ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2026
On the Limitations of Burnout as an Indicator of Job-Related Distress.
Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Burnout continues to shape discussions of stress and mental health in the workplace. This paper contends that the burnout framework is inadequate because it overlooks crucial aspects of the job-related distress it purports to capture. The narrow symptom focus of the burnout construct has little theoretical or empirical justification and omits red-flag features of severe distress, such as suicidality. The paper examines how the issue of burnout's symptom scope relates to other controversial facets of the construct, including its largely prefabricated character. It is emphasized that occupational health specialists have other options at their disposal. Alternatives anchored in the anxio-depressive spectrum provide a more comprehensive and clinically grounded account of job-related distress and offer clearer thresholds for decision and action. Given these options, approaching burnout as the default indicator of job-related distress is unwarranted. Occupational medicine physicians should assess anxiety and depression when examining workers under stress, while inquiring into work-related factors that may contribute to the emergence and maintenance of these conditions. Possible objections to the recommendation to look beyond burnout are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.