MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410153891 · doi:10.2196/73672

Using Large Language Models to Assess Burnout Among Health Care Workers in the Context of COVID-19 Vaccine Decisions and Health Beliefs: Retrospective Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4410153891 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samaneh Omranian, Lu He, AkkeNeel Talsma, Arielle A. J. Scoglio, Susan McRoy, Janet W. Rich‐Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintBurnoutCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health carePsychologyEnvironmental healthMedicineClinical psychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Burnout among health care workers affects their well-being and decision-making, influencing patient and public health outcomes. Health care workers' health beliefs and COVID-19 vaccine decisions may affect the risks of burnout. Therefore, understanding the interplay between these crucial factors is essential for identifying at-risk staff, providing targeted support, and addressing workplace challenges to prevent further escalation of burnout-related issues. Objective: This study examines how burnout is impacted by health beliefs and COVID-19 vaccine decisions among health care workers. Building on our previously developed Health Belief Model (HBM) classifier based on the HBM framework, which explains how individual perceptions of health risks and benefits influence behavior, we focused on key HBM constructs, including the perceived severity of COVID-19, perceived barriers to vaccination, and their relationship to burnout. We aim to leverage natural language processing techniques to automatically identify theoretically grounded burnout symptoms from comments authored by nurses in a large-scale, national survey and assess their associations with vaccine hesitancy and health beliefs. Methods: We analyzed 1944 open-ended comments written by 1501 vaccine-hesitant nurses, using data from the Nurses' Health Study surveys. We fine-tuned LLaMA 3, an open-source large language model with few-shot prompts and enhanced performance with structured annotation guidance and reasoning-aware inference. Comments were classified into burnout dimensions-Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Inefficacy-based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory framework. Results: The model achieved a high weighted accuracy of 92% and an F1-score of 91% for Depersonalization. Emotional Exhaustion was identified in 52% (1003/1944) of comments, correlating strongly with perceived severity (189/323, 59%) and barriers to vaccination (281/650, 43%). Demographic analyses revealed significant variations in burnout prevalence, with older age groups reporting greater burnout. Conclusions: This study highlights the relationship between burnout and vaccine decision-making among health care workers, uncovering areas for further exploration. By exploring the complex interplay between psychological strain and vaccine hesitancy, this study sets the stage for developing transformative interventions and policies that could redefine workforce resilience and public health strategies.

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 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR NursingSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207