Experiences on the frontline: Qualitative accounts of South African healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted people's mental health significantly. Frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) were arguably most affected, particularly in low-to-middle-income countries like South Africa. Understanding their experiences is important to inform interventions for social and psychological support for future pandemics. Aim: This study explored the experiences of frontline HCWs in South Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. Setting: The sample included HCWs from various professions and health sectors who worked with COVID-19 patients across South Africa. Methods: An exploratory descriptive qualitative design was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 frontline HCWs recruited via purposive sampling. Data were analysed using principles of inductive thematic analysis. Results: Four major themes were identified in the data: (1) Working during COVID-19 was an emotional rollercoaster; (2) Working during COVID-19 was physically and mentally exhausting; (3) Participants held negative attitudes towards the Department of Health; and (4) COVID-19 had a transformative impact on the daily life of HCWs. Conclusion: HCWs' experiences were diverse and marked by contradictions. Limited psychological support and resources aggravated experiences. However, a positive narrative of hope and gratitude also resonated with participants. Qualitative methodologies provided depth and insights into the diverse realities of frontline HCWs. Contribution: This study provides significant insights into the experiences of a diverse group of frontline South African HCWs during COVID-19. It demonstrates a shift in the definition of a 'frontline' HCW and highlights the need for greater psychological support and individualised public health interventions during future pandemics.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it