MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117406833 · doi:10.61838/kman.jppr.3746

Identifying Work-Related Psychosomatic Stressors in Healthcare Workers: A Qualitative Exploration

2025· article· W7117406833 on OpenAlexaff
Abbie Wilson, Veronica Longo, Lia Corazza, Seyed Amir Saadati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality and Psychosomatic Research · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisStressorHealth careQualitative researchCoping (psychology)PsychosocialDistressMindfulnessEmotional distress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to explore and identify the organizational, psychosocial, and behavioral factors contributing to psychosomatic stress among healthcare workers in the United States through an in-depth qualitative analysis of their lived experiences. A qualitative exploratory design was employed to capture healthcare workers’ subjective experiences of psychosomatic stress. Twenty-three participants, including nurses, physicians, technicians, and administrative staff, were purposively selected from hospitals and clinics across the United States. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted face-to-face or via secure online platforms. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically using NVivo 14 software. Thematic analysis followed the Braun and Clarke (2006) framework, allowing the identification of recurrent patterns and relationships among concepts. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Three main themes emerged: (1) Organizational and structural stressors—including work overload, administrative pressure, resource scarcity, and unsafe working conditions—were linked to chronic fatigue, headaches, and sleep disturbances; (2) Psychosocial and emotional stressors—such as compassion fatigue, interpersonal strain, and work–family conflict—contributed to emotional exhaustion and physical symptoms; and (3) Psychosomatic manifestations and coping responses—showing how stress materialized as physical pain, anxiety, and maladaptive behaviors, while some workers adopted adaptive coping strategies like mindfulness and peer support. The findings suggest that psychosomatic stress in healthcare settings stems from systemic imbalance rather than individual vulnerability, confirming strong interdependence between emotional and physiological domains. The study highlights that healthcare workers’ psychosomatic distress is rooted in organizational dysfunction and emotional overload.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.370
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality and Psychosomatic ResearchSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207