MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3095065609 · doi:10.1177/0840470420970594

How a shared humanity model can improve provider well-being and client care: An evaluation of Fraser Health’s Trauma and Resiliency Informed Practice (TRIP) training program

2020· article· en· W3095065609 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stephanie Knaak, Marika Sandrelli, Scott B. Patten

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesFraser HealthMental Health Commission of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsCompassion fatigueBurnoutMental healthNursingCompassionEmpathyHealth carePsychologyTraining (meteorology)MedicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stress in the healthcare sector is an important concern, with worrying trends in provider burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and lower mental health. Importantly, provider stress is also connected to patient care, with recent research on Canada's opioid crisis finding that compassion satisfaction and burnout are linked to the perpetuation of negative attitudes and behaviours towards people with opioid use problems. In 2017, the Fraser Health Authority developed a training program for direct service providers designed to address this important connection-a mental health and resiliency program based in the principles of trauma-informed practice and care. This article reports the results of an evaluation of this program. Findings suggest that embedding resiliency and self-compassion within trauma-informed training programs is a promising approach for cultural change in healthcare practice. Leaders are encouraged to explore how such a model may be implementable for their own organizations and departments.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management Forum→Same topicMental Health Treatment and Access→French-language works237,207→