MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408142332 · doi:10.1016/j.cpnec.2025.100286

Workers’ well-being during viral pandemics and epidemics: A scoping review

2025· review· en· W4408142332 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalBombardier (Canada)Université LavalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalWilfrid Laurier University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakGeographyVirologyBiologyOutbreakMedicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have documented the well-being of workers during individual pandemics and epidemics. However, there lies a need to summarize worker well-being across crises. Moreover, there is a scarcity of reviews exploring precarious workers’ well-being during these crises. Adopting a multidisciplinary perspective via positive psychology’s third wave, this scoping review examines positive and negative well-being across diverse occupational groups and situations (e.g., precarious employment) and across crises. Inspired by Ecological Systems Theory, factors at different ecological levels (self, social, workplace, pandemic) relevant to workers’ well-being are reviewed. The following questions are addressed: 1) How are virus-related public health crises (i.e., epidemics, pandemics) related to workers’ well-being? 2) What resilience and risk factors are associated with workers’ well-being in these crises? And 2a) How is the well-being of precarious workers impacted during virus-related public health crises? Of the 2,395 potentially relevant articles published before October 23 rd , 2020, 187 were retained. Overall, more research has been conducted on negative than positive well-being. Workers experienced: 1) positive well-being frequently or at moderately high levels overall during pandemics and epidemics, 2) mild to moderate negative well-being during SARS and COVID-19’s beginning and high negative well-being during other crises, and 3) high work-related well-being during such crises. Factors at self- (age, gender), social- (social support), workplace- (occupation, frontline status), and pandemic-related (risk/exposure, knowing someone infected/killed by the virus, PPE access) levels were associated with workers’ well-being. Although explored infrequently, precarious employment was typically associated with greater negative well-being. Practice- and policy-related recommendations are discussed. • A review was needed to summarize findings on worker well-being across epi/pandemics • We reviewed 187 papers on resilience and risk factors associated with well-being • Findings show moderately high levels of positive well-being (e.g., resilience) • Negative well-being (anxiety, depression) was found to vary across epi/pandemics • Precarious employment was associated with greater negative well-being

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.360 · 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