Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 269

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physicians' Needs in Coping With Emotional Stressors: The Case for Peer Support

Open access
Hu, Yue-Yung·2012·Archives of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To design an evidence-based intervention to address physician distress, based on the attitudes toward support among physicians at our hospital. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 56-item survey was administered to a convenience sample (n = 108) of resident and attending physicians at surgery, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology departmental conferences at a large tertiary care academic hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Likelihood of seeking support, perceived barriers, awareness of available services, sources of support, and experience with stress. RESULTS: Among the resident and attending physicians, 79% experienced either a serious adverse patient event and/or a traumatic personal event within the preceding year. Willingness to seek support was reported for legal situations (72%), involvement in medical errors (67%), adverse patient events (63%), substance abuse (67%), physical illness (62%), mental illness (50%), and interpersonal conflict at work (50%). Barriers included lack of time (89%), uncertainty or difficulty with access (69%), concerns about lack of confidentiality (68%), negative impact on career (68%), and stigma (62%). Physician colleagues were the most popular potential sources of support (88%), outnumbering traditional mechanisms such as the employee assistance program (29%) and mental health professionals (48%). Based on these results, a one-on-one peer physician support program was incorporated into support services at our hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the prevalence of stressful experiences and the desire for support among physicians, established services are underused. As colleagues are the most acceptable sources of support, we advocate peer support as the most effective way to address this sensitive but important issue.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archsurg.2011.312

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 63 references

Cited by

See all 269

Metadata

Authors
Hu, Y.-Y.
Venue
Archives of Surgery
Published
2012-03-01
Volume
147
Issue
3
Pages
212
ISSN
0004-0010 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040945970
Cited by
269
References
63
FWCI
8.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physicians' Needs in Coping With Emotional Stressors: The Case for Peer Support. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archsurg.2011.312
The paper
Hu, Y.-Y. (2012). Physicians' Needs in Coping With Emotional Stressors: The Case for Peer Support. Archives of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2011.312

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.