Quality of life of three health care workers categories in a hospital in Minas Gerais, Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTObjective: investigate the quality of life of three health care workers in a philanthropic Hospital in Minas Gerais. Method: this is about a descriptive study, from transversal design (n=27) with nurses, doctors and physiotherapists whom work in a philanthropic Hospital in Minas Gerais. The valid and reliable Portuguese WHOQOL-bref version was used as a tool to measure quality of life. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, Brazil with protocol number 1662.0.000.213-0. Results: dichotomization of all WHOQoL scores based on respective medians showed that most of professionals had partial scores under it: Physic (55.6%), Psychology (63.0%), Social (74.1%) and Environmental (70.4%). Conclusions: measurement of health care workers’ quality of life suggests low quality of life among them, however due descriptive study design it was not possible to consider none comparison among the three health care worker’s categories. Descriptors: quality if life; professional practice; intensive care units.RESUMOObjetivo: investigar a qualidade de vida de três categorias profissionais da saúde de um hospital filantrópico de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil. Método: trata-se de estudo transversal descritivo (n=27) com enfermeiros, médicos e fisioterapeutas de um Hospital Filantrópico no interior de Minas Gerais. O instrumento utilizado para mensurar a qualidade de vida foi o World Health Organization Quality Of Life na sua versão abreviada traduzida e validada para o português, mediante a aprovação do Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa da Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais sob o Certificado de Apresentação para Apreciação Ética (CAAE) – 1662.0.000.213-0. Resultados: a dicotomização dos escores do WHOQoL feitas pelas respectivas medianas mostrou que a maioria dos profissionais apresentou escore parcial abaixo da mediana, Físico (55,6%), Psicológico (63,0%), Social (74,1%) e Ambiental (70,4%). Conclusão: a mensuração da qualidade de vida dos profissionais de saúde entrevistados sugere uma baixa qualidade de vida dos mesmos, no entanto devido ao caráter descritivo do estudo nao foi possivel realizar nenhum tipo de comparação entre as três categorias profissionais. Descritores: qualidade de vida; pratica profissional; unidades de terapia intensiva.RESUMENObjetivo: investigar la calidad de vida de las tres categorías de profesionales de la salud de un hospital filantrópico de Minas Gerais. Método: estudio descriptivo transversal (n=27) con las enfermeras, médicos y terapeutas en un hospital de beneficencia en el estado de Minas Gerais. El instrumento utilizado para medir la calidad de vida era la de la Organización Mundial de la Salud la calidad de vida en su versión abreviada traducido y validado por los portugueses. El estudio fue aprobado por el Comité de Ética de la Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais con el numero de protocolo 1662.0.000.213-0. Resultados: La dicotomía de la WHOQOL realizados por sus medianas mostraron que la mayoría de los profesionales tenían una puntuación parcial por debajo de la mediana, físico (55,6%), psicológico (63,0%), sociales (74,1%) y Medio Ambiente (70,4%). Conclusión: La medición de la calidad de vida de los profesionales de la salud sugiere una menor calidad de vida para nosotros mismos, sin embargo debido a la naturaleza descriptiva de este estudio no fue posible hacer una comparación entre las tres categorías profesionales. Descriptores: calidad de vida, práctica profesional; unidades de terapia intensiva.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".