MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018735259 · doi:10.1192/bjb.2020.44

The mental health of doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic

2020· article· en· W3018735259 on OpenAlexafffund
Niall Galbraith, David Boyda, Danielle McFeeters, Tariq Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Bulletin · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersQueen's UniversityUniversity of Wolverhampton
KeywordsMental healthStigma (botany)PandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health careDistressPsychologyPsychiatryWork (physics)Social stigmaNursingMedicineFamily medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Clinical psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doctors experience high levels of work stress even under normal circumstances, but many would be reluctant to disclose mental health difficulties or seek help for them, with stigma an often-cited reason. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis places additional pressure on doctors and on the healthcare system in general and research shows that such pressure brings a greater risk of psychological distress for doctors. For this reason, we argue that the authorities and healthcare executives must show strong leadership and support for doctors and their families during the COVID-19 outbreak and call for efforts to reduce mental health stigma in clinical workplaces. This can be facilitated by deliberately adding 'healthcare staff mental health support process' as an ongoing agenda item to high-level management planning meetings.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations329
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych BulletinSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207