Talk:Occupational burnout/Archives/2021

Spelling mistake

I'm unable to correct a spelling mistake due to page protection. Under "Relationship with other conditions" section there is a sentence "yhere is some endocrine evidence", obviously it should start with "there" not "yhere". 92.5.9.21 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I fixed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Requested addition (under 'Effects'): "Furthermore, research has shown that there is discrimination on the labour market against job candidates with a history of burnout."

Source: Sterkens, P., Baert, S., Rooman, C., & Derous, E. (2020). As If It Weren't Hard Enough Already: Breaking down Hiring Discrimination Following Burnout. IZA Discussion Paper Series, 13514. Bneyt (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added substance of requested change in slightly different wording Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

A recent literature review found 142 different definitions of burnout. The study is published in one of the best journals in the world, JAMA. It might be important to mention that, in practice, burnout is defined in a highly heterogeneous manner. Here is the reference of the paper: Rotenstein, L. S., Torre, M., Ramos, M. A., Rosales, R. C., Guille, C., Sen, S., & Mata, D. A. (2018). Prevalence of burnout among physicians: A systematic review. JAMA, 320(11), 1131-1150. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.12777

@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)

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)

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)

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)