Hospital work process and burnout syndrome among nursing professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Identificar os fatores do processo de trabalho que favorecem o desenvolvimento da Síndrome de Burnout em profissionais de enfermagem na assistência hospitalar. Método: Trata-se de uma revisão integrativa de literatura, realizada nas bases de dados LILACS, SciELO, MEDLINE e BDENF, obedecendo as etapas metodológicas propostas por Ganong. Resultados: Foram selecionados 11 artigos científicos para compor esta revisão. Estes refletiram sobre a influência diante do aparecimento da Síndrome de Burnout em profissionais de enfermagem, sendo destacadas em quatro categorias: Fatores que desencadeiam a exaustão emocional; Fatores que desencadeiam a despersonalização; Fatores que desencadeiam a baixa satisfação no trabalho e outros fatores facilitadores da Síndrome de Burnout. Conclusão: Os fatores desencadeadores dessa síndrome podem ser evitados de forma geral, oferecendo ao profissional de enfermagem; suporte psicológico, melhoria das condições de trabalho e o exercício dos seus direitos, de modo a exercer sua função em condições físicas e mentais.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".