ArticleScientific reports2025
Perceived coercion amongst healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- IoT-based bed and ventilator management system during the COVID-19 pandemic.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Direct and prolonged exposure to stress and uncertainty among healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic likely had a significant negative impact on their mental health and general wellbeing. Although the contributors to such distress remain to be fully understood, the construct of perceived coercion appears to be relevant. Among HCWs, perceived coercion is conceptualised as appraisals about lack of control/'freedom to choose' and pressure to perform patient-care duties in the context of unprecedented threat of contagion from patients. To improve our understanding of perceived coercion amongst HCWs, we developed a 10-item scale-the Pandemic-specific Perceived Coercion Scale for Healthcare Workers (PPCS-HCW) scale-designed to be adaptable and applicable for use in future mass-contagion emergencies. A preliminary (exploratory) factor analysis (N = 546) showed that relevant items coalesced around three factors-'internal pressure', 'external pressure' and 'perceived coercion', that partly overlap with previous conceptualisations of perceived coercion. The exploratory conceptual and psychometric structure was confirmed in a separate sample of HCWs from the UK and Norway (N = 483). On average, across the three PPCS-HCW scale factors, HCWs showed low levels of perceived coercion (M = 0.22 (95% CI [0.11, 0.33] on a - 3 to + 3 scale). However, cluster analysis identified three groups: low (- 1.09 (95% CI [- 1.20, - 0.99]), moderate (0.17 (95% CI [0.08, 0.25]) and high scoring (1.57 (95% CI [1.47, 1.67]) PPCS-HCW clusters. High scoring participants showed higher levels of psychological distress, avoidance coping and compassion fatigue. In summary, our findings suggest that perceived coercion is a relevant construct in understanding the adverse psychological impact of large-scale contagion emergencies on HCWs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.