Introduction

The relationship between stress and burnout

Social workers seem to experience higher levels of stress than comparable occupational groups (Lizano and Mor Barak, 2015). High job demands and low resources contribute to stress (Barck-Holst et al., 2021; Raudeliunaite and Volff, 2020), which further leads to negative health outcomes such as burnout, anxiety, depression (Maddock, 2023; Meyerson et al., 2022), and the intention to leave the social work profession (Nissly et al., 2005). Stressful working conditions (high demands) that require disproportionately high efforts, followed by poor satisfaction, have great chances of resulting in burnout for helping professionals (Keel, 1993). According to the World Health Organization, burnout is a phenomenon characteristic to the occupational context ”resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is characterized by feelings of energy depletion, negativism, or cynicism related to the job and reduced professional efficacy (International Classification of Diseases (ICD) n.d.).

The relationship between stress and burnout at work among different professionals is studied in several papers (Fong et al., 2022; Lue et al., 2010; Papaefstathiou et al., 2019; Tsai et al., 2009; Tsai and Chan, 2010). Occupational stress, especially psychological demands, effort, and effort-reward imbalance, is associated with personal, work-related, and client-related burnout among lawyers (Tsai et al., 2009). Psychological demands and effort are associated with personal and work-related burnout for judges and procurators (Tsai and Chan, 2010). Job stress is associated with all three dimensions of burnout—personal, work-related, and client-related burnout—among medical residents (Papaefstathiou et al., 2019). The work environment, the emotional pressure, and the demands from the clients result in stress that is further associated with all three dimensions of burnout for postgraduate year residents (Lue et al., 2010). Role stress generated by role ambiguity and role conflict is associated with work-related burnout among workers from residential care houses; role conflict is also associated with client-related burnout (Fong et al., 2022).

Various studies that have investigated the role of coping strategies in the relationship between perceived stress and burnout in different contexts and professions (healthcare, professional caregivers who work in schools, hospitals, charity institutes and welfare centers, science and technology, sport, police officers, students), found that the relationship between psychological resources, burnout and stress is a complex interaction mediated by various psychological processes (Yu et al., 2025). The mediating role of coping strategies has been further elucidated by the Conservation of Resources Theory—COR (Hobfoll et al., 2018). For example, Gibbons (2024) identified Cohen’s d-effect sizes ranging from 0.6 to 0.8. Li et al. (2022) found that coping styles and family recognition of work explained 27.1% of the variance (F = 40.310, p < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 27.1%) and negative coping style was the strongest predictor (p < 0.001, R2 change = 17.9%) for burnout and in the secondary traumatic stress model. Also, substantial levels of burnout were significantly associated with using maladaptive coping behaviors (OR: 1.66, [1.30, 2.12]) for healthcare workers (Estephan et al., 2023) and coping strategies moderate the relation between physical fatigue, cognitive weariness, and emotional exhaustion, burnout, and safety workarounds (β = 0.1017, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.2551; β = .4292, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.4292; β = 0.2357, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.3206, respectively) (Waqar et al., 2023). Also, coping predicted about 26% of the variance in secondary traumatic stress, whereas burnout was able to predict about 13% of the variance after controlling for the effects of coping (Hamid and Musa, 2017). Another study demonstrated that proactive coping could explain 7.8% of the variance in perceived stress, and 36.8% the variance of perceived stress can be explained by self-compassion. The proactive coping and self-compassion could significantly explain 39% of the variance in perceived stress (R2 = 0.39, p < 0.001) (Bui et al., 2021).

Among social workers, high levels of stress are associated with burnout (Tang and Li, 2021; Dima et al., 2021; Kim and Stoner, 2008). Tang and Li (2021) investigated 1638 newly employed social workers from China and found that role stress is associated with all three dimensions of burnout, and the findings are statistically significant. In a study on 346 social workers in California, Kim and Stoner (2008) identified that the interaction between role stress and job autonomy is a predictor for burnout. Dima et al. (2021) explored a sample of 83 social workers from one county in Romania and concluded that the level of perceived stress is directly associated with burnout. Nevertheless, studies measuring the relationship between stress and burnout among social workers in general and Romanian social workers in particular are limited.

Coping strategies as mediators between stress and burnout

However strong the link between the two variables, stress does not always result in burnout. Several theoretical (Garrosa and Moreno-Jiménez, 2013; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) and research papers (Meyerson et al., 2022; Murji et al., 2006; Van Der Colff and Rothmann, 2009) explain how coping strategies mediate stress and burnout.

