Previous Article in Journal
Audit Committee Financial Experts: Leveraging Their Information Advantage in Accounting, Auditing, and Corporate Governance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Encyclopedia
Volume 5
Issue 2
10.3390/encyclopedia5020056
encyclopedia-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Scoping Review of Burnout Avoidance by Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Psychological Flow

by
Carol Nash
History of Medicine Program, Department of Psychiatry, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
Encyclopedia 2025, 5(2), 56; https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020056 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 14 March 2025 / Revised: 19 April 2025 / Accepted: 27 April 2025 / Published: 28 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Social Sciences)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: 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.

1. Introduction

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].
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.

2. Materials and Methods

The methods of gathering the materials followed the most recent preferred reporting item for the systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for scoping reviews [22,23]. Internationally standardized [24], the PRISMA process for scoping reviews is considered the best practice guidance for scoping reviews [25]. The method includes a selection of databases and registers in searching the keywords, then removing records before screening duplicates, records not in English, those not in 2021–2025, not peer-reviewed, and not a research study. The records screened exclude those lacking Csikszentmihalyi, psychological flow, burnout, COVID-19, or employees/healthcare providers. If retrievable, no further consideration was given to reports of irrelevant information, making them ineligible. Following this process resulted in the studies included in the review—all of which represented the reports of the included studies.
The PRISMA flow of information diagram specific to scoping reviews represents the results of following this process. The most recent PRISMA template for scoping reviews [26] is the basis of the exclusion and inclusion criteria flow. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist is a non-published material associated with this manuscript outlining the entire process undertaken in this article beyond the scoping review itself. Preregistration for this scoping review is at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ARN8P (accessed on 8 March 2025).
The search selection of a scoping review is to investigate the range and depth of research on this subject. The general advice is to include the gray literature beyond peer-reviewed publications to improve the range and depth of the search for scoping reviews [27]. However, including peer-reviewed publications alone in a scoping review is the norm when considerations of practical, ethical, and educational value are involved [28], and was the one followed for this scoping review.
In contrast to examining PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) requiring a systematic review [29], this study represents a scoping review that searched six primary databases (CINAHL, OVID, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science), one supplementary database (Google Scholar)—searched in two ways—and one register (the Cochrane COVID-19 Register). Each was selected for relevance and reach [30]. The selection of these databases represents those most relevant to burnout-related topics and those likely to produce the broadest reach [30]. The common keywords searched were “burnout, COVID-19, employees, healthcare providers, psychological flow, Csikszentmihalyi” for each database. Each database had particular limitations to the search to achieve the necessary goal. The details of these eliminations are in Supplementary S1 under the specific search.
Following the PRISMA guidelines [24,25,31], Supplementary S1 notes all the keywords beyond the initial ones. Excluded are reports of irrelevant information on any keywords (including those with keywords in the references alone). The search parameters are recorded in Table 1.
Following the PRISMA reporting process, the flow diagram does not reveal the details of the individual searches. Yet, this information is significant and is in Supplementary S1. Including this supplementary file represents counteracting the cognitive bias of one scholar completing the scoping review [32,33]. Selection bias is irrelevant [34,35] as this is a scoping review rather than a PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis.
A 2019 study of twelve academic databases that found it the most comprehensive search engine [36], additionally reconfirmed with the 2023 research [37], was the basis for selecting Google Scholar as a search engine database. It is a supplementary database from the judgment of the 2020 [30] research that evaluated it as unsuitable for primary review searches based on its delivery of inconsistent results and lack of Boolean search options. Yet, the same 2020 review acknowledges Google Scholar as the most comprehensive and used database by academics. As a scoping review, comprehensiveness is key. Consequently, the reach of Google Scholar as a database is significant to the intended purpose of the undertaking.
Google Scholar was alone in being searched twice, with the keywords listed differently for each search. The parameters for Google Scholar A were [Burnout psychological flow Csikszentmihalyi employees OR healthcare providers “COVID-19” since 2021]. For Google Scholar B, they were [“burnout” “psychological flow” “Csikszentmihalyi” employees OR healthcare providers “COVID-19” since 2021]. Both searches were retained as their results differed (see Supplementary S1).
All searches were performed on 8 February 2025 by the author.
These results are from a qualitative reading of each report. This reading was performed in the tradition of narrative research [38]. The tradition (1) explains the study purpose(s), (2) describes the quality of the study, (3) positions the research in relevant contexts, (4) derives conclusions, (5) and recognizes limitations to the assessment [39].

