Psychological Distress among Healthcare and Non-Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: This Too Shall Pass

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the psychological distress experienced by healthcare and non-healthcare professionals working in a hospital setting during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methodology: This survey-based cross-sectional study included 361 professionals (288 healthcare and 73 non-healthcare professionals) working at Ziauddin University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. Psychological distress was assessed using Depression Anxiety Stress Scale - 21 (DASS-21). Result(s): There was a higher prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress among healthcare professionals as compared to the non-healthcare professionals, as indicated by the mean depression, anxiety, and stress scores on DASS-21 (p<0.05). The univariate logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of psychological distress were similar in both genders and individuals of all age groups. Healthcare professionals were twice more likely to be severely depressed and stressed as compared to non-healthcare professionals (p<0.05). Conclusion(s): This study concludes that psychological distress is more prevalent among healthcare workers than non-healthcare workers.Copyright © 2023 Lahore Medical And Dental College. All rights reserved.

COVID-19 vaccination requirements, encouragement and hesitancy among non-health care, non-congregate workers in Chicago: results from the WEVax survey.

BACKGROUND: While frontline and essential workers were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination in the United States, coverage rates and encouragement strategies among non-health care workers have not been well-described. The Chicago Department of Public Health surveyed non-health care businesses to fill these knowledge gaps and identify potential mechanisms for improving vaccine uptake. METHODS: The Workplace Encouragement for COVID-19 Vaccination in Chicago survey (WEVax Chicago) was administered using REDCap from July 11 to September 12, 2022, to businesses previously contacted for COVID-19 surveillance and vaccine-related outreach. Stratified random sampling by industry was used to select businesses for phone follow-up; zip codes with low COVID-19 vaccine coverage were oversampled. Business and workforce characteristics including employee vaccination rates were reported. Frequencies of requirement, verification, and eight other strategies to encourage employee vaccination were assessed, along with barriers to uptake. Fisher's exact test compared business characteristics, and Kruskal-Wallis test compared numbers of encouragement strategies reported among businesses with high (> 75%) vs. lower or missing vaccination rates. RESULTS: Forty-nine businesses completed the survey, with 86% having 500 or fewer employees and 35% in frontline essential industries. More than half (59%) reported high COVID-19 vaccination rates among full-time employees; most (75%) workplaces reporting lower coverage were manufacturing businesses with fewer than 100 employees. Verifying vaccination was more common than requiring vaccination (51% vs. 28%). The most frequently reported encouragement strategies aimed to improve convenience of vaccination (e.g., offering leave to be vaccinated (67%) or to recover from side effects (71%)), while most barriers to uptake were related to vaccine confidence (concerns of safety, side effects, and other skepticism). More high-coverage workplaces reported requiring (p = 0.03) or verifying vaccination (p = 0.07), though the mean and median numbers of strategies used were slightly greater among lower-coverage versus higher-coverage businesses. CONCLUSIONS: Many WEVax respondents reported high COVID-19 vaccine coverage among employees. Vaccine requirement, verification and addressing vaccine mistrust may have more potential to improve coverage among working-age Chicagoans than increasing convenience of vaccination. Vaccine promotion strategies among non-health care workers should target low-coverage businesses and assess motivators in addition to barriers among workers and businesses.

The impact of COVID-19 work demands on work-family conflict and psychological well-being among essential non-healthcare workers

(Spanish) Este estudio examino el impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19 entre personal esencial no sanitario mediante el examen de la percepcion de demandas y recursos laborales en los conflictos entre el trabajo, familia y bienestar psicologico. Usamos el modelo Recursos Trabajo-Demandas para examinar las variables de estudio. Este es la fase inicial de un estudio longitudinal aun en proceso. Un total de 161 participantes han participado de la primera fase base presentada en este trabajo. Examinamos: demandas laborales relacionadas con COVID-19, recursos organizacionales y personales, malestar psicologico general, ansiedad y depresion. Usamos PLS-SEM para probar la hipotesis del estudio. Los resultados preliminares de la primera fase de este estudio aun en curso sugieren que las demandas laborales de COVID-19 tuvieron relaciones positivas y significativas con el conflicto trabajo-familia, ansiedad y depresion, pero una relacion negativa y significativa con el malestar psicologico general. Mientras tanto, los recursos personales solo mediaron significativamente la relacion entre demandas laborales relacionadas con COVID- 19 y depresion (EI = -.061, p = .028). Las demandas relacionadas con COVID-19 tuvieron efectos significativos en todas las variables del estudio, particularmente en el conflicto trabajo-familia. Los recursos personales solo mediaron la relacion entre las demandas laborales de COVID-19 y depresion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Relationships between Occupational Stress, Change in Work Environment during the COVID-19 Pandemic, and Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms among Non-Healthcare Workers in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Study.

This study aims to clarify the effect of occupational stress and changes in the work environment on non-healthcare workers' (HCWs) mental health during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. A web-based, cross-sectional survey was conducted from 16 to 17 December 2020. Data from 807 non-HCWs were included. We evaluated occupational stress using the Generic Job Stress Questionnaire (GJSQ). Depressive and anxiety symptoms were assessed using the Japanese version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale, respectively. We collected demographic variables, work-related variables, and the variables associated with COVID-19. The adjusted odds ratios for depressive and anxiety groups were estimated using multivariate logistic regression analyses, adjusted for all the demographic variables, work-related variables, COVID-19-related variables, and the six subdivided GJSQ subscales. The results confirm a relationship between variance in workload, job future ambiguity, social support from coworkers, having contact with COVID-19 patients, and depressive and anxiety symptoms. Paying attention to job future ambiguity, the variance in workload at the workplace and individual perspectives, promoting contact and support among coworkers using online communication tools, and reducing contact with COVID-19 patients, will be useful for decreasing the depressive and anxiety symptoms among non-HCWs.

Personal protective equipment training for non-healthcare workers in the Covid-19 pandemic: Effectiveness of an evidence-based skills training framework.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale quarantine facilities staffed with non-healthcare workers (NHCW) were instrumental in preventing community spread of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease of 2019). The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a newly developed procedural skills training framework in ensuring personal protective equipment (PPE) compliance of PPE-naïve NHCWs. METHODS: We developed a PPE procedural skills training framework for NHCWs using the Learn, See, Practice, Prove, Do, and Maintain (LSPPDM) framework and international guidelines on PPE for healthcare workers. The NHCWs underwent PPE training using this framework, conducted by a team of Infection Prevention nurses, prior to being stationed within the CCF. Effectiveness of the LSPPDM PPE training framework was assessed using: 1) competency assessment scores for NHCWs, 2) PPE compliance rates from daily audit findings, and, 3) healthcare-associated COVID-19 infection rates of NHCWs. RESULTS: A total of 883 NHCWs had completed the PPE training and demonstrated competency in PPE compliance, fulfilling 100% of the checklist requirements. Mean PPE compliance of all NHCWs during the 11-week study period was noted to be >96%. The post-implementation improvement was statistically significant when the compliance was expressed in 3-days blocks) and in bed management staff (P = < 0.05). None of the 883 NHCWs who underwent PPE training via the LSPPDM framework were diagnosed with healthcare-associated COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSION: An evidence-based skills training framework is effective in PPE training of large numbers of NHCWs, resulting in high compliance of appropriate PPE use and prevention of healthcare-associated COVID-19 infection.

COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Among Healthcare Workers and Non-healthcare Workers in China: A Survey.

Background: The coronavirus pneumonia is still spreading around the world. Much progress has been made in vaccine development, and vaccination will become an inevitable trend in the fight against this pandemic. However, the public acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination still remains uncertain. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was used in Wen Juan Xing survey platform. All the respondents were divided into healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the key sociodemographic, cognitive, and attitude associations among the samples of healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Results: A total of 2,580 respondents completed the questionnaire, including 1,329 healthcare workers and 1,251 non-healthcare workers. This study showed that 76.98% of healthcare workers accepted the COVID-19 vaccine, 18.28% workers were hesitant, and 4.74% workers were resistant. Among the non-healthcare workers, 56.19% workers received the COVID-19 vaccine, 37.57% workers were hesitant, and 6.24% workers were resistant. Among the healthcare workers, compared with vaccine recipients, vaccine-hesitant individuals were more likely to be female (AOR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.12-2.07); vaccine-resistant individuals were more likely to live in the suburbs (AOR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.44-3.99) with an income of 10,000 RMB or greater (AOR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.03-3.90). Among the non-healthcare workers, vaccine-hesitant individuals were more likely to be female (AOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.31-2.11); vaccine-resistant individuals were also more likely to be female (AOR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.16-3.02) and older than 65 years (AOR = 4.96, 95% CI: 1.40-7.62). There are great differences between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers in their cognition and attitude toward vaccines. Conclusions: Our study shows that healthcare workers are more willing to be vaccinated than non-healthcare workers. Current vaccine safety issues continue to be a major factor affecting public acceptance, and to expand vaccine coverage in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, appropriate vaccination strategies and immunization programs are essential, especially for non-healthcare workers.