Talk:Occupational burnout/Archives/2020

Conceptualizing burnout as depression.

I was reading the section on burnout being conceptually similar to depression. I was wondering whether this would be a good idea to mention at the introductory paragraph as well? Considering how synonymous they both are, the fact that algorithms usually use introductory material, and just how important this point would be for people trying to figure out how to 'resolve' there burnout (where this is little literature, but there is a vast literature in depression). Just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Robot 2020 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

My own understanding is that burnout can be largely understood as a form of stress-triggered depression. I have no objection to someone writing something more about that. Regarding the "little literature", you may note the newly expanded treatment section of this entry, that aims to refer to what does exist :-) Among other things, it now directs people to the depression treatment page.Transient-understanding (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the relation of occupational burnout to depression

I would like to avoid an edit war with user:Coastalalerts about the relation of occupational burnout to depression.

Older research suggests that BO and depression are separate entities. Newer research suggests that there is substantial overlap. One key to this controversy is the problem of comparing scores on dimensional BO scales like exhaustion to the presence/absence of a depression diagnosis. That kind of comparison is problematic because any relation between a continuous factor like BO's exhaustion to a binary entity like depressive disorder present/absent will have a smaller correlation than the relation between two continuous factors.

Recent research on psychopathology (cited in the latest version of the occupational BO article) indicates that depression is better conceptualized as a dimension (on a continuum) than as a taxon. The latest, most methodologically advanced research (also cited in the article), which treats BO and depression as continuous entities, reveals very high correlations, r >= 0.80. In the social sciences, correlations that high suggest that the two measures involved reflect the same underlying entity. In addition, methodologically advanced research (also cited in the article) that relies on structural equation modeling bifactor analysis, which takes a granular look at the items in BO and depression scales, suggests the BO's exhaustion items and depression items reflect the same entity. Iss246 (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I too do not want to war over this. The overwhelming amount of empirical research and other sources say burnout is a stress-related syndrome. I am aware there is some very recent and limited research with some new findings but we need to only say what the majority of sources say about it being a stress-related syndrome and not a mental disorder. As these studies make their way into sources then it should be given more weight in the article imho.Coastalalerts (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Coastalalerts, the evidence only seems overwhelming. Part of the problem with the earlier evidence is that it has recently been found to be highly misleading. Misleading for methodological reasons. I will give you one example, Leiter and Durup's famous study (Leiter, M. P., & Durup, J. (1994). The discriminant validity of burnout and depression: A confirmatory factor analytic study. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 7, 357–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615809408249357). Although L&D concluded that BO and depression are separate constructs based on their use of CFA methodology, they made serious errors in applying the methodology. First, if you look at the fit statistics, the model was ill-fitting (AGFI = .810). They should have had an AGFI > .900. Second, they failed to use half the depression items that were available to them. Third, they treated BO and depression items as interval data when they should have treated the items as ordinal. Fourth, the BO items used a one-year look-back period and depression items, a one-week time window, tamping down correlations. With all these methodological problems mitigating against getting a high correlation, they still obtained a BO-depression correlation of .72.

You see what I mean when I write that the evidence only seems overwhelming. I emphasize the word "seems." Recently published research has revealed those problems. Other recent research pioneered the application of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) bifactor analysis (cited in the article), a statistical methodology that provides a granular look at item-construct relationships, without falling into the traps earlier researchers fell into. ESEM, although it has the word "exploratory" in it, combines the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000045). Iss246 (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Coastalalerts, you earlier today removed my edits without discussing your reasoning here. I have shown you sources both here on the talk page and more extensively in the article. Please discuss your evidence here on the talk page before changing my edits wholesale. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources say burnout is a stress-related syndrome. We are not here to reinvent the wheel, but instead just include what the sources say.Coastalalerts (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You seem very invested in this topic editor Iss246. Have you got any conflict of interest to declare here in regard to this new research on depression/burnout that you keep referring to?Coastalalerts (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't of a COI so much as I have an objection to people who decline to discuss edits on the talk page. Iss246 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

