How hospital consultants cope with stress at work: implications for their mental health
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".