Role Overload Appraisal and Coping: A Case Study of Female Health Care Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Role overload is an important form of role stress that can overwhelm individuals and has been linked to a wide range of physical and psychological symptoms of stress.Research on role overload has, however, been fragmented and there has been little attempt to develop the associated theory.Inconsistent results linking role overload and perceived stress and a growing interest in positive and negative outcomes from stressful encounters suggest a different approach is warranted to examine how and why stress should arise from mismatching role expectations and how and why it might vary.This exploratory case study applies qualitative methodology to examine the relationship between role overload and perceived stress.Using stress, appraisal and coping theory (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) as a guiding lens, this study seeks to model the process and the contextual conditions that contribute to variable stress reactions to role overload at work and at home.Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty female health care workers from four hospitals in a major city.The interviews explored the nature of two contrasting role overload experiences recalled by these individuals.The findings from this research suggest that whilst the role overload appraisal and coping process maps closely to the cognitive stress model of Lazarus and Folkman (1984), important areas of difference also exist.The differences include situation properties that are specific and unique to role overload; an internal role pressure that plays an important part in the perception of role overload; modified interpretations of challenge and threat appraisals; a focus on demand reduction versus demand management coping strategies; coping strategies specific to role overload; and four distinct types of role overload episodes.The case study concludes with the development of a framework of the role overload appraisal and coping process.The framework includes a taxonomy of role overload situation properties and a typology of role overload coping strategies, Finally, the study identified factors that distinguish overwhelming from not-overwhelming episodes of role overload, as well as the factors that distinguish the role overload episodes described by individuals with high levels of stress from those described by people with low stress levels.iii ACKOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Roy and Mary Stevenson This thesis could not have been completed without the support and encouragement of a large number of people.First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the health care workers who took the time from their busy schedules to share their experiences of role overload with me.I would particularly like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Linda Duxbury for her insightful guidance throughout my PhD.Her energy and enthusiasm are inspirational and I could not have imagined having a better mentor for my PhD studies.I would also like
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".