The Psychological Health and Work-Family Balance of Ambulatory Care Nurses in the COVID-19 era: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted nurses’ psychological health and work-family balance, including in ambulatory care settings. The results presented in this article are part of a study aiming to describe and contextualize the psychological health and changes in nurses’ follow-up practices in Quebec (Canada) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: Explore and describe factors that influenced ambulatory care nurses’ psychological health and work-family balance during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Exploratory mixed data cross-sectional study using the SurveyMonkey platform. We collected data from July 2020 to September 2020. The target population comprised all practicing nurses in Quebec whose clinical activities included the follow-up of ambulatory patients, 200 of whom completed the survey. Results: Multiple linear regression models indicated that anxiety (GAD-7 scores) and depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores) were associated with younger age, living alone, worries about transmitting COVID-19, and feeling that one’s work was not coherent with one’s values. Work-family balance was considered more difficult than before the pandemic by 54.5 % of participants. Factors perceived as influencing work-family balance were either related to work conditions (e.g., schedule and time at work, access to work from home, redeployment to another work setting), to family-related responsibilities/tasks or were specific to the pandemic. Discussion and conclusion: Apart from age, the feeling that one’s work was not coherent with their values was the only variable correlated with both GAD-7 and PHQ-9 in multivariate models. Further research should investigate the relationships between sense of coherence, psychological health, and work conditions like schedule flexibility and access to work from home.
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 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 | 0.023 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".