MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283011762 · doi:10.1002/hpm.3533

The influence mechanism of psychological contract on primary medical staff's turnover intention in the context of COVID‐19 pandemic in China

2022· article· en· W4283011762 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoyan Zhang, Xin Chen, Chen Chen, Yuxuan Wang, Kenyiti Shindo, Xiaojin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Health Planning and Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
FundersHubei Provincial Department of Education
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Context (archaeology)Mechanism (biology)ChinaPsychological contractSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Turnover intention2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPsychologyMedicineVirologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyHistoryOutbreakInternal medicineLawJob satisfactionPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This research aims to study the influence mechanism of psychological contract on the turnover intention of primary medical staff in the context of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) fighting. METHODS: Six hundred and fifteen primary medical staff from 13 primary health care institutions in Jianghan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China were selected by random sampling. Psychological contract, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention questionnaires were adjusted appropriately according to research needs, and 5-point Likert scale was used to measure. RESULTS: Normal, interpersonal, and developmental contracts were negatively associated with turnover intention. Emotional exhaustion mediated the effects of interpersonal and developmental contracts on turnover intention. CONCLUSION: The government should establish a long-term incentive mechanism for primary medical staff, fully recognise the work of them in fighting against COVID-19, pay close attention to the psychological state of them, and carry out timely and effective psychological intervention to alleviate their emotional exhaustion and reduce their turnover intention.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Health Planning and ManagementSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207