In 2017, Loscalzo and Giannini introduced the new potential clinical condition of studyholism (or obsession toward study) and a comprehensive model including its possible antecedents and outcomes. Then, emphasizing the value of avoiding an aprioristic (addiction) framework in analyzing problematic overstudying, they suggested conducting research on this new construct to unveil its internalizing and/or externalizing nature while also avoiding the over-pathologizing of a common behavior such as studying. Seven years after the first publication about studyholism, growing evidence concerning its antecedents suggested that studyholism might be defined as an OCD-related disorder (or, more generally, as an internalizing disorder). Moreover, the research about its outcomes highlighted that it is a problem behavior deserving attention as it is associated with academic, psychological, physical, and social downsides. Therefore, this paper aims to review the scientific literature published concerning studyholism to illuminate if it might be conceptualized as an OCD-related disorder based on its symptomatology, antecedents, and impact on individuals\' academic, physical, and psychological functioning. Given that it is a new construct, it is of critical value to systematize the findings gathered until now as it can help scholars interested in students\' well-being to have a clear understanding concerning the importance of screening studyholism since childhood, as this will help favor academic success and well-being and reduce the risk for school dropout. Finally, this paper presents an agenda for future research on studyholism, and it highlights the importance of further analyzing problematic overstudying using different theoretical perspectives (such as the behavioral addiction conceptualization) to unveil its real nature.

The present study represents the first meta-analysis and systematic review on the prevalence of workaholism. It also investigated if sample size, representativeness, and instrument moderated the prevalence estimates. The analysis was pre-registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023395794). We searched Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsychInfo. BASE, MedNar, NYAM, OPENGREY, OpenMD and included the first 200 searches on Google scholar as gray literature [search string: \"(workaholi* OR \"work addict*\") AND (prevalence* OR incident* OR frequen* OR cut-off OR epidem*)]. The search yielded 42 studies to be included, in addition to 11 studies identified using other methods. Two independent raters went through the searches, extracted information and evaluated risk of bias, resulting in agreement ratings of 92.4%, 84.9%, and 87.0%, respectively. The inclusion criteria were studies reporting original data on the prevalence of workaholism written in any European language. Criteria which led to exclusion were conference abstracts, usage of secondary data, purposive sampling of workaholics, qualitative research and pre-determined cut-off based on distribution. Risk of bias of the included articles was evaluated through a checklist. Most of the included studies had a moderate risk of bias. Of the 663 records identified, a total of 53 studies were included, 10 of these being nationally representative with all studies in total amounting to 71,625 participants from 23 countries. The pooled workaholism prevalence was 15.2% (95% CI = 12.4-18.5), which was adjusted to 14.1% (95% CI = 11.2-17.6) following a trim-and-fill adjustment for publication bias. The meta-regression revealed that studies with representative samples reported lower prevalences than those based on non-representative samples, and that studies based on the Dutch Work Addiction Scale yielded higher prevalences than studies employing the Bergen Work Addiction Scale. The regression model explained 29% of the variance implying that a vast amount was still unexplained, and that future research would benefit from the inclusion of other moderators.

Given the extent of workaholism identified in the literature, it seems essential to consider effective preventive measures. The purpose of this article is to summarize literature data on possible collective and individual preventive measures against workaholism, especially in occupational medicine.
We conducted a systematic literature review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
155 articles were retrieved in March 2019, but only 15 well-designed studies providing concrete measures to prevent workaholism were included. The various measures were classified using the traditional distinction between three levels of prevention. At the first level of prevention, workaholism can be avoided by implementing a protective organizational culture. The second level of prevention rather focuses on individual training and counselling to address the negative consequences of workaholism. Finally, the third level of prevention combines cognitive and behavioral interventions that enable professional and social reintegration of workaholics.
This literature review confirms the multifactorial origin of workaholism and the involvement of organizational factors, supporting the necessary contribution of companies in its prevention. This review also reinforces the growing perception of workaholism as a behavioral addiction. Occupational physicians play a key role in this preventive approach as they can influence both working conditions and individual care. The highlighted preventive measures seem to be not only favorable to workaholics, but also to companies.
This review provides field tools that can be used at the various levels of workaholism prevention. Nevertheless, intervention studies are required to confirm the effectiveness of the measures presented.