Risks of Ecosystems’ Degradation: Portuguese Healthcare Professionals’ Mental Health, Hope and Resilient Coping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare professionals constantly face situations that reflect ecosystems’ degradation. These can negatively affect their mental health. Research suggests that hope and resilience can play an important role in this scenario, since they are related to/predict mental health in highly heterogeneous samples (considering geography, age, profession, health, etc.). In this context, the aims of the present study are: to characterize and explore the relationship between hope, resilient coping and mental health of Portuguese healthcare professionals. Using Google Forms, 276 healthcare professionals answered to the GHQ-28, the (adult) Trait Hope Scale, and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (cross-sectional study). The minimum and maximum possible scores were reached, with the exception of the maximum score of GHQ-28-Total. Regarding Hope, 19.6% scored below the midpoint (M=43.46, SD=11.97); 29.3% revealed low resilience (M=14.93, SD=4.05); and the average of 4 of the 5 Mental Health scores (exception: Severe Depression) indicates the probability of a psychiatric case. Hope correlated with Social Dysfunction and GHQ-28-Total; resilient coping proved to be a (weak) predictor of 4 of the 5 GHQ-28 indicators (exception: Severe depression). The results support the need to promote the sample's mental health, hope and resilient coping. They also suggest that stimulating resilient coping may contribute to improving healthcare professionals’ mental health.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".