3. Results

3.1. Search Process Results

There were 754 results from the six primary databases, one register, and the one supplementary database searched twice, with OVID returning none. Regarding the searches, the least accurate for this topic are CINAHL and Web of Science. For the CINAHL search, 116 of the 121 results did not mention Csikszentmihalyi, although a keyword in the search process and the initial return for this database was relatively substantial. With Web of Science, the lack of returns regarding Csikszentmihalyi was additionally considerable—216 of the 258 results. What is unique regarding the Web of Science review is that a consequential number of returns could not be retrieved—25. ProQuest had a similar problem to these databases regarding search accuracy, with 28 of the returns lacking Csikszentmihalyi. However, the difference is that the initial returns were fewer, at 37. The Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register produced only three results—two were duplicates and one did not mention Csikszentmihalyi.
Twice-searched Google Scholar tested the difference between searching with quotation marks on only “COVID-19” (Google Scholar A) and differentiating all the keywords with quotation marks (Google Scholar B). Of the 25 returns in Google Scholar B, 18 are duplicates with Google Scholar A. Seven are distinct. Still, the result is that these that differ from Google Scholar A are not peer-reviewed—one does not mention Csikszentmihalyi. The final materials of this scoping review are five returns from the Google Scholar A search, demonstrating the value of Google Scholar as a search engine for this topic. A decision to avoid using Google Scholar resulting from its view as a supplementary database [30] would have resulted in no relevant returns for this topic. Google Scholar B duplicates the first return of Google Scholar A. No other duplicates of the final Google Scholar A reports are with other database searches.
The process following the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews is in Figure 1.
This process neglects the details of the exclusions by database, combining all the results by the second stage of removing records before screening. Consequently, to improve the transparency of the process, Table 2 provides the details of the exclusions for all the searches. The total exclusions are 749. The row of duplicates in Table 1 has two results in round brackets for PubMed (4) and Google Scholar A (27). These are the total duplicates. However, the recorded duplicates for each are 2 and 0, as the duplicates of these searches are those not removed before screening. For the complete account of each search process, see Supplementary S1.

3.2. Reports of Included Studies

Of the 29 pages representing the results returned from the Google Scholar A search, all six reports of included studies are in the first 11 pages. The first return was on page 1—the only duplicate with Google Scholar B of the reports included—“Psychological flow and mental immunity as predictors of job performance for mental healthcare practitioners during COVID-19” [40]. The second of the returns was on page 3, “Building Nurse Resilience Through Art Therapy and Narrative Medicine Integration” [41]. Page 5 saw the return of the third report, “Are algorithmically controlled gig workers deeply burned out? An empirical study on employee work engagement” [42]. The fourth report returned on page 7, “Positive Coping and Well-being of Corporate Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single Case Study” [43]. The final report is the fifth return on page 11 [44]. Of these reports, the publication of the oldest was in 2022, and the most recent publication is from 2025. Initially, the consideration was that burnout represented symptoms associated with healthcare providers [3]. Therefore, it is significant that the top-three returns are three types of healthcare providers, with mental healthcare practitioners viewed as working under conditions most likely to produce burnout [45]. The last three are workers in high-pressure occupations with significant burnout—either resulting from job demands or from mixing employment with parenthood [46,47,48] (see Table 3).
Each of the five included reports had multiple authors, were regarding studies in four different countries (and one conducted worldwide), published in various journals, and used a different methodology for the study reported (see Table 4).
The report of the relevant study results found for each record is in Table 5.
In “Psychological flow and mental immunity as predictors of job performance for mental healthcare practitioners during COVID-19” [40], the claim is that psychological flow is a form of mental immunity to burnout, similar to biological immunity. In this regard, psychological flow is a moderating variable for immunity similar to biological immunity regarding mental health. This assertion arises from its ability to encourage professional development by creating “psychological capital” that motivates feelings of well-being, increasing productivity compared with individuals who do not exhibit psychological flow. The decision to test this supposition was a cross-sectional descriptive design study from 7 March 2022 to 28 August 2022, during the COVID-19 pandemic, to predict the job performance, mental immunity, and psychological flow of mental healthcare providers. The selection for the survey was a random sample of 145 Saudi mental health professionals, 120 of whom returned the questionnaire—64 men and 56 women, aged between 27 and 48 years. Psychological flow and mental immunity were statistically significant predictors of job performance among mental healthcare practitioners. The recommendation is for interventions to enhance the psychological flow, mental immunity, and job performance of mental healthcare practitioners to promote effective coping with work stress and protect them from symptoms of burnout.
“Building Nurse Resilience Through Art Therapy and Narrative Medicine Integration” [41] presents a qualitatively focused mixed-methods study to develop a narrative medicine protocol for enhancing nurse resilience through the integration of art prompts respecting the Expressive Therapies Continuum (ETC) model. During the pandemic in 2022, nine participants across two cohorts completed a 4-week asynchronous online workshop. Quantitative results showed no statistically significant changes; however, the feasibility and practical benefits of the intervention were evident with the 15-min art prompt through fostering positive emotions, sensory engagement, and meaning-making, aligning with the PERMA model [49,50]. The conclusion is that existing narrative medicine programs in healthcare institutions can incorporate art prompts to promote healthcare worker resilience regarding burnout.
The study of the ability of psychological flow to avert burnout during COVID-19 in “Are algorithmically controlled gig workers deeply burned out? An empirical study on employee work engagement” [42] was regarding the survey results from two provinces in China of 400 gig workers at several digital platform companies. Two-thirds of the respondents were men, while a third were women, with the highest percentage of respondents being between 20 and 30 years old. Over three quarters had at least one higher education degree and were full-time employees. The ability of the workers to recognize and evaluate algorithmic control in human–computer interaction fundamentally influenced the attitude and behavior of gig workers during COVID-19. Different gig workers had distinct perceptions and understandings about algorithmic control, affecting their responses accordingly. The authors note that control over data algorithms intensified following COVID-19. The result was a moderating effect of flow experience on the positive relationship between perceived algorithmic control and burnout. Psychological flow experience was a significant antecedent variable of employee work engagement during the pandemic.
Corporate professionals are the focus of “Positive Coping and Well-being of Corporate Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single Case Study” [43] with the aim of the study understanding how the positive coping strategies used by corporate professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic influenced their well-being. From a group of 20 corporate professionals interviewed worldwide, one engaged in a phenomenological research study. As a qualitative study, this research did not test for statistical significance. Flow was among the human strengths mentioned as relevant to averting burnout during the pandemic regarding the PERMA model of well-being that focuses on individual strengths. Although COVID-19 was challenging for the corporate professional, in being able to meet the challenge successfully, there was obtainment of the type of enjoyment that comes with achieving psychological flow—this enjoyment extended to increased quality family time. The advice is that the methods and thinking patterns used by corporate professionals might be adopted successfully in other fields to produce positive outcomes.
The concern of “The COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on family leisure activities of working parents with pre-school aged children” [44] was also family time. A self-administered questionnaire collected the views of 140 South African working parents with preschool-aged children regarding their leisure activities and changes in these activities that affected work–life balance and overall well-being of parents. Similarly to [43], this study was qualitative and did not test for statistical significance. Pre-COVID-19, parents indicated that they had personal leisure time available. During the initial lockdown of the pandemic, while confined to their homes and because of the blurred boundaries between work, leisure, caring, and household duties, they experienced negative emotions and tiredness, i.e., emotional burnout. However, as the pandemic continued, there was a shift in family leisure activities, permitting newly embraced leisure activities to reshape family leisure choices and options. The authors indicate that psychological flow illustrates the type of deep engagement parents described regarding these new activities, driven by intrinsic joy with an alignment between challenges and abilities. The study raises awareness regarding the significance of work–life balance during pandemic situations, as recognizing the role of leisure activities for parents of preschool-aged children in promoting psychological flow can avert burnout.

3.3. Comparative Analysis of Studies

A comparison of the five reports regards the results of Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. For Table 3, the differentiation concerns the publication year and study subjects. The focus of Table 4 is four variables: number of authors, country, journal, and methodology. The examination for Table 5 focuses on the variable type for predicting burnout incidence and if there is a demonstration of statistical significance.

3.3.1. Publication Year and Study Subjects

Most of the publications regarding this topic are post-COVID-19 pandemic, except [43]. It is unclear why these pandemic-related studies took an extended time to reach publication. It is the studies of workers in the private sector (corporate employees [43] and gig workers [42]) with the earliest publications in 2022 and 2023. The time to publication of the studies conducted on healthcare workers [40,41] or working parents [44] was substantial, with the publication of a nurse study in 2025. This result may correspond to the average time from submission to publication in healthcare publications, computed from 20,000 publications, being 180.93 days [51]. In a systematic review of 69 studies, the mean times from submission to publication varied from 91 to 639 days—the median timespan varied from 70 to 558 days. Submission to acceptance and acceptance to publication timespans showed similar disparity—means ranging from 50 to 276 and 11 to 362 days, respectively [52]. There is a reduction in submission-to-publication lag such that the higher the impact factor of the journal, with open access journals having a longer submission-to-publication lag but a shorter lag regarding acceptance to publication [53].

