This is the summary of the study, in the classic abstract poster format, for use in the oral presentation of the ePoster.

1. Dr Zulkarnain AB HAMID
National University Hospital
Email: zulkarnain_hamid@nuhs.edu.sg
Phone: +65 6779 5555
Website: http://www.nuh.com.sg
Burnout is becoming increasingly
common amongst clinicians and
faculty, making early identification
early. While there are many
factors that contribute to it, this
study attempts to look for the
presence of an association
between risk of burnout and a)
personality types and b)
resilience.
We enrolled, through
convenience sampling in a faculty
development workshop, 45
clinician faculty members who
submitted, anonymously, their
DiSC® profiles and their
responses to the Maslach
Burnout Inventory and True
Resilience Scale.
We found that those with High
S(teadiness) personality style has
the highest burnout risk, while
High D(ominant) has the lowest
risk. The presence of resilience is
protective for all personality
types.
This pilot study signals the
probability that personality can be
a non-modifiable factor
contributing towards burnout, and
an awareness of this may allow
vigilance and early mitigation.
The Effects of Personality and Resilience on Burnout, amongst
Faculty Clinicians in an Academic Medical Centre in Singapore: A Pilot
Zulkarnain AB HAMID, MBBS, MBA, MMed, MSc, MCEM1,2; A/Prof Shirley Beng Suat OOI, MBBS, FRCSEd (A&E), MHPE, FAMS1,2
1National University Hospital, Singapore, 2National University Health System, Singapore
Having the High S(teadiness) personality style
on DiSC® puts one at the highest burnout risk,
with a RR of 4.3 (p=0.071), while those having the
High D(ominant) style have the lowest risk, with RR
of 0.23 (p=0.071). (See Table 1)
The presence of Resilience mitigates burnout,
with a RR of 0.10 (p=0.047) in general and RR 0.13
(p=0.005) for High S individuals. (See Table 2)
We enrolled 45 (out of 52) faculty​ physicians,
from various departments, who attended
a ​faculty development workshop on the use of
the DiSC® personality profile for performance
coaching. They submitted, anonymously, their
own DiSC® personality profiles, and their
responses to the Maslach Burnout
Inventory ‐ Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS)
and the True Resilience Survey (TRS), for the
study.
The Fisher’s exact test was used to determine
the significance of the relationship or
association between the risk of burnout and:
a) individual personality types (i.e. High D,
High I, High S and High C) and b)
b) resilience
While more and bigger studies are required,
preliminary results show that personality and
resilience are significant factors in burnout
development: personality predicts the risk of
burnout – and thus can be seen as a non-
modifiable risk factor – while resilience
significantly mitigates or protects against
burnout, even for those with at-risk
personalities.
Awareness of these is critical. Firstly,
preventive measures can be taken, and more
vigilance accorded by and to those with the at-
risk personality, in an attempt to identify signs
and symptoms of burnout early. Secondly,
resilience – being a global protective factor that
can be learnt – can be trained to all, as a
preventive measure against burnout.
Burnout is common amongst clinicians and
medical faculty, and its adverse effects have
been well‐documented. Many factors,
contribute towards the development of burnout.
Like any disease, these factors may be
modifiable or non-modifiable.
We study the effects personality (a relatively
stable, non-modifiable factor) and resilience (a
trainable, modifiable factor) have on the risk of
burnout amongst faculty members in our
academic medical centre.
We hypothesise that:
1. some personality types would predispose an
individual towards getting burnout (a non-
modifiable risk factor),
2. The presence of resilience, a protective trait
in many studies, would decrease the risk of
burnout
INTRODUCTION
METHODS AND MATERIALS 1. True Resilience Scale (http://www.resiliencecenter.com/)
2. Maslach Burnout Inventory - Human Services Survey
(MBI-HSS) (http://www.mindgarden.com/314-mbi-human-
services-survey)
3. Wright, J. G., Khetani, N., & Stephens, D. (2011). Burnout
among faculty physicians in an academic health science
centre. Paediatrics & Child Health, 16(7), 409–413.
4. Arunima, S., & Ajeya, J. (2014). Age and emotional intelligence
of healthcare leaders: A study. Advances in Management, 7(7),
41-48.
5. Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Leroy, C., & Roy, E.
(2007). Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment,
88, 338-353.
6. Mustafa, O.M. Health behaviors and personality in burnout: a
third dimension. (2015). Med Educ
Online. 20: 10.3402/meo.v20.28187.
7. Ogundipe, O.A., Olagunju, A.T., Lasebikan, V.O. and Coker,
A.O. (2014). Burnout among doctors in residency training in a
tertiary hospital. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 10, 27-32
8. Swider, B.W. and Zimmerman, R.D. (2010). Born to burnout: A
meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work
outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. 76(3), 487-506
9. Wagnild, G.M. and Young, H.M. (1993). Development and
Psychometric Evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of
Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165-178
10. Weng, H.-C., Hung, C.-M., Liu, Y.-T., Cheng, Y.-J., Yen, C.-Y.,
Chang, C.-C. and Huang, C.-K. (2011), Associations between
emotional intelligence and doctor burnout, job satisfaction and
patient satisfaction. Medical Education, 45: 835–842.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03985.x
CONCLUSIONSRESULTS
REFERENCES
Table 2. Relative risk of burnout, comparing High vs Low resilience
Table 1. Relative risk between each personality and
burnout dimensions and resilience
ABSTRACT
CONTACT
High Resilience vs Low Resilience
RR p
EE: Emotional Exhaustion 0.1333 0.0069
DP: Depersonalisation 1.2500 0.7325
PA(r): Personal accomplishment
(reduced)
0.8000 0.7425
The results are specific to the DiSC® system; it was
chosen because of its ease of use (outside of
research) having a) only 2 factors and b) using
observable behaviours.
Additionally, while other factors are likely involved,
the large RRs – on either side – suggest that both
personality and resilience may be strong burnout
predictors, notwithstanding the lack of statistical
significance.
Note that the results are foreseeably specific for
faculty clinicians only: burnout, after all, is
exposure-dependent.
DISCUSSION

