Managers’ views about employed carers’ well-being: A qualitative study in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While most carers are employed, many struggle to keep their job or work fewer hours than they would like, and work-care conflict stands a major antecedent to their well-being. While it is recognized that supervisor support and carer-friendly workplace policies (CFWPs) are crucial to carer well-being, there is a dearth of research regarding managers’ views about carer well-being and accommodation. Drawing on the competing demands and the expansion hypotheses, as well as the distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, this paper analyzes the discourse of 8 organization managers sharing their experiences in accommodating carer employees. The semi-directive interviews were led between April 2020 and August 2021 and last a means of 1 hour 10 minutes. Our qualitative content analysis revealed that while adopting a human approach was a prerequisite in every situation amongst our group of managers, implementing solutions likely to preserve or enhance employees’ hedonic and eudaimonic well-being required anticipation and transparency from the part of carers. We identified that an either virtuous or negative spiral took place which mostly depended on the employee's attitude and performance outcomes. The question of a “eudaimonic” type of support from managers is discussed in practical implications. Workplaces should provide visible and accessible referrals and information for employees with caring responsibilities. It is equally important for them to easily access resources (e.g. respite, peer support) outside the workplace.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".