Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39629916›Full record

ArticleStress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress2025

The Dialectical Relationship Between Burnout and Work Engagement: A Network Approach.

Marius D Hafstad, Omid V Ebrahimi, Knut Inge Fostervold

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marius D HafstadDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8904-0767
Omid V EbrahimiDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8335-2217
Knut Inge FostervoldDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on previous empirical evidence, scholars have argued for a dialectical relationship between burnout and work engagement. However, these conclusions largely rely on latent variable models, which have inherent limitations due to strong hierarchical assumptions about data. As a result, previous findings should be considered preliminary indications rather than conclusive evidence. In this study, we introduce network analysis to investigate the relationship between burnout and work engagement. We demonstrate its utility by comparing the fit indices of the network model and three factor models in a cross-national sample with 2469 employees from Norway and 879 employees from the US and UK. Based on theory and fit indices, we conclude that the network model was preferred in both samples. Using this model, we uncovered positive relationships between two work engagement variables and the exhaustion component of burnout. Theoretically, this study broadens our understanding and show support for the dialectical relationship between burnout and work engagement. Furthermore, by introducing the network model to empirical research, we provide a novel approach that contribute to nuance and ideas for research on burnout and work engagement. Practically, our results offer insightful data on possible points for intervention between burnout and work engagement variables.

Indexed as

Burnout, ProfessionalWork EngagementAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayUnited KingdomUnited Statesburnoutnetwork analysispsychological well‐beingwork engagement

Identifiers

PMID39629916
PMCPMC11878749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.