Occupational stress and coping in community mental health workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community Mental Health Workers (CMHWs) support clients facing mental health challenges through work within client communities. This study examined self-efficacy, perceived stress, coping style, and burnout in CMHWs. One hundred and one CMHW’s were recruited from three housing, public health, and community service organizations within Vancouver. Participants completed a survey containing The General Self-Efficacy Scale, The Perceived Stress Scale, The Brief COPE, and The Maslach Burnout Inventory. It was hypothesized that (a) self-efficacy will relate differently to perceived stress regarding years of experience, (b) burnout will be related to years of experience, (c) disengagement coping strategies will correlate positively with emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, (d) disengagement coping strategies will correlate negatively with personal accomplishment, (e) engagement coping strategies will correlate positively with self-efficacy and correlate negatively with perceived stress, and (f) males and females will differ in their pattern of coping with stress. Results indicated that self-efficacy related differently to perceived stress regarding experience and burnout was not related to years of experience, but was related to age. Disengagement coping strategies and engagement coping strategies correlated with related variables as hypothesized. Males and females differed in their pattern of coping with stress. Results are discussed in relation to current literature. Implications for future research and practice are suggested.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".