How hospital consultants cope with stress at work: implications for their mental health
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
Abstract Aims . This study examined the ways in which hospital consultants commonly cope with stress at work, and the relationships of these behaviours with their mental health. Methods . Eight hundred and eighty‐two consultants returned a postal questionnaire asking them how frequently they used various behaviours in response to stress at work. The prevalence of psychiatric morbidity was estimated using the 12‐item General Health Questionnaire. Findings . Hospital consultants who maintained a balanced, healthy lifestyle while experiencing stress at work were approximately half as likely as those who did not to have psychiatric morbidity [odds ratio 0.44 (0.31–0.61)]. Consultants who used alcohol or non‐prescription drugs in response to stress at work were more than twice as likely as those who did not to have psychiatric morbidity [odds ratio 2.22 (1.58–3.12)]. Over a quarter of the consultants were estimated to have clinically significant psychiatric morbidity, but only a very few had sought professional help in the last few months. Implications . Hospital consultants should be made aware that the strategies they adopt to try to reduce the stress they experience through their work can influence their mental health both positively and negatively. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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