3.3.2. Author, Country, Journal, Impact Factor, and Methodology

The most prominent safeguard against research bias is peer review [54]. One form of peer review is for more authors to be involved in a research study to interpret the theoretical basis of the data as a form of data triangulation [55]. There were several authors for every publication, with [40,42] representing the highest number of authors, each at five. It may be relevant that these two publications are from countries that stress collaborative research efforts [56,57]. That [43] is a worldwide study of corporate employees that likely required significant organization, yet the time to publication was the least among the studies, is noteworthy. However, the report of this study is in a journal that does not have an impact factor. For medical journals, the impact factor is a reasonable quality indicator [58]. The assessment in another publication was that journals with the highest impact factor ultimately choose the best manuscripts [59]. Today, the view of these reports on impact factors may be as definitive—both were published more than ten years ago with no more recent research on the topic. Returning to [40,42], these reports were those published in the journals with the highest impact factors. These two articles have another commonality—they involve quantitative research designs, unlike the other three publications [41,43,44] based on qualitative assessments. Quantitative studies are most effective with constrained or controlled variables free of undefined influence. In these circumstances, reproducibility is high, and the results are likely to reliably predict the outcome of the same future event [60]. In contrast, the qualitative research aims to collect primary, textual data, analyzing them with specified interpretive methods. It is useful in exploratory studies of a phenomenon for discovering new insights and ideas and generating new theories in a particular context that may happen in the future [61].

3.3.3. Variable Type and Statistical Significance

Examining the variable type, psychological flow is a core explanatory variable for [41,43,44]. Psychological flow is a moderating variable for publications [40,42]. This result may point to psychological flow being better considered a core variable in the qualitative research rather than quantitative research—a point recognized in assessments of psychological flow [62]. However, as such, the statistical significance of the findings in the qualitative research is either not tested, as in [43,44], or the results, although promising, do not demonstrate statistical significance [41]. It is relevant that for the quantitative studies where psychological flow represented a moderating variable, the results for both were statistically significant.

3.4. Comparison with Non-Pandemic Conditions

Whether the methods used to attain psychological flow differed during the pandemic from other non-pandemic situations is relevant. Summarizing the experience of psychological flow with each study: for [40], mental immunity to the pandemic permitted psychological flow; in [41], it was participating in art therapy; psychological flow during the pandemic in [42] came with participant control of their work-related activities; adopting positive work-related coping strategies was means of attaining psychological flow [43]; and the study of [44] stressed that psychological flow was attainable during the pandemic by participation in employee-selected leisure activities associated with being working parents. Although having mental immunity, participating in enjoyable work-related and leisure-related activities, and having control over their working conditions along with positive coping strategies might be found in non-pandemic studies of psychological flow, they are a secondary component for employees. In non-pandemic situations, psychological flow is achieved in working conditions by total emersion in the job [63]—a type of emersion that was not possible with additional worries and uncertainties from the pandemic. Moreover, for employees to experience psychological flow, the method for accomplishing the work is the relevant factor. For example, athletes and musicians require performance to achieve flow—for athletes, this means performing their sports expertise in challenging conditions, and for musicians, performing in front of an audience. In contrast, researchers require a consistent challenge with ever-evolving research questions to achieve flow. In their case, presenting their work to an audience is unconnected to the flow experience [64].

3.5. Psychological Flow and Burnout as Mutually Exclusive

A 2013 study demonstrated that performance anxiety and psychological flow are mutually exclusive [65]. This demonstration was reinforced in a 2017 study [66]. More specifically, in 2018, a study determined that flow is negatively associated with work-related depressive symptoms and burnout [67]. A 2022 systematic review suggests a negative association between flow and burnout symptoms, both cross-sectional and longitudinal [68]. Moreover, a 2024 study reinforces the inverse relationship between psychological flow and psychological exhaustion [69]. In line with these previous findings, the results from this scoping review of publications in 2021–2025 demonstrate the mutual exclusivity of psychological flow and burnout.

