Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0265733, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1759960

ABSTRACT

Dry eye disease (DED) is one of the most common ophthalmological disorders, resulting from several systemic and ocular etiologies including meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical students are among the high-risk group for DED, mainly due to the increasing use of a visual display terminal (VDT) for online lectures and psychological stress from encountering several changes. Our study aimed to explore the prevalence of DED using the symptom-based definition and potential risk factors in medical students. This is a prospective cross-sectional study that included medical students at Chiang Mai University between November 2020 and January 2021. All participants were assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, the Thai version of the 10-Item Perceived Stress Scale-10 (T-PSS-10), the LipiView® II interferometer, and an interview for other possible risk factors. Overall, 528 participants were included in the study; half of the participants were female. The prevalence of DED was 70.8%. In the univariate analysis, female sex, contact lens wear, and T-PSS-10 stress scores were significantly higher in the DED group (P = 0.002, 0.002, and <0.001, respectively). Moreover, participants with severe DED were likely to have higher meibomian gland tortuosity but not statistically significant. In the multivariate analysis, contact lens use and T-PSS-10 score were significant risk factors associated with the severity of DED. In conclusions, the prevalence of DED in medical students was as high as 70.8%. Contact lens use and psychological stress evaluated using the T-PSS-10 questionnaire had a significant correlation with a risk of DED. Female gender and duration of VDT use were also associated. Most of the risk factors were modifiable and may be used as initial management in patients with DED.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Dry Eye Syndromes/epidemiology , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Screen Time , Students, Medical/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Dry Eye Syndromes/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Occupational Stress/complications , Prevalence , Risk Factors , Sex Factors , Students, Medical/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Thailand/epidemiology , Young Adult
2.
Tohoku J Exp Med ; 255(4): 283-289, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1572184

ABSTRACT

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has spread throughout the world. Poor mental health has been reported among healthcare professionals responding to COVID-19. However, no study has examined the impact of COVID-19-related workplace bullying or patient aggression on the mental health of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 outbreak. This study examined the prevalence of COVID-19-related workplace bullying and patient aggression and its association with psychological distress among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 outbreak in Japan. This was a cross-sectional study conducted from May 22 to 26, 2020, inviting participants (n = 1,421) from an online survey of full-time employees. We limited the sample to healthcare professionals for further analyses. Using an online self-report questionnaire, workplace bullying and patient aggression related to COVID-19 was measured using nine items with dichotomous response options. Psychological distress was measured using the Japanese version of Brief Job Stress Questionnaire. Among 1,032 participants (72.6%) who completed the survey, 111 healthcare professionals were identified. Among them, 19 participants (17.1%) had experienced any COVID-19-related workplace bullying or patient aggression: 11 participants (9.9%) had experienced any workplace bullying and 12 participants (10.8%) had experienced any patient aggression. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that any bullying or patient aggression related to COVID-19 significantly correlated with psychological distress. It was suggested that a non-negligible proportion of participants experienced workplace bullying or patient aggression related to COVID-19. Preventing and reducing workplace bullying and patient aggression may be effective in improving mental health of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 outbreak.


Subject(s)
Aggression/psychology , Bullying , COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Occupational Stress/complications , Psychological Distress , Workplace/psychology , Adult , Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Japan/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Occupational Stress/psychology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology
3.
Ann Glob Health ; 87(1): 51, 2021 06 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1296121

ABSTRACT

Background: Nurses working in treating patients with COVID-19 are exposed to various stressors, such as fear of COVID-19, stress, and high workload, leading to burnout. Objectives: This study aimed to identify the level of burnout and its predictors in nurses working in hospitals for COVID-19 patients. Methods: Participants in this study were nurses working in 11 hospitals for COVID-19 patients in the Fars province of Iran. The Maslach burnout and the UK Health and Safety stress questionnaires were used to assess burnout and stress, respectively. Analysis, using multiple regression in the SPSS21 software, aimed to identify the factors affecting burnout. Findings: The mean level of burnout in the nurses at the COVID-19 hospitals was 57 out of 120, and burnout was affected by workload (ß = 0.69, p < 0.001), job stress (ß = 0.25, p < 0.001) and inadequate hospital resources for the prevention of COVID-19 (ß = -0.16, p < 0.001). These three variables explained 87% of the variance in burnout. Conclusions: The burnout of nurses directly exposed to COVID-19 patients is more than nurses in other wards, and workload is the most significant cause of burnout in them. Therefore, necessary measures such as hiring more nurses, reducing working hours and increasing rest periods are necessary to reduce workload. In addition, the job stress of these nurses should be managed and controlled, and the hospital resources needed to prevent this disease should be provided.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Nurses , Occupational Stress , Work Schedule Tolerance/psychology , Workload , Adult , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/prevention & control , Burnout, Professional/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/nursing , COVID-19/psychology , Fear/psychology , Female , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Iran/epidemiology , Male , Nurses/psychology , Nurses/supply & distribution , Occupational Stress/complications , Occupational Stress/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Workload/psychology , Workload/standards , Workload/statistics & numerical data
4.
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
5.
Intensive Crit Care Nurs ; 65: 103034, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1141880

