SASKATCHEWAN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS’ EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: AN INTERPRETIVE DESCRIPTIVE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pressures of the global SARS-Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic overwhelmed healthcare systems and healthcare workforces around the world including those in the Canadian prairie province of Saskatchewan (SK). Heavy workload, chronic short staffing and feeling undervalued by leadership contributed to a perceived decrease in the overall mental and physical health and well-being, resilience and career intentions of healthcare providers (HCPs). This qualitative study was part of a larger convergent mixed methods study that sought to explore the mental health and well-being, resiliency and career intentions of HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic in SK. An interpretive descriptive research design was employed for this study and data were collected through semi‐structured interviews with 24 HCPs between May and August 2022. NVivo software was used to facilitate data management and data analysis was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis. The first theme identified was a Crushing situation of responsibility and circumstance. This theme detailed the level of responsibility shouldered by HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic and encompassed three subthemes including: Feeling undervalued in the workplace, Doing more with less and Hopelessness: No light at the end of the tunnel. The second overarching theme was that of Receiving mixed messages which focused on the participants experiences and perceptions of provincial and health authority decision-making, leadership and pandemic policies. This study found that SK HCPs perceived an overall decline in their sense of mental and physical well-being and resilience and the majority of participants expressed some form of turnover intention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants expressed a lack of confidence in healthcare and provincial leadership and explained that there was an inconsistent direction from leadership during the pandemic. Improved staffing and workload as well as enhanced leadership communication and support strategies were identified as solutions that could potentially help improve well-being, resilience and career intentions among SK HCPs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".