And how about you, Coastalalerts? You seem very invested in this topic. Have you got any conflict of interest to declare here in regard to this subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have been involved in similar research and am a researcher but not burnout and depression per se. Coastalalerts (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose to move the caregiver BO section of this article to the article devoted to caregiver stress. I also proposal to move the autistic BO section of this article to the autism article. The way these two phenomena are described indicates that they are not subtypes of occupational BO, the subject that is the concern of this article. I will wait a few days in order to find out what other WP editors have to say before deciding to move forward with the idea. I hope to hear from other editors. Iss246 (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not support the logic of such a move. These sections are important to the article and consistent with the reliable sources on burnout.Coastalalerts (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Coastalalerts, let's hear from other editors. The logic of the move is that an entity such as autistic burnout is not a type of occupational burnout. And that is it more aptly belongs to the autism article. I would make a similar argument for caregiver burnout. Iss246 (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a good idea. However you made the significant edit anyway before waiting for consensus which is not very collegial.Coastalalerts (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It looked to me that other editors were not coming forward. I made the edits on rational grounds. Occupational BO is about BO that derives from job conditions. Autistic BO is not directly employment-related. I placed the text in the autism entry, which is apt. Regarding caregiver BO, I placed the text in the caregiver stress entry because it pertains to family members who experience chronic stress resulting from taking care of a chronically ill loved one. It does not reflect occupational BO but something else. Iss246 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Let us wait for other's input.Coastalalerts (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

As the editor who added those sections, I would like to speak in their defence. Caregiving is an occupation. The concept of "Autistic Burnout" applies to people on the autistic spectrum whose burnout occurs from work stress, as well as from other sources of stress. If one uses the same definition of "occupational" that is used for occupational therapy, the concept of excluding forms of burnout that don't seem to be caused by stress of an occupational nature becomes next to impossible. Even if it is decided to exclude having extensive material relating to particular occupations, or complexities deriving from co-morbidities, it makes no sense not to mention the concepts in brief and link to the articles where the concept is covered in more detail. As is already done for caregivers. The material regarding the interplay of an autistic spectrum mind and burnout is brief and relevant.Transient-understanding (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Transient-understanding, you could be right but what are the sources for your claiming that autistic BO is work-related? Iss246 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That is why I put those sections back into the article as I totally agree with you Transient-understanding. It was Iss246 who took it out without proper explanation and seems to further their agenda. There seems to be an attempt in this article to make occupational burnout seem like it is the same as depression based on a single primary source. This is not what the overwhelming number of reliable sources like the WHO say.Coastalalerts (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that caregiver burnout is probably related (unpaid work is still work, and some people are paid to be caregivers, which means that they're in the workplace), but what's on the page isn't about caregiver burnout. It's about getting tired of taking care of yourself. Caregiving is about taking care of other people.

I'm less certain that autistic burnout has anything in common with occupational burnout except the name. It seems like that's a stress-related problem that happens to appear everywhere (including the workplace) but that isn't caused by the workplace. It probably doesn't belong here at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Coastalalerts and User:WhatamIdoing I edited the fourth paragraph of the lead as User:WhatamIdoing suggested, along the lines of "Source #1 says X and Source #2 says not-X.".

I remind user:Coastalalerts that I did not add the reference to the newer meta-analysis. User:OHpres added that reference.

Regarding autistic burnout, I had previously removed it to the autism entry but User:Coastalalerts put it back into the occupational BO entry, where autistic BO does not belong. I think we should get some consensus on these two matters of (a) "Source #1 says X and Source #2 says not-X" now in the lead and (b) the placement of autistic BO. Iss246 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I agree after looking at the autistic burnout section, that it is misplaced in this article about occupational burnout and would be fine removing it. However the caregiver section certainly belongs and should not be removed again by Iss246 with no consensus.Coastalalerts (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that some mention of burnout in caregivers would be appropriate, but I don't find any actual caregivers mentioned in the current paragraph. We need to improve that section, probably by removing everything there and replacing it wholesale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Can this protection of the article be lifted. It looks like it expired several days ago?Coastalalerts (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Coastalalerts. The page is now under Extended confirmed protection. A person would need to have a record of 500 Wikipedia edits to change it. This is to discourage changes by new editors or WP:Single purpose accounts who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's editing standards. If there is a change you wish to make, consider using the template {{Edit extended-protected}} to propose it on the talk page. If editors have any trouble reaching agreement on the change, you can open a WP:Request for comment or use the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed

I'm moving these two subsections here, so it will be easy for someone to copy them to another article, if another article can be found. I have removed these because the connection to occupational burnout is doubtful and unclear, especially in the case of "diabetes burnout", which has nothing to do with anyone's work situation.

It might be necessary to review the sources before trying to place them in another article. It looks like one of the sources here is a video posted to Facebook, and another is a blog post. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Autistic burnout

"Autistic burnout" is a term used to describe burnout when it occurs in people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). In this population, in addition to the typical symptoms it can cause "autistic regression," an increase of autistic symptoms. It is "regression" in the sense that the afflicted has typically had a similarly high level of symptoms in the distant past, and the burnout is perceived to be regressing them to this earlier state. It is also known as "decompensation", because the compensations the person usually makes are no longer being made.

Such burnout sometimes leads to permanent disability or suicidal behavior. It need not be caused by workplace stress, but can also be caused by the stress of social interaction or other sources. Spoon theory is sometimes used to understand people in this situation.

