MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Post‐traumatic stress disorder symptoms among emergency nurses: their perspective and a ‘tailor‐made’ solution

2011· article· en· W1519304469 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphan Lavoie, Lise R. Talbot, Luc Mathieu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic stressWitnessSocial supportFocus groupPeer supportAcute Stress DisorderPerspective (graphical)Emergency nursingMedicinePsychologyBurnoutEmergency departmentClinical psychologyNursingPosttraumatic stressPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The goal of this study was to identify support activities for emergency room nurses who have been exposed to traumatic events, in order to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder. BACKGROUND: Emergency room nurses experience stress during traumatic events, for which they need support. It turns out that such support is insufficient, ineffective or non-existent. METHODS: This qualitative study was carried out among twelve emergency room nurses from January to May 2007. Semi-structured interviews and a focus group were conducted. Content analysis fulfilled the objectives of our research. RESULTS: The frequency of traumatic events leading to contextual exposure and exposure as a witness increases with years of experience (r=0·67 and r=0·57). The frequency of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms decreases with age (r=-0·83). The data demonstrate the importance of having a supportive social network and being able to talk things over with colleagues. The support activities considered include all types of prevention. They consist primarily of a peer support system, psycho-education and emergency room simulations. CONCLUSION: A three-level complex of support activities represents a promising solution to prevent and treat post-traumatic stress disorder among emergency room nurses. A further study to test its effectiveness is currently underway.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207