According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), when an individual faces a stressor, an appraisal process with two components takes place: the first component is the appraisal of the situation, and the second component is the appraisal of the resources; stress occurs when the stressors exceed the resources. Nevertheless, when stress occurs, coping mechanisms activate (Garrosa and Moreno-Jiménez, 2013). Coping is “constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984, p. 141). Inefficient coping strategies lead to emotional exhaustion, reduced personal realization, and depersonalization, the three dimensions of burnout (Edú-Valsania et al., 2022).

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) distinguish between problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. While problem-focused coping is intended to modify the situation, emotion-focused coping is intended to manage the emotions and cognitions of the individual (Garrosa and Moreno-Jiménez, 2013). Avoidance coping is a third type of strategy that can include both person-oriented behaviors (i.e., seeking out other people for diversion) and task-oriented behaviors (i.e., engagement in substitute tasks for distraction) (Endler and Parker, 1994). Positive coping is a category of strategies that consists of the search for meanings that cultivate positive emotions and development; within this category, proactive coping, as opposed to reactive coping, is forward-looking and anticipatory (Dewe, 2008; Garrosa and Moreno-Jiménez, 2013).

Problem-focused coping seems to be a better mediator between stress and burnout compared to emotion-oriented and avoidance-oriented strategies among workers in general, dentists, primary caregivers, and health care workers (Meyerson et al., 2022; Rossi et al., 2023; Vagni et al., 2022). The workers who feel unable to influence the decisions and the work context engage in avoidance behaviors more frequently than the others (McGrath et al., 1989).

Coping strategies among social workers

Coping strategies used by social workers are diverse, some with positive long-term effects, others with potentially damaging consequences. Beer et al. (2021) studied stress alleviation strategies among social workers in Children Advocacy Centers working with children exposed to trauma and identified three types of coping strategies. Physical coping strategies consisted of maintaining boundaries between work and private life (e.g., through turning off work phone or email notifications), recovery activities (such as physical activities, binge-watching TV, etc.), an appropriate diet, but also negative coping strategies such as substance use. Intrapersonal coping strategies include self-reflection, hobbies, and self-care. Interpersonal coping strategies refer to formal and informal support inside or outside the organization. Reid et al. (2023) investigated coping and resilience among service providers for people infected with HIV. Social support from family and friends, spiritual and religious practices, mindfulness sessions, psychotherapy, and time off from work were used for coping with burnout. The participants in the study mentioned that support from the organization, such as employers showing appreciation and checking how employees cope with stress and burnout, together with individually tailored interventions, could contribute to a decrease in burnout. In a systematic literature review on resilience and burnout among child protection social workers, McFadden et al. (2024) identified that the coping strategies applied by social workers are using investigative and interpersonal skills and developing these into competence and confidence, being opened to risks, challenges and unexpected events, finding meaning and purpose in professional events, keeping expectations realistic, finding support from others, maintaining an important life outside work, debriefing from trauma and learning about self and self-awareness. Generally, the negative ways social workers cope with stress are problem avoidance, wishful thinking, social withdrawal, and self-criticism, while the positive ways of coping with stress are learning to relax, mind/body connections, and exercise (Ben-Zur and Michael, 2007; Rohling, 2016). Astvik et al. (2014) used semi-structured interviewees and focus groups and identified five types of coping strategies among social workers, but they were not specifically related to stress. According to the authors, compensatory strategies such as working overtime and bringing work at home, although efficient in managing workload fluctuations, resulted in stress, tiredness, and decreased well-being. Demand-reducing strategies, like lowering the standards of quality at work, resulted in conflicts and dissatisfaction. Disengagement and withdrawal from “unchangeable” situations also generate conflicts and sometimes result in leaving the job. Voice strategies, which consist of protesting against workload, for example, are rather “unusual,” mostly because it has no concrete results on changing the working conditions, but they result in reduced self-blame and increased professional identity and sense of meaning. Exit is the fifth strategy applied, and it consists of leaving a job and even profession.

