Purpose To examine burnout among practising optometrists and to identify associated demographic, health and modifiable occupational factors. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among optometrists in the United Kingdom in 2024. Burnout was assessed using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Rasch-transformed scores were used to improve measurement precision for comparisons and statistical modelling. Univariate analyses and theoretical relevance informed the variables selected for regression models. Separate regression models were constructed for each burnout domain. Results A total of 1317 optometrists were included. Elevated burnout (scores ≥ 50 before Rasch transformation) indicative of at least moderate burnout, was observed in 57% for personal burnout, 56% for work-related burnout and 42% for patient-related burnout. Multiple linear regression models explained up to 71% of the variance in burnout ( p < 0.001). Higher psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale) was the strongest association across all burnout domains. The next two strongest associations differed by domain: for personal burnout, these were female gender and poorer work–life balance; for work-related burnout, greater unrealistic time pressure and poorer work-life balance and for patient-related burnout, greater intention to leave the profession and unrealistic time pressure. Conclusions Burnout is common among practising optometrists and is associated with modifiable occupational factors. Associations with intention to leave the profession raise concerns for workforce sustainability. The multifactorial nature of burnout, alongside domain specific findings across personal, work-related and patient-related dimensions, indicates that coordinated action at individual, interpersonal and organisational levels is required to support optometrist well-being and delivery of eye care services. Priority areas include health behaviours, work–life balance, unrealistic time pressures, workload demands and working relationships.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Retallic et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: