Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 62
Filter
1.
CMAJ ; 193(49): E1868-E1877, 2021 12 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1591952

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected health care workers. We sought to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital health care workers in Quebec, Canada, after the first wave of the pandemic and to explore factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. METHODS: Between July 6 and Sept. 24, 2020, we enrolled health care workers from 10 hospitals, including 8 from a region with a high incidence of COVID-19 (the Montréal area) and 2 from low-incidence regions of Quebec. Eligible health care workers were physicians, nurses, orderlies and cleaning staff working in 4 types of care units (emergency department, intensive care unit, COVID-19 inpatient unit and non-COVID-19 inpatient unit). Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent SARS-CoV-2 serology testing. We identified factors independently associated with higher seroprevalence. RESULTS: Among 2056 enrolled health care workers, 241 (11.7%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 serology. Of these, 171 (71.0%) had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Seroprevalence varied among hospitals, from 2.4% to 3.7% in low-incidence regions to 17.9% to 32.0% in hospitals with outbreaks involving 5 or more health care workers. Higher seroprevalence was associated with working in a hospital where outbreaks occurred (adjusted prevalence ratio 4.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.63-6.57), being a nurse or nursing assistant (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.03-1.74) or an orderly (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.12-1.97), and Black or Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.13-1.76). Lower seroprevalence was associated with working in the intensive care unit (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.71) or the emergency department (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.98). INTERPRETATION: Health care workers in Quebec hospitals were at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in outbreak settings. More work is needed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics in health care settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/etiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Demography , Health Personnel , Hospitals , Humans , Incidence , Occupational Diseases/blood , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Pandemics , Quebec/epidemiology , Risk Factors , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires
3.
J UOEH ; 43(3): 341-348, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1436363

ABSTRACT

This paper provides a picture of the observations made over three hundred years ago by Bernardino Ramazzini (1633-1714) in light of current topical issues ranging from health problems related to work and lifestyle habits to the current burdensome COVID-19 pandemic. The main aspects of his work consist of descriptions of disorders linked to environmental risks, suggestions for measures for risk protection, and recommendations for healthy living. This paper focuses on Ramazzini's most relevant achievements by (1) analyzing the episodes that stimulated the composition of his main work and highlighting some observations on which current epidemiological and toxicological studies are based; (2) reviewing his work showing not only the systematic descriptions of work-related illnesses caused by occupational factors but also his sound etiological and physiopathological contributions to the field of occupational lung diseases, breast cancer, and environmental disorders; and (3) remarking on his main observations in the fields of risk prevention and health promotion, also in the light of some highly topical issues related to unhealthy lifestyle habits and the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Promotion/history , Healthy Lifestyle , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Occupational Diseases/history , Occupational Health/history , Occupational Medicine/history , History, 17th Century , History, 18th Century , Humans , Life Style , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Risk
5.
Rev Colomb Psiquiatr (Engl Ed) ; 50(3): 225-231, 2021.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401810

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The crisis situation generated by COVID-19 and the measures adopted have generated social changes in the normal dynamics of the general population and especially for health workers, who find themselves caring for patients with suspected or confirmed infection. Recent studies have detected in them depression and anxiety symptoms and burnout syndrome, with personal and social conditions impacting their response capacity during the health emergency. Our aim was to generate recommendations for the promotion and protection of the mental health of health workers and teams in the first line of care in the health emergency due to COVID-19. METHODS: A rapid literature search was carried out in PubMed and Google Scholar, and an iterative expert consensus and through electronic consultation, with 13 participants from the areas of psychology, psychiatry and medicine; the grading of its strength and directionality was carried out according to the international standards of the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: Thirty-one recommendations were generated on self-care of health workers, community care among health teams, screening for alarm signs in mental health and for health institutions. CONCLUSIONS: The promotion and protection activities in mental health to face the health emergency generated by COVID-19 worldwide can include coordinated actions between workers, health teams and health institutions as part of a comprehensive, community care, co-responsible and sustained over time.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/therapy , Occupational Diseases/diagnosis , Occupational Diseases/therapy , Occupational Health Services/methods , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/standards , Mental Disorders/etiology , Mental Disorders/psychology , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Occupational Diseases/psychology , Occupational Health Services/standards , Preventive Health Services/methods , Preventive Health Services/standards , Self Care/methods , Self Care/standards
7.
Occup Environ Med ; 78(11): 818-822, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1373973

