain, the United States, and Colombia developed the survey. Following a literature review, an initial survey draft was created, and a pilot study was conducted to assess the appropriateness of the questions. After revision, the final survey was incorporated into the Qualtrics online platform. For its distribution, participants completed the survey and shared it with other professionals. Additionally, the survey was included in teacher groups on social media platforms (Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, and Instagram) to reach teachers from various countries in Latin America and Spain. On the first page of the survey, information about the study, such as the objective, criteria for participation, and the voluntary and anonymous nature of the study, was included. Additionally, a preliminary question about agreeing to participate in the study was included, serving as informed consent. Participants completed the survey between June and December 2022. The Ethics Committee of the University of Alicante approved the study.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics were calculated for the outcome variables of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, two types of teacher burnout. The main statistical analyses involved two hierarchical stepwise multiple linear regressions with the two types of burnout as the outcome variables. In each regression, Step 1 included the covariates of male sex vs. female or trans, age, pre-pandemic neurological disorder, pre-pandemic mental illness, pre-pandemic chronic illness, partnered vs. not, education level, and socioeconomic status. Step 2 included school characteristics, and Step 3 included student adjustment problems during the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptives

Participants’ average emotional exhaustion score was 21.12 (SD = 12.68), reflecting a high level of emotional exhaustion across the full sample. Approximately 45.9% of the sample met or surpassed the threshold for having a high level of emotional exhaustion with a score greater than 21. Participants’ mean depersonalization score was 3.81 (SD = 5.06), reflecting moderate levels of depersonalization on average across the full sample. Approximately 30.2% of the sample met or surpassed the threshold for experiencing a high level of depersonalization with a score greater than five [38].

3.2. Multiple Regressions

In the first hierarchical linear regression predicting emotional exhaustion (

Table 2. Emotional exhaustion and depersonalization multiple regressions with standardized β-weights presented from Step 3.

	Emotional Exhaustion		Depersonalization
Predictor Variable	β	p-Value	β	p-Value
Step 1
Male sex vs. female or trans	−0.10	<0.001	0.14	<0.001
Age	−0.12	<0.001	−0.12	<0.001
Partnered vs. not	0.02	0.433	−0.01	0.592
Socioeconomic status	−0.06	0.010	−0.02	0.512
Education level	−0.02	0.388	0.06	0.012
Pre-pandemic chronic illness	0.07	<0.001	0.00	0.991
Pre-pandemic mental illness	0.16	<0.001	0.07	<0.001
Pre-pandemic neurological disorder	0.03	0.133	0.02	0.281
Step 2
Rural vs. urban	−0.03	0.107	0.02	0.445
Secondary vs. primary teacher	0.05	0.028	0.06	0.007
Public school teacher vs. other	−0.04	0.080	−0.03	0.129
Workload now vs. pre-pandemic	0.21	<0.001	0.07	0.001
Number of months teaching online due to the pandemic	−0.03	0.233	−0.02	0.300
Step 3
Student education problems	0.00	0.904	−0.05	0.027
Student behavior problems	0.13	<0.001	0.07	0.008
Student emotional problems	0.01	0.602	−0.02	0.559
Student social problems	0.07	0.007	0.04	0.123
Family problems	0.02	0.455	0.05	0.039

), Step 1 was statistically significant, F (8, 1995) = 20.70, R² = 0.077, p < 0.001. Participants had higher emotional exhaustion if they were female or trans (β = −0.13, p < 0.001), younger (β = −0.11, p < 0.001), of lower socioeconomic status (β = −0.11, p = 0.008), and had a pre-pandemic mental illness (β = 0.17, p < 0.001) or chronic illness (β = 0.08, p < 0.001). With the addition of Step 2, school characteristics, the overall model was still statistically significant, F (13, 1990) = 25.00, R² = 0.140, p < 0.001. Within the model, participants had higher emotional exhaustion if they taught in a secondary vs. primary school (β = 0.06, p = 0.005) or a non-public school (β = −0.04, p = 0.047), and if they had a higher workload now vs. pre-pandemic (β = 0.24, p < 0.001). After adding Step 3, student adjustment problems during the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall model was significant, F (18, 1985) = 23.20, R² = 0.174, p < 0.001. Participants had higher emotional exhaustion if their students had behavior or social problems within this step. Nearly all of the previously significant unique predictors remained statistically significant, except that teaching in a public vs. other school was no longer significant.

