Daily dynamics of stress in Canadian paramedics and their spouses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the unique demands of their job, paramedics have been identified as high risk for post-traumatic stress disorder and trauma-related symptoms (Regehr, Goldberg, & Hughes, 2002). There is additional qualitative evidence that stress experienced by paramedics at work transmits to the home setting and has a negative impact on spouses (Regehr, 2005). Using intensive longitudinal methods, the current line of research examined the daily interplay between home and work environments in a sample of 87 paramedics and their cohabitating spouses. Repeated measures were collected across home and work settings for a period of four consecutive work days. It was generally expected that stress and burnout experienced by paramedics in the work setting would predict subsequent outcomes in the home setting for both paramedics and their spouses. Hypotheses were tested using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992), with daily measures nested within couples over time. Study 1 first identifies paramedics as experiencing high levels of post-traumatic stress and depressive symptoms. Daily stress transmission to the home setting was also supported, whereby work stress, negative affect, and burnout predicted subsequent outcomes at home for both partners. Study 2 examined the additional impact on dyadic functioning (as moderated by neuroticism), demonstrating significant predictive value of paramedics' burnout in subsequent marital tension. Lastly, Study 3 provides evidence for an impact of work stress and burnout on coping responses in the home setting. Higher levels of extramarital stress predicted increased engagement in rumination and withdrawal, which in turn contributed to greater marital tension. Together, these findings help to explain the intricacies of stress transmission and contagion in couples dealing with high levels of stress. Implications for paramedics specifically and married couples more generally are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".