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Given the importance of continued COVID-19 surveillance, our objective was to present findings from a short follow-up survey of workforce SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in previously seropositive participants and describe associations between work locations and negative seroconversion. METHODS: We conducted a follow-up cross-sectional survey on previously seropositive healthcare workers, using questionnaires and serology testing. Eligible employees previously consented to be contacted were invited by email to participate in a survey and laboratory blood draws. SAS V.9.4 was used to describe employee characteristics and seroconversion status. Binomial regression models were used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) of seronegativity. The multivariable analyses included age, gender, race/ethnicity, region of residence, work location, prior diagnosis/PCR results and days between antibody tests. Unadjusted and adjusted PRs 95% CIs and p values were reported. RESULTS: Of the 3990 employees emailed in the follow-up, 1631 completed an exposure survey and generated a blood-draw requisition form. Average time between serology testing was 4 months. Of the 955 employees with complete serology results, 79.1% were female, 53.4% were white and 46.4% resided in Long Island; 176 participants seroconverted to negative. In multivariable regression analyses adjusted for gender, race/ethnicity and region of residence, younger employees (<20-30 years), intensive care unit workers and those with no/negative prior PCR results were more likely to have negative seroconversion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patterns of negative seroconversion showed significant differences by sociodemographic and workplace characteristics. These results contribute information to workplace serosurveillance.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/etiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Seroconversion , Serologic Tests , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
8.
J Prim Care Community Health ; 12: 21501327211040359, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1365302

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are common worldwide. Recommendations to reduce discomfort often commence with increasing physical activity levels. In Saudi Arabia, levels of physical activity prior to the COVID-19 pandemic were low. This cross-sectional study aims at estimating the prevalence of MSDs among Saudi physicians, as well as determining the pattern and level of physical activity post lockdown and examining their association. METHODS: Physical activity levels were assessed via the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and MSDs were assessed via the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire. Chi-squared tests with significance levels of <.05 were performed to explore bivariate associations. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were given by binary logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 3492 physicians participated in this study, and over half of them (63.55%) reported low physical activity. Risk of MSDs increased with aging and with increasing BMI (P for trend <.05). Females were more likely to report MSDs (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.07-1.86), as well as physicians with a chronic condition (OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.24-1.37) and those who work in shifts (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.03-1.37). Moderate activity conferred a non-significant protective effect (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.79-1.13), whilst high physical activity had a non-significant increased risk of MSDs in this population. CONCLUSION: Physical activity in this population is astonishingly low, while prevalence of MSDs is relatively high. Significant factors include age, sex, shift work, and the presence of chronic conditions. Current results warrant the consideration of preventive measures for physicians.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Musculoskeletal Diseases , Occupational Diseases , Physicians , Communicable Disease Control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Exercise , Female , Humans , Musculoskeletal Diseases/epidemiology , Musculoskeletal Diseases/etiology , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Pandemics , Prevalence , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology
9.
Rev Colomb Psiquiatr (Engl Ed) ; 50(3): 166-175, 2021.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1347800

