Not A Medical Condition

If you have read that the World Health Organization classified burnout as a disease, you read a story the WHO corrected the day after it ran. The correction matters, because the classification it did make says something specific about where the problem is located.

What This Article Is And Is Not

Stated first, because the subject requires it.

This article describes a classification system and organisational research. It is not clinical, medical, psychological or diagnostic advice, and nothing in it should be used to diagnose anybody, including yourself.

Three specific things it does not do.

It does not tell you whether you or anyone else has burnout. That is not a judgment this publication is qualified to assist with, and the WHO's own framing makes clear it is a matter for a qualified professional in a clinical setting.

It does not offer treatment guidance of any kind.

And it does not address the employment law consequences of any of this, which vary substantially by jurisdiction and which an employer should take proper advice on.

What it does is set out, accurately, what the classification says and what follows from that for how a business thinks about the problem. If you are concerned about your own wellbeing or someone else's, speak to a qualified professional rather than to a publication.

Our Grade For This Claim

Applying the scheme from the first article in this series, with an adjustment.

The grading scheme was built for research findings, and most of this article is not one. The ICD-11 classification is an authoritative document, not an empirical claim, so the relevant question is not whether it replicates but whether we have quoted it correctly.

On that, the sourcing is as strong as it gets. The definition is quoted from the WHO's own published statement[1] and corroborated verbatim by a government health department[2], two peer-reviewed papers[3][4], a university safety office[5] and contemporaneous journalism[6].

The characterisation of the 2019 media episode is Grade B, resting on a trade union institute's account and a medical trade publication[7][8].

The prevalence figure discussed near the end is Grade D and we explain why in its own section.

A Note On Method

Everything here is verified to August 2026.

We obtained the WHO's own statement page and quote the classification text from it[1]. We then verified the same wording against five further independent sources, which reproduce it identically.

We did not obtain the ICD-11 browser entry itself, and rely on the WHO's news statement plus these reproductions.

We did not obtain any of Maslach's original work and mention it only as a specialist characterises the ICD-11 definition's provenance.

One passage in the WHO statement, concerning the ICD-10 treatment, is truncated in our source and we say so where it arises.

This article reviews a classification and organisational research and is not clinical, medical, psychological, diagnostic or employment law advice.

The Announcement And The Correction

What happened in May 2019.

A trade union research institute records the sequence: the WHO had initially stated that burn-out had been included as a disease in the ICD, and the next day a WHO spokesperson issued a revised statement, saying that burn-out was being placed in the category of occupational phenomena without being included in the list of "diseases". The spokesman clarified in a communiqué that "inclusion in this chapter means that burn-out is not conceptualised as a medical condition, but as an occupational phenomenon"[7].

A medical trade publication reported the same correction, quoting the WHO spokesperson: "the inclusion in this chapter specifically indicates that burnout is not conceptualized as a medical condition, but rather as an occupational phenomenon"[8].

Two observations, ours.

The correction came from the WHO within a day, and its own permanent statement page carries the corrected version[1]. This is not a contested interpretation.

But the original headline is the one that propagated. Seven years on, a great deal of business writing still describes burnout as a WHO-recognised medical condition or disease, which is the version the WHO withdrew.

What ICD-11 Actually Says

The definition, quoted from the WHO's own statement.

"Burn-out is a syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by three dimensions: feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion; increased mental distance from one's job, or feelings of negativism or cynicism related to one's job; and reduced professional efficacy. Burn-out refers specifically to phenomena in the occupational context and should not be applied to describe experiences in other areas of life."[1]

That is the whole of it. Every clause is doing work, and the sections below take them in turn.

We have reproduced it in full rather than paraphrasing because the paraphrases are the problem. Almost every summary of this definition drops either the occupational restriction or the words "that has not been successfully managed", and both of those change what the definition means.

The Chapter It Sits In

Where the classification places it, which is the whole of the correction.

The WHO states that burn-out is described in the chapter: "Factors influencing health status or contact with health services" – which includes reasons for which people contact health services but that are not classed as illnesses or health conditions[1].

A source adds that within that chapter it sits under "Problems associated with employment or unemployment"[6].

Three consequences, ours.