Nevertheless, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of coping strategies in reducing burnout among social workers is scarce and complex, and to the best of our knowledge, no study investigating how coping mediates between stress and burnout has investigated Romanian social workers. The use of engaged (active) coping strategies consisting of an attempt to actively manage the stressful person-environment transaction is related to a lower feeling of depersonalization and a higher feeling of personal accomplishment; the use of disengaged (avoidant) strategies that consist in avoiding thinking or talking about the stressful situation is correlated to higher feelings of depersonalization and emotional exhaustion and low feelings of personal accomplishment (Anderson, 2000). Problem-focused coping enhances personal accomplishment, but it does not reduce emotional exhaustion and depersonalization; anyway, problem-focused coping is more effective than emotion-focused coping (Acker, 2010). However, more recent studies conclude that coping strategies, including problem-focused coping, are not enough to lower stress and protect social workers from burnout (Barck-Holst et al., 2021), and multilevel interventions regarding structural, organizational, and relational factors that aggravate the context in which burnout appears are necessary (Kaapu et al., 2023). Barck-Holst et al. (2021) studied Swedish social workers who participated in a trial consisting of a reduction of work time by 25% and a proportional reduction in workload while retaining full-time pay. The authors concluded that the intervention reduces both symptoms of burnout and stress, the results being statistically significant. Furthermore, the adoption of problem-focused coping strategies (which participants had also been using before the intervention) was not sufficient in reducing stress and burnout. However, the decrease in work time and workload improved the balance between work and personal life and reduced stress. In a systematic literature review regarding self-care among social workers, Kaapu et al. (2023) concluded that interventions predominantly focused on changing individual attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors, while living outside this discussion, structural and institutional factors, which are proven to be strong predictors of social workers’ engagement in self-care interventions.

Social workers in Romania

In Romania, the development of the social work profession followed a non-linear trajectory throughout the twentieth century, particularly under the communist regime (1947–1989). After 1989, social work was reestablished as both a recognized profession and a field of academic study (Lazăr, 2015). According to Law No. 466/2004 concerning the status of social workers, the profession may be practiced by individuals holding a bachelor’s degree in social work (Law No. 466/2004). In April 2025, almost 14,000 social workers were officially registered in the National Register of Social Workers administered by the National College of Social Workers of Romania (NCSWR), the professional body established in 2005. Of these, 37% are classified as beginners (less than 12 months of professional experience) and 38% as principal social workers (over five years of seniority), according to data available on the NCSWR website. The Romanian Social Service Workforce Census (Lazăr et al., 2023) reported that over 80% of social workers are employed in the public sector, while approximately 10% are employed by non-governmental organizations. Regarding service users, the same study found that the largest proportion of social workers (45.6%) provide support to adults with disabilities, followed by those working with children with disabilities (40.7%), elderly (39.1%), and families with children (37.9%).

Research on stress, burnout, and mediating variables such as coping strategies among Romanian social workers is extremely scarce. Baciu and Vîrgă (2018) measured well-being, including burnout, and turnover intention among a national sample of Romanian social workers. For burnout, the authors used the 16-item Utrecht Burnout Scale, and the results indicated that ~23% of social workers were confronting moderate to severe levels of emotional exhaustion, ~22% were facing moderate to severe levels of cynicism, and ~21% were experiencing moderate to severe levels of inefficacy, all three dimensions of burnout. According to the same paper, some of the main sources of burnout were interpersonal conflicts and lack of supervisors’ support, which resulted in social workers’ intention to leave the profession. Similar results were obtained by Lazăr et al. (2021) on a large sample of 1057 Romanian social workers, who found that burnout, together with small income, increased the odds of social workers leaving the profession. A qualitative study (Marc and Oşvat, 2013) on a smaller sample of Romanian social workers identified many other sources of burnout, and also strategies social workers use to decrease the risk of burnout. According to the study, when social workers face case overload and time pressure, limitations of the available interventions, and limited time to dedicate to family life, in order to manage the risk of burnout, they set boundaries on job responsibilities, seek help from colleagues and supervisors, and receive psychological counseling. In a more recent study, Dima et al. (2021) measured stress and burnout (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory) during the pandemic among 83 Romanian social workers from statutory and private social services; the authors also tested the correlation between the two variables and investigated the differences in burnout by perceived organizational support. The results indicate that the social workers have a high level of perceived stress (MEAN = 8.61 out of 10, SD = 1.62). The level of burnout was lower, with work-related burnout (WB) scoring a medium level (MEAN = 52.5 out of 100, SD = 20.6). The results indicated that individuals who received support from their organization scored lower at burnout compared to their counterparts (M = 49.51, SD = 23.28, and M = 67.18, SD = 18.18, respectively). Vîrgă et al. (2020) tested how psychological capital reduces burnout and the risk for secondary traumatic stress on a sample of 193 social workers from Romania. More specifically, hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism, all dimensions of psychological capital, are protective factors against burnout, further resulting in decreased risk of secondary traumatic stress. According to the results, burnout is a mediator between psychological capital and secondary traumatic stress.

