MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402533747 · doi:10.1177/10398562241283206

Psychosocial workplace safety in mental health services – Commentary and considerations to improve safety

2024· article· en· W4402533747 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey CL Looi, Paul A Maguire, Steve Kisely, Stephen Allison, Tarun Bastiampillai

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialBurnoutMental healthPatient safetyNursingPsychologyAction (physics)Relevance (law)MedicineApplied psychologyHealth carePsychiatryClinical psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Psychosocially unsafe workplaces are related to burnout, especially amongst trainees and psychiatrists. Burgeoning research on psychosocial workplace safety indicates the importance of organisational governance to reduce adverse professional, and consequently patient, outcomes in healthcare by balancing job demands and resources. We provide a brief commentary on the relevance of the concept of the Psychosocial Safety Climate model for mental health services and healthcare workers, and considerations for action. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the Extended Job Demand-Resource model, the Psychosocial Safety Climate model has been developed and validated in community and healthcare environments. Psychosocial safety is also an Australian workplace safety requirement. An important direction to improve working conditions, reduce adverse outcomes, and improve recruitment and retention of healthcare workers, may be to adopt and formalise psychosocial workplace safety as a key performance indicator of equal importance to productivity for mental healthcare services.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0380.046
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian PsychiatrySame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207