In the second hierarchical linear regression predicting depersonalization (Table 2), Step 1 was statistically significant, F (8, 1995) = 10.56, R² = 0.041, p < 0.001. Participants had higher depersonalization scores if they were male (β = 0.13, p < 0.001), younger (β = −0.11, p < 0.001), had more education (β = 0.07, p = 0.003), and had a pre-pandemic mental illness (β = 0.08, p < 0.001). With the addition of Step 2, school characteristics, the overall model was still statistically significant, F (13, 1990) = 8.49, R² = 0.053, p < 0.001. Within the model, participants had higher depersonalization scores if they had a higher workload now vs. pre-pandemic (β = 0.08, p < 0.001) or taught in a secondary vs. primary school (β = 0.07, p = 0.003). After the addition of Step 3, student adjustment problems, the overall model was significant, F (18, 1985) = 7.62, R² = 0.065, p < 0.001. Within this step, participants had higher depersonalization scores if their students had education, behavior, or family problems, and all the previously significant unique predictors remained statistically significant.

4. Discussion

The teaching profession is widely recognized as one of the most stressful occupations globally, often leading to high levels of burnout among educators [39]. This phenomenon stems from a multitude of factors, including heavy workloads, administrative demands, lack of resources, classroom management challenges, emotional labor, and insufficient institutional support [40]. Research on teacher burnout has been ongoing for several decades, highlighting its detrimental effects on both educators’ well-being and educational outcomes [15,16,41]. However, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced unprecedented challenges and shifted the dynamics of teaching significantly. Educators were abruptly required to adapt to remote learning environments, manage digital platforms, maintain student engagement online, and balance their professional and personal responsibilities, often from home [42]. These abrupt transitions exacerbated existing stressors and gave rise to new ones, such as technological difficulties, blurred work–life boundaries, and heightened student emotional and academic needs. Consequently, the pandemic intensified the urgency of addressing teacher burnout and underscored the need for systemic support and mental health interventions in the education sector.

This study investigated how COVID-19 impacted teacher burnout in 19 Latin American countries and Spain. The results highlight how younger teachers, especially those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and those with pre-existing mental health conditions, had higher levels of emotional exhaustion. The findings further contribute to the overarching literature on teacher burnout during and after the global pandemic [43,44]. For example, meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown how teachers globally encountered a significant incidence of burnout amid the COVID-19 pandemic [45,46,47]. Part of these reviews highlights that teachers’ personalities (e.g., Kim [45]) and demographic factors in multiple countries play a role in burnout [46]. However, our study highlights how teachers from multiple Spanish-speaking countries may experience burnout when they hold these specific demographic factors (i.e., younger, lower SES, and those with pre-existing conditions), which can inform support systems for these specific educators. Our findings suggest that younger teachers from lower SES with pre-existing conditions may have limited experience and resources in dealing with these educational changes during the global pandemic. They may also be more preoccupied with their health conditions, a factor that other teachers who may not have pre-existing conditions may not have to deal with. These interacting factors highlight teacher inequalities that may further affect student experiences in these Spanish-speaking countries.

Additionally, the results suggested that school characteristic types, such as teaching in secondary schools or public institutions, significantly predict burnout. These results show how these factors highlight the systemic pressures within educational settings that contribute to heightened levels of depersonalization among teachers. The findings may indicate how these specific school characteristics in Spanish-speaking countries may contribute to more time pressures or workload, which, as the literature suggests, contribute to teacher burnout [48,49]. Perhaps secondary schools and public institutions may require more demands with more limited resources that allow teachers to teach innovatively (e.g., virtual) in countries that may be under-resourced to carry out these modalities. This may further explain the findings that suggest how student adjustment challenges and social dynamics exacerbate teacher burnout. The findings highlight the importance of resilience-building strategies for teachers and educational support programs that help reduce/cope with burnout risks post-pandemic. Programs can also promote teacher wellness, reduce workload burnout, and enhance professional development opportunities that may be critical in supporting teacher and student needs post-pandemic. Additionally, the current findings shed light on important factors that may impact burnout and can be incorporated into targeted interventions and support systems that cater to the specific needs of vulnerable teacher populations post-pandemic.

