Workforce resilience supporting staff in managing stress: A coherent breathing intervention for the long‐term care workforce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Staff in long-term care (LTC) homes have long-standing stressors, such as short staffing and high workloads. These stressors increased during the COVID-19 pandemic; better resources are needed to help staff manage stress and well-being. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a simple stress management strategy (coherent breathing). METHODS: We conducted a pre-post intervention study to evaluate a self-managed coherent breathing intervention from February to September 2022. The intervention included basic (breathing only) and comprehensive (breathing plus a biofeedback device) groups. Six hundred eighty-six participants were initially recruited (359 and 327 in the comprehensive and basic groups respectively) from 31 LTC homes in Alberta, Canada. Two hundred fifty-four participants completed pre-and post-intervention questionnaires (142 [55.9%] in comprehensive and 112 [44.1%] in basic). Participants were asked to use coherent breathing based on a schedule increasing from 2 to 10 min daily, 5-7 times a week over 8 weeks. Participants completed self-administered online questionnaires pre- and post-intervention to assess outcomes-stress, psychological distress, anxiety, depression, resilience, insomnia, compassion satisfaction, compassion fatigue, and burnout. We used a mixed-effects regression model to test the main effect of time (pre- and post-intervention) and group while testing the interaction between time and group and controlling for covariates. RESULTS: We found statistically significant changes from pre- to post-intervention in stress (b = -2.5, p < 0.001, 95% CI = -3.1, -1.9), anxiety (b = -0.5, p < 0.001, 95% CI = -0.7, -0.3), depression (b = -0.4, p < 0.001, 95% CI = -0.6, -0.2), insomnia (b = -1.5, p < 0.001, 95% CI = -2.1, -0.9), and resilience (b = 0.2, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.1, 0.2). We observed no statistically significant differences between the two intervention groups on any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that coherent breathing is a promising strategy for improving stress-related outcomes and resilience. This intervention warrants further, more rigorous testing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".