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Since the emergence of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the world has faced a pandemic with consequences at all levels. In many countries, the health systems collapsed and healthcare professionals had to be on the front line of this crisis. The adverse effects on the mental health of healthcare professionals have been widely reported. This research focuses on identifying the main factors associated with adverse psychological outcomes. METHODS: Descriptive, cross-sectional study based on surveys, applying the PHQ-9, GAD-7, ISI and EIE-R tests to healthcare professionals from Ecuador during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: 1028 participants, distributed in: 557 physicians (54.18%), 349 nurses (33.94%), 29 laboratory workers (2.82%), 27 paramedics (2.62%), 52 psychologists (5.05%) and 14 respiratory therapists (1.36%), from 16 of the 24 provinces of Ecuador. Of these, 27.3% presented symptoms of depression, 39.2% anxiety symptoms, 16.3% insomnia and 43.8% symptoms of PTSD, with the 4 types of symptoms ranging from moderate to severe. The most relevant associated factors were: working in Guayas (the most affected province) (OR = 2.18 for depressive symptoms and OR = 2.59 for PTSD symptoms); being a postgraduate doctor (OR = 1.52 for depressive symptoms and OR = 1.57 for insomnia), perception of not having the proper protective equipment (OR = 1.71 for symptoms of depression and OR = 1.57 for symptoms of anxiety) and being a woman (OR = 1.39 for anxiety). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals can suffer a significant mental condition that may require psychiatric and psychological intervention. The main associated factors are primarily related to living and working in cities with a higher number of cases and the characteristics of the job, such as being a postgraduate doctor, as well as the perception of security. The main risk factors are primarily related to geographical distribution and job characteristics, such as being a resident physician and self-perception of safety. Further studies are required as the pandemic evolves.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Disorders/etiology , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Ecuador/epidemiology , Female , Health Surveys , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Occupational Diseases/diagnosis , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Psychological Tests , Risk Factors , Young Adult
10.
Rev Neurol ; 73(5): 151-164, 2021 09 01.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1335601

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the healthcare setting provide a unique opportunity to study PPE-associated headaches (PPEAH). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted an online survey to assess the prevalence and clinical characteristics of PPEAH. The survey was voluntary, anonymous and addressed to medical and non-medical personnel. We used descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate comparative analyses to identify factors associated with the development of PPEAH and its impact on work capacity. RESULTS: Out of 886 respondents, 88% (780) reported wearing PPE. Most of them were physicians (81%), 52.4% of whom were women. The prevalence of PPEAH was 65.5% (511/780) and 73.8% (377/511) were de novo headaches. PPEAH was acute, oppressive, bifrontal and of moderate intensity, and subsided with the removal of the PPE. Accompanying symptoms were common, and migraine and/or dysautonomic features were highly prevalent. Female sex, age > 40 years, use of PPE > 6 hours/day and the combination of an N95 mask and goggles were associated with the occurrence of PPEAH. There were factors associated with a negative impact on the ability to work because of the PPEAH. DISCUSSION: PPEAH may be a form of external compression headache (ECH); however, it has distinctive features that overlap with other primary and/or secondary headache disorders. CONCLUSIONS: PPEAH is prevalent and impacts on work-related activities. One subgroup presents characteristics not previously described in ECH.


TITLE: Cefalea asociada con el uso de equipo de protección personal durante la pandemia de COVID-19: una encuesta internacional.Introducción. La pandemia de COVID-19 y el uso de equipo de protección personal (EPP) en el entorno de la atención médica brindan una oportunidad única para estudiar la cefalea relacionada con el EPP (CREPP). Sujetos y métodos. Realizamos una encuesta en línea para evaluar la prevalencia y las características clínicas de la CREPP. La encuesta fue voluntaria, anónima y dirigida a personal médico y no médico. Utilizamos estadística descriptiva y análisis comparativos univariados y multivariados para identificar factores asociados con el desarrollo de CREPP y su impacto en la capacidad de trabajo. Resultados. De 886 encuestados, el 88% (780) notificó que usaba EPP. La mayoría eran médicos (81%), un 52,4% mujeres. La prevalencia de CREPP fue del 65,5% (511/780) y el 73,8% (377/511) fueron cefaleas de novo. La CREPP fue aguda, opresiva, bifrontal y de intensidad moderada, y remitía con el retiro del EPP. Los síntomas acompañantes fueron comunes, y las características migrañosas y/o disautonómicas fueron altamente prevalentes. El sexo femenino, la edad > 40 años, el uso de EPP > 6 horas/día y la combinación de mascarilla N95 y gafas se asociaron con la aparición de CREPP. Hubo factores asociados con un impacto negativo en la capacidad para trabajar debido a la CREPP. Discusión. La CREPP podría ser una forma de cefalea por compresión externa (CCE); no obstante, tiene características distintivas que se superponen con otros trastornos de cefaleas primarias y/o secundarias. Conclusiones. La CREPP es frecuente e impacta en las actividades relacionadas con el trabajo. Un subgrupo presenta características no descritas previamente en la CCE.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Headache/etiology , Health Personnel , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Surveys and Questionnaires
11.
Ann Surg ; 273(4): 625-629, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1304016

