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.

Effects of perspective switching and utilitarian thinking on moral judgments in a sacrificial dilemma among healthcare and non-healthcare students.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals have often faced moral challenges, which required them to choose between endorsing self- or other-sacrifice for the greater good. Drawing on the altruistic rationalization hypothesis and trait-activation theory, this study investigates (a) whether healthcare students' endorsement of utilitarian solutions to sacrificial moral dilemmas varies when they are confronted with the minority group, majority group, or third-person perspective on the given dilemma and (b) whether individual differences in utilitarian thinking, as measured by the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (both instrumental harm and impartial beneficence), predict endorsement of utilitarian solutions to moral dilemmas. The study population was divided into a group of healthcare students and a group of non-healthcare students. It was found that the members of both groups expressed a stronger pro-utilitarian position when making moral dilemma judgments from a majority perspective than from the two other perspectives. However, a difference was observed with healthcare students being more reluctant to endorse the utilitarian action than their non-healthcare counterparts in the self-in-majority context. The instrumental harm component was a significant predictor of utilitarian judgments in the healthcare group, but impartial beneficence significantly predicted utilitarian judgments in the non-healthcare group in the self-in-majority context. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04380-z.

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)

Relationship between Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms and Anxiety Levels during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Healthcare Professionals vs. Non-Healthcare Professionals

The present study investigated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety levels, contamination and responsibility/control obsessions and associated OC behaviors in healthcare versus non-healthcare professionals. The study also aimed to examine the relationship between anxiety levels and obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptom levels, gender, age, educational level, and personal and family history of chronic diseases. The 664 participants included 395 (59.5%) men and 269 (40.5%) women and comprised 180 (27.1%) healthcare professionals and 484 (72.9%) non-healthcare professionals. The survey included three data collection tools: (i) Sociodemographic data form, (ii) Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAD, and (iii) the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale Abriged (DOCS-A) pre- and post-pandemic forms. The BAI scores established a moderate positive correlation with post-pandemic DOCS-A total scores and a weak positive correlation with pre-pandemic DOCS-A total scores (p < 0.001 for both). Pre- and post-pandemic DOCS-A total and subdimension scores were significantly higher in women than in men (p < 0.05). Participants with a personal history of chronic diseases had higher BAI and DOCS-A scores compared to participants with no such history (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). The results indicated a significant increase in OC symptoms during the pandemic period compared to the pre-pandemic period and a moderate correlation between the anxiety levels and OC symptom severity. It was also revealed that female gender and personal or family history of chronic diseases posed a higher risk for the increase in anxiety and OC symptoms and healthcare professionals had a higher risk of developing anxiety symptoms compared to non-healthcare professionals.

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.

Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers in India: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) in January 2020 declared outbreak of novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, an international public health emergency. It was stated that there was high COVID-19 spread risk to various other countries across world. According to WHO in March 2020, COVID-19 was characterized as pandemic. However, this sudden crisis is generating great deal of stress, anxiety, and depression throughout the world. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the psychological impact and various associated factors during the developing COVID-19 situation among both the healthcare and non-healthcare working professionals in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observation-based cross-sectional study conducted during the lockdown period and following the lifting of the lockdown for a total of 3 months duration. A structured questionnaire was send via the (email) electronic mail system to a target population of 350 people. Out of which 300 responded. The questionnaire was comprised of study variables: (a) Gender; (b) age-group range which was categorized into- (i) Between 30 snf 50 years and (ii) More than 50 years; (c) Presence of any comorbid medical condition; psychological symptoms of- (d) insomnia; (e) anxiety; and (f) depression. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-square test for determining significance. RESULTS: Mean ± SD values for age were found to be 35.54 ± 6.09; 33.84 ± 7.87; 32.16 ± 5.89 and 55.76 ± 8.98 for physicians, nurses, technical staff, and non-healthcare professionals while the percentages of male study participants was found to be 37.2%, 15%, 57%, and 65% and female study participants was 62.8%, 85%, 43%, and 35% for the physicians, nursing staff, technicians, and non-healthcare professionals. Depression, insomnia, and anxiety between healthcare and non-healthcare professional workers, demonstrated significant P values of 0.05, 0.03, and 0.02, respectively. CONCLUSION: The present study has shown a significant psychological impact arising from this crisis.

Psychological Well-Being, Depression and Stress During COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkey: A Comparative Study of Healthcare Professionals and Non-Healthcare Professionals.

In this study, we aimed to investigate psychological well-being, depression, and stress among healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals in Turkey. An online questionnaire was prepared and shared with participants using social networking sites. Participants were 546 healthcare professionals (females = 313) and 445 non-healthcare professionals (females = 333), aged between 20 and 67 years. All participants completed measures of Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 and Psychological Well-Being Scale. The results showed no significant difference in the scores of psychological well-being, depression and stress of healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals. However, the psychological well-being of healthcare professionals and stress varied in terms of age, gender, marital status, job descriptions, and ways of working in clinic. Women, non-physician healthcare professionals, young and single people and those who worked in COVID-19 service and stayed at least one week away from their families during the pandemic were found to have poor mental well-being. Psychological well-being was significantly and negatively correlated with depression and anxiety. Our findings indicate that healthcare professionals who are at the frontline of the fight against the COVID-19, and nurses, women, single person and those who are away from their family for more than a week during the pandemic are at greater risk.