Multiple Risk Factors for Violence to Seven Occupational Groups in the Swedish Caring Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence towards health-care personnel represent an increasing problem, but little is known in terms of how different occupational groups are affected. A questionnaire was sent to a stratified sample of 2,800 of 173,000 employees in the Swedish municipal health and welfare sector. Seven major groups working with the elderly or persons with developmental disabilities were considered: administrators, nursing specialists, supervisors, direct carers, nursing auxiliaries, assistant nurses, and personal assistants. The response rate was 85 percent. Fifty-one percent of respondents reported exposure to violence or threats of violence over one year. The most vulnerable groups were assistant nurses and direct carers (usually of the developmentally disabled). Individual characteristics, such as age and organizational tenure, were related to exposure. Work-related characteristics, such as type of workplace, working full-time with clients, organizational downsizing, and high workload, were also associated with risk. Greater knowledge of impacts on different professional groups and relevant prevention are required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".