Should Burnout Be Conceptualized as a Mental Disorder?

Summary & key facts

This review looks at whether burnout should be called a distinct mental disorder. The authors say the science is unclear because burnout lacks solid definitions and reliable measures. They conclude it is premature to add burnout as a formal mental disorder, but they also say burnout is a real and important work-related problem that needs better research and clearer measures across countries.

Key facts:

• The authors conclude it would be premature to classify burnout as a distinct mental disorder in existing diagnostic systems.
• Burnout is usually described as a work-related syndrome with three linked parts: exhaustion, cynicism (or depersonalization), and a reduced sense of professional efficacy.
• The review says current burnout research is hampered by a lack of conceptual clarity and measurement problems, which makes some findings circular and uncertain.
• Some publications report prevalence estimates as high as 67% among medical populations, but the review notes such numbers are doubtful without clear diagnostic criteria.
• A search on 26 January 2022 found 16,715 burnout publications overall, with 8 in the 1970s; 1,046 in the 1980s; 1,607 in the 1990s; 3,463 in the 2000s; 8,211 in the 2010s; and 2,380 since 2020.
• A meta-analysis of 114 studies found that personality traits (higher neuroticism and introversion, and lower conscientiousness and agreeableness) were consistently linked to burnout.
• The Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model, cited in the review, proposes that high job demands lead to exhaustion and low job resources lead to withdrawal or cynicism; meta-analytic work has largely supported this model.
• The review notes that while some countries are moving toward recognizing burnout medically, more cross-national research is needed before burnout can be reliably re-assessed as a diagnostic category.

Abstract

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.

Topics

Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation Workplace Health and Well-being

Categories

General Health Professions Health Professions Health Sciences

Tags

Biochemistry Biopsychosocial model Burnout Chemistry CLARITY Clinical psychology Cognitive psychology Law Political science Psychology Psychotherapist Relevance (law)