The effects of distress and the dimensions of coping strategies on physicians’ satisfaction with competence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to (1) articulate the dimensions of Coping strategies used by physicians, and (2) determine whether Coping strategies alleviated Distress and enhanced Satisfaction with Competence. METHODS: Comprehensive questionnaires on factors associated with Satisfaction with Competence were sent to a stratified sample of 5300 physicians across Canada. The response rate was 57% with negligible bias. Factor analysis was used to articulate the dimensions of Coping strategies. The classic Baron and Kenny regression series was used to establish whether Coping mediates the effects of Distress on Satisfaction with Competence. Years in Practice, Self-Reported Health, and Duties of Physicians were control factors. RESULTS: A reliable 15-item measure of Coping was confirmed (α = .76) with four reasonably reliable dimensions: Collegiality (α = .80), Attitude (α = .63), Managing Work (α = .60), and Self-Care (α = .62). Physicians reported a mean Satisfaction with Competence of (M = 4.26 out of 6.0, standard deviation (SD) = 0.64) with General practitioners reporting slightly lower levels of Satisfaction with Competence than average. Conversely, chronic disease, clinical, and procedural specialists reported higher levels of Satisfaction with Competence. The mean Distress level for all physicians was (M = 3.66 out of 7.0, SD = 0.93). The highest levels of distress were reported by emergency physicians, general practitioners, and surgeons. Clinical specialists, anesthesiologists, and psychiatrists reported the lowest levels of distress. Physicians reported (M = 4.48 out of 7.0, SD = 0.78) as the mean level of Coping ability with clinical specialists and general practitioners reporting lower than average abilities to cope. Laboratory and chronic care specialists reported greater than average coping abilities. Regression analyses established Coping as a mediator of Distress which predicted physicians' Satisfaction with Competence. CONCLUSION: Four groups of coping strategies were significant in relieving the pressures of work: (1) Collegiality, (2) Self-Care, (3) Managing Work, and (4) Positive Attitude.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".