MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406143964 · doi:10.1080/22423982.2024.2444118

Perspectives of Yukon’s frontline health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

2025· article· en· W4406143964 on OpenAlexaffabout
Liris Smith, Cody MacInnis, Janelle Yasay, Paul Banks, Cindy Breitkreutz, Adam Mackie, Michelle Leach

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsCollege & Association of Registered Nurses of AlbertaRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioYukon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutWorkforcePandemicWorkloadThematic analysisHealth carePersonal protective equipmentFeelingNursingPsychologyWork (physics)MedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Qualitative researchPolitical scienceSocial psychologySociologyManagementDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The perspectives of Yukon's nurses and physicians can determine what might mitigate burnout and strengthen the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and/or future health emergencies. The study was conducted in the Yukon Territory, Canada in two phases: completion of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), and in-depth oral interviews. This paper will discuss the results of the interviews. A hybrid thematic analysis of 38 interviews revealed five primary themes: personal impacts; work-related effects; client effects/patient care; perceptions of the territorial response to COVID-19; and recommendations for future pandemics. The loss of social connection and burden of childcare contributed to personal burnout. Stressful work environments, increased workload, limited resources and feeling undervalued contributed to job stress and work-related burnout. Healthcare workers ascribed meaning to their roles in improving community health , which may have mitigated client-related burnout. Systemic change is needed to ensure the healthcare workforce can maintain service delivery and respond to future pandemics. The response to COVID-19 was mounted on the backs of frontline healthcare workers who made personal sacrifices and worked to exhaustion to serve their patients. As the healthcare system and its workforce recover from the pandemic, the calls to support healthcare workers must be answered.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.431 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207