The chapter exists precisely for things that are real, relevant to health services, and not diseases. Placement there is a deliberate statement rather than an omission.

One commentary puts the logic well: the placement means burnout is recognised as something real enough to bring someone to a doctor's office, but not treated as a disease in its own right[9].

And the sub-category matters. Problems associated with employment is where it lives. Not a mood category, not a stress-related disorder category. An employment category.

The Three Dimensions

The definitional criteria, taken one at a time.

Feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion.

Increased mental distance from one's job, or feelings of negativism or cynicism related to one's job.

Reduced professional efficacy, glossed by one source as a sense of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment[9].

Two observations, ours.

These correspond to what the research literature has long described as exhaustion, cynicism or depersonalisation, and reduced personal accomplishment. A peer-reviewed paper describes the ICD-11 entry as including the classic tridimensional definition with symptoms in areas of fatigue and energy depletion, mental distance and cynicism, and sense of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment[4].

And the second dimension is the one most people would not predict. Cynicism is a defining criterion, on equal footing with exhaustion. A workplace treating cynicism purely as an attitude problem is treating a criterion of the syndrome as a character flaw.

All Three Are About The Job

A structural point that is easy to miss. This section is our own analysis.

Read the three dimensions again and notice what each is anchored to.

Energy depletion is the only one that could be read as a general state.

The second is explicitly mental distance from one's job and cynicism related to one's job.

The third is professional efficacy.

Two consequences.

The construct is occupational all the way down. It is not a general description of a person's condition that happens to be caused by work; two of its three criteria are defined by reference to the job itself.

Which means a person can, in principle, meet these criteria while functioning entirely normally elsewhere, and that is consistent with the definition rather than evidence against it.

The Restriction Nobody Quotes

The final sentence of the definition, which is almost always dropped.

"Burn-out refers specifically to phenomena in the occupational context and should not be applied to describe experiences in other areas of life."[1]

Three consequences, ours.

The now-common usages, being parental burnout, relationship burnout, social burnout and the rest, are outside this definition by its own express terms. That is not a criticism of anyone using the word loosely. It is a statement about what the classification covers.

It also means that a business cannot borrow the WHO's authority for a general wellbeing claim. If your programme addresses life stress broadly, the ICD-11 definition is not describing what you are addressing.

And for a manager it draws a boundary in the other direction too. The definition does not license concluding anything about an employee's life outside work, and the classification explicitly declines to extend there.

Where The Definition Locates The Cause

The most consequential clause for an employer, and it is the one usually paraphrased away. This section is our own analysis of the WHO's wording.

The definition opens: a syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed[1].

Four things are asserted in that clause.

The stress is workplace stress. Not general stress that shows up at work.

It is chronic, meaning sustained rather than episodic.

The syndrome results from it, which is a causal framing.

And it has not been successfully managed, which is the clause doing the most work and the one most often deleted.

Two consequences, ours, and we state them carefully.

The definition does not say whose job the managing was. It is passive, and it would be overreading to claim the WHO has assigned responsibility to employers. We are not making that claim.

But it does mean the syndrome is defined by reference to a management failure of some kind rather than by reference to an individual's constitution. An account that treats burnout purely as insufficient personal resilience is not consistent with a definition whose first clause is about unmanaged workplace stress.

The Expert View: An Incremental Change

A useful corrective to the excitement, from a specialist quoted at the time.

The chair of the American Psychiatric Association's workgroup on psychiatrist wellbeing and burnout said that the change in ICD-11 is it specifically refers to burnout in the occupational context and gives a more detailed one-paragraph description of burnout, essentially using the Maslach definition of burnout, and that this is actually a very incremental change[8].

He added: "this really is not a big news story that it was made out to be. That said, burnout is a very serious problem. It's a ubiquitous problem but it's a subjective experience and not a disease in and of itself"[8], and separately that "it's not a medical diagnosis. It's not a disease"[8].

Three observations, ours.

The phrase essentially using the Maslach definition matters, because it means ICD-11 did not invent a construct. It adopted one that had been in research use for decades, which is a point in the definition's favour rather than against it.

The pairing of "not a big news story" with "a very serious problem" is exactly the position this article is trying to hold. The classification was overstated; the underlying problem was not.

