Coping with burnout and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workers' mental health: A systematic review.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the psychological wellbeing of workers worldwide. Certain coping styles may increase burnout risk. To investigate the relationship between burnout and coping styles, a systematic review was performed. Methods: Following the PRISMA statements, three databases were screened up until October 2022, including research articles written in English language and investigating the relationship between burnout and coping strategies in workers. The quality of articles was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: The initial search resulted in 3,413 records, 15 of which were included in this review. Most studies were performed on healthcare workers (n = 13, 86.6%) and included a majority of female workers (n = 13, 86.7%). The most used burnout assessment questionnaire was the Maslach Burnout Inventory (n = 8, 53.3%), and the most used coping assessment tool was the Brief-COPE (n = 6, 40.0%). Task-related coping was a protective factor for burnout in all four studies investigating its correlation with burnout dimensions. Two of the four studies investigating emotion-oriented coping found that it was protective while the other two found that it was predictive of burnout. All five studies investigating avoidance-oriented coping and burnout dimensions found that this coping style was predictive of burnout. Discussion: Task-oriented and adaptive coping were protective for burnout, avoidance-oriented, and maladaptive coping were predictive factors of burnout. Mixed results were highlighted concerning emotion-oriented coping, suggesting that different outcomes of this coping style may depend on gender, with women relying more on it than men. In conclusion, further research is needed to investigate the effect of coping styles in individuals, and how these correlates with their unique characteristics. Training workers about appropriate coping styles to adopt may be essential to enact prevention strategies to reduce burnout incidence in workers.

TElewoRk-RelAted Stress (TERRA), Psychological and Physical Strain of Working From Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Many workers shifted to working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This review aims to investigate if this sudden change caused an increase in TElewoRk-RelAted stress (TERRA) which is defined as physical and mental stress caused by telework. METHODS: A systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed of three scientific databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus), which also included a quality assessment. Articles measuring stress, psychological or physical, in remote workers, published from December 2019 through August 2021 were included in the review. Results were extracted by reporting: authors, country, study design, type of workers, sample, questionnaires and measurements, and outcomes. Data were synthesized quantitatively for country, type of workers, and outcomes. RESULTS: Out of the 518 articles found in the three databases, 19 articles were included in the systematic review (10,012 participants overall), and 78.9% of these highlighted an increase in TERRA levels in remote workers. Among 85.7% of the studies considering gender as a variable, TERRA levels were higher in female workers. Twelve (63.2%) of the studies investigated psychological well-being, two (10.5%) focused on the physical well-being of remote workers, three (15.8%) investigated both, and two studies had other outcomes (10.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the redefinition of workplaces dictated by the COVID-19 pandemic, this review highlights the emerging issue of remote work and the use of technology in working from home, emphasizing a rapidly growing occupational health problem. Remote workers need to be provided with emotional and technical support to prevent TERRA in remote workers.

Impact of COVID-19 on Uro-Oncological Patients: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.

Background: The aim of this paper is to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on patients with urological malignancies (prostate cancer, bladder and upper tract urothelial cancer, kidney cancer, penile and testicular cancer) and to review the available recommendations reported in the literature. Methods: A review was performed, through the PubMed database, regarding available recommendations reported in the literature, to identify studies examining the impact of COVID-19 on treatment and clinical outcomes (including upstaging, recurrence, and mortality) for uro-oncological patients. Results: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed the urological guidelines and patients' access to screening programs and follow-up visits. Great efforts were undertaken to guarantee treatments to high-risk patients although follow up was not always possible due to recurrent surges, and patients with lower risk cancers had to wait for therapies. Conclusions: Physically and mentally, uro-oncological patients paid a heavy price during the COVID-19 pandemic. Long term data on the "costs" of clinical decisions made during the COVID-19 pandemic are still to be revealed and analyzed.

Medical Residents' Behaviours toward Compulsory COVID-19 Vaccination in a Tertiary Hospital in Italy.

To maintain safety conditions in the provision of care and assistance, and to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients, the Italian government required compulsory COVID-19 vaccination for HCWs, including medical residents (MRs). The aim of this study was to assess COVID-19 vaccination coverage in MRs in a large tertiary hospital in Italy, before and after the introduction of compulsory vaccination, according to demographic characteristics and specific residency. A database on COVID-19 vaccination status and infection of resident medical doctors was created. Descriptive statistics and logistic regressions were carried out on the data. A total of 1894 MRs were included in the study. Being vaccinated in the same hospital as the residency program was significantly related to the year of residency and being enrolled in a frontline residency. A significant association between compliance with the compulsory primary cycle vaccination and vaccination in the hospital residency was observed. Being enrolled in the second, third, and last years of residency, and in a frontline residency, were predictive of being vaccinated in the residency hospital. Almost 100% of the MRs participating in the study were vaccinated against COVID-19. Compulsory vaccination of HCWs, alongside greater and clearer information about the risks and benefits of vaccination, represents an important booster to ensure public health and to promote quality and safety of care.

Urological Safety and COVID-19 Vaccinations.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the impact of COVID-19 vaccines on the urological field and to review the available data in the literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All the related reports and original articles discussing COVID-19 vaccines and their impact on the urological field were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. RESULTS: There are few published articles discussing the COVID-19 vaccine impact on urology. Vaccine safety was confirmed in this field as no major side effects were described. AKI (Acute Kidney Injury) was reported in selected populations. However, about 1% of the side effects was urological. Rare genital complications, low urinary tract symptoms, and occasional gross hematuria were reported. Fertility seems to be not impaired after vaccination. A potential misinterpretation of radiological findings in the oncological field has been reported. CONCLUSIONS: In the literature, there are few studies regarding COVID-19 vaccines and their impact on the urological and andrological fields. We need more studies and extended follow-ups after repeated vaccinations in order to have more corroborating data particularly in selected populations, such as kidney transplant recipients and oncological patients.

Post-Acute COVID-19 Sequelae in a Working Population at One Year Follow-Up: A Wide Range of Impacts from an Italian Sample.

Long COVID-19 is a term used to describe the symptomatic sequelae that develop after suffering from COVID-19. Very few studies have investigated the impact of COVID-19 sequelae on employment status. The aim of this research was to characterise sequelae of COVID-19 in a population of workers who tested positive for COVID-19, with a follow-up within one year of the acute illness, and to analyse the possible association between this and changes in the workers' occupational status. In this retrospective cohort study, a questionnaire was administered to 155 workers; descriptive, univariate (chi-square tests), and multivariate (logistic regression model) analyses were carried out. The mean age was 46.48 years (SD ± 7.302); 76 participants were males (49.7%), and 33 participants reported being current smokers (21.3%). Overall, 19.0% of patients reported not feeling fully recovered at follow-up, and 13.7% reported a change in their job status after COVID-19. A change in occupational status was associated with being a smoker (OR 4.106, CI [1.406-11.990], p = 0.010); hospital stay was associated with age > 46 years in a statistically significant way (p = 0.025) and with not feeling fully recovered at follow-up (p = 0.003). A persistent worsening in anxiety was more common in women (p = 0.028). This study identifies smoking as a risk factor for workers not able to resume their job; furthermore, occupational physicians should monitor mental health more closely after COVID-19, particularly in female workers.

Returning to work and the impact of post COVID-19 condition: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing, with rapidly increasing cases all over the world, and the emerging issue of post COVID-19 (or Long COVID-19) condition is impacting the occupational world. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of lasting COVID-19 symptoms or disability on the working population upon their return to employment. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statements we performed a systematic review in December 2021, screening three databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus), for articles investigating return to work in patients that were previously hospitalized due to COVID-19. A hand-searched was then performed through the references of the included systematic review. A quality assessment was performed on the included studies. RESULTS: Out of the 263 articles found through the initial search, 11 studies were included in this systematic review. The selected studies were divided based on follow-up time, in two months follow-up, follow-up between two and six months, and six months follow-up. All the studies highlighted an important impact of post COVID-19 condition in returning to work after being hospitalized, with differences based on follow-up time, home Country and mean/median age of the sample considered. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlighted post COVID-19 condition as a rising problem in occupational medicine, with consequences on workers' quality of life and productivity. The role of occupational physicians could be essential in applying limitations to work duties or hours and facilitating the return to employment in workers with a post COVID-19 condition.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Medical Liability: An International Perspective in 18 Countries.

The COVID-19 vaccination has proven to be the most effective prevention measure, reducing deaths and hospitalizations and allowing, in combination with non-pharmacological interventions, the pandemic to be tackled. Although most of the adverse reactions to vaccination present mild symptoms and serious effects are very rare, they can be the cause of legal action against the healthcare workers (HCWs) who administered it. To highlight differences in the medical liability systems, we performed a search for the three most populous countries in each continent on vaccine injury compensation programs, new laws or policies to protect HCWs administering vaccinations introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and policies on mandatory vaccinations, on literature databases and institutional sites. We found that in seven countries the medical liability system is based on Common Law, while in eleven it is mainly based on Civil Law. Considering the application of specific laws to protect HCWs who vaccinate during the pandemic, only the USA and Canada provided immunity from liability. Among the countries we analyzed, fourteen have adopted compensation funds. From an international perspective, our results highlight that in eleven (61.1%) countries medical liability is mainly based on Civil Law, whilst in seven (38.9%) it is based on Common Law.

Buffering the Effects of Burnout on Healthcare Professionals' Health-The Mediating Role of Compassionate Relationships at Work in the COVID Era.

