Working in Clients' Homes: The Impact on the Mental Health and Well-Being of Visiting Home Care Workers
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 purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of working in clients' homes on the mental health and well-being of visiting home care workers. This paper reports the results of a survey of 674 visiting staff from three non-profit home care agencies in a medium-sized city in Ontario, Canada. Survey results are also complimented by data from 9 focus groups with 50 employees. For purposes of this study, home care workers include visiting therapists, nurses, and home support workers. Mental health and well-being is measured by three dependent variables: stress; job stress; and intrinsic job satisfaction. Multiple least squared regression analyses show several structural, emotional, physical, and organizational working conditions associated with the health and well-being of visiting home care workers. Overall, results show that workload, difficult clients, clients who take advantage of workers, sexual harassment, safety hazards, a repetitious job, and work-related injuries are associated with poorer health. Being fairly paid, having good benefits, emotional labour, organizational support, control over work, and peer support are associated with better health. Results suggest that policy change is needed to encourage healthier work environments for employees who work in clients' homes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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