O7B.2 Pilot project for identifying psychosocial risk factors among senior physicians in the pediatric medical center of a university hospital center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context After several warning signals coming from senior physicians working in a Department of pediatrics at a large university hospital, the Department of occupational health decided to assess objectively the psychosocial risks to which this personnel was exposed. Methods A research team from the scientific unit of the Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec has developed an identification grid with markers that help understanding and limiting physical and psychological risks at work. This grid includes characteristics of the workplace environment and various aspects of management practices. It is based on theoretical models such as ‘Demand-Latitude-Support’ (Karasek & Theorell, 1990), ‘effort-reward imbalance’ (Siegrist, 1996), ‘organizational justice’ (Adams, 2000), and ‘prevention’ (Kristensen, 1999). The assessment involved an interview guide with a scoring system of data collected from credible persons familiar with the working environment. After adequate training in the use of the interview guide, an occupational physician and an occupational psychologist interviewed jointly each of 34 pediatricians and 3 managers and scored the 12 items of the guide according to specific recommendations. The data collected from the interviews were submitted to a thematic analysis. Results The analysis showed that the working environment of the Department was not favorable to the return to work or work-life balance. Regarding management, the warning signals pointed to heavy workloads, lack of recognition, and communication problems. There were some protecting factors such as support from colleagues, some decision latitude (but limited possibilities of knowledge development) and, unevenly between wards, support from the hierarchy. The most negative indicators were reported by junior doctors and, as expected, by temporary personnel. Discussion According to these results, group involving the assessment team, pediatricians, and ward managers will be formed to suggest improvements in the fields of human-resource management, communication, recognition, workloads, and occupational health.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".