Mobile Health Requirements for the Occupational Health Assessment of Health Care Professionals: Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, awareness of the high level of stress among health care professionals has increased, and research in this area has intensified. Hospital staff members have historically been known to work in an environment involving high emotional demands, time pressure, and workload. Furthermore, the pandemic has increased the strain experienced by health care professionals owing to the high number of people they need to manage and, on many occasions, the limited available resources with which they must carry out their functions. These psychosocial risks are not always well dealt with by the organization or the professionals themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to have tools to assess these psychosocial risks and to optimize the management of this demand from health care professionals. Digital health, and more specifically, mobile health (mHealth), is presented as a health care modality that can contribute greatly to respond to these unmet needs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyze whether mHealth tools can provide value for the study and management of psychosocial risks in health care professionals, and assess the requirements of these tools. METHODS: A Delphi study was carried out to determine the opinions of experts on the relevance of using mHealth tools to evaluate physiological indicators and psychosocial factors in order to assess occupational health, and specifically, stress and burnout, in health care professionals. The study included 58 experts with knowledge and experience in occupational risk prevention, psychosocial work, and health-related technology, as well as health professionals from private and public sectors. RESULTS: Our data suggested that there is still controversy about the roles that organizations play in occupational risk prevention in general and psychosocial risks in particular. An adequate assessment of the stress levels and psychosocial factors can help improve employees' well-being. Moreover, making occupational health evaluations available to the team would positively affect employees by increasing their feelings of being taken into account by the organization. This assessment can be improved with mHealth tools that identify and quickly highlight the difficulties or problems that occur among staff and work teams. However, to achieve good adherence and participation in occupational health and safety evaluations, experts consider that it is essential to ensure the privacy of professionals and to develop feelings of being supported by their supervisors. CONCLUSIONS: For years, mHealth has been used mainly to propose intervention programs to improve occupational health. Our research highlights the usefulness of these tools for evaluating psychosocial risks in a preliminary and essential phase of approaches to improve the health and well-being of professionals in health care settings. The most urgent requirements these tools must meet are those aimed at protecting the confidentiality and privacy of measurements.
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 | 0.049 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".