MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mental Health and Health-Related Quality of Life Among Nephrology Nurses: A Survey-Based Cross-Sectional Study

2021· article· en· W3211551063 on OpenAlexaff
Vicki Montoya, Katie Donnini, Marjolaine Gauthier‐Loiselle, Myrlene Sanon, Martin Cloutier, Jessica Maitland, Annie Guérin, Paula Dutka, Lillian Pryor, Charlotte Thomas‐Hawkins, Arthur Voegel, Mark Hoffmann, Samuel M. Savin, Alissa Kurzman, Tamara Kear

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Nursing Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnxietyNephrologyDepression (economics)Patient Health QuestionnairePandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BurnoutCross-sectional studyMental healthFeelingStressorWorkloadQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineClinical psychologyFamily medicinePsychiatryDepressive symptomsPsychologyNursingDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nephrology nurses face health and wellness challenges due to significant work-related stressors. This survey, conducted online between July 24 and August 17, 2020, assessed the psychological well-being of nephrology nurses in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 393). Respondents reported feeling burned out from work (62%), symptoms of anxiety (47% with Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7] scores ≥ 5), and major depressive episodes (16% with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 [PHQ-2] scores ≥ 3). Fifty-six percent (56%) of survey respondents reported caring for COVID-19 patients, and 62% were somewhat or very worried about COVID-19. Factors, including high workload, age, race, and the COVID-19 pandemic, may partially explain the high proportion of nephrology nurses who reported symptoms of burnout, anxiety, and depression.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.497
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Nursing JournalSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207