MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399815855

Occupational burnout, retention and health outcomes in nephrology nurses.

2011· article· en· W2399815855 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lori Harwood, Jane Ridley, Barbara L. Wilson, Heather K. Spence Laschinger

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutMedicineMental healthOccupational burnoutNursingFamily medicineEmotional exhaustionClinical psychologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Occupational burnout can have serious implications on productivity, nurses'health, service usage, and health care costs. This study examined the effect of burnout on nurses' mental and physical health outcomes and job retention. Randomly selected Canadian nephrology nurses completed surveys consisting of the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Pressure Management Indicator. The nurses also completed questions related to job retention. After controlling for age and years of nephrology nursing experience, the multivariate results demonstrated that almost 40% of mental health symptoms experienced by nephrology nurses could be explained by burnout and 27.5% of physical symptoms could be explained by burnout. Twenty-three per cent of the sample had plans to leave their current position and retention was significantly associated with burnout, mental, and physical symptoms. Organizational strategies aimed at reducing perceptions of burnout are important, as a means to keep nurses healthy and working to their fullest potential.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207