You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
A Scoping Review of Burnout Avoidance by Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Psychological Flow: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Arao Fu and Version 1 by Carol Nash.

Burnout represented a significant employee problem during the COVID-19 pandemic. Experiencing the psychological flow investigated by Csikszentmihalyi might avoid it. Yet, COVID-19 may have contributed to the unattainability of psychological flow for burnout-prone employees. The objective of this study is to determine the COVID-19 achievability of employee flow and, if attained, whether flow resulted in burnout avoidance during the pandemic. Method: This scoping review includes searches of six primary databases (CINAHL, OVID, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science), two searches of one supplementary database (Google Scholar), and one register (Cochrane COVID-19 register) of the keywords “burnout, COVID-19, employees, healthcare providers, psychological flow, Csikszentmihalyi”. Included are peer-reviewed, COVID-19-related, 2020–2025 journal publications. Excluded are duplicates, non-COVID-19-related publications, reports lacking a research study, keywords, or relevant information. Results: In identifying 754 records, five records met the inclusion criteria. Mental healthcare practitioners, nurses, gig workers, corporate professionals, and working parents were the focus of the studies. Quantitative studies showed statistical significance. Qualitative studies showed promise for psychological flow mitigating burnout. Conclusions: Psychological flow was possible during COVID-19 for various employee types, and attaining it permitted burnout avoidance, suggesting a focus on achieving flow in the workplace during pandemics would diminish the incidence of employee burnout.

  • burnout
  • COVID-19
  • employees
  • healthcare providers
  • psychological flow
  • Csikszentmihalyi
Described initially in 1974 [1], the current definition of burnout by the World Health Organization is as an occupation-dependent syndrome arising from unsuccessfully managed chronic workplace stress, with symptoms of reduced professional efficacy ranging from energy depletion or exhaustion to an increased work-related mental distance, negativism, or cynicism [2]. Considered specific to healthcare professionals initially [3]—representing a significant cause of healthcare professional turnover [4]—this syndrome can develop among all employee types [5], resulting in self-undermining behaviors, such as poor communication, careless mistakes, and interpersonal conflicts [6]. Particularly in healthcare professionals, burnout is responsible for increased on-the-job errors and reduced patient care [7]. Burnout was prevalent in employees with high-pressure jobs [8] and widespread in healthcare professionals before COVID-19, with over one-half of physicians and one-third of nurses experiencing its symptoms in the US [9]. The ending of COVID-19 as a global health emergency on 5 May 2023 [10] marked more than three years of the pandemic that began on 11 March 2020 [11]. Escalating burnout throughout the pandemic, COVID-19 represents the cause for increasing the complexity of finding solutions to burnout in all employees [12], especially healthcare professionals [13,14,15][13][14][15].
Psychological flow is a desired experience that extends a person’s mind to its limits from a challenging and worthwhile voluntary effort to accomplish something valued such that a sense of time and place is lost [16]. It was first described [17] by Csikszentmihalyi in 1975 in a work examining flow in rock climbers, surgeons, composers, modern dancers, chess players, and basketball players [18], and was the focus of his research program until his death in 2021 [19]. Pre-COVID-19, achieving flow in the workplace was recognized as an effective means to resist burnout [20]. That there is a direct relationship between the identification of burnout and the urge to find psychological flow in work is no coincidence—the two represent opposite extremes of employee stimulation [21].
The objective of this study is to (1) consider the achievability of psychological flow during the pandemic and, if realized, (2) whether it retained the ability to avert burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic. The concern is whether achieving flow is (1) in a manner that supports the direct connection between burnout and psychological flow attainment and (2) whether the connection is scalable regarding workplace stimulation. A scoping review is the chosen methodology to achieve this. The hypothesis is that a scoping review of the topic will provide sufficient and relevant results to meet this objective. The choice of a scoping review on this topic is novel and provides insights into the type of effect COVID-19 had on the relationship between burnout and flow in a range of employees—from those working in healthcare to manual technicians to corporate executives—and from the perspective of them as working parents. Each type was affected by burnout resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The question is whether achieving psychological flow mitigated their burnout.
This scoping review aims to demonstrate that achieving flow was possible during the pandemic by different types of employees and was realized in several ways—preventing burnout in each case. This result adds to the literature contrasting burnout with psychological flow regarding workplace stimulation regarding the effect of COVID-19. It is significant because the type of flow achievable by employees under pandemic conditions can inform employees and their employers regarding the possibilities of achieving flow in future pandemics or similar health crises.

References

  1. Freudenberger, H.J. Staff Burn-Out. J. Soc. Issues 1974, 30, 159–165.
  2. World Health Organization. Burn-Out an “Occupational Phenomenon”: International Classification of Diseases; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
  3. Maslach, C.; Leiter, M.P. The Burnout Challenge: Managing People’s Relationships with Their Jobs; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 2022; ISBN 978-0-674-25101-4.
  4. Tabur, A.; Elkefi, S.; Emhan, A.; Mengenci, C.; Bez, Y.; Asan, O. Anxiety, Burnout and Depression, Psychological Well-Being as Predictor of Healthcare Professionals’ Turnover during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Study in a Pandemic Hospital. Healthcare 2022, 10, 525.
  5. Edú-Valsania, S.; Laguía, A.; Moriano, J.A. Burnout: A Review of Theory and Measurement. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1780.
  6. Bakker, A.B.; De Vries, J.D. Job Demands–Resources Theory and Self-Regulation: New Explanations and Remedies for Job Burnout. Anxiety Stress Coping 2021, 34, 1–21.
  7. Sharifi, M.; Asadi-Pooya, A.A.; Mousavi-Roknabadi, R.S. Burnout among Healthcare Providers of COVID-19; a Systematic Review of Epidemiology and Recommendations: Burnout in Healthcare Providers. Arch. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2020, 9, e7.
  8. Hurria, C. Burnout—An Exponential Rise. J. Organ. Psychol. 2023, 23.
  9. Reith, T.P. Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review. Cureus 2018, 10, e3681.
  10. Rigby, J.; Satija, B. WHO Declares End to COVID Global Health Emergency. Reuters 2023. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/covid-is-no-longer-global-health-emergency-who-2023-05-05/ (accessed on 31 March 2024).
  11. Cucinotta, D.; Vanelli, M. WHO Declares COVID-19 a Pandemic. Acta Bio Medica Atenei Parm. 2020, 91, 157–160.
  12. Kloutsiniotis, P.V.; Mihail, D.M.; Mylonas, N.; Pateli, A. Transformational Leadership, HRM Practices and Burnout during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Personal Stress, Anxiety, and Workplace Loneliness. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 102, 103177.
  13. Adnan, N.B.B.; Dafny, H.A.; Baldwin, C.; Jakimowitz, S.; Chalmers, D.; Aroury, A.M.A.; Chamberlain, D. What Are the Solutions for Well-Being and Burn-out for Healthcare Professionals? An Umbrella Realist Review of Learnings of Individual-Focused Interventions for Critical Care. BMJ Open 2022, 12, e060973.
  14. Maresca, G.; Corallo, F.; Catanese, G.; Formica, C.; Lo Buono, V. Coping Strategies of Healthcare Professionals with Burnout Syndrome: A Systematic Review. Medicina 2022, 58, 327.
  15. Morgantini, L.A.; Naha, U.; Wang, H.; Francavilla, S.; Acar, Ö.; Flores, J.M.; Crivellaro, S.; Moreira, D.; Abern, M.; Eklund, M.; et al. Factors Contributing to Healthcare Professional Burnout during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid Turnaround Global Survey. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0238217.
  16. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: A Component of the Good Life. In Positive Psychology: An International Perspective; Kostić, A., Chadee, D., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 193–201. ISBN 978-1-119-66644-8.
  17. Engeser, S.; Schiepe-Tiska, A.; Peifer, C. Historical Lines and an Overview of Current Research on Flow. In Advances in Flow Research; Peifer, C., Engeser, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1–29. ISBN 978-3-030-53467-7.
  18. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety, 1st ed.; The Jossey-Bass Behavioral Science Series; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1975; ISBN 978-0-87589-261-0.
  19. Steimer, S. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, pioneering psychologist and ‘father of flow’, 1934–2021. UChicago News, 28 October 2021. Available online: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/mihaly-csikszentmihalyi-pioneering-psychologist-and-father-flow-1934-2021 (accessed on 15 February 2025).
  20. Pelly, D.; Daly, M.; Delaney, L.; Doyle, O. Worker Stress, Burnout, and Wellbeing Before and During the COVID-19 Restrictions in the United Kingdom. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 823080.
  21. Pincus, J.D. Employee Engagement as Human Motivation: Implications for Theory, Methods, and Practice. Integr. Psych. Behav. 2023, 57, 1223–1255.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Academic Video Service
Feedback