Proximity to COVID-19 patients and role-specific mental health outcomes of healthcare professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) experience extreme hardships and challenges during the time of COVID-19, due to their professional roles. At the same time, HCPs may experience a feeling of importance as contributing members of the community, which could enhance their well-being alongside COVID-19-work-related stressors. AIMS: This cross-sectional study examined the relationship between HCPs' proximity to COVID-19 patients and role-specific fears of COVID-19 and sense of emotional, social and psychological well-being. METHODS: = 666). Participants completed the Depression and Anxiety Stress Scale-21; Fear of COVID-19 Scale; Fear of COVID-19 Familial Infection Scale; and the Mental Health Continuum Short-Form. RESULTS: Results indicate that the comparison group reported higher levels of fear of COVID-19 compared to secondliners, while frontliners reported the highest levels of fear of infecting their families. Frontliners and secondliners HCPs reported significantly higher levels of social and psychological well-being compared to the non-HCP group. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that there are role-specific mental health outcomes related to HCP's proximity to COVID-19 patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".