Analysis of the emotional status of healthcare services in the context of the Covid 19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The psychological burden of the COVID-19 pandemic can have a lasting impact on the emotional well-being of healthcare workers (HCWs). Healthcare professionals working during the pandemic experienced increased occupational stress due to the high risk of contracting the virus, work overload, significantly increased working hours and overlapping job responsibilities OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to assess the dynamics of mental health and coping and to analyze how HCWs’ emotional responses to a pandemic at the beginning of the pandemic and at the two-year follow-up. This study compared the results of examination of emotional response of HCWs in 2020 and 2022. The relationships between stress and alexithymia, emotional processing, and negative / positive affect in healthcare professionals were analyzed. METHODS: All respondents of the study were hospital or ambulatory healthcare professionals. Overall, 285 subjects were examined in 2020 while 252 subjects were examined in 2022. Respondents completed several questionnaires such as e.g., the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), the Emotional Processing Scale (EPS), and the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). RESULTS: Significant increased scores were observed forthe following parameters: alexithymia, identifying feelings, verbalizing feelings, operative thinking style, emotional processing, suppression, signs of unprocessed emotion, controllability of emotions, avoidance of emotional triggers, impoverished emotional experience, surrogate activities, denial, substance use, self-blame, stress, negative mood, somatic disorders, concern, dysfunction, depression, anxiety state and trait. The results were significantly lower for planning, using instrumental support, positive reframing, acceptance, religion, using emotional support, venting and positive mood. Statistically significant differences could not be found for acceptance, active coping, humor and behavioral disengagement CONCLUSIONS: Research indicates that exposure to the pandemic a pandemic is associated with greater severity of a range of symptoms in HCWs. Two years of the pandemic may have led to psychological impairment. HCWs are more likely to use coping focused on emotional freezing, suppression, avoidance and / or an increase in negative emotions. Clinical observations indicate that caring for others does not correlate with appropriate self-care DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: None Declared
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".