In this article, we analyze the relationship between stress, coping strategies, and burnout for social workers using a sample comprised of specialists from Romania. Our main hypothesis is that coping styles mediate the relationship between perceived stress and burnout, in the sense that high levels of stress are associated with negative coping strategies, which, in turn, are associated with high levels of burnout.

Following the previous literature, we test first if stress and burnout are statistically significant correlated among social workers in Romania, and second if coping strategies mediate between stress and burnout among these professionals (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The model of the main assumption of the study.

Full size image

We focus on three types of coping strategies: problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping and avoidant coping.

H1: Stress is statistically significant correlated with burnout (personal and professional burnout) among social workers in Romania.

We expect this hypothesis to be confirmed based on both the literature regarding the relationships between stress and burnout (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) and on the studies regarding social workers in Romania and abroad (e.g., Tang and Li, 2021; Dima et al., 2021; Kim and Stoner, 2008)

H2: Problem-focused coping mediates between stress and burnout (personal and professional burnout) among Romanian social workers.

We expect problem-focused coping strategies not to be a good mediator between stress and burnout. Our expectation is in line with other studies focusing on social workers (e.g., Barck-Holst et al., 2021). We also take into account that factors of stress among Romanian social workers, such as the shortage in rural areas (Marc and Oşvat, 2013), cannot be solved at individual level, but need systemic interventions, and that focusing on solving problems as coping strategy may contribute to negative feelings among social workers.

H3: Emotion-focused coping mediates between stress and burnout (personal and professional burnout) among Romanian social workers.

We expect emotion-focused coping to mediate between stress and burnout for social work professionals. Our expectation is based on recent studies (e.g., Reid et al., 2023) on social workers concluding that professionals in social work engage in spiritual and religious practices, mindfulness sessions, and psychotherapy in an attempt to reduce burnout. Moreover, Vîrgă et al. (2020) found that hope and optimism, among others, are protective factors against burnout in the Romanian social work system.

H4: Avoidant-focused coping mediates between stress and burnout (personal and professional burnout) among Romanian social workers.

We expect avoidant-focused coping strategies to mediate between stress and burnout in the short run (i.e., in avoiding stressful work contexts), even though not in the long run. Our hypothesis is based on Rohling (2016) and Ben-Zur and Michael (2007), who consider problem avoidance a negative coping strategy for social workers, and others, such as Anderson (2000), who found avoidance negatively impacting all three dimensions of burnout in these professionals.

Methodology

We collected data from social workers between November 2022 and January 2023. Social workers who are part of the National College of Social Workers in Romania (NCSWR) received a Microsoft Forms link to fill in and express their willingness to participate in our study. The research has the approval of the ethics committee of the faculty of the lead author.

The data collection was conducted in Romanian. The scales were first translated from English into Romanian. The translation implied a group-work process. Initially, the scale was translated by one author. Secondly, after the initial translation, three of the authors reviewed and edited the translation to best express the meaning of the questions. The final translated version of the self-report questionnaire was discussed and approved by the entire team of authors. The link to it was distributed to the participants of a webinar on managing professional stress, in which the project was presented. The link was sent through the NCSWR to all registered social workers (~11,000 at the time of survey). At the same time, the self-report questionnaire was promoted in meetings with social workers and through the professional channels of the authors. The first question asked the respondents whether they agreed to participate in our study; the self-report continued if answered was “yes” and stopped if “no” was the selected answer.

370 responses were received, and 324 were validated. The analysis of this article is based on the validated responses. The data were cleaned and analysed in SPSS 28. For this article, we used scales to measure stress (Perceived Stress Questionnaire), coping (Brief-COPE), and burnout (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory-CBI).

Perceived stress questionnaire

A perceived stress (Levenstein et al., 1993) index was created following the guidelines of the scale (Shahid et al., 2011). The scale has 30 items scored from 1, meaning almost never, to 4, meaning usually. In our sample, the mean score is 0.422, with Standard Deviation (SD) of 0.161. The internal consistency was tested with Cronbach’s Alpha, and the coefficient for this scale is 0.943.

Coping strategies

To measure strategies of coping (Carver, 1997), we used Brief-COPE Carver, all three dimensions: problem-focused coping (PFC), emotion-focused coping (EFC), and avoidant coping (AC). All 28 items were scored from 1, meaning never, to 4, meaning a lot. The items were grouped in dimensions as recommended in the instructions (NovoPsych, 2021) for using the scale: 8 items for PFC, 12 for EFC, and 8 items for AC. The highest scores in our sample are obtained for problem-focused coping (PFC) with PFC with a 2.99 average and 0.496 SD. Scores on EFC have an average of 2.562, with 0.488 SD. Avoidant coping has the lowest average score of the three: 1.769 mean with 0.436 SD. The internal consistency for each dimension was tested and the coefficients are Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.763 for PFC, Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.766 for EFC and Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.690 for AC.

Burnout

Burnout levels were measured with the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (Kristensen et al., 2005), using all three dimensions: Personal burnout (6 items), Work-related burnout (WRB, 7 items), and Client-related burnout (6 items). The order of the scale was maintained in the survey, and all 19 items were scored from 1, meaning never, to 100, meaning always, following the instructions (National Research Center for Working Environment (NFA) n.d.). Among the three, Personal Burnout has the highest average, 51.119, with 19.388 SD. It is followed by WRB with an average of 45.877 and SD 19.759. Client-related burnout registered the lowest average, at 27.984 and SD 20.145.

Sample

Using G-power (Faul et al., 2009) to estimate the sample size, we inputted the conventional power of 0.95 (Fritz and MacKinnon, 2007), with 0.05 error, 3 predictors, and an effect size of 0.075 HM (half medium). The total sample size required was 233. We collected more responses, but validated only 324.

In our sample (n = 324 social workers), the average level of stress is 0.4221 (measured from 0 to 1) with 0.161 standard deviation, and the averages for burnout (measured from 0 to 100) are: 51.11 (19.39 SD) for personal burnout, 45.88 (19.76 SD) for work-related burnout and 27.98 (20.14 SD) for client-related burnout. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a moderate level of stress in our sample, with many respondents perceiving medium levels of personal and work-related burnout and less with client-related burnout. Table 1 contains more information about the main variables.

Table 1 Descriptives of main variables: perceived stress, coping styles (problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidant) and sub-dimensions, Burnout (personal, work- and client-related).
Full size table

Table 2 presents the differences within our sample on socio-demographic variables for work-related burnout. We present the data for work-related burnout in this case, given that we focus on social workers only, and the purpose is to have an overview on our sample’s burnout level. We based this decision on the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory authors’ statement, who consider that the subscales can be used separately (Kristensen et al., 2005, p. 196).

Table 2 Means for perceived stress and work-related burnout within the sample.
Full size table

Results

When comparing the means of the variables (Stress, Personal Burnout, Work-Related Burnout, Client-Related Burnout, Problem-focused coping, Emotion-focused coping, and Avoidant coping) based on the type of employer (public with private) or level of education (bachelor with master and PhD), there are no significant differences. There are significant differences (p = 0.033) in the means of Personal Burnout between those who provide direct services to service users (M = 50.610, SD = 19.421) and those who don’t (M = 60.294, SD = 16.739), with the latter expressing higher levels of personal burnout. Those working in cities report significantly (p = 0.003) lower stress levels (M = 0.408, SD = 0.158) than those in rural areas (M = 0.480, SD = 0.161).

We tested the correlations between the seven variables of this study. As observed in Table 3 below, there are high correlations between the level of perceived stress and personal burnout (0.818, p < 0.001). There is no significant correlation between stress and problem-focused coping. The only negative correlation, although not significant, is between problem-focused coping and client-related burnout (r = −0.011, p = 850). There is no significant correlation between problem-focused coping and personal burnout or work-related burnout.

Table 3 Pearson Correlation coefficients between the main variables of the analysis.
Full size table

H1: Stress is statistically significant correlated with burnout (personal and professional burnout) among social workers in Romania.

We observe a linear relation between stress and all types of burnout (personal burnout, work-related burnout and client-related burnout), which confirms the first hypothesis. We tested three models:

  • In the first model, 67% of the variation of personal burnout is explained by stress (t = 25.549, F(1322) = 652.739, p < 0.001, CI(95%): 0.909–1.061, Durbin-Watson 1.998). With every 1 standardized unit increase in stress, there is a 0.818 increase in personal burnout (t = 25.549, p < 0.001).

