Mental health and wellbeing of health and aged care workers in Australia, May 2021 - June 2022: a longitudinal cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the mental health and wellbeing of health and aged care workers in Australia during the second and third years of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, overall and by occupation group. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal cohort study of health and aged care workers (ambulance, hospitals, primary care, residential aged care) in Victoria: May-July 2021 (survey 1), October-December 2021 (survey 2), and May-June 2022 (survey 3). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions of respondents (adjusted for age, gender, socio-economic status) reporting moderate to severe symptoms of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, PHQ-9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, GAD-7), or post-traumatic stress (Impact of Event Scale-6, IES-6), burnout (abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory, aMBI), or high optimism (10-point visual analogue scale); mean scores (adjusted for age, gender, socio-economic status) for wellbeing (Personal Wellbeing Index-Adult, PWI-A) and resilience (Connor Davidson Resilience Scale 2, CD-RISC-2). RESULTS: A total of 1667 people responded to at least one survey (survey 1, 989; survey 2, 1153; survey 3, 993; response rate, 3.3%). Overall, 1211 survey responses were from women (72.6%); most respondents were hospital workers (1289, 77.3%) or ambulance staff (315, 18.9%). The adjusted proportions of respondents who reported moderate to severe symptoms of depression (survey 1, 16.4%; survey 2, 22.6%; survey 3, 19.2%), anxiety (survey 1, 8.8%; survey 2, 16.0%; survey 3, 11.0%), or post-traumatic stress (survey 1, 14.6%; survey 2, 35.1%; survey 3, 14.9%) were each largest for survey 2. The adjusted proportions of participants who reported moderate to severe symptoms of burnout were higher in surveys 2 and 3 than in survey 1, and the proportions who reported high optimism were smaller in surveys 2 and 3 than in survey 1. Adjusted mean scores for wellbeing and resilience were similar at surveys 2 and 3 and lower than at survey 1. The magnitude but not the patterns of change differed by occupation group. CONCLUSION: Burnout was more frequently reported and mean wellbeing and resilience scores were lower in mid-2022 than in mid-2021 for Victorian health and aged care workers who participated in our study. Evidence-based mental health and wellbeing programs for workers in health care organisations are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12621000533897 (observational study; retrospective).

Evaluation of a health and social care programme to improve outcomes following critical illness: a multicentre study.

RATIONALE: At present, clinicians aiming to support patients through the challenges after critical care have limited evidence to base interventions. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate a multicentre integrated health and social care intervention for critical care survivors. A process evaluation assessed factors influencing the programme implementation. METHODS: This study evaluated the impact of the Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment (InS:PIRE) programme. We compared patients who attended this programme with a usual care cohort from the same time period across nine hospital sites in Scotland. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured via the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level instrument, at 12 months post hospital discharge. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy, depression, anxiety and pain. RESULTS: 137 patients who received the InS:PIRE intervention completed outcome measures at 12 months. In the usual care cohort, 115 patients completed the measures. The two cohorts had similar baseline demographics. After adjustment, there was a significant absolute increase in HRQoL in the intervention cohort in relation to the usual care cohort (0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.20, p=0.01). Patients in the InS:PIRE cohort also reported self-efficacy scores that were 7.7% higher (2.32 points higher, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.31, p=0.02), fewer symptoms of depression (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.76, p=0.01) and similar symptoms of anxiety (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.13, p=0.11). There was no significant difference in overall pain experience. Key facilitators for implementation were: integration with inpatient care, organisational engagement, flexibility to service inclusion; key barriers were: funding, staff availability and venue availability. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre evaluation of a health and social care programme designed for survivors of critical illness appears to show benefit at 12 months following hospital discharge.

Mental Health Outcomes in Australian Healthcare and Aged-Care Workers during the Second Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: the COVID-19 pandemic has incurred psychological risks for healthcare workers (HCWs). We established a Victorian HCW cohort (the Coronavirus in Victorian Healthcare and Aged-Care Workers (COVIC-HA) cohort study) to examine COVID-19 impacts on HCWs and assess organisational responses over time. METHODS: mixed-methods cohort study, with baseline data collected via an online survey (7 May-18 July 2021) across four healthcare settings: ambulance, hospitals, primary care, and residential aged-care. Outcomes included self-reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress (PTS), wellbeing, burnout, and resilience, measured using validated tools. Work and home-related COVID-19 impacts and perceptions of workplace responses were also captured. RESULTS: among 984 HCWs, symptoms of clinically significant depression, anxiety, and PTS were reported by 22.5%, 14.0%, and 20.4%, respectively, highest among paramedics and nurses. Emotional exhaustion reflecting moderate-severe burnout was reported by 65.1%. Concerns about contracting COVID-19 at work and transmitting COVID-19 were common, but 91.2% felt well-informed on workplace changes and 78.3% reported that support services were available. CONCLUSIONS: Australian HCWs employed during 2021 experienced adverse mental health outcomes, with prevalence differences observed according to occupation. Longitudinal evidence is needed to inform workplace strategies that support the physical and mental wellbeing of HCWs at organisational and state policy levels.

P2/N95 respirators & surgical masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: Effectiveness & adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people have acquired and died from SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks and P2/N95 respirators, to prevent infection while treating patients. However, the comparative effectiveness of respirators and masks in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the likelihood of experiencing adverse events (AEs) with wear are unclear. METHODS: Searches were carried out in PubMed, Europe PMC and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to 14 June 2021. A systematic review of comparative epidemiological studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infection or AE incidence in HCWs wearing P2/N95 (or equivalent) respirators and surgical masks was performed. Article screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were duplicated. Meta-analysis of extracted data was carried out in RevMan. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included, with most having high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in respirator or surgical mask effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.85, [95%CI 0.72, 1.01]). Healthcare workers experienced significantly more headaches (OR 2.62, [95%CI 1.18, 5.81]), respiratory distress (OR 4.21, [95%CI 1.46, 12.13]), facial irritation (OR 1.80, [95%CI 1.03, 3.14]) and pressure-related injuries (OR 4.39, [95%CI 2.37, 8.15]) when wearing respirators compared to surgical masks. CONCLUSION: The existing epidemiological evidence does not enable definitive assessment of the effectiveness of respirators compared to surgical masks in preventing infection. Healthcare workers wearing respirators may be more likely to experience AEs. Effective mitigation strategies are important to ensure the uptake and correct use of respirators by HCWs.

Changes in work and health of Australians during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Engagement in work is an important determinant of health. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, public health measures imposed to reduce viral transmission resulted in large-scale loss of work during the early stages of the pandemic, contributing to declined mental and physical health. As the pandemic unfolded, the Australian economy began to recover and some people could return to work, whilst localised lockdowns resulted in further loss of work for others. The long-term health effects of work loss remain unexplored within the COVID-19 pandemic context, in addition to whether any health effects are persistent upon returning to work. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal cohort study of 2603 participants across Australia monitored changes in health and work between March and December 2020, with participants completing surveys at baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months later. Outcomes described psychological distress, and mental and physical health. Linear mixed regression models examined associations between changes in health and experiences of work loss, and return to work, over time. RESULTS: Losing work during the early stages of the pandemic was associated with long-term poorer mental health, which began to recover over time as some returned to work. Physical health deteriorated over time, greater for people not working at baseline. Being out of work was associated with poorer mental health, but better physical health. These effects were larger for people that had recently lost work than for people with sustained work loss, and retaining employment played a protective role. Generally, returning to work resulted in poorer physical health and improvements in mental health, although this depended on the broader context of changes in work. CONCLUSIONS: Work cessation during the pandemic led to poor health outcomes and had long-lasting effects. Returning to work benefits mental health but may reduce physical activity in the short-term. We encourage the provision of accessible mental health supports and services immediately following loss of work, and for people with prolonged forms of work loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12620000857909 .

Long-term outcomes following severe COVID-19 infection: a propensity matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data describing the long-term outcomes of severe COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the long-term psychosocial and physical consequences of severe COVID-19 for patients. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre observational cohort study; between 3 and 7 months posthospital discharge, patients who had been admitted to critical care due to severe COVID-19 were invited to an established recovery service. Standardised questionnaires concerning emotional, physical and social recovery, including information on employment, were completed by patients. Using propensity score matching, we explored outcomes between patients admitted to critical care with and without COVID-19, using data from the same recovery programme. RESULTS: Between July 2020 and December 2020, 93 patients who had been admitted to critical with COVID-19 participated. Emotional dysfunction was common: 46.2% of patients had symptoms of anxiety and 34.4% symptoms of depression. At follow-up 53.7% of previously employed patients had returned to employment; there was a significant difference in return to employment across the socio-economic gradient, with lower numbers of patients from the most deprived areas returning to employment (p=0.03). 91 (97.8%) COVID-19 patients were matched with 91 non-COVID-19 patients. There were no significant differences in any measured outcomes between the two cohorts. INTERPRETATION: Emotional and social problems are common in survivors of severe COVID-19 infection. Coordinated rehabilitation is required to ensure patients make an optimal recovery.

A Metabolomics approach for the diagnosis Of SecondAry InfeCtions in COVID-19 (MOSAIC): a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at an increased risk of developing secondary bacterial infections. These are both difficult to diagnose and are associated with an increased mortality. Metabolomics may aid clinicians in diagnosing secondary bacterial infections in COVID-19 through identification and quantification of disease specific biomarkers, with the aim of identifying underlying causative microorganisms and directing antimicrobial therapy. METHODS: This is a multi-centre prospective diagnostic observational study. Patients with COVID-19 will be recruited from critical care units in three Scottish hospitals. Three serial blood samples will be taken from patients, and an additional sample taken if a patient shows clinical or microbiological evidence of secondary infection. Samples will be analysed using LC-MS and subjected to bioinformatic processing and statistical analysis to explore the metabolite changes associated with bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients. Comparisons of the data sets will be made with standard microbiological and biochemical methods of diagnosing infection. DISCUSSION: Metabolomics analyses may provide additional strategies for identifying secondary infections, which might permit faster initiation of specific tailored antimicrobial therapy to critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Health impacts of a 4 month community-wide lockdown: a prospective longitudinal study in Victoria, Australia

Background In response to the second wave of COVID-19 in Australia a 4 month community-wide lockdown resulted in Victoria, Australia. We explored the health impacts during lockdown and following its conclusion. Methods A cohort of 898 working-age Australians enrolled in a national longitudinal cohort study, completing surveys prior to, during, and following a Victorian lockdown during the southern hemisphere winter and early spring 2020. Mixed linear regression models examined health outcomes during and following the lockdown. Generalised estimating equations assessed changes in several determinants of health such as social interactions, engagement in work and finances. Results The Victorian lockdown had negative consequences for mental health and increased levels of psychological distress. These health impacts coincided with greater social isolation and cessation of work. Following the conclusion of lockdown, outcomes assessing mental health, work and social interactions had recovered to an extent whereby no significant long-lasting effects were identified compared to pre-lockdown conditions. Conclusions Extended community lockdowns have adverse health consequences. Governments should weigh the potential health impacts of lockdown with the benefits of reducing COVID-19 transmission. Services and programs to reduce the negative impacts of lockdown may include increases in mental health care, encouraging safe social interactions and financial support to maintain employment relationships. Longer-term follow-up is required to identify any persistent health effects of community lockdowns. Key messages Lockdowns result in adverse health consequences, and some quickly recover. Timely services and programs are encouraged to reduce negative impacts of lockdowns such as mental health supports and promoting safe interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Journal of Epidemiology is the property of Oxford University Press / USA 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 abstract 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 abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Impact of Work Loss on Mental and Physical Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Baseline Findings from a Prospective Cohort Study.

Purpose To determine if losing work during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with mental and physical health status. To determine if social interactions and financial resources moderate the relationship between work loss and health. Methods Participants were Australians aged 18 + years that were employed in paid work prior to the COVID-19 pandemic who responded to an online or telephone survey from 27th March to 12th June 2020 as part of a prospective longitudinal cohort study. Outcome measures include Kessler-6 score > 18 indicating high psychological distress, and Short Form 12 (SF-12) mental health or physical health component score < = 45 indicating poor mental or physical health. Results The cohort consisted of 2,603 respondents, including groups who had lost their job (N = 541), were not working but remained employed (N = 613), were working less (N = 660), and whose work was unaffected (N = 789). Three groups experiencing work loss had greater odds of high psychological distress (AOR = 2.22-3.66), poor mental (AOR = 1.78-2.27) and physical health (AOR = 2.10-2.12) than the unaffected work group. Poor mental health was more common than poor physical health. The odds of high psychological distress (AOR = 5.43-8.36), poor mental (AOR = 1.92-4.53) and physical health (AOR = 1.93-3.90) were increased in those reporting fewer social interactions or less financial resources. Conclusion Losing work during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with mental and physical health problems, and this relationship is moderated by social interactions and financial resources. Responses that increase financial security and enhance social connections may alleviate the health impacts of work loss. Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12620000857909.