And "a subjective experience" is an important qualifier for anyone building a measurement around this. The dimensions are experiences, reported by the person having them.

What Changed From ICD-10

The comparison, with a gap declared.

The WHO statement notes that burn-out was also included in ICD-10, in the same category as in ICD-11, but – and our source truncates at that point[1]. We did not obtain the remainder of that sentence.

A commentary fills the gap, and we report it as that source's account rather than the WHO's: burnout appeared in ICD-10 only as a vague entry without detailed criteria, and the ICD-11 update gave it a more structured definition by specifying the three core dimensions, explicitly linking it to unmanaged workplace stress, and drawing a clear line around its occupational scope. The same source describes this as the first time the WHO provided a framework specific enough for clinicians and researchers to work with consistently across countries, and states that the WHO clarified the definition had been refined, not reclassified[9].

Two observations, ours.

If that account is right, the important change is usability rather than status. Burnout did not move up a hierarchy; it acquired criteria.

Refined, not reclassified is the cleanest available summary of the whole episode, and it is the opposite of what was reported.

The Code, And Who Uses It

A practical detail with a surprising finding attached.

Burn-out carries the ICD-11 code QD85[6], with Z73.0 identified as the corresponding ICD-10 code[4].

A 2024 peer-reviewed survey of psychiatrists is instructive. An online survey sent in June 2023 to psychiatrists in three regions of Spain, answered by 164 respondents, found that 48.2 percent said they had never used the term burnout or the ICD codes Z73.0 or QD85, while 9.1 percent used them frequently, on a figure our source truncates[4].

Two observations, ours.

Nearly half of a sample of practising psychiatrists had never used the code or the term. That is worth knowing before treating the classification as a routine clinical currency.

We note the sample is 164 psychiatrists in three regions of one country, and should not be generalised to clinical practice worldwide or to Canada specifically. We report it because it is the only empirical evidence we located on how the classification is actually used.

What An Employer Cannot Conclude

The boundary, stated plainly. This section is our own reasoning and is deliberately conservative.

Four things an employer should not do with this material.

Do not diagnose anyone. The WHO's framing is a classification used by health services. A manager observing three dimensions in an employee has made an observation, not a diagnosis, and is not qualified to make one.

Do not use the word as a label for a person. Describing an employee as burnt out attributes a state to them on no clinical basis and may carry consequences in a performance or employment context.

Do not assume it is medically actionable in the way a condition would be. It is expressly not classified as a medical condition, and what follows from that in terms of accommodation, leave and obligations is a legal question that varies by jurisdiction on which an employer should take advice.

And do not use the classification to make claims in marketing or wellbeing programmes that the classification does not support, particularly the common claim that the WHO recognises burnout as a disease.

We would put the general rule this way: the classification is useful for thinking about your workplace and not for thinking about a particular person's health. The first is squarely within an employer's competence. The second is not.

What An Employer Can Reasonably Do

The constructive side, and it follows from where the definition places the cause.

Three things, ours.

Treat the definition as a description of a workplace condition. Chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed is a statement about a work environment. An employer can examine workload, autonomy, clarity and duration without making any judgment about an individual's health.

Attend to chronicity. The definition specifies chronic stress. A demanding month is not the thing described; a demanding eighteen months is closer to it. That distinction is observable from rotas, project timelines and leave records without asking anyone anything personal.

And notice cynicism as information rather than as an attitude problem. If increased mental distance from the job is a defining dimension, then a team's growing detachment is data about the environment.

Two cautions. None of this constitutes assessing an individual, and it should not be turned into one. And where an individual's wellbeing is in question, the right response is to direct them to qualified professional support, not to apply a framework from a publication.

The Dimensions Are Observable

A methodological note connecting to earlier articles in this series. This section is our own.

The specialist quoted above described burnout as a subjective experience[8], and the dimensions are indeed experiences rather than behaviours.

That creates the same measurement problem the second article in this series described. Asking people to self-report a state carries the willingness to report alongside the state, and in a small firm a survey is not anonymous whatever the form says.

Three consequences.

A wellbeing survey in a small business is measuring two things at once, and one of them is how safe people feel answering.

