ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to significantly affect the mental health of healthcare workers, who stand in the frontline of this crisis. Insomnia is often related to exposure to stressful situations, such as the current health crisis, as well as other mental disorders, physical conditions and work-related problems. The objectives of this systematic review were: 1) to examine the impact of the current health pandemic produced by COVID-19 on insomnia and sleep quality of health professionals, and 2) to identify risk factors associated with insomnia. After a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, 18 relevant studies were identified. The prevalence of insomnia estimated by random effects meta-analysis was 38% (95%CI = 37 to 39%), being slightly higher in women (29%, 95%CI = 27% to 30%) than in men (24%, 95%CI = 21 to 27%). The main risk factor associated with insomnia was working in a high-risk environment, followed by female sex and having a lower educational level. The high figures of self-reported insomnia and poor sleep quality observed indicate the need to develop interventions aimed at mitigating and caring for the mental health of healthcare workers fighting against this pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the changes introduced in response to the pandemic on patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care. DESIGN: Prospective observational panel study (health center) based on two cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: 29 Primary Health Care centers from three Spanish health regions (Mallorca, Catalunya Central and Camp de Tarragona). PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of patients visiting their centers before (n=2199 patients) and during the pandemic (n=1955 patients) MAIN MEASUREMENTS: We used the PREOS-PC questionnaire, a validated instrument which assesses patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care. We compared mean scores of the "experiences of errors" and "harm" scales in both periods, and built multilevel regression analyzes to study the variations in patient and center characteristics associated with worse levels of safety. A qualitative (content) analysis of patients' experiences during the pandemic was also performed. RESULTS: The "experiences of errors" and "harm" scales scores significantly worsened during the COVID-19 period (92.65 to 88.81 (Cohen's d=0.27); and 96.92 to 79.97 (d=0.70), respectively). Patient and center characteristics associated to worsened scores were: women, people with a lower educational level, worse health status, more years assigned to the center, and health region. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, a perceptible worsening in patient safety perceived by patients treated in Primary Care has been observed, which has differentially affected patients according to their sociodemographic characteristics or health center profiles.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Patient Safety , Primary Health Care , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
AIM: To evaluate the impact of a psychoeducational, mobile health intervention based on cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness-based approaches on the mental health of healthcare workers at the frontline against COVID-19 in Spain. DESIGN: We will carry out a two-week, individually randomized, parallel group, controlled trial. Participants will be individually randomized to receive the PsyCovidApp intervention or control App intervention. METHODS: The PsyCovidApp intervention will include five modules: emotional skills, lifestyle behaviour, work stress and burnout, social support, and practical tools. Healthcare workers having attended patients with COVID-19 will be randomized to receive the PsyCovidApp intervention (intervention group) or a control App intervention (control group). A total of 440 healthcare workers will be necessary to assure statistical power. Measures will be collected telephonically by a team of psychologists at baseline and immediately after the 2 weeks intervention period. Measures will include stress, depression and anxiety (DASS-21 questionnaire-primary endpoint), insomnia (ISI), burnout (MBI-HSS), post-traumatic stress disorder (DTS), and self-efficacy (GSE). The study was funded in May 2020, and was ethically approved in June 2020. Trial participants, outcome assessors and data analysts will be blinded to group allocation. DISCUSSION: Despite the increasing use of mobile health interventions to deliver mental health care, this area of research is still on its infancy. This study will help increase the scientific evidence about the effectiveness of this type of intervention on this specific population and context. IMPACT: Despite the lack of solid evidence about their effectiveness, mobile-based health interventions are already being widely implemented because of their low cost and high scalability. The findings from this study will help health services and organizations to make informed decisions in relation to the development and implementation of this type of interventions, allowing them pondering not only their attractive implementability features, but also empirical data about its benefits. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04393818 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). APPROVED FUNDING: May 2020.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel , Humans , Mental Health , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study aimed at examining the impact of providing healthcare during health emergencies caused by viral epidemic outbreaks on healthcare workers' (HCWs) mental health; to identify factors associated with worse impact, and; to assess the available evidence base regarding interventions to reduce such impact. METHOD: Rapid systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (inception to August 2020). We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the prevalence of specific mental health problems, and used GRADE to ascertain the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 117 studies. The pooled prevalence was higher for acute stress disorder (40% (95%CI 39 to 41%)), followed by anxiety (30%, (30 to 31%)), burnout (28% (26 to 31%)), depression (24% (24 to 25%)), and post-traumatic stress disorder (13% (13 to 14%)). We identified factors associated with the likelihood of developing those problems, including sociodemographic (younger age and female gender), social (lack of social support, stigmatization), and occupational (working in a high-risk environment, specific occupational roles, and lower levels of specialised training and job experience) factors. Four studies reported interventions for frontline HCW: two educational interventions increased confidence in pandemic self-efficacy and in interpersonal problems solving (very low certainty), whereas one multifaceted intervention improved anxiety, depression, and sleep quality (very low certainty). LIMITATIONS: We only searched three databases, and the initial screening was undertaken by a single reviewer. CONCLUSION: Given the very limited evidence regarding the impact of interventions to tackle mental health problems in HCWs, the risk factors identified represent important targets for future interventions.