MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health care workers of tertiary care hospitals

2022· article· en· W4226297808 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Junaid Khan, Bisma Jamil, Haroon M.Z.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicni perspektivi · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsAbbott (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicMedicineSomatizationHealth careMental healthAnxietyFamily medicinePublic healthSpecialtyEnvironmental healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NursingPsychiatryDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of mental health issues when faced with the challenges associated with pandemics. This study was conducted to assess the psychological impact of pandemic on HCWs working in tertiary care hospitals of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. This cross-sectional study was conducted between April & June 2020. By convenience sampling an electronic form of Goldberg General Health Questionnaire was distributed among HCWs of the private sector and public tertiary care hospitals. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 22. Inferential analysis was done. The significant level was considered at p=<0.05. Total of 186 HCWs among which 105 (56.5%) males and 81 (43.5%) females par­ticipated in the survey, a mean age of 37.6±9.28 years. The highest prevalence was found for social dysfunction 184 (97.8%) followed by somatization, 169 (92.8%). Significance of difference was found between age group and anxiety (p=0.018), specialty of HCWs with somatization and social dysfunction (p=0.041 and 0.037 respectively). Pandemic poses a significant risk for the mental health of HCWs. During pandemics at its peak, proper mental health support program, personal and family protection assurance is highly recommended for provision of quality care by HCWs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.407 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicni perspektiviSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207