Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on nephrology social work: Perspectives of social workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mixed method study utilized surveys and focus groups to explore the perceptions of nephrology social workers in Canada regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their practice with patients and their families. As part of this larger study, participants were invited to focus groups which elicited pandemic experiences, personally and professionally, and to offer post-pandemic recommendations for nephrology social work. The sample comprised 15 nephrology social workers from several Canadian provinces, who provided in-depth reflections regarding the impact of the pandemic on professional practice. Study results reflect COVID-19 pandemic-related experiences of Canadian nephrology social workers, including psychosocial impacts as well as practice and infrastructure shifts. In providing service to patients and families, nephrology social workers were forced to confront personal, professional and organizational landscapes altered by hospital and broader societal public health guidelines aimed at decreasing the spread of COVID-19. Although an inherently challenging experience, participating social workers concurrently noted areas of growth that resulted from pandemic circumstances..
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".