The author informs there is no conflict of interest.

IMPASSE PERICIAL: BURNOUT, PSEUDOCIÊNCIA INSERIDA NA CID 11 PELA ORGANIZAÇÃO MUNDIAL DA SAÚDE

Estevam Vaz de Lima (1)

https://lattes.cnpq.br/8517158965622339 – https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7018-8772

(1) Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 2a Região, São Paulo-SP, Brasil. (autor principal)

ABSTRACT

The author presents a critical analysis of the burnout concept and discusses the consequences of introducing a new definition of the phenomenon (burnout syndrome) in ICD 11. To do so, they conduct a bibliographic research among the most important authors in the field. They illustrate the functioning of the MBI, Maslach Burnout Inventory, from which the current burnout concept emerged. They present the problems related to this tool and discuss the introduction of the MBI/burnout concept in ICD 11 and its consequences. In addition to scientific issues, they discuss the linking of burnout research to a tool protected by copyrights and the commercial bias involved. The author concludes that the World Health Organization has inserted pseudoscience into the International Classification of Diseases.

Keywords: Burnout, pseudoscience, WHO, MBI, expert impasse.

Bibliographical references

1. Freudenberger HJ. Free Clinic: what they are and how do you start one. Professional Psychology. 1971: p169-173.
2. Freudenberger HJ. Staff Burnout. Journal of Social Issues. 1974; 30(1): p159-165
3. Maslach C, Jackson SE. The Measurement of Experienced Burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1981; 2: p99-113
4. Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Maslach C. Burnout: 35 years of research and practice. Career Development International, 3(14), 204-220; 2009.
5. Kristensen T, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress. 2005; 19(3): p192-207.
6. MaslachC, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach Burnout Inventory – Manual Fourth Edition. Palo Alto: Mind Garden Inc.; 2018
7. Schaufeli, WB, Enzmann D. The Burnout Companion to Study and Practice – a critical analysis. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.: 1998.
8. Kaschka WP, Korczak D, Broich K. Burnout: a fashionable diagnosis. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011 Nov;108(46):781-7. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0781. Epub 2011 Nov 18. PMID: 22163259; PMCID: PMC3230825.
9. Trigo TR et al. Síndrome de burnout ou estafa profissional e os transtornos psiquiátricos. Rev Psiq Clin; 2007; 34(5): p223-233.
10. Lima EV. Burnout: A Doença que Não Existe. Curutiba: Appris Editora; 2021
11. Borges L, Argolo , Pereira A, Machado E, Silva W. A síndrome de burnout e os valores organizacionais: um estudo comparativo em hospitais universitários. Psicol Reflex Crit. 2002; 15(1): p189-200.
12. Rotenstein LS, Torre M, Ramos MA, Rosales RC, Guille C, Sen S, Mata DA. Prevalence of burnout among physicians: a systematic review. JAMA. 2018; 320 (11): p1131-1150. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.12777.
13. Bianchi R. ‘Burnout syndrome’ – from nosological indeterminacy to epidemiological nonsense. B J Psych Bull. 2017 (6): p367-368;. doi: 10.1192/pb.41.6.367.
14. Organização Mundial da Saúde. Burn-Out an “occupational phenomenon”: International Classifications of Diseases; Geneva 2019. Available at www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burn-out-an-occupational-phenomenon-international-classification-of-diseases
15. Organização Mundial da Saúde. WHO Guidelines on Mental Health at Work. Geneva; 2022. Available at https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/363177/9789240053052-eng.pdf?sequence=1
16. Schaufeli WS, Desart S, De Witte H. Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) —Development, Validity, and Reliability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: p94-95.
17. Lima EV. Pseudoscience and Hypermedicalization: an Argument Against Burnout. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2023

Tags: Burnout expert impasse pseudoscience WHO