Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
1.
Nurs Open ; 10(5): 3232-3242, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2251493

ABSTRACT

AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of academic burnout (AB) and its associated factors among nursing and midwifery students during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: A correlational cross-sectional study. METHODS: An online survey was distributed from November to December 2020 to nursing and midwifery students in Belgium. The risk of AB was assessed using the MBI-SS Academic Burnout Inventory scale. Factors associated with AB were related to the personal life and level of education of the student and to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: The prevalence of overall AB risk was 50.0% (95% CI 48.5-53.1). Factors significantly associated with higher risk of AB were having a child, having a job, the level of academic training, working overtime, insufficient personal protective equipment against viral contamination during the last internship, work overload due to the pandemic, personal proven or possible SARS-CoV-2 infection and having a relative who died related to COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Midwifery , Pregnancy , Child , Humans , Female , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pandemics , Prevalence , Job Satisfaction , SARS-CoV-2 , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Students
2.
SSM Popul Health ; 20: 101285, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2120105

ABSTRACT

•Symptoms of anxiety/depression were found in 28.8% of the participants at least once.•Unemployment and financial difficulties were associated with anxiety/depression.•Targeted mental health support could lessen mental health impact.

3.
Arch Public Health ; 80(1): 151, 2022 Jun 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1879260

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, most research has focused on the pathophysiology and management of the acute symptoms of COVID-19, yet some people tend to experience symptoms beyond the acute phase of infection, that is, Post COVID-19 condition (PCC). However, evidence on the long-term health impacts of a COVID-19 infection are still scarce. The purpose of this paper is to describe the COVIMPACT study, which aims to set up a cohort of people who have been tested positive for COVID-19 and study the evolution of their physical, mental and social health over the medium (3 months) and long term (two years), and the factors associated with an (un)favorable evolution. METHODS: COVIMPACT is a longitudinal cohort study organised over a two-years period between April 2021 and April 2023. The eligible population is all people aged 18 years and older, living in Belgium, with a recent COVID-19 infection and contacted by the health authorities for contact tracing. Two questionnaires are used: a baseline questionnaire that aims to assess the initial health status of the participants and their status during the acute phase of the illness, and a follow-up questionnaire that is sent every three months after participants enter into the cohort. A matched non-COVID-19 control group was also selected. As of November 1, 2021, 10,708 people completed the baseline questionnaire (5% of the eligible population) and the follow-up participation rate was 79%. In total, 48% of the cohort participants appeared to fit the proposed case definition of PCC (i.e. report at least one symptom related to their COVID-19 infection three months afterwards). DISCUSSION: This study was designed to provide timely information on the short and long term impact of a COVID-19 infection, to stakeholders such as policymakers, health practitioners and people with PCC. Although the follow-up participation rate was good (79%), the participation rate of the eligible population was low (5%). Compared to other studies, this study has a large sample, of non-hospitalised and hospitalised people, who will be followed over a long period of 3 months to two years post infection, and with a global approach to their health.

4.
Behav Sci (Basel) ; 12(5)2022 May 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1855510

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic and policy measures enacted to contain the spread of the coronavirus have had nationwide psychological effects. This study aimed to assess the impact of the first 15 months of the COVID-19 pandemic on the level of anxiety (GAD-7 scale) and depression (PHQ-9 scale) of the Belgian adult population. A longitudinal study was conducted from April 2020 to June 2021, with 1838 respondents participating in 6 online surveys. Linear mixed models were used to model the associations between the predictor variables and the mental health outcomes. Results showed that the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression was higher in times of stricter policy measures. Furthermore, after the initial stress from the outbreak, coping and adjustment were observed in participants, as symptoms of anxiety and depression decreased during times of lower policy restrictions to almost the same level as in pre-COVID times (2018). Though time trends were similar for all population subgroups, higher levels of both anxiety and depression were generally found among women, young people, people with poor social support, extraverts, people having pre-existing psychological problems, and people who were infected/exposed to the COVID-19 virus. Therefore, investment in mental health treatment programs and supports, especially for those risk groups, is crucial.

5.
J Nurs Manag ; 30(5): 1125-1135, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1784701

ABSTRACT

AIMS: To estimate the prevalence of burnout risk among nurses during the peak of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium and to identify risk groups and protective and risk factors. BACKGROUND: Nurses are at high risk of burnout, and this can have negative consequences for them, patients and health care systems. The pandemic may have changed their working conditions and increased their risk of burnout. METHODS: The risk of burnout was assessed through the Maslach Burnout Inventory Scale. Information on socio-demographic and working conditions during the pandemic was also collected. We obtained 4552 respondents through convenience sampling. RESULTS: A high risk of burnout was found in 70% of respondents. The main risk factors of burnout were the lack of personal protective equipment, changes in perceived workload and working with COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: An uneven workload for nurses is an underlying problem during the COVID-19 pandemic and a significant risk factor for their burnout. The decreased workload is a risk factor for burnout as important as increased workload and repeated exposure to COVID-19. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Burnout prevention and treatment interventions must target the correct risk factors and identify nurses at risk to be cost-effective.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Belgium/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/etiology , Burnout, Psychological/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Surveys and Questionnaires
6.
Psychol Med ; : 1-11, 2022 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1740376

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might affect mental health. Data from population-representative panel surveys with multiple waves including pre-COVID data investigating risk and protective factors are still rare. METHODS: In a stratified random sample of the German household population (n = 6684), we conducted survey-weighted multiple linear regressions to determine the association of various psychological risk and protective factors assessed between 2015 and 2020 with changes in psychological distress [(PD; measured via Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety (PHQ-4)] from pre-pandemic (average of 2016 and 2019) to peri-pandemic (both 2020 and 2021) time points. Control analyses on PD change between two pre-pandemic time points (2016 and 2019) were conducted. Regularized regressions were computed to inform on which factors were statistically most influential in the multicollinear setting. RESULTS: PHQ-4 scores in 2020 (M = 2.45) and 2021 (M = 2.21) were elevated compared to 2019 (M = 1.79). Several risk factors (catastrophizing, neuroticism, and asking for instrumental support) and protective factors (perceived stress recovery, positive reappraisal, and optimism) were identified for the peri-pandemic outcomes. Control analyses revealed that in pre-pandemic times, neuroticism and optimism were predominantly related to PD changes. Regularized regression mostly confirmed the results and highlighted perceived stress recovery as most consistent influential protective factor across peri-pandemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several psychological risk and protective factors related to PD outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparison of pre-pandemic data stresses the relevance of longitudinal assessments to potentially reconcile contradictory findings. Implications and suggestions for targeted prevention and intervention programs during highly stressful times such as pandemics are discussed.

7.
Int J Nurs Stud ; 126: 104132, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1509880

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The association between inadequate personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic and an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline healthcare workers has been proven. However, frontline healthcare workers with an adequate supply of personal protective equipment still showed an increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Research on the use of personal protective equipment could provide insight into handling present and future pandemics. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the impact of the availability, training and correct selection of personal protective equipment on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or positive suspect cases in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study involving Belgian healthcare workers: nurses, nursing aides, and midwives working in hospitals, home care services, and residential care services. METHODS: Respondents were invited from May to July 2020 (period 1) followed by a second time in October 2020 (period 2) to complete a digital survey on personal protective equipment availability, training, personal protective equipment selection, screening ability, COVID-19 testing and status, and symptoms corresponding with the COVID-19 suspect case definition. The main outcome was a composite of COVID-19 status change (from negative to positive) during the study or a positive suspect case definition in period 2. RESULTS: Full data were available for 617 participants. The majority of respondents were nurses (93%) employed in a hospital (83%). In total, 379 respondents provided frontline care for COVID-19 patients (61%) and were questioned on personal protective equipment availability and personal protective equipment selection. Nurses were more likely to select the correct personal protective equipment compared with nursing aides and midwives. Respondents working in residential care settings were least likely to choose personal protective equipment correctly. Of all healthcare workers, 10% tested positive for COVID-19 during the course of the study and a composite outcome was reached in 54% of all respondents. Working experience and sufficient personal protective equipment training showed an inverse relation with the composite outcome. The relationship between personal protective equipment availability and the composite outcome was fully mediated by personal protective equipment training (-0.105 [95% confidence interval -0.211 - -0.020]). CONCLUSIONS: Proper training in personal protective equipment usage is critical to reduce the risk of COVID infection in healthcare workers. During a pandemic, rapid dissemination of video guidelines could improve personal protective equipment knowledge in practitioners. Tweetable abstract: Proper training in personal protective equipment usage is critical to reduce the risk of COVID infection in healthcare workers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Health Personnel , Humans , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
8.
J Emerg Nurs ; 47(6): 879-891, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1461326

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess (1) the prevalence of burnout risk among nurses working in intensive care units and emergency department before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and (2) the individual and work-related associated factors. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a cross-sectional study on intensive care unit and emergency nurses in Belgium using 2 self-administered online questionnaires distributed just before the pandemic (January 2020, N = 422) and during the first peak of the pandemic (April 2020, N = 1616). Burnout was assessed with the Maslach Burnout Inventory scale. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of burnout risk was higher among emergency nurses than intensive care unit nurses but was not significantly different after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (from 69.8% to 70.7%, χ²â€¯= 0.15, P = .68), whereas it increased significantly among intensive care unit nurses (from 51.2% to 66.7%, χ²â€¯= 23.64, P < .003). During the pandemic, changes in workload and the lack of personal protective equipment were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of burnout risk, whereas social support from colleagues and from superiors and management were associated with a lower likelihood of burnout risk. Several determinants of burnout risk were different between intensive care unit and emergency nurses. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that nurses in intensive care unit and emergency department were at risk of burnout but their experience during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was quite different. Therefore, it is important to implement specific measures for these 2 groups of nurses to prevent and manage their risk of burnout.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Nursing Staff, Hospital , Pandemics , Belgium/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/nursing , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Nursing Staff, Hospital/psychology , Prevalence , Risk Factors , Surveys and Questionnaires
10.
Intensive Crit Care Nurs ; 65: 103059, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1188596

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Burnout is a global work-related phenomenon. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are at risk of burnout and the COVID-19 pandemic may increase this risk. The objectives of this study were to assess the prevalence of burnout risk and identify risk factors among ICU nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: Web-based survey performed during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in French speaking Belgium. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk of burnout was assessed with the Maslach Burnout Inventory scale. RESULTS: A total of 1135 ICU nurses responded to the questionnaire. The overall prevalence of burnout risk was 68%. A total of 29% of ICU nurses were at risk of depersonalisation (DP), 31% of reduced personal accomplishment (PA), and 38% of emotional exhaustion (EE). A 1:3 nurse-to-patient ratio increased the risk of EE (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.07-2.95) and DP (OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.09-2.40). Those who reported having a higher perceived workload during the COVID-19 pandemic were at higher risk for all dimensions of burnout. Shortage of personal protective equipment increased the risk of EE (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.35-3.34) and nurses who reported having symptoms of COVID-19 without being tested were at higher risk of EE (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.68-1.87). CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of ICU nurses were at risk of burnout and this risk was associated with their working conditions during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We recommend monitoring the risk of burnout and implementing interventions to prevent and manage it, taking into account the factors identified in this study.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional/diagnosis , COVID-19/complications , Adult , Belgium , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/psychology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Disease Outbreaks , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Stress/complications , Occupational Stress/etiology , Occupational Stress/psychology , Prevalence , Psychometrics/instrumentation , Psychometrics/methods , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Risk Factors , Surveys and Questionnaires , Workload/psychology , Workload/standards
11.
BMC Psychiatry ; 21(1): 112, 2021 02 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1090679

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent suppression measures have had health and social implications for billions of individuals. The aim of this paper is to investigate the risk of psychological distress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and suppression measures during the early days of the lockdown. We compared the level of psychological distress at the beginning of that period with a pre-pandemic health survey and assessed the psychological effects of exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in social activity and support. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to the general population in Belgium 3 days after the beginning of the lockdown. 20,792 respondents participated. The psychological distress of the population was measured using the GHQ-12 scale. Social activities and support were assessed using the Social Participation Measure, the Short Loneliness Scale, and the Oslo Social Support Scale. An index of subjective exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic was constructed, as well as a measure of change in occupational status. Measurements were compared to a representative sample of individuals extracted from the Belgian Health Interview Survey of 2018. Bootstrapping was performed and analyses were reweighted to match the Belgian population in order to control for survey selection bias. RESULTS: Half of the respondents reported psychological distress in the early days of the lockdown. A longer period of confinement was associated with higher risk of distress. Women and younger age groups were more at risk than men and older age groups, as were respondents who had been exposed to COVID-19. Changes in occupational status and a decrease in social activity and support also increased the risk of psychological distress. Comparing the results with those of the 2018 Belgian Health Interview shows that the early period of the lockdown corresponded to a 2.3-fold increase in psychological distress (95% CI: 2.16-2.45). CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress is associated with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and suppression measures. The association is measurable from the very earliest days of confinement and it affected specific at-risk groups. Authorities should consider ways of limiting the effect of confinement on the mental and social health of the population and developing strategies to mitigate the adverse consequences of suppression measures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Aged , Belgium/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Female , Humans , Male , Psychological Distress , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Front Psychiatry ; 12: 575553, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1083593

ABSTRACT

Background: The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and its associated measures led to high levels of mental distress in the general population. Previous research indicated that young people are especially vulnerable for a wide range of mental health problems during the pandemic, but little is known about the mechanisms. This study examined mental distress and its contributing factors among young Belgian people. Methods: An online survey was widely distributed in Belgium during the first wave of COVID-19 in March, and 16-25-year-olds were selected as a subsample. Mental distress was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), and a threshold of ≥4 was used to discriminate mental distress cases from non-cases. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate possible predictors of mental distress, including demographics, chronic condition, history of mental health problems, social support, exposure to COVID-19, and several changes in everyday activities. Results: A total of 2,008 respondents were included, of which the majority was female (78.09%) and student (66.82%). The results indicate that about two thirds (65.49%) experienced mental distress. In the multivariable regression model, significant (p < 0.01) predictors of mental distress were female gender (OR = 1.78), low social support (OR = 2.17), loneliness (OR = 5.17), a small (OR = 1.63), or large (OR = 3.08) increase in social media use, a small (OR = 1.63) or large (OR = 2.17) decrease in going out for drinks or food, and a decrease in doing home activities (OR = 2.72). Conclusion: Young people experience high levels of mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings indicate that mental distress was highest among women, those experiencing loneliness or low social support and those whose usual everyday life is most affected. The psychological needs of young people, such as the need for peer interaction, should be more recognized and supported.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL