MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049394335 · doi:10.1080/10615800008248342

Hospital downsizing, individual resources, and occupational stressors in nurses

2000· article· en· W2049394335 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Esther R. Greenglass, Ronald J. Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueAnxiety Stress & Coping · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersYork University
KeywordsStressorCoping (psychology)WorkloadPsychologyDistressJob satisfactionAnxietyOccupational stressCynicismBurnoutNursingClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatryManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Restructuring and downsizing are occurring increasingly throughout the workplace. As a result, many individuals are losing their jobs. Many others experience job insecurity as a result of the threat of downsizing. As with most other work spheres, several hospitals are closing, resulting in thousands of layoffs. Since nurses constitute one of the main groups employed in hospitals, they are faced with increasing job shortages. This study examines psychological reactions of nurses in response to stressors resulting from hospital downsizing. Individual resources, particularly coping strategies and self-efficacy, can affect the extent to which individuals experience distress as a result of downsizing. A self-report, anonymous questionnaire was filled out and returned by 1363 nurses employed in hospitals in Canada. Results of this study show that amount of work was a consistent and significant stressor in nurses. The greater the nurse's workload, the greater her emotional exhaustion, cynicism, depression and anxiety. Further results reported here indicated that control coping and self-efficacy lessened distress on the job and increased job satisfaction, while escape coping was associated with greater psychological distress and less job security.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations72
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnxiety Stress & CopingSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207