  • In the second model, 60% of the variation of work-related burnout is explained by stress (t = 22.196, p < 0.001, F(1322) = 492.662, CI(95%): 0.869-1.038, Durbin-Watson 1.744). With every 1 standardized unit increase in stress, there is a 0.778 increase in work-related burnout (t = 22.196, p < 0.001).

  • The third model, 28% of the variation on avoidant coping is explained by stress (t = 11.334, p < 0.001, F(1322) = 128.467, CI(95%): 0.552–0.784, Durbin-Watson 2.016). With every 1 unit increase in stress, there is a 0.534 increase in client-related burnout (t = 11.334, p < 0.001).

We used Andrew Hayes’ Process macro v4.2_beta to conduct mediation analysis in SPSS 28 (Hayes, 2018) to test the following three hypothesis below. For all mediation analysis were used Model number 4 with 5000 number of bootstrap samples.

  • H2: Problem-focused coping mediates between stress and burnout (personal and professional burnout).

  • H3: Emotion-focused coping mediates between stress and burnout (personal and professional burnout).

  • H4: Avoidant-focused coping mediates between stress and burnout (personal and professional burnout).

The result shows that the relation between stress and personal burnout is not mediated by Problem-focused coping, thus not confirming hypothesis 2.

We found (a) partial mediation between stress–emotion–focused coping–personal burnout (standardized indirect effect 0.017, BootSE = 0.009, BootLLCI = 0.003, BootULCI = 0.037), confirming hypothesis 3, and (b) partial mediation between stress–avoidant coping–personal burnout (standardized indirect effect 0.044, BootSE = 0.014, BootLLCI = 0.018, BootULCI = 0.074) which confirms hypothesis 4. The coefficients are presented in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Mediation model Stress-EFC-PB and Stress-AC-PB. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; n = 324.

Full size image

While problem-focused coping does not mediate the relation between perceived stress and work-related burnout, emotion-focused coping and avoidant coping do. Through the analysis, we found that while (i) the relation between stress and work-related burnout is not mediated by problem-focused coping (which doesn’t confirm hypothesis 2), (ii) there is partial mediation between stress, emotion-focused coping and work-related burnout (standardized indirect effect 0.022, BootSE = 0.010, BootLLCI = 0.005, BootULCI = 0.043), confirming hypothesis 3, and (iii) a partial mediation between stress, avoidant coping and work-related burnout (standardized indirect effect 0.041, BootSE = 0.016, BootLLCI = 0.011, BootULCI = 0.075), confirming hypothesis 4. The indirect effects are small and are to be further investigated. The relations are shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Mediation model stress – EFC – WRB and stress- AC- WRB. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; n = 324.

Full size image

There is no mediation between the perceived stress and client-related burnout by none of the three types of coping (personal, emotion-focused, and avoidant coping). The values for the mediation analysis are provided in Table 4.

Table 4 Standardized indirect effect, BootSE, BootLLCI, and BootULCI, F(321), and R2 for the main mediation analysis conducted in the article.
Full size table

As it was expected from the results above, the analysis below shows that when using both mediators in the relation between stress and personal burnout, avoidant coping mediates the relation between stress and personal burnout (standardized indirect effect 0.034, BootSE = 0.009, BootLLCI = 0.005, BootULCI = 0.066), while emotion-focused coping loses its effect, as shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Mediation model stress – personal burnout with two mediators (EFC and AC). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; n = 324.

Full size image

Emotion-focused coping mediated the relationship between stress and work-related burnout when both mediators were included at the same time. Stress predicts emotion-focused coping and avoidant coping. While emotion-focused coping has an effect on work-related coping (standardized indirect effect 0.017, BootSE = 0.009 BootLLCI = 0.001, BootULCI = 0.038), avoidant coping loses its effect as shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Mediation model stress–work–related burnout with two mediators (EFC and AC). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; n = 324.

Full size image

In order to find explanations for the results and identify the coping strategies most likely to mediate between stress and burnout style, we included each of the 14 coping strategies of Brief Cope Carver (Carver, 1997; NovoPsych, 2021) in mediation analyses using Andrew F. Hayes' PROCESS procedure for SPSS (Hayes, 2018).

