Talk:Occupational burnout

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2014; 2015; 2016; 2017; 2019; 2020; 2021;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Occupational Safety and Health Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupations Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physiology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology C‑class Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Occupational burnout.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. Further details are available here.

Template:Findsourcesnotice This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 16 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Aapro24. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 9 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shannonballard (article contribs).

Recent edits

@Sciencewatcher: I support what you say that the sources doesn't meet Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), but that doesn't have anything to do with what's been added. The content added are from psychological background. Since the merger the sources provided are acceptable as the Sources 2, 4 & 5 for example. What are your thoughts.59.89.238.130 (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits using refs 2, 3 and 4 are just discussing the history of burnout. MEDRS doesn't apply to history sections (and similar), only to medical statements. You were adding medical info. Ref 5 appears to be a textbook, which is also acceptable. Your refs seemed to be more like self-help books (I tried to have another look at your edits, but they have been censored). Also, I'm a little confused by that edit log censorship due to copyright violation. Did you copy text directly from your sources or something? I would recommend you find out more about how wikipedia works before making major edits like this. If you need help, let me know. I would recommend setting up a user account at the very least. That way it's much easier for you to keep track of responses to your edits. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switch on/switch off mechanism, is similar to taking your time-off from work. The psychological term described in the book was "containment" which is defined in "Bion, W. R. Attention and interpretation (1970). Tavistock Publications, London." Finding humor or redefining the trigger humorously or distracting oneself positively(relationships, mindfulness...etc.) is also mentioned to be helpful. The other point that was described was benefits of physical exercise, this could be find in cross-wiki sources also.- That reference is from a self-help book, to avoid being too technical about hormones and all that stuff. The third point was taken from HBR's recent interview with Stephane Kasriel (https://www.linkedin.com/in/kasriel). I too don't have backup of the posted material. The censorship edit log wasn't by you, I thought it was some sort of editor rights. Where can I read about it. Thank you for your reply. I still think the content has the potential to be useful for many. Good day.117.215.193.176 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-help books aren't appropriate references for wikipedia for material like this. Also, even if it was appropriate, you can't directly copy from a book - that is why the edit log was censored, because you violated copyright. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayo's Hawthorne Studies

Can someone explain what this is? It is mentioned as if the reader should know what Mayo's Hawthorne Studies are. Thank you. --Lucas (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lucasreddinger, the Hawthorne research was very weak. The Hawthorne research is not worth citing because it is so weak. The following two papers underline the weakness of the research.

Parsons, H. M. (1974). What happened at Hawthorne? Science, 183(4128), 922–932. doi:10.1126/science.183.4128.922

Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2011). Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3, 224–238. doi: 10.1257/app.3.1.224

The next paper indicts the ideas behind Hawthorne.

Bell, D. (1947, January). The study of man: Adjusting men to machines. Commentary, 3, 79–88. Iss246 (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the reference to Hawthorne (the claim that employee assistance programs developed out of the Hawthorne studies) because the claim was not sourced. I am not asserting that Hawthorne and employee assistance programs are unrelated. They may very well be related (although such a connection is not mentioned in the employee assistance program Wikipedia entry). The claim however should have a source if it is to remain in the burnout entry. Iss246 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

@Iss246: Following on from your helpful edit summary here "Since there are other definitions of burnout, and this is the WHO's definition, stated that up front in the first sentence":

Just wondering... Do you know of any operative definitions currently in mainstream OH / Psych / Med use that do not describe burnout in terms of an *occupational/work-related* *syndrome*, broadly construed? If not, I feel it might be simpler for readers to mention the WHO after the first sentence so as to permit a general definition, broadly per MOS:FIRST (viz. If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist.).

Fwiw, I'm also condcerned to avoid placing undue weight in the lead on the details of the WHO's disease classification system / ICD-11. 86.190.132.158 (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@86.190.132.158: There are conceptualizations of burnout that differ from the conceptualization adopted by the WHO. Shirom and Melamed through their Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure conceptualize burnout in terms of physical exhaustion, cognitive weariness, and emotional exhaustion; however, an examination of Shirom and Melamed's emotional exhaustion subscale indicates that the subscale looks more like a measure of Maslach's idea depersonalization (Toker, S., Melamed, S., Berliner, S., Zeltser, D., & Shapira, I. (2012). Burnout and risk of coronary heart disease: A prospective study of 8838 employees. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74, 840–847. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e31826c3174). For example, an item on that scale reads as follows: “I feel that I am not capable of being sensitive to the needs of coworkers and customers,” which is more depersonalization than exhaustion. Demerouti and Bakker (via their Oldenburg Burnout Inventory) conceptualize burnout burnout in terms of exhaustion and disengagement (Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas, A. (2003). The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 12-23.). There are other conceptualizations as well but I am only going to mention them as they are embodied in these instruments: the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, the Hamburg Burnout Inventory, Pines's Burnout Measure, and more. The WHO adopted a conceptualization of burnout that is consistent with Maslach's view of burnout. Iss246 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that @Iss246: On reflection, I feel the current draught of the opening sentence is sufficiently straightforward. I trust the lack of professional consensus around definition remains clear in the lead (and, as a passing thought, maybe your helpful list of commonly used instruments might usefully find a home in a subsection somewhere on the page?).

More generally, I'm somewhat unclear as to the scope WHO attaches to the interchangable terms "occupational" / "work-related" [1]. As a United Nations organization, I would expect them to apply a broad definition that takes account of any form of habitual work activity, whether official or black-market, paid or unpaid, 'public' or 'hidden' (eg family/domestic, etc). 86.190.132.158 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]