Digital Interventions to Reduce Distress Among Health Care Providers at the Frontline: Protocol for a Feasibility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stress, anxiety, distress, and depression are high among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and they have reported acting in ways that are contrary to their moral values and professional commitments that degrade their integrity. This creates moral distress and injury due to constraints they have encountered, such as limited resources. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to develop and show the feasibility of digital platforms (a virtual reality and a mobile platform) to understand the causes and ultimately reduce the moral distress of health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This will be a prospective, single cohort, pre- and posttest study examining the effect of a brief informative video describing moral distress on perceptual, psychological, and physiological indicators of stress and decision-making during a scenario known to potentially elicit moral distress. To accomplish this, we have developed a virtual reality simulation that will be used before and after the digital intervention for monitoring short-term impacts. The simulation involves an intensive care unit setting during the COVID-19 pandemic, and participants will be placed in morally challenging situations. The participants will be engaged in an educational intervention at the individual, team, and organizational levels. During each test, data will be collected for (1) physiological measures of stress and after each test, data will be collected regarding (2) thoughts, feelings and behaviors during a morally challenging situation, and (3) perceptual estimates of psychological stress. In addition, participants will continue to be monitored for moral distress and other psychological stresses for 8 weeks through our Digital intervention/intelligence Group mobile platform. Finally, a comparison will be conducted using machine learning and biostatistical techniques to analyze the short- and long-term impacts of the virtual reality intervention. RESULTS: The study was funded in November 2020 and received research ethics board approval in March 2021. The study is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: This project is a proof-of-concept integration to demonstrate viability over 6 months and guide future studies to develop these state-of-the-art technologies to help frontline health care workers work in complex moral contexts. In addition, the project will develop innovations that can be used for future pandemics and in other contexts prone to producing moral distress and injury. This project aims to demonstrate the feasibility of using digital platforms to understand the continuum of moral distress that can lead to moral injury. Demonstration of feasibility will lead to future studies to examine the efficacy of digital platforms to reduce moral distress. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05001542; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05001542. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/32240.
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 | 0.033 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.103 | 0.017 |
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".