Estresse ocupacional e estratégias de enfrentamento entre profissionais de enfermagem em ambiente hospitalar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El objetivo del estudio fue analizar el estrés laboral y las estrategias de afrontamiento utilizadas por técnicos y auxiliares de enfermería de un hospital universitario, así como su asociación con variables sociodemográficas. Método: Estudio transversal con una muestra aleatoria de 310 técnicos y auxiliares de enfermería. Para la evaluación del estrés laboral y las estrategias de afrontamiento se aplicó la Job Stress Scale y la Escala Modos de Enfrentamiento de Problemas. La muestra se compone de una mayoría de mujeres, con una edad media de 47,1 años, casadas o en pareja, auxiliares de enfermería, con único vínculo de empleo y que tuvieron trabajo en el último año. Estuvieron altamente expuestas al estrés laboral 17,1% de la muestra. Resultados: Las estrategias centradas en el problema resultaron ser protectoras en relación al estrés. Conclusiones: Esta manera de hacer frente a los factores de estrés en el hospital se puede trabajar de manera optimizada entre los profesionales.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".