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between surgeon gender and stress during the Covid-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: Although female surgeons face difficulties integrating work and home in the best of times, the Covid-19 pandemic has presented new challenges. The implications for the female surgical workforce are unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional, multi-center telephone survey study of surgeons was conducted across 5 academic institutions (May 15-June 5, 2020). The primary outcome was maximum stress level, measured using the validated Stress Numerical Rating Scale-11. Mixed-effects generalized linear models were used to estimate the relationship between surgeon stress level and gender. RESULTS: Of 529 surgeons contacted, 337 surgeons responded and 335 surveys were complete (response rate 63.7%). The majority of female respondents were housestaff (58.1%), and the majority of male respondents were faculty (56.8%) (P = 0.008). A greater proportion of male surgeons (50.3%) than female surgeons (36.8%) had children ≤18 years (P = 0.015). The mean maximum stress level for female surgeons was 7.51 (SD 1.49) and for male surgeons was 6.71 (SD 2.15) (P < 0.001). After adjusting for the presence of children and training status, female gender was associated with a significantly higher maximum stress level (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings that women experienced more stress than men during the Covid-19 pandemic, regardless of parental status, suggest that there is more to the gendered differences in the stress experience of the pandemic than the added demands of childcare. Deliberate interventions are needed to promote and support the female surgical workforce during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Physicians, Women/psychology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Surgeons/psychology , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Surveys , Humans , Linear Models , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Diseases/diagnosis , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Pandemics , Risk Factors , Sex Factors , Stress, Psychological/diagnosis , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology
13.
Clin Dermatol ; 39(1): 92-97, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1300695

ABSTRACT

The life of medical specialists worldwide has dramatically changed due to the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Health care professionals (HCPs) have personally faced the outbreak by being on the first line of the battlefield with the disease and, as such, compose a significant number of people who have contracted COVID-19. We propose a classification and discuss the pathophysiology, clinical findings, and treatments and prevention of the occupational skin hazards COVID-19 poses to HCPs. The multivariate pattern of occupational skin diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic can be classified into four subgroups: mechanical skin injury, moisture-associated skin damage, contact reactions, and exacerbation of preexisting dermatoses. The clinical pattern is versatile, and the most affected skin sites were the ones in contact with the protective equipment. Dermatologists should recognize the plethora of HCPs' occupational skin reactions that are occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic and implement treatment and preventive strategies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Occupational Diseases/classification , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Skin Diseases/classification , Skin/injuries , COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Progression , Humans , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Occupational Injuries/etiology , Occupational Injuries/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Skin Diseases/etiology , Skin Diseases/prevention & control
14.
Occup Environ Med ; 78(11): 801-808, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286749

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study reports preliminary findings on the prevalence of, and factors associated with, mental health and well-being outcomes of healthcare workers during the early months (April-June) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHODS: Preliminary cross-sectional data were analysed from a cohort study (n=4378). Clinical and non-clinical staff of three London-based NHS Trusts, including acute and mental health Trusts, took part in an online baseline survey. The primary outcome measure used is the presence of probable common mental disorders (CMDs), measured by the General Health Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are probable anxiety (seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder), depression (nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (six-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder checklist), suicidal ideation (Clinical Interview Schedule) and alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test). Moral injury is measured using the Moray Injury Event Scale. RESULTS: Analyses showed substantial levels of probable CMDs (58.9%, 95% CI 58.1 to 60.8) and of PTSD (30.2%, 95% CI 28.1 to 32.5) with lower levels of depression (27.3%, 95% CI 25.3 to 29.4), anxiety (23.2%, 95% CI 21.3 to 25.3) and alcohol misuse (10.5%, 95% CI 9.2 to 11.9). Women, younger staff and nurses tended to have poorer outcomes than other staff, except for alcohol misuse. Higher reported exposure to moral injury (distress resulting from violation of one's moral code) was strongly associated with increased levels of probable CMDs, anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms and alcohol misuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that mental health support for healthcare workers should consider those demographics and occupations at highest risk. Rigorous longitudinal data are needed in order to respond to the potential long-term mental health impacts of the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Pandemics , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , Female , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Occupational Diseases/psychology , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Prevalence , Psychology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/epidemiology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology , Suicidal Ideation , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom/epidemiology
15.
J Occup Health ; 63(1): e12242, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1283717

