MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043464736 · doi:10.1177/1049909108330027

Factors Associated With Work Stress and Professional Satisfaction in Oncology Staff

2009· article· en· W2043464736 on OpenAlexaff
E Dougherty, Bruce Pierce, Clement Ma, Tony Panzarella, Gary Rodin, Camilla Zimmermann

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadOdds ratioOddsMedicineLogistic regressionJob satisfactionNursingUnit (ring theory)BurnoutFamily medicineInternal medicinePsychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer care professionals work in a stressful environment, but it is not clear what factors contribute to this stress. We surveyed 60 oncology personnel on an inpatient unit and a palliative care unit regarding levels of perceived work stress and its potential contributors. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of staff stress. A total of 63% of staff reported experiencing ;;a great deal'' of stress at work, which was predicted by greater perceived workload (odds ratio = 32.2; P < .0001), insufficient time to grieve patients' death (odds ratio = 9.75; P = .0007), lack of institutional support (odds ratio = 0.16; P = .009), perceived lack of resources (odds ratio = 0.06; P = .007), and lack of control over the choice of workplace (odds ratio = 0.10; P = .03). Measures to address work-related stress should be included in the planning of cancer programs.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.371 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations99
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®Same topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207