MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172416135 · doi:10.1177/07067437211025217

Assessment of Psychological Distress in Health-care Workers during and after the First Wave of COVID-19: A Canadian Longitudinal Study: Évaluation de la Détresse Psychologique Chez Les Travailleurs de la Santé Durant et Après la Première Vague de la COVID-19: une étude longitudinale canadienne

2021· article· en· W3172416135 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marie‐Michèle Dufour, Nicolas Bergeron, Axelle Rabasa, Stéphane Guay, Steve Geoffrion

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyMental healthPsychologyPsychiatryLongitudinal studyClinical psychologyContext (archaeology)PopulationDistressDepression (economics)General Health QuestionnaireMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Health-care workers (HCW) exposed to COVID-19 are at risk of experiencing psychological distress. Although several cross-sectional studies have been carried out, a longitudinal perspective is needed to better understand the evolution of psychological distress indicators within this population. The objectives of this study were to assess the evolution of psychological distress and to identify psychological distress trajectories of Canadian HCW during and after the first wave of COVID-19. METHOD: fifth edition (PCL-5), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Descriptive statistics were used to illustrate the evolution of psychological distress indicators, whereas latent class analysis was carried out to identify trajectories. RESULTS: During and after the first wave of COVID-19, the rates of clinical mental health symptoms among our sample varied between 6.2% and 22.2% for post-traumatic stress, 10.1% and 29.9% for depression, and 7.3% and 26.9% for anxiety. Finally, 4 trajectories were identified: recovered (18.77%), resilient (65.95%), subchronic (7.24%), and delayed (8.04%). CONCLUSION: The longitudinal nature of our study and the scarcity of our data are unique among existing studies on psychological distress of HCW in COVID-19 context and allow us to contextualize prior transversal data on the topic. Although our data illustrated an optimistic picture in showing that the majority of HCW follow a resilience trajectory, it is still important to focus our attention on those who present psychological distress. Implementing preventive mental health interventions in our health-care institutions that may prevent chronic distress is imperative. Further studies need to be done to identify predictors that may help to characterize these trajectories.

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)0.004
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207