MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022509925 · doi:10.1111/jan.12166

Perceived stress and burnout among volunteer caregivers working in <scp>AIDS</scp> care in <scp>S</scp>outh <scp>A</scp>frica

2013· article· en· W2022509925 on OpenAlexaff
Olagoke Akintola, Wellington Mthokozisi. Hlengwa, Wenche Dageid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Research Foundation
KeywordsBurnoutStressorPsychosocialVolunteerPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To conduct a quantitative investigation of stress and the relationship with burnout among AIDS care volunteers. BACKGROUND: Volunteer caregivers experience stress that could lead to burnout. Yet, very few studies quantify stress and its relationship with burnout among AIDS care volunteers. DESIGN: This study uses a cross-sectional, exploratory survey design. METHODS: Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 126 volunteer caregivers working in 13 semi-rural communities (townships) in Durban, South Africa in April 2009. All participants were women, Christian and with low levels of education. A 22-item instrument was drawn from Pearlin et al.'s role overload and role captivity scales, Van Dyk's stress factor scale and the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: Most of the volunteers had moderate-to-high levels of stress. 'Role/work overload' 'lack of support' and 'overwhelming nature of the disease' explained most of the variance in stress. Volunteers' age and number of patients in their care were predictors of stress. Caring for only AIDS patients, lack of support, stress emanating from perceived stigma and lack of training; and the overwhelming nature of AIDS were predictors of burnout. CONCLUSION: High levels of stress could negatively impact volunteers' health and well-being and on-the-job performance. Policy makers must develop and fund home-based care models that take into account the stressors associated with AIDS care, by reducing the work load, providing ongoing psychosocial support and recruiting nurses to assist volunteers. The small non-probability sample used in this study highlights the need to treat the findings with caution.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicFamily Caregiving in Mental IllnessFrench-language works237,207