The relation between Perceived stress and Personal burnout was partially mediated by the following coping strategies: venting (standardized indirect effect 0.020, BootSE = 0.011, BootLLCI = 0.0003, BootULCI = 0.0453), self-blame (standardized indirect effect 0.046, BootSE = 0.016, BootLLCI = 0.016, BootULCI = 0.078), denial (standardized indirect effect 0.016, BootSE = 0.008, BootLLCI = 0.003, BootULCI = 0.035) and behavioral disengagement (standardized indirect effect 0.023, BootSE = 0.012, BootLLCI = 0.001, BootULCI = 0.048).

Self-blame (standardized indirect effect 0.041, BootSE = 0.017, BootLLCI = 0.009, BootULCI = 0.074) and denial (standardized indirect effect 0.022, BootSE = 0.010, BootLLCI = 0.006, BootULCI = 0.043) partially mediate the relation between perceived stress and work-related burnout. The results showed that no coping strategy mediated between perceived stress and client-related burnout. More information is provided in Table 4.

When we tested the relation between stress and work-related burnout mediated by both self-blame and denial, only denial was significant for partial mediation (standardized indirect effect 0.018, BootSE=0.009, BootLLCI = 0.003, BootULCI = 0.038), as shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Mediation model stress–work–related burnout with two mediators (EFC self-blame and AC denial). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; n = 324.

Full size image

To try to explain the results above, we compared the average scores of Perceived stress, Personal burnout, Work-related burnout, and Client-related burnout between those who (a) don’t use or use the coping strategy a little assigned category 0, and (b) those who use it a medium amount or a lot, assigned category 1. The results show that persons who use a medium amount or a lot the following strategies express more stress and higher burnout levels than those who use them less or not at all: venting, humor, self-blame, self-distraction, denial, or behavioral disengagement. We present the results in Table 5. The differences between the averages are rather small except for the results on substance use strategy. However, these cannot be considered, given the low number of responses for medium and high use. Overall, the results indicate (a) that higher levels of stress and burnout are associated with strategies that could be perceived as negative coping strategies and (b) that adopting positive coping strategies doesn’t influence the perceived level of stress and burnout.

Table 5 Average levels of perceived stress, personal burnout, work-related burnout and client-related burnout by perceived frequency of adopting a coping style.
Full size table

Discussions

When facing stress, problem-focused coping is not a significant mediator in the relation between stress and burnout for social workers. In contrast, emotion-focused coping and avoidant coping strategies do mediate, especially personal burnout and work-related burnout, even if their effect is rather low. Self-blame is the significant mediator between stress and personal burnout, finding that is consistent with other studies (Cummings et al., 2020; Doolittle, 2021), and denial is the best mediator for stress and work-related burnout, as also found by Maddock (2024) and Ben-Ezra and Hamama-Raz (2021). Given the results, it can be concluded that, despite low indirect effects, in stressful situations, using self-blame and denial coping for coping increases burnout. It appears that when confronted with stress, social workers tend to blame themselves for the situation and thus amplifying burnout levels. For instance, Gibson (2016), when exploring social workers’ shame (a self-blame emotional manifestation), concludes that it endangers their job satisfaction and retention. To better cope with stressful situations, social workers need to learn and use self-care strategies (Miller et al., 2020; Collins, 2021). Our data shows that emotion-focused coping and avoidant coping partially mediate the relation between stress and burnout type, and, when used together, avoidant coping better mediates the relation between stress and personal burnout, and emotion-focused coping that of stress and work-related burnout.

Our analyses show partial mediation, with significant relations, although small scores. While our findings contradict other studies (Meyerson et al., 2022; Rossi et al., 2023; Vagni et al., 2022), given that in our case problem-focused coping did not mediate the relation between stress and burnout type, they are also attuned with other findings (Lee and Song, 2022; Makara-Studzińska et al., 2021; Vagni et al., 2020) that suggest either the absence or a very low mediation by problem-focused coping between stress and burnout. Some factors to be taken into account in understanding this relation are contextual factors such as organizational support and work conditions (Folkman and Lazarus, 1988; Hobfoll, 2002). Future research should investigate whether specific organizational settings or cultural differences influence the role of problem-focused coping in mitigating burnout (Halbesleben, 2006). Our results support the conclusions of Anderson (2000) and Acker (2010), showing that emotion-focused coping positively mediated between stress and work-related burnout, and avoidant coping the relation between stress and personal burnout.

