ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) evaluate the evolution of mental health (posttraumatic stress symptoms [PTSSs], depression, and burnout) of healthcare workers during the second wave of the pandemic (November to December 2020) and compare it with the first wave (March to May 2020), and (2) ascertain the predictors of PTSSs. METHODS: In March to May 2020 (T1), 269 healthcare professionals working in Spain completed PTSSs, sadness, resilience, and coping questionnaires. In November to December 2020 (T2, N = 58), we assessed PTSSs, sadness, burnout, and depression. RESULTS: Among the healthcare professionals, 63.8% displayed severe PTSSs, 51.7% depressive symptoms, and 79.3% emotional exhaustion (T2). Some risk factors were caring for patients who were severely ill or dying and using rumination, thinking avoidance, self-isolation, emotional expression, and self-blaming as coping strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has had a deep and long-lasting impact on the healthcare workers' mental health.
Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , PandemicsABSTRACT
Definition: The worldwide mental health burden associated to COVID-19. The psychological symptoms associated to COVID-19 can originate from three different sources: lockdowns, pandemic life and virus infection (both COVID-19 and post COVID-19 condition). Within the psychological symptoms it can be found: anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, fatigue and cognitive impairment (i.e., 'brain fog', mental slowness, deficits in attention, executive functioning, working memory, learning, articulation, and/or psychomotor coordination). Plus, two psychological conditions associated to the COVID-19 pandemic have been coined so far by the World Health Organization: pandemic fatigue and post COVID-19 condition. The increase of psychological symptoms both in the general population and in frontline workers (especially health-care workers) generates an unprecedented number of psychological patients and it challenges national mental health systems. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Encyclopedia is the property of MDPI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)
ABSTRACT
Many factors can impact the advancement of scientific disciplines. In the study of animal behavior and cognition (i.e., Ethology), a lack of consensus about definitions or the emergence of some current events and inventions, among other aspects, may challenge the discipline's grounds within the next decades. A collective metadisciplinary discussion may help in envisioning the future to come. For that purpose, I elaborated an online questionnaire about the level of consensus and the researchers' ways of doing in seven areas: Discipline name and concepts, species, Umwelt, technology, data, networking, and the impact of sociocultural and ecological factors. I recruited the opinion of almost a hundred of colleagues worldwide (N = 98), both junior and seniors, working both in the wild and in the lab. While the results were pitted against the literature, general conclusions should be taken with caution and considered as a first attempt in exploring the state of the discipline from the researchers' perspective: There is no unanimity for the discipline's name; 71.4% of the researchers reported there is limited consensus in the definition of relevant concepts (i.e., culture, cognition); primate species still predominate in publications whereas the species selection criteria is sometimes based on fascination, chance, or funding opportunities rather than on biocentric questions; 56.1% of the apparatuses employed do not resemble species' ecological problems, and current tech needs would be solved by fostering collaboration with engineers. Finally, embracing the Open Science paradigm, supporting networking efforts, and promoting diversity in research teams may help in gathering further knowledge in the area. Some suggestions are proposed to overcome the aforementioned problems in this contemporary analysis of our discipline.
ABSTRACT
This study evaluates the psychological impact (PI) of the COVID-19 pandemic in frontline workers in Spain. Participants were 546 workers (296 healthcare workers, 105 media professionals, 89 grocery workers, and 83 protective service workers). They all completed online questionnaires assessing PI, sadness, concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and demographic and work-related variables. All groups but protective services workers showed higher PI levels than the general population. Healthcare and grocery workers were the most affected, with 73.6% and 65.2% of the participants, respectively, showing a severe PI. Women showed a higher PI level. Healthcare workers in the regions with higher COVID-19 incidences reported greater PI levels. The main concerns were being infected by COVID-19 or infecting others. Levels of concern correlated with higher PI levels. The protection equipment was generally reported as insufficient, which correlated with higher PI levels. Professionals reporting to overwork during the crisis (60% mass-media, 38% of healthcare and grocery and 21.7% of protective service) showed higher PI levels. In the healthcare group, taking care of patients with COVID-19 (77%) or of dying patients with COVID-19 (43.9%) was associated with higher PI levels. The perceived social recognition of their work was inversely related to PI. Most of the sample had not received psychological support. We suggest some organizational measures for frontline institutions, such as the periodical monitoring or inclusion of psychologists specialized in crisis-management to prevent negative symptoms and provide timely support.