Workers’ well-being during viral pandemics and epidemics: A scoping review
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Studies have documented the well-being of workers during individual pandemics and epidemics. However, there lies a need to summarize worker well-being across crises. Moreover, there is a scarcity of reviews exploring precarious workers’ well-being during these crises. Adopting a multidisciplinary perspective via positive psychology’s third wave, this scoping review examines positive and negative well-being across diverse occupational groups and situations (e.g., precarious employment) and across crises. Inspired by Ecological Systems Theory, factors at different ecological levels (self, social, workplace, pandemic) relevant to workers’ well-being are reviewed. The following questions are addressed: 1) How are virus-related public health crises (i.e., epidemics, pandemics) related to workers’ well-being? 2) What resilience and risk factors are associated with workers’ well-being in these crises? And 2a) How is the well-being of precarious workers impacted during virus-related public health crises? Of the 2,395 potentially relevant articles published before October 23 rd , 2020, 187 were retained. Overall, more research has been conducted on negative than positive well-being. Workers experienced: 1) positive well-being frequently or at moderately high levels overall during pandemics and epidemics, 2) mild to moderate negative well-being during SARS and COVID-19’s beginning and high negative well-being during other crises, and 3) high work-related well-being during such crises. Factors at self- (age, gender), social- (social support), workplace- (occupation, frontline status), and pandemic-related (risk/exposure, knowing someone infected/killed by the virus, PPE access) levels were associated with workers’ well-being. Although explored infrequently, precarious employment was typically associated with greater negative well-being. Practice- and policy-related recommendations are discussed. • A review was needed to summarize findings on worker well-being across epi/pandemics • We reviewed 187 papers on resilience and risk factors associated with well-being • Findings show moderately high levels of positive well-being (e.g., resilience) • Negative well-being (anxiety, depression) was found to vary across epi/pandemics • Precarious employment was associated with greater negative well-being
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle