Nadon Lindsey, De Beer Leon T, Morin Alexandre J S
Substantive Methodological Synergy Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada.
WorkWell Research Unit, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2531, South Africa.
Behav Sci (Basel). 2022 Mar 17;12(3):82. doi: 10.3390/bs12030082.
Burnout is generally acknowledged by researchers, clinicians, and the public as a pervasive occupational difficulty. Despite this widespread recognition, longstanding debates remain within the scientific community regarding its definition and the appropriateness of classifying burnout as its own pathological entity. The current review seeks to address whether burnout should (or could) be characterized as a distinctive mental disorder to shed light on this debate. After briefly reviewing the history, theoretical underpinnings, and measurement of burnout, we more systematically consider the current evidence for and against its classification as a mental disorder within existing diagnostic systems. Stemming from a lack of conceptual clarity, the current state of burnout research remains, unfortunately, largely circular and riddled with measurement issues. As a result, information regarding the unique biopsychosocial etiology, diagnostic features, differential diagnostic criteria, and prevalence rates of burnout are still lacking. Therefore, we conclude that it would be inappropriate, if not premature, to introduce burnout as a distinct mental disorder within any existing diagnostic classification system. We argue, however, that it would be equally premature to discard burnout as a psychologically relevant phenomenon and that current evidence does support its relevance as an important occupational syndrome. We finally offer several avenues for future research, calling for cross-national collaboration to clarify conceptual and measurement issues while avoiding the reification of outdated definitions. In doing so, we hope that it one day becomes possible to more systematically re-assess the relevance of burnout as a distinctive diagnostic category.
职业倦怠通常被研究人员、临床医生和公众视为一种普遍存在的职业困境。尽管人们普遍认识到这一点,但科学界对于职业倦怠的定义以及将其归类为一种独立的病理实体是否恰当,仍存在长期的争论。本次综述旨在探讨职业倦怠是否应该(或能够)被界定为一种独特的精神障碍,以阐明这一争论。在简要回顾职业倦怠的历史、理论基础和测量方法之后,我们更系统地考量了当前支持和反对将其在现有诊断系统中归类为精神障碍的证据。遗憾的是,由于缺乏概念上的清晰性,职业倦怠研究的现状在很大程度上仍处于循环论证之中,且存在诸多测量问题。因此,关于职业倦怠独特的生物心理社会病因、诊断特征、鉴别诊断标准和患病率的信息仍然匮乏。所以,我们得出结论,在任何现有的诊断分类系统中引入职业倦怠作为一种独特的精神障碍,即便不算为时过早,也是不恰当的。然而,我们认为将职业倦怠作为一种与心理相关的现象摒弃同样为时过早,而且当前的证据确实支持其作为一种重要职业综合征的相关性。我们最后提供了几个未来研究的方向,呼吁开展跨国合作以澄清概念和测量问题,同时避免对过时定义的具体化。通过这样做,我们希望有朝一日能够更系统地重新评估职业倦怠作为一个独特诊断类别的相关性。