Which means a low burnout score in a low-trust environment is uninformative rather than reassuring, in exactly the way a low error-report count was.

And the more defensible signals are structural rather than attitudinal: hours, chronicity, workload distribution, leave actually taken, turnover. Those describe the environment the definition points at, and none of them requires anyone to disclose an experience.

A Word On Prevalence Figures

A caution about the numbers that circulate. This section is deliberately negative.

Prevalence statistics for burnout are everywhere in business writing and almost none of them are usable.

Our own sources contain an example. A 2019 journalism piece cites a poll reporting that 23 percent of employees felt burned out at work very often or always, with a further 44 percent feeling burned out sometimes[6], which together produce the frequently quoted claim that around two thirds of employees experience burnout.

We grade that Grade D and would not use it, for four reasons, all ours.

We did not obtain the poll, its methodology, its sampling frame or its date.

The wording is self-report of a feeling, not assessment against the three ICD-11 dimensions, so it is not measuring the construct this article describes.

The "sometimes" category is doing nearly all the work in the two-thirds figure, and feeling burned out sometimes is not what the definition describes.

And it is seven years old at the time of writing.

Our general position: be more sceptical of a burnout prevalence figure than of almost any other statistic you will be shown, because the construct is subjective, the measures vary enormously, and the number is usually being quoted by somebody selling a remedy.

The Owner-Operator Problem

A specific difficulty for this publication's usual reader. This section is our own reasoning.

Three features of owning a business interact awkwardly with this definition.

The definition concerns chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed, and the owner is the person who would be doing the managing. There is nobody above them to notice or intervene.

The occupational restriction is hardest to apply where the business and the life are not separable. The definition says it should not be applied to other areas of life, and an owner-operator's other areas of life are frequently downstream of the business.

And reduced professional efficacy is a criterion that an owner may experience as a judgment on themselves rather than as information about a workload, given that this publication's fourth and seventh articles both described self-directed attention as the costly kind.

We are not going to offer advice here, because doing so would cross the line this article opened by drawing. What we will say is that the classification's own logic points at the environment rather than the person, and that an owner reading it has more standing than anybody else to change the environment.

If you are concerned about your own wellbeing, speak to a qualified professional. That is the appropriate response and this article is not a substitute for it.

What To Do

Stop saying the WHO classified burnout as a disease. The WHO corrected that within a day in 2019, and its own statement says it is not classified as a medical condition.

Quote the definition in full or not at all. The two clauses most often dropped, being the occupational restriction and "that has not been successfully managed", are the two that change what it means.

Read it as a statement about a workplace. Chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed describes an environment, and examining that environment requires no judgment about any individual.

Treat cynicism as a criterion, not a character flaw. Increased mental distance from the job is one of the three defining dimensions.

Attend to chronicity. The definition specifies chronic stress, and duration is visible in rotas, timelines and leave records without asking anyone anything.

Prefer structural indicators to wellbeing surveys. In a firm small enough that the survey is not anonymous, a low score measures willingness to answer as much as it measures anything.

Do not diagnose, and do not label. A manager observing the dimensions has made an observation, and the classification is a health services instrument.

Take proper advice on the legal side. What follows for accommodation, leave and duties varies by jurisdiction and is not addressed here.

Distrust prevalence figures. The construct is subjective, the measures vary, and the number is usually quoted by someone selling a remedy.

Direct people to qualified professionals. That is the correct response to a concern about a person, and no framework substitutes for it.

The Limits Of This Analysis

Several caveats matter. This article describes a classification system and organisational research. It is not clinical, medical, psychological, diagnostic or employment law advice, and nothing in it should be used to diagnose anybody, including the reader. Anyone concerned about their own wellbeing or another person's should consult a qualified professional. Everything is verified to August 2026. We did not obtain the ICD-11 browser entry itself, and rely on the WHO's published news statement together with five independent reproductions of the same wording. One passage of the WHO statement, concerning the ICD-10 treatment, is truncated in our source, and the account of what changed from ICD-10 comes from a separate commentary rather than from the WHO. We did not obtain any of Maslach's original work and mention it only as a specialist characterised the definition's provenance. The psychiatrist survey covers 164 respondents in three regions of one country and should not be generalised to clinical practice elsewhere, including Canada. The prevalence figure discussed is Grade D: we did not obtain the poll, its methodology, sampling frame or date, it measures a self-reported feeling rather than the ICD-11 dimensions, and it is seven years old. Two sources are journalism and one is a commentary website; each is identified. The analysis of where the definition locates the cause, the observation that all three dimensions are job-anchored, the measurement critique and the owner-operator discussion are our own reasoning, not findings from any source, and the causal reading in particular is deliberately stated as a limit on what can be inferred rather than as an assignment of responsibility.

