The effects of occupational and mental stress among home care rehabilitation professionals working during the COVID-19 pandemic: An exploratory qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Home care rehabilitation professionals (hcRPs) provide health services for clients with a broad range of medical conditions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, home care rehabilitation professionals experienced exacerbations of pre-existing work-related stressors, increased risk of transmission of the COVID-19 virus, reduced resource availability, greater workloads, and staffing shortages. The primary aim of this study was to examine the experience and impact of occupational and mental stress on hcRPs working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 hcRPs working in Ontario, Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inductive thematic analysis was used to interpret and organize the data into conceptualized themes. Interview data was organized into three themes: (a) unique challenges of a home care rehabilitation professional, (b) COVID-19 exacerbations of home care occupational and mental stress, and (c) personal and workplace coping strategies. Many participants reported reducing their hours or taking on adjunctive roles in different clinical settings outside of home care due to work-related stress exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. With a focus on the effects of COVID-19 on the practice of home care, this study provides a unique perspective on the challenges experienced by hcRPs during an emergent and evolving global public health concern. The exploratory nature of this research works towards providing a framework of factors to be addressed when creating sustainable healthcare interventions, as well as recommendations to support hcRPs to benefit both the community and health-care providers.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".