Canadian Nurses' Interprofessional Work Stressors: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurses are at risk of adverse mental health symptoms due to frequent exposure to workplace stressors, but less is known about nurses' experiences with interprofessional stressors. This study was designed to understand nurses' perspectives on interprofessional stressors in the workplace. Nurses rated exposures to stressful events through an online survey and were invited to comment on the event they perceived to be the most distressing and impactful. We exclusively considered nurses' open-ended responses that described interprofessional stressors (n = 505) and used a multi-phase, semi-grounded, constructed qualitative approach to represent nurses' experiences. Nurses described interprofessional stressors with physicians, management, and co-workers. The interprofessional stressors involved impacts on patient care, witnessing cruel or harmful actions, and a lack of support among teams. Many interprofessional stressors were associated with events that may be considered traumatic or morally injurious. Interprofessional stressors are a modifiable factor in the nursing environment that must be addressed to support nurses' well-being and retain this vital workforce.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".