Related Reading

No. 12 Most Of Our Customers Choose This A field experiment found that telling people what their neighbours do reduced consumption among heavy users and increased it among light ones. The same... Behavioural Finance The Better Teams Reported More Errors Why a self-report measure captures willingness to disclose alongside the thing measured. Behavioural Finance A Third Of It Made Things Worse Where attention directed at the self proved to be the costly kind.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the WHO classify burnout as a disease?

No. That was reported in May 2019 and the WHO issued a correction the following day. Its own statement says burn-out is included in ICD-11 as an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition. It sits in a chapter covering reasons people contact health services that are not illnesses.

What is the actual definition?

A syndrome conceptualised as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed, characterised by three dimensions: energy depletion or exhaustion; increased mental distance from one's job, or negativism or cynicism about it; and reduced professional efficacy. It adds that it should not be applied to other areas of life.

Why does the "not a medical condition" part matter?

Because it changes what can be claimed. Wellbeing programmes and articles frequently borrow the WHO's authority for a status the WHO expressly declined to give. What follows for accommodation, leave and employer duties is a legal question that varies by jurisdiction and requires proper advice.

Can I use this to tell whether an employee has burnout?

No, and you should not try. This is a classification used by health services, a manager observing the dimensions has made an observation rather than a diagnosis, and labelling an employee may carry consequences in a performance context. Direct anyone you are concerned about to qualified professional support.

What can an employer legitimately take from it?

The definition describes a workplace condition: chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. Examining workload, autonomy, clarity and above all duration requires no judgment about any individual's health, and duration is visible in rotas, timelines and leave records.

Are the widely quoted prevalence figures reliable?

Generally not. The example in our own sources measures a self-reported feeling rather than the ICD-11 dimensions, leans almost entirely on a "sometimes" response category, and we could not obtain its methodology. Be more sceptical of a burnout prevalence figure than of nearly any other statistic you are shown.

