Bullying against Healthcare Professionals and Coping Strategies: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence against healthcare professionals is an event that further burdens the daily lives of those who try every day to care for and assist those who need it most. In an attempt to overcome these events, there are coping strategies that can be used to reduce the stress caused. Therefore, this study aims to analyse the phenomenon of violence against healthcare professionals and the relationship between the bullying suffered by these professionals and the coping strategies they developed to overcome these moments. To this end, a scoping review was conducted in which eight articles were selected for final analysis from a total of 276 articles found in three electronic databases (EBSCO, PubMed, and Web of Science). This review concludes that the most common workplace bullying behaviours include excessive workloads, humiliation and ridicule, impossible deadlines, and verbal attacks. Professionals reported negative impacts, such as helplessness, depression, stress, insomnia, and the desire to change jobs. Victims of workplace bullying often expressed their intention to leave their current job or even abandon the profession. Problem-focused coping strategies are the most used. The studies indicated that workplace bullying negatively affects professionals in physical and mental terms, as well as in terms of quality of life at work, requiring more research and adoption of preventive measures to identify and combat the problem.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".