Diabetes burnout

Bodies such as the United States government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Diabetes Association, and Diabetes Singapore identify and promote the phenomenon of "diabetes burnout." This relates to the self-care of people with diabetes, particularly those with type-2 diabetes. "Diabetes burnout speaks to the physical and emotional exhaustion that people with diabetes experience when they have to deal with caring for themselves on a day-to-day basis. When you have to do so many things to stay in control then it does take a toll on your emotions... Once they get frustrated, some of them give up and stop (maintaining) a healthy diet, taking their medications regularly, going for exercises and this will result in poor diabetes control."

In-press articles or research studies

Iss246 has proposed that an in-press, unpublished journal article should be included as a reference. @WhatamIdoing: or anyone else, is this possible and if so, how should it be worded to indicate to readers of the article that it has not been published and is still in-press.Coastalalerts (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Citing a preprint is discouraged. There's no emergency here; the meta-analysis could be cited whenever it's officially published.

For clarity, once it is officially published (we want it mentioned on the journal's website; we do not want to wait for a volume number to be assigned), this will be a very strong source. It's a secondary source in a top-tier journal.[1] We will need to give it significant weight – not to treat it as the One True™ Answer, but the view needs to be included and treated as a significant view within the field. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: So why is this 'in-press' unpublished research in the Wikipedia article still as a counter to the actual large scale, published meta-analysis from 2019? It should be removed until it is officially published. Also the study is not a true meta-analysis nor systematic review of the literature on the topic of depression-burnout overlap, so how can it WhatamIdoing be held up against an 'actual' large scale meta-analysis and comprehensive systematic review? Look forward to your reponse?Coastalalerts (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add it, so you will have to ask other editors why they added it. Systematic reviews are not the only kind of review article, so the fact that it's not specifically a systematic review is unimportant.

One might begin to wonder why you are so keen to make sure that readers don't learn about this viewpoint. It seems perfectly commonplace to me that people with mild depression or anxiety might say that they're feeling burned out, and that people who are experiencing burnout might say they're feeling depressed. Perhaps you are, or know, one of the authors of the Frontiers paper you've been pushing? Maybe I should be looking forward to your response? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: What does it matter who added this unpublished in press article? You are choosing to leave it in the article. It is pretty obvious that blocked editor Iss246 is part of the team of researchers of this study. Bianchi, R., Verkuilen, J., Schonfeld, I. S., Hakanen, J. J., Jansson-Fröjmark, M., Manzano-García, G., Laurent, E., & Meier, L. L. (in press). Is burnout a depressive condition? A 14-sample meta-analytic and bifactor analytic study. Clinical Psychological Science. You said Citing a preprint is discouraged. Please stop focusing on me as a person and just focus on the article and content whowever you think you are on Wikipedia and how cocky you are thinking you are untouchable and can contribute to including sources which Wikipedia tells us not to. why don't you listen and apply Wikipedia policy whatamIdoing?. You cannot just get away with putting unpublished articles into Wikipedia. You need to follow rules like all of us. Also you did not comment on the fact that this primary source (not a secondary source) is not a meta-analysis. Do you know what a meta-0analysis is whatamIdoing? It is also matters zilch what your point of view is on burnout. the sources say different. We go by the sources. You don't own Wikipedia even though you think you do because of your length of time working on the project.Coastalalerts (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

One of the rules, which I'm choosing to follow right now, is that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service, which means that I'm not required to edit any article for any reason. If I choose to spend my day trying to blank outdated content at Coronavirus disease 2019 and answering questions on talk pages, rather than following the demands of someone I have objective reason to believe is merely the latest incarnation of a blocked sockmaster, then that's perfectly in line with Wikipedia's rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking back through your history it looks like you and Iss246 are good friends. No wonder you cannot remain editing this with a NPOV. Don't worry about the source I've gone the proper route and asked the Noticeboard. I don't need your aggressive insinuations and complete lack of civility and lack of focus on the content of this article and very legitimate concerns I have for Iss246's conflict of interest on this article and you trying to cover for your friend. Do whatever ya want whatamIdoing! lol.Coastalalerts (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Three thoughts that concern this talk page

I have three thoughts I would like to express.

First, and most importantly, I am sorry that I didn't realize how much the editorial disagreement on this page, a disagreement in which I was involved, would get out of hand.

Second, I want to be clear about something that has been a source of contention. Originally Ohpres added the reference to the 14-sample study (see https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Occupational_burnout&diff=991963261&oldid=991957290) to the occupational BO entry. I did not add the reference nor did I write the original text describing the study. What I did do was edit for clarity the text explaining the reference.

Third, to respond to another query, the “in press” reference in question, like many other “in press” references, appeared on ResearchGate, a website that I would describe as Facebook for scientists. Iss246 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)