MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605557842 · doi:10.5430/jha.v6n3p26

Workplace violence among emergency medical services workers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

2017· article· en· W2605557842 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of National Guard Health Affairs
KeywordsMedicineVerbal abuseWorkplace violenceOccupational safety and healthOdds ratioFeelingHealth careConfidentialityFamily medicineConfidence intervalCross-sectional studySuicide preventionPoison controlMedical emergencyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Globally, workplace violence toward health care providers is an area of concern. The impact of workplace violence on health care providers is significant.Objectives: The study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of workplace violence (physical and verbal) among emergency medical services (EMS) workers in Riyadh.Methods: The study used a cross-sectional design that employed a self-administered confidential questionnaire, which was distributed to all emergency medical personnel. A well-structured and validated questionnaire on workplace violence was adopted from the World Health Organization for use in the study.Results: A total of 370 EMS workers responded to the questionnaire. Workplace violence was experienced by 65% of the respondents. Verbal abuse (61%) was the most common type of violence reported. The majority of the attackers were patients’ relatives (80%) followed by patients themselves (51%). Respondents younger than 30 reported a higher percentage of violent acts than did older respondents (p = .001, Odds ratio [OR] = 2.5, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = (1.6, 3.9)). Similarly, those who had fewer years of work experience (≤ 10 years) reported a significantly higher percentage of violent incidents than those who had 10 or more years of experience (p = .001, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 2.1, 5.6). Only 10% of the victims reported the incident to a higher authority. Common reasons for not reporting the violent acts included feeling that it was useless (56%) and that it was not important (52%).Discussion: The study demonstrates prevalent workplace violence among EMS workers, predominantly in the form of verbal abuse. The rate of workplace violence among EMS personnel is comparable with international figures. Less than half of EMS personnel exhibit knowledge regarding the process of violence reporting. However, workers tend not to report the incidents because they often believe that reporting is useless and/or not important.Recommendation: With a high reported rate of workplace violence among EMS personnel, we recommend national preventive measures and encouragement to professionals to report violent events. We also recommend awareness programs for the identified vulnerable group.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.305 · 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