2. Summary of Results

3. Focus on High S individuals
High S with High Dominant type (HD) vs High S with Low Dominant type (LD)
RR = 0.5536, p = 0.6190
Inference: Concomitant High D(ominant) style/type
mitigates against the risk of EE in High S individuals
High S with HD (4) High S with LD (31)
High EE 1 14
Low EE 3 17

4. Focus on High S individuals
High S with Mod-High Resilience (HR) vs High S with Low Resilience (LR)
High S with HR (8) High S with LR (27)
High EE 0 15
Low EE 8 12
RR = 0.1004, p = 0.0046
Inference: Resilience mitigates against the risk of EE
in High S individuals

5. Is resilience protective for all
personalities?
High Resilience vs Low Resilience
RR p
EE: Emotional Exhaustion 0.1333 0.0069
DP: Depersonalisation 1.2500 0.7325
PA(r): Personal accomplishment
(reduced)
0.8000 0.7425
Inferences
• Those with higher resilience are at lower risk of developing EE.
• Those with higher resilience are more likely to demonstrate
depersonalisation  could this be the coping mechanism that
allowed for the resilient behaviour?

6. Summary
1) There does seem to be an association between
dominant personality profiles with the risk of
developing burnout
• There is a differential inherent risk (High S increases risk; High
D is protective)
2) Resilience globally helps reduce the risk of emotional
exhaustion
• This may be at the expense of individuals demonstrating
depersonalisation
3) High D and High-moderate resilience are protective and
may mitigate against burnout, even for high risk
personality (i.e. High S)
• Between the 2 protective factors, resilience is trainable and its
effects are seen across personalities  consideration for
instituting resilience training

7. Questions?