Psychological Effects of the SARS Outbreak in Hong Kong on High-Risk Health Care Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify stress and the psychological impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) on high-risk health care workers (HCWs). METHOD: We evaluated 271 HCWs from SARS units and 342 healthy control subjects, using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) to assess stress levels and a structured list of putative psychological effects of SARS to assess its psychological effects. Healthy control subjects were balanced for age, sex, education, parenthood, living circumstances, and lack of health care experience. RESULTS: Stress levels were raised in both groups (PSS = 18) but were not relatively increased in the HCWs. HCWs reported significantly more positive (94%, n = 256) and more negative psychological effects (89%, n = 241) from SARS than did control subjects. HCWs declared confidence in infection-control measures. CONCLUSIONS: In HCWs, adaptive responses to stress and the positive effects of infection control training may be protective in future outbreaks. Elevated stress in the population may be an important indicator of future psychiatric morbidity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".