Experiences of Healthcare Workers in Long-Term Care during COVID-19: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although healthcare workers (HCWs) in long-term care (LTC) have experienced significant emotional and psychological distress throughout the pandemic, little is known about their unique experiences. Objective: This scoping review synthesizes existing research on the experiences of HCWs in LTC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: Following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, data published between March 2020 to June 2022, were extracted from six databases. Results: Among 3808 articles screened, 40 articles were included in the final analysis. Analyses revealed three interrelated themes: carrying the load (moral distress); building pressure and burning out (emotional exhaustion); and working through it (a sense of duty to care). Conclusion: Given the impacts of the pandemic on both HCW wellbeing and patient care, every effort must be made to address the LTC workforce crisis and evaluate best practices for supporting HCWs experiencing mental health concerns during and post-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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it