MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402408396 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310132

Moral distress related to paid and unpaid care among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

2024· article· en· W4402408396 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Julia Smith, Muhammad Haaris Tiwana, Alice Mũrage, Hasina Samji, Rosemary Morgan, Jorge Andrés Delgado‐Ron

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute on AgingCanadian Medical AssociationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsUnpaid workHealth careDistressCare workPandemicPaid workCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Work (physics)MedicineLabour economicsEconomicsEconomic growthClinical psychologyWorking hours

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While there is growing literature on experiences of healthcare workers and those providing unpaid care during COVID-19, little research considers the relationships between paid and unpaid care burdens and contributions. We administered a moral distress survey to healthcare workers in Canada, in 2022, collecting data on both paid and unpaid care. There were no significant differences in the proportion of participants providing unpaid care by gender, with both genders equally affected by certain responsibilities such as reduced contact with family/loved ones. However, men were significantly more distressed about specific unpaid care responsibilities. Unpaid care was not significantly associated with differences in intention to leave work. At work, women were significantly more concerned about patients unable to see family, while men were distressed by others mistreating COVID patients. This study enhances understanding of paid and unpaid care relationships, particularly during crises, and proposes an innovative method for assessing unpaid care burdens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207