MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983689124 · doi:10.1080/02813432.2019.1684014

Legitimacy of work tasks, psychosocial work environment, and time utilization among primary care staff in Sweden

2019· article· en· W2983689124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eva Anskär, Malou Lindberg, Magnus Falk, Agneta Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialWork (physics)PerceptionMedicineNursingPrimary careLegitimacyWorkloadQuarter (Canadian coin)Scale (ratio)PsychologyFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Primary care staff faces a complex work environment including a heavy administrative work load and perceive some work tasks as illegitimate. This study aimed to elucidate associations between the perceived legitimacy of work tasks, the psychosocial work environment, and the utilization of work time among Swedish primary care staff.Design and setting: The study was designed as a multicenter study involving all staff categories, i.e. registered nurses, primary care physicians, care administrators, nurse assistants and allied professionals, at eleven primary care centers in Sweden.Subjects: Participants completed the Bern Illegitimate Tasks Scale and the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. They also recorded time spent on all work tasks, day by day during two separate weeks.Main outcome measures and results: More than a quarter (27%) of primary care physicians perceived a high proportion of unnecessary work tasks. After adjusting for profession, age and gender, the perception of having to perform unreasonable work tasks was positively associated with experiencing role conflicts and with the proportion of organization-related administration and service work tasks.Conclusion: Across all staff groups, the perception of unreasonable work tasks was more pronounced among staff with a high proportion of non-patient related administration. Also, the perception of having to perform a large amount of illegitimate work tasks affected the psychosocial work environment negatively, which might influence staffs perception of their professional roles. These results illuminate the importance of decision makers to thoroughly consider the distribution and allocation of non-patient related work tasks among staff in primary care.Key pointsWe observed an interaction between perception of having a large proportion of illegitimate work tasks and impaired psychosocial work environment. • More than a quarter of the primary care physicians perceived a high proportion of unnecessary work tasks.• Across all staff groups, performing unreasonable work tasks was associated with an experience of having role conflicts.• Across all staff groups, a perception of performing unreasonable work tasks was associated with the proportion of non-patient related administrative work tasks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Primary Health CareSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207