Les pratiques de gestion habilitantes du supérieur immédiat : un facteur organisationnel prédisposant à la santé au travail pour les préposées aux bénéficiaires œuvrant en CHSLD?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient attendants (PAs) working in residential and long-term care centres (CHSLDs) present high levels of absenteeism as a result of employment injuries (MSSS, 2019) and mental health problems, such as depression, professional burnout and psychological distress (Aubry et al., 2015; MSSS, 2019). A literature review and a corporate residency revealed that empowerment is a predisposing factor for the workplace health of PAs (Bourbonnais et al., 2006; Cready et al., 2008; Yeatts et al., 2010). Studies also confirm the influence of empowering leadership on employee health (Bobbio et al., 2012 ; Drouin et al., 2018 ; Greco et al. 2006 ; Moulin, 2021). However, the influence of the empowering management practices of immediate supervisors (living unit coordinators and team leaders) on the health of PAs was not known. This research seeks to fill this gap, that is, study the impact of the empowering management practices of immediate supervisors on the psychological distress of PAs in CHSLDs. A secondary objective is to look at the role of psychological empowerment as a mediator between the management practices of immediate supervisors and the psychological distress of PAs. PAs in three different CISSSs and CIUSSSs in Québec were asked to fill out questionnaires. Our sample consisted of 213 PAs. The data was analyzed using a simple mediation regression model (Hayes, 2022). Our results show that the frequency of use of empowering management practices by immediate supervisors negatively influences the psychological distress of PAs and that psychological empowerment is indeed a mediator of this relationship. Moreover, each of the subdimensions of empowering management practices, namely, delegation, coaching and recognition, also negatively influence the psychological distress of PAs.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".