Occupational stress in the ED: a systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Occupational stress is a major modern health and safety challenges. While the ED is known to be a high-pressure environment, the specific organisational stressors which affect ED staff have not been established. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of literature examining the sources of organisational stress in the ED, their link to adverse health outcomes and interventions designed to address them. A narrative review of contextual factors that may contribute to occupational stress was also performed. All articles written in English, French or Spanish were eligible for conclusion. Study quality was graded using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-five full-text articles were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review. Most were of moderate quality, with two low-quality and two high-quality studies, respectively. While high demand and low job control were commonly featured, other studies demonstrated the role of insufficient support at work, effort-reward imbalance and organisational injustice in the development of adverse health and occupational outcomes. We found only one intervention in a peer-reviewed journal evaluating a stress reduction programme in ED staff. CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides a guide to developing interventions that target the origins of stress in the ED. It suggests that those which reduce demand and increase workers' control over their job, improve managerial support, establish better working relationships and make workers' feel more valued for their efforts could be beneficial. We have detailed examples of successful interventions from other fields which may be applicable to this setting.
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 | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".