PHYSICIANS REACTIONS TO COVID 19.THE RESULTS OF A PRELIMINARY INTERNATIONAL INTERNET SURVEY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Physicians across the world have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was designed and conducted to assess the emotional and behavioural reactions of physicians to the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: An online survey questionnaire using the google forms platform was constructed by the authors. The items in the questionnaire were based on clinical experience, relevant literature review and discussion with peers. A list of issues that were deemed as essential components of the experience of the pandemic relevant to physicians was arrived at. Thereafter these issues were operationalized into question form and hosted on the google forms platform. The link to this questionnaire was circulated by the authors among their peer groups in the month of April 2020. RESULTS: We received 295 responses and 3 were unusable. Most of the responses were from India, the United States of America, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. About 60% of the respondents identified themselves as frontline and had a decade of clinical experience. Most respondents reported being anxious due to the pandemic and also observed the same in their peers and families. A majority also observed changes in behaviour in self and others and advanced a variety of reasons and concerns. A sense of duty was the most commonly employed coping mechanism. CONCLUSION: Physicians are not immune from information and misinformation, or cues in the environment. Behavioural choices are not always predicted by knowledge but by a combination of knowledge, emotional state, personality and environment. Healthcare settings need to be ready for emergencies and should focus on reducing uncertainty in physicians. These factors may also be gainfully used in the mental health promotion of physicians in COVID-19 care roles.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".