Nursing during the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 pandemic: A reflective thematic analysis of how the hamster wheel shifted personal and professional control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this national study was to examine the experience of nurses 9-12 months after the onset of the pandemic. DESIGN: This article reports the reflective thematic analysis of the qualitative portion of a mixed methods study of the experiences of 1319 Canadian nurses between February to May 2021. METHODS: Data gathering occurred through open-text box questions in an online survey. RESULTS: Three overarching themes were found: (1) the hamster wheel, (2) the shifting sense of control, and (3) the inability to leave the pandemic at work. CONCLUSION: This research presents a national perspective of nurses which contributes to the wider global narrative. The experience of redeployment, nurses as decision-makers, communication and leadership challenges were all factors impacting mental health and intraprofessional collaboration. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: The findings revealed the immense pressure, mental health concerns, and professional implications for nurses in all domains. PUBLIC OR PATIENT CONTRIBUTIONS: No public or patient contributions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".