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to characterize the working environment, stress levels, and psychological detachment of employees working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines and investigate their relationship to productivity and musculoskeletal symptoms. METHODS: Structural equation modeling was used to examine the direct effect of workstation characteristics, stress, and musculoskeletal symptoms to productivity and the indirect effect of psychological detachment to productivity. Data were gathered from a survey of employees working from home during the pandemic from different industries (n = 352). Multigroup analysis was also conducted to determine the effect of age, having a spouse, and having children less than 18 years old, to the model. RESULTS: Ergonomic suitability of the workstation (WES) has a significant effect on musculoskeletal symptoms (MSS) (ß = -0.31, SE = 0.06; p < .001). Both workstation suitability (ß = -0.24, SE = 0.03; p < .001) and workstation ergonomic suitability (ß = -0.18, SE = 0.01; p < .01) inversely affect STR. Psychological detachment has a significant inverse effect on stress (ß = -0.31, SE = 0.07; p < .001) and stress has a significant negative effect on productivity (ß = -0.13, SE = 0.09; p = .03). Multigroup analyses showed that stress significantly affected the productivity of those without spouses and young employees. CONCLUSION: Workstation suitability helps improve the productivity of people working from home while stress negatively affects it. Workstation ergonomic suitability and musculoskeletal symptoms have no significant effect.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Efficiency , Teleworking , Adult , Ergonomics , Female , Humans , Male , Musculoskeletal Diseases/epidemiology , Musculoskeletal Diseases/etiology , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Philippines , Surveys and Questionnaires , Workplace , Young Adult
16.
Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment (Engl Ed) ; 14(2): 90-105, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1270632

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers are vulnerable to adverse mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed prevalence of mental disorders and associated factors during the first wave of the pandemic among healthcare professionals in Spain. METHODS: All workers in 18 healthcare institutions (6 AACC) in Spain were invited to web-based surveys assessing individual characteristics, COVID-19 infection status and exposure, and mental health status (May 5 - September 7, 2020). We report: probable current mental disorders (Major Depressive Disorder-MDD- [PHQ-8≥10], Generalized Anxiety Disorder-GAD- [GAD-7≥10], Panic attacks, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder -PTSD- [PCL-5≥7]; and Substance Use Disorder -SUD-[CAGE-AID≥2]. Severe disability assessed by the Sheehan Disability Scale was used to identify probable "disabling" current mental disorders. RESULTS: 9,138 healthcare workers participated. Prevalence of screen-positive disorder: 28.1% MDD; 22.5% GAD, 24.0% Panic; 22.2% PTSD; and 6.2% SUD. Overall 45.7% presented any current and 14.5% any disabling current mental disorder. Workers with pre-pandemic lifetime mental disorders had almost twice the prevalence than those without. Adjusting for all other variables, odds of any disabling mental disorder were: prior lifetime disorders (TUS: OR=5.74; 95%CI 2.53-13.03; Mood: OR=3.23; 95%CI:2.27-4.60; Anxiety: OR=3.03; 95%CI:2.53-3.62); age category 18-29 years (OR=1.36; 95%CI:1.02-1.82), caring "all of the time" for COVID-19 patients (OR=5.19; 95%CI: 3.61-7.46), female gender (OR=1.58; 95%CI: 1.27-1.96) and having being in quarantine or isolated (OR= 1.60; 95CI:1.31-1.95). CONCLUSIONS: One in seven Spanish healthcare workers screened positive for a disabling mental disorder during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Workers reporting pre-pandemic lifetime mental disorders, those frequently exposed to COVID-19 patients, infected or quarantined/isolated, female workers, and auxiliary nurses should be considered groups in need of mental health monitoring and support.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Health , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/etiology , Middle Aged , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Prevalence , Spain/epidemiology , Young Adult
17.
Psychosom Med ; 83(4): 387-396, 2021 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1254935

