MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168038341 · doi:10.2190/vyn8-6nky-rkum-l0xw

Job Stress and Job Dissatisfaction of Home Care Workers in the Context of Health Care Restructuring

2002· article· en· W2168038341 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Margaret Denton, Işık U. Zeytinoglu, Sharon Davies, Jason Lian

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Services · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersAustralian GovernmentMcMaster University
KeywordsRestructuringJob satisfactionHealth careNursingContext (archaeology)PsychologySurvey data collectionJob stressJob attitudeWork (physics)BusinessJob performanceMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in the social organization of home care work due to health care restructuring have affected the job stress and job dissatisfaction of home care workers. This article reports the results of a survey of 892 employees from three nonprofit home care agencies in a medium-sized city in Ontario, Canada. Survey results are complemented by data from 16 focus groups with 99 employees. For the purposes of this study, home care workers include both office workers (managers, supervisors, coordinators, office support staff, and case managers) and visiting workers (nurses, therapists, and visiting homemakers). Focus group participants indicated that health care restructuring has resulted in organizational change, budget cuts, heavier workloads, job insecurity, loss of organizational support, loss of peer support, and loss of time to provide emotional laboring, or the "caring" aspects of home care work. Analyses of survey data show that organizational change, fear of job loss, heavy workloads, and lack of organizational and peer support lead to increased job stress and decreased levels of job satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations184
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health ServicesSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207