Аннотация
Occupational burnout research has accumulated a large and theoretically heterogeneous literature, yet the distribution and comparative architecture of the frameworks used to explain burnout remain insufficiently mapped. This theory-focused systematic review aimed to identify prevalent theoretical frameworks, compare their explanatory mechanisms, examine multi-framework use, assess integration of work engagement and psychological well-being, and evaluate contextual adaptability. A software-assisted multi-source search and screening workflow identified 564 unique publication records; 407 explicitly named at least one substantive theoretical framework. Framework prevalence, single- and multi-theory use, major co-occurrences, and 12 extracted analytical dimensions were synthesized at publication-record and theory levels. Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory was most frequently named (47.9%), followed by Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (29.2%), while 46.4% of theory-coded records used multiple frameworks. The field exhibited a core-periphery architecture: a concentrated demand- and resource-oriented core coexisted with a broad theoretical «long tail». Major frameworks differed in causal logic and in their treatment of positive occupational outcomes; no consensual architecture integrating burnout, engagement, and psychological well-being was identified. Contextual adaptability also varied, with JD-R and COR showing broad theoretical capacity through different mechanisms. The review provides a comparative basis for more explicit, mechanism-led framework selection and for future context-sensitive theory development.