MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413971094 · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2025.105842

Recovering After COVID-19: A Comparison of Burnout Levels Among Care Aides From 2014 to 2024

2025· article· en· W4413971094 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Seyedehtanaz Saeidzadeh, Cybele Angel, Vikram Nichani, Tatiana Penconek, Peter Norton, Carole A. Estabrooks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Burnout2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)BetacoronavirusSkilled Nursing FacilityFamily medicineNursingClinical psychologyVirologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To examine recovery (prepandemic to postpandemic), specifically related to burnout for care aides working in nursing homes. DESIGN: This repeated cross-sectional study used 5 data collection points spanning 10 years (2014-2024) collected by Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC). Time points were prepandemic: T1 (September 2014 to May 2015), T2 (May to December 2017), and T3 (September 2019 to March 2020); pandemic: T4 (June 2021to September 2021); and postpandemic: T5 (September 2023 to May 2024). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were health care aides (care aides) working in nursing homes in the urban health zones of Calgary and Edmonton in the province of Alberta, Canada. METHODS: Measurements included demographic variables, unit and nursing home characteristics, and burnout, specifically the Maslach Burnout Inventory, short form 9 (MBI-GS9). The MBI has 3 subscales, emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efficacy. We used descriptive statistics to describe the sample characteristics. We used hierarchical linear models (3 levels) to account for the nested structure of data to examine the change in burnout over time and examine factors associated with it. RESULTS: Our total sample for each time point was as follows: T1 (n = 1620), T2 (n = 1789), T3 (n = 1590), T4 (n = 760), and T5 (n = 1727). Comparing burnout levels prepandemic to postpandemic showed that care aides' level of emotional exhaustion postpandemic was higher than prepandemic and that their level of professional efficacy was lower, which was statistically significant. Care aides' age and shift often worked were significantly associated with emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efficacy. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Care aides have not fully recovered to prepandemic burnout levels, specifically their emotional exhaustion and professional efficacy levels. This study has important implications for the retention of this essential workforce in nursing homes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Medical Directors AssociationSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207