Job stress and job satisfaction of cancer care workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing demand for oncology care as a result of a number of trends. In combination with ongoing changes to the health-care system, these trends have an impact on the workplace environment of systemic therapy personnel. METHODS: A postal survey was sent to major providers of tertiary systemic therapy services in Ontario. Included in the survey were measures of job satisfaction and stress. In order to capture in-depth data related to survey themes, focus groups were held with personnel at six major cancer treatment facilities. Content analysis identified major themes. RESULTS: Analysis of focus group and survey studies showed that the greatest source of job satisfaction stemmed from patient care and contact. Manifestations of increasing workload emerged as major sources of job stress. Personnel were concerned as to what they saw as negative consequences of heavy workload--a perceived decrease in the quality of patient care and staff morale. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this research suggest that the current workplace environment is having a negative impact on the well-being of systemic therapy staff, and may have consequences in terms of quality of patient care. Personnel identified system changes that they felt would help alleviate workload and resulting stress.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".