MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406309540 · doi:10.62754/joe.v3i8.5811

The Effects of the Workplace Environment on the Mental and Emotional Health of Healthcare Workers

2024· article· en· W4406309540 on OpenAlex
Fatimah Mousa Ahmed Tohari, Abdullah S. Alshammari, Abdulbari Atallah ibrahim Albalawi, Abdulaziz Alrasheed, KHALAF AMASH ALANAZI, Narjis Hassan Alsaeed, Souad Al-Azmi, Hisham Mohammed Abid, Haitham Hassan Alkhayat

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecohumanism · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicHealthcare Education and Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthcareHealth careMental healthEmotional laborHealthcare workerPsychologyWork environmentNursingApplied psychologyMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychologyJob satisfactionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Healthcare workers are often exposed to high levels of stress due to the demanding nature of their jobs. Prolonged exposure to stress can negatively affect both physical and mental health, leading to burnout and decreased work efficiency. The work environment in healthcare settings, along with coping strategies, plays a crucial role in determining the emotional well-being of healthcare professionals. This study investigates the impact of healthcare workers' job environment on their emotional health and the coping strategies they employ. Methods: This study was conducted with a sample of 400 healthcare professionals . Participants, aged 21 to 58, were selected through stratified random sampling. A standardized instrument, the Coping Strategies for Stressful Events (CSSE), was used to assess the coping strategies employed by participants. Demographic data and healthcare roles were collected through a separate questionnaire. The data were analyzed using SPSS v.16, with t-tests, ANOVA, and linear regression to examine relationships between coping strategies, work environment, and mental health outcomes. Results: The study found significant differences in coping strategies between male and female healthcare professionals, with females tending to use more emotion-centered strategies like wishful thinking and seeking divine support. Health status, family status, and years of employment also influenced the coping strategies used. Healthcare workers with better health were more likely to use positive strategies, while those with fewer years of experience employed problem-solving strategies more frequently. A positive correlation was found between the use of problem-solving and positive reassessment strategies and better emotional well-being. Conclusion: The emotional health of healthcare professionals is significantly influenced by both their work environment and coping strategies. Positive coping strategies, particularly problem-solving and positive reassessment, contribute to better mental and emotional well-being. Factors such as health status, family situation, and years of experience also play key roles in determining the coping strategies employed. These findings highlight the importance of creating supportive work environments and promoting effective coping strategies to improve healthcare workers' emotional health and job satisfaction.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.294 · 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