Changes in blood pressure and related risk factors among nurses working in a negative pressure isolation ward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To observe changes in blood pressure (ΔBP) and explore potential risk factors for high ΔBP among nurses working in a negative pressure isolation ward (NPIW). Methods: Data from the single-center prospective observational study were used. Based on a routine practice plan, female nurses working in NPIW were scheduled to work for 4 days/week in different shifts, with each day working continuously for either 5 or 6 h. BP was measured when they entered and left NPIW. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess potential risk factors in relation to ΔBP ≥ 5 mm Hg. Results: A total of 84 nurses were included in the analysis. The ΔBP was found to fluctuate on different working days; no significant difference in ΔBP was observed between the schedules of 5 and 6 h/day. The standardized score from the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) was significantly associated with an increased risk of ΔBP ≥ 5 mm Hg (odds ratio [OR] = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.00-1.24). Working 6 h/day (vs. 5 h/day) in NPIW was non-significantly related to decreased risk of ΔBP (OR = 0.70), while ≥ 2 consecutive working days (vs. 1 working day) was non-significantly associated with increased risk of ΔBP (OR = 1.50). Conclusion: This study revealed no significant trend for ΔBP by working days or working time. Anxiety was found to be significantly associated with increased ΔBP, while no <2 consecutive working days were non-significantly related to ΔBP. These findings may provide some preliminary evidence for BP control in nurses who are working in NPIW for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".