MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200537223 · doi:10.1177/03080226211057842

Occupational disruptions during lockdown, by generation: A European descriptive cross-sectional survey

2021· article· en· W4200537223 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cynhia Engels, Lauriane Ségaux, Florence Canouï‐Poitrine

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Survey researchEnvironmental healthOccupational therapyMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryApplied psychologyDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The periods of lockdown during 2020 led to changes in daily occupations. As participation relies on dynamic interactions between the person, his/her occupations and his/her environment, we wondered whether people from different generations shared the same perception of occupational disruptions during the lockdown. Methods We performed an online survey based on the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) of adults in 27 European Union countries, the United Kingdom and Switzerland. Three groups were compared: young adults (YAs, aged 18–39), middle-aged adults (MAs, aged 40–59) and older adults (OAs, aged 60 and over). Results 2865 participants (YAs: 47%; MAs: 33%; OAs: 20%) reported a total of 6549 disrupted occupations. The most frequently disrupted domain was leisure (83%), followed by productivity (16%) and self-care (2%); there were no significant intergroup differences ( p = 0.18). In a multivariate analysis, socializing disruptions were more likely to be associated with younger age (adjusted odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.62 [0.50–0.76] for YAs versus MAs and 0.46 [0.30–0.71] for YAs versus OAs. Conclusion With the exception of socializing, the main disrupted occupations were similar from one generation to another. Our findings might enable the more accurate assessment of the risk of occupational disruption in a restrictive environment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207