Our findings have direct implications for social work practice. Underlying self-blame and denial as key mediators suggest the need for targeted interventions in order to reduce maladaptive coping strategies among social workers. Training programs aimed at fostering adaptive coping mechanisms—such as mindfulness, cognitive restructuring, problem-solving skills, and self-compassion—may help mitigate burnout and improve job satisfaction (Neff and Germer, 2013; Meichenbaum, 2007). Additionally, organizations should integrate support systems such as peer supervision, mental health resources, and resilience-building and self-care workshops to create a more sustainable work environment for social workers (Skovholt and Trotter-Mathison, 2016) and take into account the sensitive and emotional nature of social work when balancing workload. Stanley and Sebastine (2023) emphasized the importance of workplace support systems in reducing burnout and alleviating stress among social workers. Lizano (2015) further supports these findings, demonstrating that social workers experiencing burnout often resort to avoidant coping, exacerbating stress levels. So we highlight the necessity of systemic interventions tailored to the needs of social workers and, as Travis et. al (2016), the need for long-term administrative strategies for preventing burnout development; fostering engagement and even changes in the curriculum from the first year of faculty onward for knowledge and training regarding the efficient use of coping strategies by social work students (Godara et al., 2023) need also to be considered.

While problem-focused coping is often encouraged as a healthy response to stress in educational and professional settings (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), its effectiveness may be contingent on external factors such as job autonomy and resource availability, its adaptiveness being dependent on the controllability of the stressor (Vishkin and Tamir, 2020). If social workers perceive their work environment as rigid or unsupportive, problem-focused coping strategies may not be viable, leading to a reliance on emotion-focused or avoidant coping. Problem-focused coping reaches its adaptive peak when stressors are controllable, and emotion-focused coping when stressors are uncontrollable (Troy et al., 2013). So what remains in the direct control of the social workers, when work conditions are not, is their emotional world, in which emotion-focused coping is most relevant because it tries to manage the aversive emotion by directly regulating it and enables them to stay engaged in their jobs and care for patients more effectively (Vishkin and Tamir, 2020). This reinforces the importance of structural and systemic changes within social work organizations to empower employees and restore the sense of control, allowing them to implement problem-solving strategies effectively.

Taken together, these findings emphasize the complexity of coping mechanisms in burnout development and highlight the need for a multifaceted approach to supporting social workers in managing stress. Future studies should further investigate the interplay between coping strategies, workplace conditions, and individual differences and the imbalance between worker and workplace (Maslach and Leiter, 2017) to develop more comprehensive interventions for burnout prevention.

Limitations

The cross-sectional nature of the research prevents us from any causal inferences. As the questionnaire was disseminated online among registered social workers, those not registered and with limited online interactions are not represented. Nevertheless, as recent data reveal, 73.8% of human resources holding a bachelor’s in social work are registered with the National College of Social Workers (Lazăr et al., 2023). Given the convenience sample, the results cannot be generalized to all Romanian social workers. However, the socio-demographic structure of the sample reflects national administrative data (Lazăr, 2015), and the findings focus on the association of variables of interest and do not aim to be generalized. Another limitation derives from the use of measures that were not adapted to Romanian social workers. To address this limitation, we have used a thorough translation process with multiple members of the research team being involved in checking the accuracy of the translations. Given that the measures used were not previously adapted to Romanian social workers, further studies could aim to test their psychometric properties.

Conclusions and implications

While our findings suggest that to be able to effectively respond to stress and work-related, client-related, and personal-related burnout, social workers need to find better ways of coping and develop self-care practices, individual-level actions alone are not sufficient. Structural measures to address social workers’ high workloads due to staff shortages, complex cases, and organizational factors should also to be considered in order to ensure that the workforce providing essential social services to citizens in difficult circumstances can address their needs. As pointed out by McFadden and colleagues (2024), it is a matter of ‘safe staffing’ which cannot be overlooked by decision-makers and employers.

Following our results, it should further be investigated if stress and emotion-focused coping strategies lead to more work-related burnout and if stress and avoidant coping strategies lead to more personal burnout with representative samples, considering whether client work is involved and the type of client.

Several factors should be further considered in explaining the relationship between stress and burnout such as the duration of the stressful situations, the duration of the perceived burnout condition, the dominant coping strategy deployed by social workers, psychological comfort, self-efficacy and organizational factors such as: workload and job demands, control and autonomy, social support, resources and training, organizational culture. Another type of design might be appropriate considering the ontogenetic nature of coping strategies, making them more suitable for a moderator role.