The look and feel of resilience: A qualitative study of physicians’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some physicians can effectively cope and thrive in the face of potentially stressful job conditions, while others experience serious, negative consequences. This ability to be resilient may improve physician wellness and benefit health care organizations, yet little is known about what resilience means to physicians. This paper explores how physicians understand resilience both as they observe it in their colleagues and as they experience it themselves. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 physicians practicing in Alberta, Canada. Two questions explored physicians’ experiences of resilience or non-resilience, while two other questions considered what they observed in physician colleagues. Interview transcripts were independently coded by two authors and discussed to ensure agreement on the key themes. There were several similarities in how physicians described resilience or non-resilience in themselves and their colleagues related to control, positivity or negativity, boundaries and balance, coping, and support. There were also important differences in how physicians described their own experiences and their observations of colleagues. Participants’ portrayals of themselves suggested being immune to stress and responsible for their success or failure in being resilient. Their depictions of colleagues, however, focused on professionalism, work performance, commitment to values, and experience or wisdom. There appears to be a difference in how physicians understand resilience in themselves compared to what they observe in their colleagues. Specifically, physicians may hold unrealistic and unachievable expectations for their own resilience. Initiatives aimed at improving physician resilience and wellness may be best served by raising awareness about more realistic expectations and self-appraisals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".