Limitations

There are some limitations to this study worth mentioning. First, this study was cross-sectional, which limits the ability to understand causal relationships. Additionally, cross-sectional studies limit the temporal dynamics of the predictors and burnout across time. Future studies can include experimental and longitudinal designs to understand causal and longitudinal ways these predictors impact teacher burnout. Additionally, although the total sample was 3792 people who began the survey, 2004 remained in the study. The fact that 1788 did not complete the consent or the entire survey suggests the response/dropout rate was high and may not fully represent the entire population of teachers included in these countries. Further, the study relied on self-report measures that could introduce response biases or inaccuracies due to subjective interpretations from Latin American countries and Spain. Another limitation concerns the representativeness of the sample. While the overall sample size was large and drawn from 19 Latin American countries and Spain, the vast majority of participants reported working in urban areas. This overrepresentation limits the generalizability of findings to teachers working in rural contexts, who may experience different stressors and structural challenges that influence burnout. Although comprehensive statistics on the urban–rural distribution of teachers across all included countries are limited, existing regional reports indicate that rural teachers likely make up a significant minority of the teaching workforce—often under-resourced and more isolated in terms of professional development and student support. Therefore, the current findings may underestimate burnout rates or reflect different burnout profiles than would be observed in more rural or remote teaching settings. Future research should seek to recruit more balanced samples or conduct stratified analyses by geographic region to more accurately assess contextual differences in teacher burnout.

Additionally, while this study employed a hierarchical regression approach to examine the unique and cumulative contribution of individual-, school-, and student-level factors to teacher burnout, it is important to acknowledge that some of these predictors may not operate independently. For instance, the influence of school characteristics—such as working in a public versus non-public institution—may be partially mediated by other factors, including student adjustment challenges. Teachers in public schools may be more likely to serve students with higher levels of behavioral, emotional, or family-related difficulties, which in turn may elevate teachers’ burnout levels. Although mediation analyses were beyond the scope of the current study, future research could explore these pathways using structural equation modeling or longitudinal mediation designs. Such approaches could clarify the mechanisms through which school context contributes to burnout, helping to better target interventions aimed at mitigating risk.

Despite the limitations, this study holds many strengths. First, the multinational scope across Latin American countries and Spain enhances its applicability and generalizability across various Spanish-speaking countries in different contexts. This also offers a comprehensive understanding of burnout dynamics in diverse cultural and educational contexts. Finally, these findings are key for informing educational policy decisions and educational needs post-pandemic in efforts to continue enhancing overall educational outcomes for teachers and students.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, several categories of interventions can be proposed to address teacher burnout and support emotional well-being—especially among those most vulnerable, such as younger teachers, individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and those with pre-existing mental or physical health conditions. Policymakers should prioritize funding for mental health and wellness programs within educational systems, particularly in public and under-resourced schools where burnout risks appear elevated. Policy efforts might also include mandating reduced student-to-teacher ratios, integrating social-emotional learning for both teachers and students, and ensuring equitable access to technological and instructional resources across urban and rural settings.

School leaders can implement regular mental health screenings and provide confidential, school-based psychological services for educators. Institutions should also consider creating flexible scheduling options or reducing non-instructional burdens (e.g., excessive administrative tasks), especially for teachers reporting high workloads or health conditions. Promoting a positive school climate through mentorship programs and teacher recognition initiatives may also help reduce emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.

Administrative teams can play a vital role in reducing teacher stress by streamlining bureaucratic procedures, automating repetitive tasks (e.g., grading systems or scheduling), and providing hands-on support for digital platforms used in hybrid or online learning. Technical staff can support ongoing teacher training in digital tools, which the pandemic showed to be a source of strain, particularly for teachers unfamiliar with remote teaching modalities.

Professional development workshops focused on self-care, resilience, and emotion regulation can empower teachers to manage stress more effectively. Peer support networks and facilitated reflective practice groups can offer space for emotional processing and community-building among teachers. Teachers should also be encouraged to seek accommodations for health conditions without stigma and be offered resources to access care.

One practical example of how the current findings could inform intervention design is through targeted wellness programming. Given that younger teachers and those with pre-pandemic mental or chronic illnesses showed significantly higher emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, schools could use intake surveys or human resource data to identify at-risk educators and offer tiered support. For instance, an onboarding wellness track might be created specifically for early-career teachers, incorporating mentorship, reduced initial teaching loads, and structured peer check-ins. Similarly, teachers disclosing chronic health concerns could be linked to health liaisons or given schedule flexibility.

By using the predictors identified in this study (e.g., workload increase, student behavioral issues, and school level) as early warning signals, institutions can proactively offer preventative supports rather than waiting for burnout to fully emerge. This model could be adapted across Spanish-speaking countries with consideration for local resources, offering a scalable and contextually relevant approach to sustaining teacher well-being post-pandemic.

Teacher burnout continues to be prevalent post-pandemic, including in Spanish-speaking countries. This study offers valuable insights into teachers’ enduring challenges after the pandemic and highlights the need for attention to teachers’ burnout and proactive educational and clinical support. In identifying teacher- and institutional-level factors contributing to teacher burnout, educators, administrators, policymakers, and clinicians can work toward creating educational systems that prioritize teacher well-being and promote a more sustainable educational system in these Spanish-speaking countries.