MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400353597 · doi:10.1093/occmed/kqae023.1400

P-584 UNDERSTANDING BURNOUT AMONG CANADIAN MEDICAL LABORATORY PROFESSIONALS WORKING DURING THE SECOND WAVE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN ONTARIO, CANADA: USING A GENDERED-BASED ANALYSIS

2024· article· en· W4400353597 on OpenAlexaffabout
Behdin Nowrouzi‐Kia, Emily C. King, Brydne Edwards, Sonia Nizzer, Amin Yazdani, Basem Gohar, Ali Bani‐Fatemi, Aaron Howe, Vijay Kumar Chattu

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphConestoga CollegeCARE CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicBurnoutCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineFamily medicinePsychologyVirologyClinical psychologyOutbreakPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Medical laboratory professionals are mostly women and play a crucial role in delivering health services and provide and perform millions of tests daily on blood, body fluids, cells and tissues. The study examined the mental health and well-being of medical laboratory professionals working during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A sequential explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted to explore mental health outcomes in medical laboratory professionals, including medical laboratory technologists, medical laboratory assistants, and medical laboratory technicians, working in Ontario, Canada. A self-reported questionnaire on burnout and job stress was administered, and Two focus groups were also conducted. Thematic analysis was used to develop themes and subthemes. Results A total of 441 (47.5% response rate) medical laboratory professionals completed the survey. Most of the respondents self-identified as female (90.2%). Most of the medical laboratory professionals were women, with a mean age of 43.1 and a standard deviation of 11.7. The prevalence of burnout was 72.3% for medical laboratory technologists. In the adjusted demographic model, those ≥50 (OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.22–0.59) were approximately one-third as likely to experience burnout as those under 50. The qualitative focus groups demonstrated four key themes: staff shortage, feeling forgotten, work environment, and resilience. Discussion There is limited research regarding the workplace mental health of medical laboratory professionals. This study provides preliminary evidence regarding their mental health and well-being in the workplace. Conclusion Future research is warranted to understand the relationship between the workplace mental health of these workers and its impact on their 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational MedicineSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207