MENTAL HEALTH WORKERS' COPING STRATEGIES IN DEALING WITH CONTINUOUS SECONDARY TRAUMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the coping strategies of mental health workers (MHWs) who are dealing continuously with traumatised children (younger than 18) and their families/caregivers. A convenience sample was used to recruit MHWs (female, n = 9; and male, n = 1; age range 26 to 57) at Childline Gauteng. Visual and textual data were obtained by using the Mmogo-Method®, a visual data collection method. Textual data were analysed thematically and visual data were analysed using a six-step visual method. Findings revealed that intrapersonal coping is facilitated by awareness of self, challenges and achievements, and by retrospective reflection, utilisation of resources, flexibility, positive virtues and protection of professional and personal boundaries. Relational coping is mediated by the reciprocal unconditional acceptance of and by family members and a supportive network of friends. The organisational norm of care facilitates coping through formal and informal discussions. Coping with continuous trauma requires facilitation on different levels.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".