O-264 BURNOUT AND WORK PARTICIPATION OF HOME CARE REHABILITATION PROFESSIONALS TRANSITIONING OUT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: A MIXED-METHODS SEQUENTIAL EXPLANATORY PILOT STUDY IN ONTARIO, CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The objectives of this study were to examine the nature of burnout and occupational stress among home care rehabilitation professionals (hcRPs) working at a large home care agency in Toronto, transitioning out of the COVID-19 pandemic; and understand their lived-experiences with burnout and occupational stress. Methods This study used a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design. In the first phase, a self-administered questionnaire was designed to collect demographic data and inventory factors experienced as occupational stressors and burnout. In the second phase, we interviewed 23 hcRPs. Data analyses included descriptive, inferential statistics and thematic analysis. Results A total of 139 (33.1% response rate) participants were included and 91% were females. Coping w:ith daily tasks (AOR = 3.06, 95% CI: 1.17 - 8.45), unexpected occurrences in the lives of RPs (AOR = 4.43, 95% CI: 1.22 - 21.23), and lack of control (AOR = 2.80, 95% CI: 0.90 - 9.40) were found to be associated with an increased risk of burnout. Three themes were identified: 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. Discussion The findings of this study provide preliminary about hcRPs burnout and work participation. Furthermore, providing insight into the impacts of burnout on hcRPs work participation. Conclusion These findings may inform strategies that home care providers or organizations can adopt to build resilience, support the mental health of healthcare providers, and promote workplace engagement and participation while maintaining evidence-based clinical practices.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".