References

1. World Health Organization. (28 May 2019). Burn-out an "occupational phenomenon": International Classification of Diseases, on burn-out being included in the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases as an occupational phenomenon and not being classified as a medical condition; on it being described in the chapter "Factors influencing health status or contact with health services", which includes reasons for which people contact health services but that are not classed as illnesses or health conditions; on the definition of burn-out as a syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed, characterized by three dimensions being feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one's job or feelings of negativism or cynicism related to one's job, and reduced professional efficacy; and on burn-out referring specifically to phenomena in the occupational context and not being applicable to describe experiences in other areas of life. Note: the WHO's own published statement, and the primary source for every quotation of the definition in this article. The passage concerning ICD-10 is truncated in our copy. who.int
2. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Human Services, Burn-out, reproducing the WHO classification text verbatim, including that burn-out is an occupational phenomenon, is not classified as a medical condition, and is described in the chapter "Factors influencing health status or contact with health services". Note: a government department resource, used to corroborate the WHO wording independently. pa.gov
3. Perestrelo Passos, P., Amorim, M. J., & Araújo, F. (2023). Burnout: a reality among physicians and other health professionals. European Psychiatry, DOI 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2023.2036, on burnout resulting from chronic stress at work; on its inclusion in ICD-11 as an occupational phenomenon described in the chapter "Factors influencing health status or contact with health services", which includes reasons for which people contact health services but that are not classed as illnesses or health conditions; and on burnout not being classified as a medical condition. Note: a peer-reviewed abstract, used to corroborate the classification. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
4. Pelayo-Terán, J. M., Gutiérrez-Hervás, Z., Vega-García, S., García-Llamas, M. E., López-Zapico, C., & Zapico-Merayo, Y. (2024). ICD-11 Burnout for the psychiatrist: Meaning of the concept and prevalence of the condition. European Psychiatry, DOI 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.321, on burnout having been reclassified in 2019 as an occupational phenomenon in ICD-11; on the entry including the classic tridimensional definition with symptoms in areas of fatigue and energy depletion, mental distance and cynicism, and sense of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment; on an online survey sent in June 2023 to psychiatrists from three regions of Spain, answered by 164 respondents; and on 48.2 percent reporting they had never used the term burnout or the ICD codes Z73.0 or QD85, with 9.1 percent using them frequently. Note: a peer-reviewed conference abstract; the sample is 164 psychiatrists in three regions of one country and should not be generalised, and the 9.1 percent figure is truncated in our source. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
5. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, campus health and safety resource, Burn-out, reproducing the full WHO definition and classification statement and attributing it to the WHO, 2019. Note: a university safety office resource, used as a further independent reproduction of the wording. epfl.ch
6. Lee, B. (29 May 2019). How To Tell If You Have Work Burnout, Now A WHO Syndrome. Forbes, reproducing the ICD-11 entry for QD85 Burn-out in full; noting that it is listed under "Problems associated with employment or unemployment", which is listed under "Factors influencing health status or contact with health services"; and citing a poll reporting that 23 percent of employees felt burned out at work very often or always with a further 44 percent feeling burned out sometimes. Note: journalism. We use it for the code and sub-category. We did not obtain the poll it cites, its methodology, sampling frame or date, and we grade that figure as unusable in the body of this article. forbes.com
7. European Trade Union Institute. QD85: Burn-out classified as an occupational phenomenon, on ICD-11 coming into force on 1 January 2022; on burn-out having been first identified in the 1970s and not previously listed in any international classification; on the WHO having initially stated that burn-out had been included as a disease, and a spokesperson issuing a revised statement the next day saying it was being placed among occupational phenomena without being included in the list of diseases; and on the clarification that inclusion in this chapter means burn-out is not conceptualised as a medical condition but as an occupational phenomenon. Note: a trade union research institute; used for the sequence of the 2019 announcement and correction. etui.org
8. Medscape Medical News. Burnout Inclusion in ICD-11: Media Got It Wrong, WHO Says, quoting a WHO spokesperson that inclusion in the chapter specifically indicates burnout is not conceptualized as a medical condition but rather as an occupational phenomenon; and quoting Richard Summers, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association Workgroup on Psychiatrist Well-being and Burnout, that burnout is a factor that modifies or affects an individual's interaction with the healthcare system, that it is not a medical diagnosis and not a disease, that the ICD-11 change essentially uses the Maslach definition and is a very incremental change, that this really is not a big news story that it was made out to be, and that burnout is a very serious and ubiquitous problem but a subjective experience and not a disease in and of itself. Note: a medical trade publication; used for the correction and the expert commentary. medscape.com
9. ScienceInsights. What Is WHO's Official Definition of Burnout?, on the placement meaning burnout is recognised as real enough to bring someone to a doctor's office but not treated as a disease in its own right; on reduced professional efficacy meaning a sense of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment; on burnout having appeared in ICD-10 only as a vague entry without detailed criteria; on the ICD-11 update giving a more structured definition by specifying the three core dimensions, explicitly linking it to unmanaged workplace stress and drawing a clear line around its occupational scope; on this being the first time the WHO provided a framework specific enough for clinicians and researchers to work with consistently across countries; and on the WHO having clarified that the definition had been refined, not reclassified. Note: a commentary website, not peer-reviewed; used for the ICD-10 comparison, which the WHO passage we obtained truncates. scienceinsights.org

This article describes a classification system and organisational research. It is not clinical, medical, psychological, diagnostic or employment law advice, and nothing in it should be used to diagnose anybody. Anyone concerned about their own wellbeing or another person's should consult a qualified professional. The ICD-11 browser entry itself was not obtained. One WHO passage is truncated in our source and the ICD-10 comparison comes from a commentary rather than the WHO. The prevalence figure discussed is graded unusable and is included only to explain why.