MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210845437 · doi:10.2196/35280

COVID-19 Mental Health Stressors of Health Care Providers in the Pandemic Acceptance and Commitment to Empowerment Response (PACER) Intervention: Qualitative Study

2022· article· en· W4210845437 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christa Sato, Anita Adumattah, Maria Krisel Abulencia, Peter Dennis Garcellano, Alan Tai-Wai Li, Kenneth Fung, Maurice Kwong-Lai Poon, Mandana Vahabi, Josephine Pui‐Hing Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsAIDS Committee of TorontoRegent Park Community Health CentreToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthStressorPsychologyThematic analysisEmpowermentQualitative researchHealth carePublic healthAnxietyMedicineClinical psychologyNursingPsychiatrySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Since the pandemic, more Canadians have reported poorer mental health. A vital group experiencing a high level of stressors consists of health care providers (HCPs) caring for COVID-19 patients, carrying out public health responses, or working with vulnerable populations. The mental health of HCPs is negatively affected by the pandemic, not only at work but also at home and in the community. Intersecting stressors at multiple levels contribute to HCPs' experiences of fatigue, insomnia, anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the pandemic stressors experienced by HCPs at work, at home, and in the community before participating in the Pandemic Acceptance and Commitment to Empowerment Response (PACER) online intervention. METHODS: Informed by a social ecological approach, we used a qualitative reflective approach to engage 74 HCPs in diverse roles. Data were collected during the first 2 waves of the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020 to February 2021) in Canada. RESULTS: Informed by a social ecological framework, 5 overarching themes were identified in our thematic analysis: (1) personal level stressors that highlight HCPs' identities and responsibilities beyond the workplace; (2) interpersonal level stressors from disrupted social relationships; (3) organizational stressors that contributed to unsettled workplaces and moral distress; (4) community and societal stressors attributed to vicarious trauma and emotional labor; and (5) the multilevel and cumulative impacts of COVID-19 stressors on HCPs' health. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 is not merely a communicable disease but also a social and political phenomenon that intensifies the effects of social inequities. Current understanding of pandemic stressors affecting HCPs is largely partial in nature. Although workplace stressors of HCPs are real and intense, they need to be explored and understood in the context of stressors that exist in other domains of HCPs' lives such as family and community to ensure these experiences are not being silenced by the "hero" discourses or overshadowed by professional demands.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.400 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207