Managing the COVID-19 pandemic posed several challenges for healthcare professionals, which likely heightened their risk of burnout (Amanullah and Ramesh Shankar, 2020) and, consequently, their general physical and mental health. Although it may not be possible to address and eliminate the causes of burnout, current research informs healthcare organizations about protective strategies to reduce its detrimental consequences. The promotion of compassionate interactions among healthcare professionals may play such a role. Compassion within healthcare organizations positively affects individual performance and well-being. Building on these considerations and within the framework of the Conservation of Resources theory, this study explores the relationships among burnout dimensions, received compassion at work, and general health in 711 Italian healthcare professionals (68.5% female), aged between 21 and 73 years (Mage = 36.4, SD = 11.2). Analyses were conducted to investigate the association between burnout and general well-being (H1) and between burnout symptoms and perceived compassion at work (H2); and the mediational role of compassion in the relationship between burnout symptoms and general well-being. H1 and H2 were confirmed (r < 0.01 for both), and a SEM model showed the mediating role of compassion at work in the association between burnout symptoms and general well-being (RMSEA < 0.08, SRMR < 0.08, CFI and TLI > 0.90). Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed in the paper.

Medical Liability of the Vaccinating Doctor: Comparing Policies in European Union Countries during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic exhausted healthcare systems around the world, including European Union countries, with healthcare workers at the frontline. Therefore, new health laws and policies have been introduced at the national level in order to offer greater legal protection for health workers. Since the introduction of COVID-19 vaccination, it has led to the development of specific laws to define the compulsoriness for particular categories. This review aimed to evaluate the system of medical liability, focusing on the ten countries of the European Union with the highest rate of vaccination coverage against SARS-CoV-2. A country-by-country analysis was conducted on the different medical liability systems of individual professionals, in general, and with specific focus on the vaccinating doctors. Additional search was conducted to investigate which European states have introduced specific policies in this field, to identify the implementation of any new laws alongside the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, and to assess which countries have adopted the European Digital COVID Certificate and funded specific compensation programs for COVID-19 vaccination. Our results highlight an extremely fragmented European scenario; therefore, this work could be a starting point to define a common approach for medical liability and related policies in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adverse skin reactions to personal protective equipment during COVID-19 pandemic in Italian health care workers.

To avoid exposure to SARS-COV-2, healthcare professionals must use personal protective equipment (PPE). Their use has been related to a series of adverse effects; the most frequent adverse events were headache, dyspnoea, and pressure injuries. Skin adverse effects are very common, including contact dermatitis, itching, erythema, and acneiform eruptions. The objective of this study is to evaluate the skin problems caused by personal protection equipment (PPE) in health care workers (HCWs) and to individuate eventual risk factors. From May to June 2020 a retrospective observational multi-centric study conducted by an online survey sent by email, involving 10 hospital centers, was performed. We considered as independent variables gender and age, occupational group and sector, time of utilization, type and material of PPE. We tested 3 types of PPE: gloves, bonnet, and mask for different time of utilization (<1, 1-3, 3-6, >6 h). We performed a multiple logistic regression model to correlate them with skin adverse events occurrence. Among all the 1184 participants, 292 workers reported a dermatological pathology: 45 (15.41%) had psoriasis, 54 (18.49%) eczema, 38 (13.01%) acne, 48 (16.44%) seborrheic dermatitis, and 107 (36.64%) other. In our sample previous inflammatory dermatological conditions, female sex, prolonged use of PPE were significant risk factors for developing skin related adverse events considering all the PPE considered. The use of PPE is still mandatory in the hospital setting and skin adverse reactions still represent a global problem. Although data from Europe are limited, our study highlighted the importance of the problem of PPE skin reactions in a large sample of Italian healthcare professionals.

The Dermatological Effects and Occupational Impacts of Personal Protective Equipment on a Large Sample of Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Working during the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic healthcare workers (HCWs) had to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) for extended periods of time, leading to an increase in dermatological reactions. The study evaluates the prevalence of adverse skin reactions to PPEs among Italian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and aims to determine whether prolonged PPEs usage poses a significant occupational health risk, by measuring the loss of work days and the eligibility of workers that requested health surveillance due to dermatological PPEs reactions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online ad hoc questionnaire was administered to a sample of Italian HCWs. Questions verted on sociodemographic characteristics, PPEs usage, and occupational well-being. Descriptive analyses and logistic regressions were performed to explore possible associations between variables. RESULTS: Two types of PPEs, Gloves and Masks, were tested. The sample included 1,223 interviewed HCWs, 1,184 gave their consent for participation. A total of 90 medical surveillance visits were requested due to PPEs related dermatological issues: in 30 cases were recognized limitations in working duties and in one case the worker was deemed not fit to keep working. Furthermore, 25 workers had a loss of occupational days due to dermatological issues. A statistically significant correlation was observed with being a nurse or midwife (OR = 1.91, IC = 1.38-2.63, p < 0.001), and being female (OR = 2.04, IC = 1.49-2.78, p < 0.001), which acted as risk factors. DISCUSSION: The enhanced protection measures put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlight the importance of occupational dermatology. This study could contribute to assess the issue, aiming to develop better prevention strategies in the workplace in order to improve well-being of HCWs and reduce the impact of dermatological adverse reactions to PPEs.