MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380884000 · doi:10.1002/alz.067910

Impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on moral distress of care home staff caring for people with dementia

2023· article· en· W4380884000 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lynn Haslam‐Larmer, Alisa Grigorovich, Hannah Quirt, Pia Kontos, Arlene Astell, Josephine McMurray, Colleen J. Maxwell, Kevin Rodrigues, Alastair J. Flint, Andrea Iaboni

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of WaterlooToronto Rehabilitation InstituteWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSadnessDistressDementiaAngerPsychologyAnxietyPandemicHealth careHarmDemographicsFeelingMedicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social psychologySociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Healthcare providers caring for people living with dementia may experience moral distress when faced with an ethically challenging situation, such as an inability to provide care that is consistent with their values. The COVID‐19 pandemic both created new and exacerbated pre‐existing factors which contributed to the experience of moral distress amongst healthcare providers in LTCHs. Method We conducted an online survey to examine changes in mortal distress during the first wave of the pandemic, its contributing factors and correlates, and its impact on the well‐being of LTCH staff. A total of 227 health care providers from LTCHs across Ontario, Canada completed the online survey. Using a Bayesian approach, we examined the associations between moral distress and staff demographics and roles, and characteristics of the LTCH in which they worked. Result More than 80% of LTCH healthcare providers working with people with dementia reported an increase in moral distress since the start of the pandemic. They frequently experienced physical and emotional symptoms related to moral distress more than once a week, with the most common symptoms being physical exhaustion (55%) powerlessness (39%), sadness/anxiety (38%) frustration/anger (31%), and difficulty sleeping (33%). There was no difference in the severity of distress by age, sex, role, or years of experience. The most common situations associated with moral distress were lack of activities and family visits, insufficient staffing and high turnover, and having to follow policies and procedures that were perceived to harm residents with dementia. Respondents working in not‐for‐profit or municipal homes reported less sadness/anxiety and feelings of not wanting to go to work than those in for‐profit homes. Front‐line staff were more likely to report not wanting to work than those in management or administrative positions. In the survey’s free‐text responses, respondents elaborated on the emotional impact of the change in care delivery for LTCH residents. Conclusion Moral distress increased during the pandemic, negatively affecting the well‐being of healthcare providers in LTCHs, with preliminary evidence suggesting that individual and systemic factors may intensify this negative effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicEthics in medical practice→French-language works237,207→