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of the adverse mental health outcomes in medical staff working in the hospital settings during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and explore the relative distribution of anxiety and depressive symptoms. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG DATA, and VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals were searched for articles published from January 1, 2019, to April 19, 2020. The prevalence estimates of adverse mental health symptoms in medical staff were pooled using the random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 35 articles and data of 25,343 medical staff were used in the final analysis. The pooled prevalence estimates in medical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic were as follows (ordered from high to low): fear-related symptoms, 67% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 61%-73%); high levels of perceived stress, 56% (95% CI = 32%-79%), anxiety symptoms, 41% (95% CI = 35%-47%); insomnia, 41% (95% CI = 33%-50%); posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, 38% (95% CI = 34%-43%); depressive symptoms, 27% (95% CI = 20%-34%); and somatic symptoms, 16% (95% CI = 3%-36%). The subgroup analysis revealed that the prevalence estimates of fear-related symptoms were consistently high. CONCLUSIONS: Medical staff during the COVID-19 epidemic have a high prevalence of adverse mental health symptoms. Data-based strategies are needed to optimize mental health of medical staff and other health care professionals during times of high demand such as the COVID-19 and other epidemics.PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020182433.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Disorders/etiology , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Diseases/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Pandemics
18.
Int Heart J ; 62(3): 465-469, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1247696

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the lives of healthcare professionals, especially vulnerable physicians such as young or female cardiologists. In Japan, they are facing the fear of not only infection but also weak and unstable employment, difficulties in medical practice and training anxiety, implications for research and studying abroad, as well as worsened mental health issues due to social isolation. Conversely, some positive aspects are seen through the holding of remote meetings and conferences. Here, we suggest a new working style for cardiologists, as well as offer solutions to the medical employment problems that have been taken place in Japan.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Cardiologists/psychology , Occupational Health , Physicians, Women/psychology , Age Factors , Anxiety/etiology , Anxiety/therapy , Biomedical Research/methods , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cardiologists/education , Education, Medical, Graduate/methods , Employment , Female , Humans , Japan , Mental Health , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Occupational Diseases/therapy , Physical Distancing , Sexism/psychology , Social Isolation/psychology , Social Support , Vulnerable Populations
19.
Riv Psichiatr ; 56(2): 57-63, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1202085

ABSTRACT

Health professionals have been at the frontline of the health service since the outbreak of covid-19, responding promptly to diagnose, support and treat infected patients. World Health Organization (WHO) has already praised their contribution and their essential role in controlling this disease. Some of the main concerns of covid-19's impact to health service staff include work overload, exhaustion, and high risk of self-infection or transmission to family members. Moreover, during the pandemic, caregivers' mental health inevitably becomes vulnerable, with salient stress and anxiety-related symptoms. Uncertainty, fear of contagion, guilt, hopelessness, stigmatization and, in some cases, long-term post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are few of the potential effects posed by this outbreak on health workers. In this review, lessons learnt from previous global crises or pandemics on the psychological impact of health workers are presented. History could potentially provide essential information on how to best manage, support and optimize our approach to this highly appreciated and much needed group of professionals. Targeted and prompt interventions could reduce the psychological strain of health professionals, thus, further improving provided patient care. Covid-19 is an on-going health crisis and this work, even though generated by limited existing data, could be used to inform governments and/or institutions and lead on decisions and changes in current guidelines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel/psychology , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Occupational Diseases/psychology , Psychological Distress , Cost of Illness , Humans , Occupational Diseases/etiology
20.
Clin Chest Med ; 41(4): 739-751, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-896783

ABSTRACT

Occupational respiratory infections can be caused by bacterial, viral, and fungal pathogens. Transmission in occupational settings can occur from other humans, animals, or the environment, and occur in various occupations and industries. In this article, we describe 4 occupationally acquired respiratory infections at the focus of NIOSH investigations over the last decade: tuberculosis (TB), influenza, psittacosis, and coccidioidomycosis. We highlight the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, occupational risk factors, and prevention measures.


Subject(s)
Occupational Diseases/etiology , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Respiratory Tract Infections/etiology , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL