Empathy and Occupational Health and Well-Being in Ecuadorian Physicians Working with COVID-19 Patients: A Mixed-Method Study.

Approximately one out of ten COVID-19 cases in Ecuador was a physician. It has been reported that this situation has led to a serious detriment of physicians' health and well-being. This study aimed to (i) identify predictors of emotional exhaustion, somatization, and work alienation in Ecuadorian physicians working with COVID-19 patients and (ii) explore the pandemic impact on doctor-patient relationships and on empathy. In 79 Ecuadorian physicians (45 women) who worked with COVID-19 patients, two separate multiple regression models explained the following: 73% of the variability of emotional exhaustion was based on somatization, work alienation, working sector, and passing through a symptomatic infection (p < 0.001), and 56% of the variability of somatization was based on gender and emotional exhaustion (p < 0.001), respectively. Furthermore, intention to leave the profession was more frequent among physicians with greater work alienation (p = 0.003). On the contrary, more empathic physicians never considered leaving their profession during the COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.03). In physicians' verbatim, cognitive empathy appeared associated to a positive change in doctor-patient relationships. On the contrary, having an overwhelming emotional empathy appeared associated to a negative change in doctor-patient relationships. These findings characterize differences in how physicians cope while working in the frontline of the pandemic.

Characterization of Factors Predicting a Favorable Opinion of Research Applications Submitted for an Ethical Review Process.

Introduction: In Spain, biomedical research applications must receive a positive ethical opinion from Research Ethics Committees (RECs) before being executed. There is limited information on how to optimize the ethical review process to reduce delays. This study was performed to characterize variables predicting favorable opinions at the first ethical review performed by a REC. Material and Methods: The study assessed all research applications revised by a REC in 2019-2020. Data was extracted from REC's database of La Rioja, Spain. Variables collected covered three areas: (i) principal investigator's profile; (ii) study design; and (iii) ethical review process. A model based on multiple logistic regression analysis was created to identify variables explaining favorable opinions in first rounds of ethical review processes. Results: The sample included 125 applications (41 submitted in 2019, and 84 in 2020). At the first review, nine (7%) applications were rejected, 56 (45%) were approved, and the remaining 60 (48%) required at least two reviews prior to approval. When comparing both years, a 2-fold increase in the number of applications submitted, and a difference in the ratio of applications with a favorable vs. non-favorable opinion were observed. Furthermore, a model predicted 71% of probability of obtaining a favorable opinion in the first ethical review. Three variables appeared as being explanatory: if the principal investigator is either the group leader or the department's head (OR = 17.39; p < 0.001), and if the informed consent (OR = 11.79; p = 0.01), and methods and procedures (OR = 34.15; p < 0.001) are well done. Conclusions: These findings confirm an increase in the number of submissions and a difference in the ratio of applications approved by year. Findings observed also confirm deficiencies in "informed consent" and in "methods and procedures" are the two main causes of delay for favorable ethical opinions. Additionally, findings highlight the need that group leaders and heads of departments should be more involved in guiding and supervising their research teams, especially when research applications are led by less experienced researchers. Based on these findings, it is suggested that an adequate mentoring and targeted training in research could derive in more robust research applications and in smoother ethical review processes.

Role of Empathy and Lifelong Learning Abilities in Physicians and Nurses Who Work in Direct Contact with Patients in Adverse Working Conditions.

Empathy and lifelong learning are two professional competencies that depend on the four principles of professionalism: humanism, altruism, excellence, and accountability. In occupational health, there is evidence that empathy prevents work distress. However, in the case of lifelong learning, the evidence is still scarce. In addition, recent studies suggest that the development of lifelong learning varies in physicians and nurses and that it is sensitive to the influence of cultural stereotypes associated with professional roles. This study was performed with the purpose of determining the specific role that empathy and lifelong learning play in the reduction in occupational stress. This study included a sample composed by 40 physicians and 40 nurses with high dedication to clinical work in ambulatory consultations from a public healthcare institution in Paraguay. Somatization, exhaustion, and work alienation, described as indicators of occupational stress, were used as dependent variables, whereas empathy, lifelong learning, gender, discipline, professional experience, civil status, and family burden were used as potential predictors. Three multiple regression models explained 32% of the variability of somatization based on a linear relationship with empathy, lifelong learning, and civil status; 73% of the variability of exhaustion based on a linear relationship with empathy, somatization, work alienation, and discipline; and 62% of the variability of work alienation based on a linear relationship with lifelong learning, exhaustion, and discipline. These findings indicate that empathy and lifelong learning play important roles in the prevention of work distress in physicians and nurses. However, this role varies by discipline.