MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385200828 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30070506

Resilience at Work among Healthcare Professionals in Oncology during and beyond the Pandemic: Report from A Deliberative Multi-Stakeholder Reflexive Symposium

2023· article· en· W4385200828 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Dominique Tremblay, Sophie Beaupère, Julien Biaudet, Patrick Castel, Béatrice Fervers, Christelle Galvez, Pascale Sontag, Susan Usher, Catherine Wilhelmy

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsHôpital Charles-Le MoyneCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsReflexivityPsychological interventionMedicineHealth careResilience (materials science)Government (linguistics)StakeholderNursingCoachingPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chronic distress faced by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in oncology was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, heightening the need to improve their resilience. The Entretiens Jacques Cartier symposium provided an opportunity for participants from France and Quebec to share perspectives on resilience at work and discuss interventions at individual and organizational levels to support HCP health and well-being. Fifty-eight stakeholders were invited to the symposium, including HCPs, government decision-makers, researchers, and patient representatives. The symposium began with presentations on the nature of professional resilience at work in oncology and promising interventions developed in France and Quebec. Participants were then engaged in deliberation on how evidence and experiential knowledge could contribute to workplace strategies to strengthen resilience. Small-group reflexive sessions using the photovoice method, and an intersectoral roundtable, elicited the expression and deliberation of multiple perspectives on the nature and building blocks of resilience. Four main themes emerged from the discussions: (1) that resilience remains a muddy concept and can be associated pejoratively with “happycracy”; (2) that resilience must contend with bounded autonomy and captors; (3) that it relies on a sense of coherence at work; and (4) that patients play a role in improving HCP resilience. Stakeholders from healthcare systems in different countries view resilience at work as a means of equipping teams to handle chronic and punctual stresses in cancer care. The symposium emphasized the importance of better defining what resilience at work means and pursuing explorations of multicomponent interventions to support oncology HCPs and the patients they care for. The themes raised by participants at the symposium suggest pathways for furthering this exploration.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0390.014
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0040.025
Research integrity0.0140.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207