RESUMO
The correct language to refer to someone with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder has received a lot of attention in recent years. Studies in English-speaking countries found a main identity-first language (IFL) preference (e.g. autistic person) opposed to a person-first language preference (PFL) (e.g. person with autism) among adults with autism. However, a recent study conducted in a Dutch-speaking country (the Netherlands) reported a PFL preference (Buijsman et al., 2023). The goal of the current study was to gain insights into language preferences in two Dutch-speaking countries and, in contrast to previous studies, give participants the option to indicate not having a specific language preference. In the current study, we asked 414 Dutch-speaking adults with autism, living either in Belgium or the Netherlands, to fill in an online questionnaire about their language preference. We found that over half of the participants had a PFL preference (54%), followed by having no preference (27%). Only 14% of them had an IFL preference, and 5% proposed another term. Having more years of education was identified as a predictor for having an IFL preference when compared to a PFL preference, while being older predicted having no preference compared to a PFL preference. The majority of Dutch-speaking adults with autism showed a PFL preference, which is in contrast to findings from English-speaking countries, but in accord with a recent study conducted in the Netherlands (Buijsman et al., 2023). Implications of this finding for language use are discussed.
RESUMO
Background: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, schools were closed, teachers had to teach from home and after a while, they had to return to the classroom while the pandemic was still on-going. Even before the pandemic, teachers were already more at risk for burn-out syndrome compared to the general population. Furthermore, not much research pertaining to this population has been carried out during the pandemic and so the impact of the pandemic on teachers' risk of burn-out syndrome and recovery need remains unclear. The aim of the current study was to fill this knowledge gap and map out the impact on risk of burn-out syndrome and recovery need at different time points during the pandemic. Methods and findings: At baseline, 2,167 secondary school teachers in Flanders were included in this prospective study. Questionnaire data were obtained at ten different time points between September 2019 and August 2021. To assess risk of burn-out syndrome and its dimensions, the Utrecht Burn-out Scale for Teachers was administered. Need for recovery was assessed using questions adopted from the Short Inventory to Monitor Psychosocial Hazards. The results revealed an initial positive effect of the first lockdown (Mar/Apr 2020) with a decrease in risk of burn-out syndrome [Odds ratio (OR) Jan/Feb 2020-Mar/Apr 2020 = 0.33, p < 0.001], emotional exhaustion (EMM Jan/Feb 2020-Mar/Apr 2020 = -0.51, p < 0.001), depersonalization (EMM Jan/Feb 2020-Mar/Apr 2020 = -0.13, p < 0.001) and recovery need [Estimated marginal mean (EMM) Jan/Feb 2020-Mar/Apr 2020 = -0.79, p < 0.001]. No significant effect on personal accomplishment was found (p = 0.410). However, as the pandemic went on, higher risk of burn-out syndrome, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and recovery need, and lower personal accomplishment were observed. Conclusions: Despite the initial positive impact on risk of burn-out syndrome, its dimensions and recovery need, a negative long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic became visible. This study highlights once again the importance for interventions to reduce teachers' risk of burn-out syndrome, especially in such difficult times as a pandemic.
