Changes in Personal Relationships During Residency and Their Effects on Resident Wellness: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Residency poses challenges for residents' personal relationships. Research suggests residents rely on family and friends for support during their training. The authors explored the impact of residency demands on residents' personal relationships and the effects changes in those relationships could have on their wellness. METHOD: The authors used a constructivist grounded theory approach. In 2012-2014, they conducted semistructured interviews with a purposive and theoretical sample of 16 Canadian residents from various specialties and training levels. Data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection, allowing authors to use a constant comparative approach to explore emergent themes. Transcripts were coded; codes were organized into categories and then themes to develop a substantive theory. RESULTS: Residents perceived their relationships to be influenced by their evolving professional identity: Although personal relationships were important, being a doctor superseded them. Participants suggested they were forced to adapt their personal relationships, which resulted in the evolution of a hierarchy of relationships that was reinforced by the work-life imbalance imposed by their training. This poor work-life balance seemed to result in relationship issues and diminish residents' wellness. Participants applied coping mechanisms to manage the conflict arising from the adaptation and protect their relationships. To minimize the effects of identity dissonance, some gravitated toward relationships with others who shared their professional identity or sought social comparison as affirmation. CONCLUSIONS: Erosion of personal relationships could affect resident wellness and lead to burnout. Educators must consider how educational programs impact relationships and the subsequent effects on resident wellness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".