Experiences of case and contact management teams during the COVID-19 pandemic response in Ontario
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case and contact management (CCM) teams play a vital role in the COVID-19 pandemic response. This study aims to understand the experiences of CCM team members during the COVID-19 pandemic to identify areas of improvement for future crises. A mixed-methods, cross-sectional online survey was conducted from November 2020 to March 2021. There were a total of 49 relevant survey responses. Participants were CCM team members responding to the pandemic in Ontario. Frequency tabulations were used to analyze closed-ended survey responses, and both a conventional content analysis and thematic analysis were conducted on the open-ended responses. Study results revealed that inadequate planning and preparedness, poor communication, high workloads, and stress levels of CCM team members were notable areas of concern. These matters ultimately affected the well-being of CCM team members and acted as barriers to completing CCM work. It is imperative that adequate staffing and accessibility to mental health support from employers are improved in future times of crisis to ensure that CCM teams are able to meet the demands of their work. Further studies should be conducted to examine the experiences of CCM team members as well as barriers and facilitators to completing CCM work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it