MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382181506 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000002911

“You Have to Be Careful About Every Detail” How the COVID-19 Pandemic Shaped the Experiences of Canadian Personal Support Workers Working in Home Care

2023· article· en· W4382181506 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sonia Nizzer, Arlinda Ruco, Nicole A. Moreira, D. Linn Holness, Kathryn Nichol, Emily C. King, Sandra McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research CentreSt. Michael's HospitalToronto Metropolitan UniversityToronto East General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoCARE CanadaUniversity of New BrunswickCanada Research ChairsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityWomen's College Hospital
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsWorkforcePersonal protective equipmentPandemicWork (physics)FeelingNursingStressorHealth careQualitative researchPsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineSociologySocial psychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Personal support workers (PSWs) are an essential but vulnerable workforce supporting the home care sector in Canada. Given the impact COVID-19 has had on healthcare workers globally, understanding how PSWs have been impacted is vital. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study to understand the working experiences of PSWs over the COVID-19 pandemic. Nineteen semistructured interviews were conducted, and analysis was guided by the collaborative DEPICT framework. RESULTS: Personal support workers are motivated by an intrinsic duty to work and their longstanding client relationships despite feeling vulnerable to transmission and infection. They experienced co-occurring occupational stressors and worsening work conditions, which impacted their overall well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Pandemic conditions have contributed to increased occupational stress among PSWs. Employers must implement proactive strategies that promote and protect the well-being of their workforce while advocating for sector improvements.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0260.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207