ABSTRACT
The present study had two main aims. First, to investigate whether shift/night workers had a higher prevalence and severity of COVID-19 compared with day workers. Second, to investigate whether people regularly working in face-to-face settings during the pandemic exhibited a higher prevalence and severity of COVID-19 compared with those having no need to be in close contact with others at work. Data consisted of 7141 workers from 15 countries and four continents who participated in the International COVID Sleep Study-II (ICOSS-II) between May and December 2021. The associations between work status and a positive COVID-19 test and several indications of disease severity were tested with chi-square tests and logistic regressions adjusted for relevant confounders. In addition, statistical analyses were conducted for the associations between face-to-face work and COVID-19 status. Results showed that shift/night work was not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 compared to day work. Still, shift/night workers reported higher odds for moderate to life-threatening COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.71, 95%-confidence interval = 1.23-5.95) and need for hospital care (aOR = 5.66, 1.89-16.95). Face-to-face work was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 (aOR = 1.55, 1.12-2.14) but not with higher disease severity. In conclusion, shift/night work was not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19, but when infected, shift/night workers reported more severe disease. Impaired sleep and circadian disruption commonly seen among shift/night workers may be mediating factors. Working face-to-face increased the risk of COVID-19, likely due to increased exposure to the virus. However, face-to-face work was not associated with increased disease severity.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The global COVID-19 pandemic has imposed challenges on healthcare systems and professionals worldwide and introduced a ´maelstrom´ of ethical dilemmas. How ethically demanding situations are handled affects employees' moral stress and job satisfaction. AIM: Describe priority-setting dilemmas, moral distress and support experienced by nurses and physicians across medical specialties in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Western Norway. RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional hospital-based survey was conducted from 23 April to 11 May 2020. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical approval granted by the Regional Research Ethics Committee in Western Norway (131421). FINDINGS: Among the 1606 respondents, 67% had experienced priority-setting dilemmas the previous two weeks. Healthcare workers who were directly involved in COVID-19 care, were redeployed or worked in psychiatry/addiction medicine experienced it more often. Although 59% of the respondents had seen adverse consequences due to resource scarcity, severe consequences were rare. Moral distress levels were generally low (2.9 on a 0-10 scale), but higher in selected groups (redeployed, managers and working in psychiatry/addiction medicine). Backing from existing collegial and managerial structures and routines, such as discussions with colleagues and receiving updates and information from managers that listened and acted upon feedback, were found more helpful than external support mechanisms. Priority-setting guidelines were also helpful. DISCUSSION: By including all medical specialties, nurses and physicians, and various institutions, the study provides information on how the COVID-19 mitigation also influenced those not directly involved in the COVID-19 treatment of patients. In the next stages of the pandemic response, support for healthcare professionals directly involved in outbreak-affected patients, those redeployed or those most impacted by mitigation strategies must be a priority. CONCLUSION: Empirical research of healthcare workers experiences under a pandemic are important to identify groups at risks and useful support mechanisms.