4. Conclusions

This scoping review was performed to demonstrate that psychological flow was achievable by different types of employees during the pandemic, and flow was realized in several ways, preventing burnout in each case. The hypothesis was that a scoping review would provide sufficient and relevant results to meet the aim—affirmed reviewing 754 and including five records. The results from this scoping review of burnout avoidance by employees during COVID-19 through achieving psychological flow are various. Google Scholar alone identified relevant peer-reviewed articles for this assessment and did so most effectively by isolating the search terms least, questioning the belief that this search engine is merely supplementary. The included articles demonstrate that psychological flow was achievable by several types of employees during the pandemic. These employees included mental healthcare practitioners, nurses, gig workers, corporate professionals, and working parents. Each experienced flow, averting burnout, and the achievement of their flow differed.
For mental health practitioners, flow was attained during COVID-19 directly through their particular relationship to work. Nurses experienced flow in art therapy sessions specifically offered in response to COVID-19. Gig workers experienced a direct relationship between perceived algorithmic control and burnout, with psychological flow significantly variable concerning employee work engagement during the pandemic. Corporate professions, though initially experiencing burnout during the pandemic, were able to challenge themselves using the peak of their skills to produce the level of enjoyment resulting in flow. One of the areas in which they experienced flow was leisure pursuits. The study of preschool-aged parents reinforced the value of peak experiences in leisure activities to avert workplace burnout.
These five reports reinforce that psychological flow represents the opposite of burnout regarding a workplace stimulation scale. Furthermore, if an employee experiences psychological flow, they cannot simultaneously suffer from burnout. To further test that psychological flow and burnout are mutually exclusive, especially in pandemic situations, the suggestion is for the future research. 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.
Based on the results, the implications for practice regarding future pandemics or similar health crises are the following. For all workers, employers promoting employee-selected leisure activities enjoyed by employees are likely to encourage psychological flow during such unpredictable, concerning, and difficult times. Directly in the workplace, employers offering creative programs that mimic enjoyable leisure activities that the employee might select—such as art therapy—is a supportive way that actively encourages flow in the workplace. However, achieving flow at work requires self-reflection by employees to know the work-related activities they enjoy—a finding with corporate employees who, after such self-reflection, were able to avert burnout by concentrating on the work they find enjoyable. In this way, they were able to experience flow at work. The response of gig workers indicates that another necessary ingredient for feeling flow at work is that the employees must have confidence in their ability to control their work-related tasks. Without this confidence, the work environment can become an additional worry to the pandemic or similar health crisis. As such, the advice to employers is to ensure that policies and procedures have the clarity that offers their employees this type of confidence during uncertain and demanding times. Considering this advice, employers can assist employees in achieving psychological flow, providing mental immunity to the unpredictability of future health crises.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/encyclopedia5020056/s1, Supplementary S1: Nine database searches.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Freudenberger, H.J. Staff Burn-Out. J. Soc. Issues 1974, 30, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. World Health Organization. Burn-Out an “Occupational Phenomenon”: International Classification of Diseases; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hurria, C. Burnout—An Exponential Rise. J. Organ. Psychol. 2023, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Reith, T.P. Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review. Cureus 2018, 10, e3681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Pincus, J.D. Employee Engagement as Human Motivation: Implications for Theory, Methods, and Practice. Integr. Psych. Behav. 2023, 57, 1223–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. PRISMA. PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PRISMA 2020 2024. Available online: https://www.prisma-statement.org/scoping (accessed on 7 September 2024).
  23. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Peters, M.D.J.; Marnie, C.; Tricco, A.C.; Pollock, D.; Munn, Z.; Alexander, L.; McInerney, P.; Godfrey, C.M.; Khalil, H. Updated Methodological Guidance for the Conduct of Scoping Reviews. JBI Evid. Synth. 2020, 18, 2119–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Peters, M.D.J.; Godfrey, C.; McInerney, P.; Khalil, H.; Larsen, P.; Marnie, C.; Pollock, D.; Tricco, A.C.; Munn, Z. Best Practice Guidance and Reporting Items for the Development of Scoping Review Protocols. JBI Evid. Synth. 2022, 20, 953–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. PRISMA PRISMA 2020 Statement. PRISMA 2024. Available online: https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020 (accessed on 18 December 2024).
  27. Mak, S.; Thomas, A. An Introduction to Scoping Reviews. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2022, 14, 561–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yan, L.; Sha, L.; Zhao, L.; Li, Y.; Martinez-Maldonado, R.; Chen, G.; Li, X.; Jin, Y.; Gašević, D. Practical and Ethical Challenges of Large Language Models in Education: A Systematic Scoping Review. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2024, 55, 90–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Smith, S.A.; Duncan, A.A. Systematic and Scoping Reviews: A Comparison and Overview. Semin. Vasc. Surg. 2022, 35, 464–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gusenbauer, M.; Haddaway, N.R. Which Academic Search Systems Are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta-analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources. Res. Synth. Methods 2020, 11, 181–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Neal, T.M.S.; Lienert, P.; Denne, E.; Singh, J.P. A General Model of Cognitive Bias in Human Judgment and Systematic Review Specific to Forensic Mental Health. Law Hum. Behav. 2022, 46, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fernández Pinto, M. Methodological and Cognitive Biases in Science: Issues for Current Research and Ways to Counteract Them. Perspect. Sci. 2023, 31, 535–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lu, H.; Cole, S.R.; Howe, C.J.; Westreich, D. Toward a Clearer Definition of Selection Bias When Estimating Causal Effects. Epidemiology 2022, 33, 699–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Infante-Rivard, C.; Cusson, A. Reflection on Modern Methods: Selection Bias—A Review of Recent Developments. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2018, 47, 1714–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gusenbauer, M. Google Scholar to Overshadow Them All? Comparing the Sizes of 12 Academic Search Engines and Bibliographic Databases. Scientometrics 2019, 118, 177–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Healey, M.; Healey, R.L. Searching the Literature on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL): An Academic Literacies Perspective: Part 1. Teach. Learn. Inq. 2023, 11, 75079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Weiss, C.R.; Johnson-Koenke, R. Narrative Inquiry as a Caring and Relational Research Approach: Adopting an Evolving Paradigm. Qual. Health Res. 2023, 33, 388–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wilson, S.M.; Anagnostopoulos, D. Methodological Guidance Paper: The Craft of Conducting a Qualitative Review. Rev. Educ. Res. 2021, 91, 651–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Al Eid, N.A.; Arnout, B.A.; Al-Qahtani, T.A.; Farhan, N.D.; Al Madawi, A.M. Psychological Flow and Mental Immunity as Predictors of Job Performance for Mental Health Care Practitioners during COVID-19. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0311909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Choe, N.S.; Yelle, M. Building Nurse Resilience Through Art Therapy and Narrative Medicine Integration. Art. Ther. 2025, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lang, J.J.; Yang, L.F.; Cheng, C.; Cheng, X.Y.; Chen, F.Y. Are Algorithmically Controlled Gig Workers Deeply Burned out? An Empirical Study on Employee Work Engagement. BMC Psychol. 2023, 11, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. George, E.S.; Antony, J.M.; Wesley, M.S. Positive Coping and Well-Being of Corporate Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single Case Study. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 2022, 6, 5189–5194. [Google Scholar]
  44. Perold, I.; Knott, B.; Young, C. The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Effect on Family Leisure Activities of Working Parents with Pre-School Aged Children. World Leis. J. 2024, 66, 267–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bykov, K.V.; Zrazhevskaya, I.A.; Topka, E.O.; Peshkin, V.N.; Dobrovolsky, A.P.; Isaev, R.N.; Orlov, A.M. Prevalence of Burnout among Psychiatrists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 308, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Załuski, M.; Makara-Studzińska, M. Latent Occupational Burnout Profiles of Working Women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hajiheydari, N.; Delgosha, M.S. Investigating Engagement and Burnout of Gig-Workers in the Age of Algorithms: An Empirical Study in Digital Labor Platforms. Inf. Technol. People 2024, 37, 2489–2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lam, L.T.; Lam, M.K.; Reddy, P.; Wong, P. Factors Associated with Work-Related Burnout among Corporate Employees Amidst COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Seligman, M.E.P. Positive Psychology: A Personal History. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2019, 15, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chisale, E.T.; Phiri, F.M. PERMA Model and Mental Health Practice. Asian J. Pharm. Nurs. Med. Sci. 2022, 10, 21–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ninkov, A.; Frank, J.R.; Maggio, L.A. Bibliometrics: Methods for Studying Academic Publishing. Perspect. Med. Educ. 2021, 11, 173–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Andersen, M.Z.; Fonnes, S.; Rosenberg, J. Time from Submission to Publication Varied Widely for Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2021, 37, 985–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, T.-A.; Lin, M.-H.; Chen, Y.-C.; Chen, T.-J. The Time from Submission to Publication in Primary Health Care Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study. Publications 2024, 12, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yarborough, M. Moving towards Less Biased Research. BMJ Open Sci. 2021, 5, e100116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schlunegger, M.C.; Zumstein-Shaha, M.; Palm, R. Methodologic and Data-Analysis Triangulation in Case Studies: A Scoping Review. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2024, 46, 611–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, D.; Ding, W.; Wang, Y.; Liu, S. Exploring the Role of International Research Collaboration in Building China’s World-Class Universities. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Al-Jamimi, H.A.; BinMakhashen, G.M.; Bornmann, L.; Al Wajih, Y.A. Saudi Arabia Research: Academic Insights and Trend Analysis. Scientometrics 2023, 128, 5595–5627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Saha, S.; Saint, S.; Christakis, D.A. Impact Factor: A Valid Measure of Journal Quality? J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2003, 91, 42–46. [Google Scholar]
  59. Semenzato, G.; Rizzato, G.; Agostini, C. Impact Factor as Measure of Scientific Quality. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2004, 169, 1070–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lakshman, M.; Sinha, L.; Biswas, M.; Charles, M.; Arora, N.K. Quantitative Vs Qualitative Research Methods. Indian. J. Pediatr. 2000, 67, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Taherdoost, H. What Are Different Research Approaches? Comprehensive Review of Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Research, Their Applications, Types, and Limitations. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Res. 2022, 5, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Norsworthy, C.; Jackson, B.; Dimmock, J.A. Advancing Our Understanding of Psychological Flow: A Scoping Review of Conceptualizations, Measurements, and Applications. Psychol. Bull. 2021, 147, 806–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fan, H.-L.; Hou, S.-T.; Lin, Y.-H. Flow as a Mediator between Psychological Ownership and Employees’ Subjective Happiness. J. Manag. Psychol. 2019, 34, 445–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nash, C. Self-Directed Learning and Psychological Flow Regarding the Differences Among Athletes, Musicians, and Researchers. Psychol. Int. 2025, 7, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fullagar, C.J.; Knight, P.A.; Sovern, H.S. Challenge/Skill Balance, Flow, and Performance Anxiety. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 62, 236–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fullagar, C.; Delle Fave, A.; Van Krevelen, S. Flow at Work. In Flow at Work; Fullagar, C., Delle Fave, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 1–27. ISBN 978-1-315-87158-5. [Google Scholar]
  67. Mosing, M.A.; Butkovic, A.; Ullén, F. Can Flow Experiences Be Protective of Work-Related Depressive Symptoms and Burnout? A Genetically Informative Approach. J. Affect. Disord. 2018, 226, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Aust, F.; Beneke, T.; Peifer, C.; Wekenborg, M. The Relationship between Flow Experience and Burnout Symptoms: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Alkfare-Alkferi, W.M. Assessment of Psychological Flow as a Predictor of Psychological Exhaustion among Educational Counselor Using the Flow State Scale and the Maslach Burnout Inventory–Educators Survey: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Clin. Sci. 2024, 21, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Encyclopedia 05 00056 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of a search of the keywords “burnout, COVID-19, employees, healthcare providers, psychological flow, Csikszentmihalyi” on 8 February 2025, of CINAHL, OVID, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, Google Scholar—searched in two ways—and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register [23].
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of a search of the keywords “burnout, COVID-19, employees, healthcare providers, psychological flow, Csikszentmihalyi” on 8 February 2025, of CINAHL, OVID, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, Google Scholar—searched in two ways—and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register [23].
Encyclopedia 05 00056 g001
Table 1. Databases searched on 8 February 2025, the search parameters, and the number of returns regarding searches of the keywords “burnout, COVID-19, employees, healthcare providers, psychological flow, Csikszentmihalyi” listed in the order searched.
Table 1. Databases searched on 8 February 2025, the search parameters, and the number of returns regarding searches of the keywords “burnout, COVID-19, employees, healthcare providers, psychological flow, Csikszentmihalyi” listed in the order searched.
DatabaseSearch Parameters#
CINAHL“burnout AND COVID-19 AND psychological flow AND Csikszentmihalyi AND employees OR healthcare providers” OR (MH “Burnout, Professional/PF”) OR (MH “Positive Psychology/UT”)
Limiters—Full Text; Publication Date: 1 March 2020–8 February 2025; English Language; Peer-Reviewed; Research Article; Publication Type: Journal Article; Age Groups: All Adults		121
OVID“burnout AND COVID-19 AND psychological flow AND Csikszentmihalyi AND employees OR healthcare providers”0
ProQuest(burnout among health professionals) OR (burnout among employees) AND COVID-19 AND (psychological flow) AND (optimal experience: psychological studies of flow in consciousness) AND (csikszentmihalyi flow theory) OR (csikszentmihalyi flow) OR (csikszentmihalyi AND flow) OR csikszentmihalyi
Limited to: Full-text, peer-reviewed, scholarly journals, 11 March 2020–8 February 2025, COVID-19, mental health, employees, burnout, skills, article, English. For a full list of the 286 exclusions, see Supplementary S1		37
PubMed((Burnout) AND (COVID-19)) AND (psychological flow)5
Scopusburnout AND COVID-19 AND employees OR healthcare AND providers AND psychological AND flow AND Csikszentmihalyi AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “article”))15
Web of Scienceburnout (All Fields) and COVID-19 (All Fields) and employees (All Fields) or healthcare providers (All Fields) and psychological flow (All Fields) and csikszentmehalyi (All Fields) and Article (Document Types) and English (Languages). For a full list of the 61 exclusions, see Supplementary S1258
Google Scholar A Burnout psychological flow Csikszentmihalyi employees OR healthcare providers “COVID-19” since 2021290
Google Scholar B“burnout” “psychological flow” “Csikszentmihalyi” employees OR healthcare providers “COVID-19” since 202125
Cochrane COVID-19 Registerburnout and psychological and flow3
Table 2. Details of the PRISMA scoping review process exclusions with the results for the OVID search (n = 0).
Table 2. Details of the PRISMA scoping review process exclusions with the results for the OVID search (n = 0).
Exclusion ReasonCINAHLProQuestPubMedScopusWeb of
Science		Google Scholar A Google Scholar BCochrane COVID-19Total
Excluded
Duplicates10(4) 291(27) 018233
Not English000000101
Not 2021–202500000310031
Not peer-reviewed01000746081
No research study170216590085
No Csikszentmihalyi11628312168311448
No psychological flow00020120014
No burnout00010110012
No COVID-19000004004
No employees or healthcare providers000003003
Not retrieved31002510030
Irrelevant flow000001001
Irrelevant COVID-19000006005
Total results12137515258285253749
Table 3. Citation number, page number of the Google Scholar A search, publication title, publication year, and category of subjects for reports of included studies.
Table 3. Citation number, page number of the Google Scholar A search, publication title, publication year, and category of subjects for reports of included studies.
Cit. #Page #TitleYearSubjects
[40]1Psychological flow and mental immunity as predictors of job performance for mental healthcare practitioners during COVID-192024Mental healthcare practitioners
[41]3Building nurse resilience through art therapy and narrative medicine integration2025Nurses
[42]5Are algorithmically controlled gig workers deeply burned out? An empirical study on employee work engagement2023Gig workers
[43]7Positive Ccping and well-being of corporate professionals during the COVID-19
pandemic: A single case study		2022Corporate
professionals
[44]11The COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on family leisure activities of working parents with pre-school aged children2024Working parents
Table 4. Citation #, publication authors, country of study, journal, impact factor as reported in 2023, and study methodology.
Table 4. Citation #, publication authors, country of study, journal, impact factor as reported in 2023, and study methodology.
Cit. #AuthorsCountryJournalImpact FactorMethodology
[40]Al Eid, N.A.; Arnout, B.A.; Al-Qahtani, T.A.; Farhan, N.D.; Al Madawi, A.M.Saudi ArabiaPLoS ONE2.9Correlational survey
design
[41]Choe, N.S.; Yelle, M.United StatesArt Therapy1.3Mixed methods
[42]Lang, J.J.; Yang, L.F.; Cheng, C.; Cheng, X.Y.; Chen, F.Y.ChinaBMC Psychology2.7Quantitative
questionnaire analysis
[43]George, E.S.; Antony, J.M.; Wesley, M.S.WorldwideJournal of Positive School PsychologyNot reportedPhenomenological
research study
[44]Perold, I.; Knott, B.; Young, C.South AfricaWorld Leisure Journal1.7Exploratory case study design
Table 5. Citation #, report of relevant results for each included study, type of variable for predicting burnout incidence, and whether the result demonstrates statistical significance.
Table 5. Citation #, report of relevant results for each included study, type of variable for predicting burnout incidence, and whether the result demonstrates statistical significance.
Cit. #Relevant ResultsVariableSignificance
[40]Psychological flow significantly influenced the job performance of mental healthcare practitioners during COVID-19, indicating the importance of planning interventions to enhance mental healthcare practitioners’ psychological flow to help them cope with work stress effectively and protect them from symptoms of burnout.ModeratingStatistical
[41]Examining the feasibility of integrating art prompts into a narrative medicine protocol to enhance nurse resilience during COVID-19 found, corresponding with the previous research, that regardless of the art medium, 15 min was sufficient to induce a state similar to flow and strengthen group cohesion.Core
explanatory		Not
statistical
[42]Gig workers believed that perceived algorithmic control positively affects employee work engagement. Burnout played a partial mediating role in the relationship between perceived algorithmic control and employee work engagement. Flow experience played a moderating role through the indirect effect of burnout on employees’ work engagement.Moderating
antecedent		Statistical
[43]Corporate professionals faced with COVID-19 work-related challenges adapted positive coping strategies, including their capacity for flow to avert burnout.Core
explanatory		Not tested (qualitative)
[44]Participants experienced higher emotional and tiredness levels because of the pandemic-induced changes, often neglecting their balance of work, life, and care for their preschool-aged children. Parents experiencing joy in their leisure activities are those most likely to experience flow.Core
explanatory		Not tested (qualitative)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nash, C. A Scoping Review of Burnout Avoidance by Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Psychological Flow. Encyclopedia 2025, 5, 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020056

AMA Style

Nash C. A Scoping Review of Burnout Avoidance by Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Psychological Flow. Encyclopedia. 2025; 5(2):56. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020056

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nash, Carol. 2025. "A Scoping Review of Burnout Avoidance by Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Psychological Flow" Encyclopedia 5, no. 2: 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020056

APA Style

Nash, C. (2025). A Scoping Review of Burnout Avoidance by Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Psychological Flow. Encyclopedia, 5(2), 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020056

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop