Mindfulness, Self-Care, and Wellness in Social Work: Effects of Contemplative Training
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demands placed on human service workers in supporting people through challenging circumstances can contribute to high levels of stress and burnout. Self-care practices implemented regularly may decrease the impact of the high levels of stress while also serving as strategies for coping during particularly stressful times. The interconnections between contemplative practices, including mindfulness, as coping and preventative strategies for self-care practice among human service workers are beginning to emerge. We used a multimethod study to examine the effectiveness of eight weeks of contemplative practice training in increasing self-care, awareness, and coping strategies for 12 human service workers. Paired t-tests conducted on pre- and post-training scores on the Perceived Stress Scale and the Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale showed that mindfulness was significantly increased and that stress significantly decreased over the intervention. Thematic analysis from participant journaling and a focus group discussion suggests that time, permission, and place for learning and practicing mindfulness-based activities are necessary. A meditative model is presented to illustrate how enhanced awareness through mindfulness practice can increase self-care which can, in turn, positively affect the service human service workers provide to their clients.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it