With the aim of legitimizing an increasingly common problem, the World Health Organization officially includes in its manual “International Classification of Diseases” (ICD-11) the .
It will be placed within the category “Problems associated with employment or unemployment.”
The term was first used in 1974 by a psychologist named Herbert Freudenberger, to refer to the physiological and behavioral changes observed in workers at a clinic for drug addicts.
The most popular definition of the syndrome is that of Cristina Maslach (who also carried out an inventory to measure it), which identifies three dimensions that characterize it: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal fulfillment.
He describes it as “a syndrome conceptualized as the result of chronic stress in the workplace that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by three dimensions: 1) feelings of energy depletion or tiredness; 2) greater mental distance from work or feelings of work-related negativism or cynicism; and 3) reduced professional efficiency.”
If you value articles like this, consider supporting us by becoming a Pro subscriber. Subscribers enjoy access to members-only articles, materials, and webinars.
They highlight that the burnout refers specifically to a given phenomenon in the work environment. Additionally, health professionals must rule out anxiety or mood disorders before making the diagnosis.
Although ICD 10 already had a section for burnout, the new conceptualization is more detailed and gives more legitimacy to people who suffer from this syndrome. Some believe that there will be more awareness of this problem now that it is clearly defined in this manual, as well as resulting in better prevention and treatment.
Who is at greater risk of suffering from it?
Professionals whose risk of suffering from Syndrome Burnout is higher are those who work directly with people.
There are investigations that have found levels of burnout significant in several professions, including:
critics
There are some arguments against this new diagnosis: there are those who believe that it is dangerous to interpret job exhaustion as an anomaly since, if there is work overload, the abnormal thing would be not to feel that way. It is also argued that there is a normalization of “precariousness” and that, although the diagnosis can bring its benefits (for example, job improvements), it can also lead to medicalization of stress management and motivation courses that end up making the worker and his family responsible. attitude, when what is needed is to demand labor rights.
Fountain: ;