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of the first COVID-19 surge (March through June 2020) on mental well-being and associated risk factors among intensive care unit nurses. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: In September 2020, a nationwide cross-sectional survey study among Dutch intensive care nurses was carried out to measure prevalence rates of symptoms of anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and need for recovery (NFR), objectified by the HADS-A, HADS-D, IES-6 and NFR questionnaires, respectively. Associated risk factors were determined using multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Symptoms of anxiety, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder were reported by 27.0%, 18.6% and 22.2% of the 726 respondents, respectively. The NFR was positive, meaning not being recovered from work, in 41.7%. Working in an academic hospital, being afraid of infecting relatives and experiencing insufficient numbers of colleagues were associated with more mental symptoms, while having been on holiday was associated with reduced depression symptoms and need for recovery. CONCLUSION: The first COVID-19 surge had a high impact on the mental well-being of intensive care nurses, increasing the risk for drop out and jeopardising the continuity of care. Effort should be made to optimize working conditions and decrease workload to guarantee care in the next months of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Critical Care Nursing/trends , Nurses/psychology , Occupational Stress/complications , Adult , Anxiety/etiology , Anxiety/physiopathology , Burnout, Professional/etiology , Burnout, Professional/physiopathology , Burnout, Professional/psychology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Critical Care Nursing/methods , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/etiology , Depression/psychology , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Intensive Care Units/standards , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Nurses/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Stress/psychology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/physiopathology , Surveys and Questionnaires
6.
Psychol Med ; 51(2): 201-211, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1108867

ABSTRACT

Lockdowns to control the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have had profound effects on everyday life worldwide, but their effect on mental health remains unclear because available meta-analyses and reviews rely mostly on cross-sectional studies. We conducted a rapid review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments investigating the relationship between COVID-19 lockdowns and mental health. A total of 25 studies involving 72 004 participants and 58 effect sizes were analyzed. Using a random effects model, we found that lockdowns had small effects on mental health symptoms, g = 0.17, s.e. = 0.05, 95% CI (0.06-0.24), p = 0.001, but the effects on positive psychological functioning, g = -0.12, s.e. = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.09), p = 0.27, were not significant. Multivariate analysis of effect sizes revealed significant and relatively small effect sizes for anxiety and depression, while those for social support, loneliness, general distress, negative affect, and suicide risk were not significant. The results indicated substantial heterogeneity among studies, but meta-regression analyses found no significant moderation effects for mean age, gender, continent, COVID-19 death rate, days of lockdown, publication status or study design. The psychological impact of COVID-19 lockdowns is small in magnitude and highly heterogeneous, suggesting that lockdowns do not have uniformly detrimental effects on mental health and that most people are psychologically resilient to their effects.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Social Isolation , Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Occupational Stress/complications , Occupational Stress/psychology , Spain
7.
Andrologia ; 53(3): e13971, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1027007

ABSTRACT

Studies have shown that healthcare professionals struggling with epidemics develop symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. The aim of this study is to show how often and severely erectile dysfunction, one of the components of post-traumatic stress disorder, is seen among healthcare professionals during COVID-19 outbreak. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and the Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) were applied to 159 male healthcare professionals working in COVID-19 units and a control group of 200 people. Healthcare professional group was divided into subgroups according to occupation (physician, nurse), age-group (18-25, 26-30, >30), marital status and unit of work (Suspected Patient Area, Diagnosed Patient Area). Both stress disorder and erectile dysfunction were seen at higher rates in healthcare professionals group (p < .001). The median IIEF-5 scores of nurses, married subjects and those working in the Diagnosed Patient Area, were found to be higher (p < .001, p = .014, p = .011 respectively). During the COVID-19 outbreak, healthcare professionals are exposed to psychological trauma and their sexual function may be negatively affected. The measures to be taken are important to estimate which groups are more affected.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Erectile Dysfunction/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Occupational Stress/complications , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/transmission , Erectile Dysfunction/diagnosis , Erectile Dysfunction/etiology , Erectile Dysfunction/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Male , Occupational Stress/psychology , Prevalence , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/diagnosis , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical data , Turkey/epidemiology , Workload/psychology , Young Adult
8.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract ; 170: 108513, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-941224

ABSTRACT

AIMS: To evaluate the effects of COVID-19 lockdown on blood glucose control in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and to explore determinants of glucose variability. METHODS: Fifty T1D patients undergoing continuous/flash glucose monitoring were recruited. The study's primary outcome was the change of time in range (TIR) from before to lockdown period. Three time-point comparisons of TIR, mean glucose levels (MG), estimated (e)HbA1c, time above (TAR) and below range (TBR), moderate/severe hypoglycemic events between pre-lockdown, lockdown and post-lockdown period were also performed. Information on lockdown-associated perceived stress, changes of work status and physical activity were recorded. RESULTS: TIR significantly decreased (75(63-84)% vs.69(50-76)%,p < 0.001) whereas MG (154 ± 15 mg/dl vs.165 ± 25 mg/dl, p = 0.027) and eHbA1c (7.3(6.6-7.8)%vs.7.5(6.7-8.2)%,p = 0.031) increased from pre- to lockdown period; overall glucose control significantly improved when restriction ended. Lockdown-associated work loss/suspension independently predicted impaired TIR after adjustment for potential confounders (Standardizedß: -0.29; 95%CΙ: -18.7 to -2.25;p = 0.01). Greater TAR, TBR and hypoglycemic events were also reported during the lockdown. CONCLUSION: In T1D Italian individuals, blood glucose control significantly worsened during the COVID-19 lockdown; work instability and related issues represented the main determinant of impaired glucose variability in this population.


Subject(s)
Blood Glucose/metabolism , COVID-19/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/epidemiology , Glycemic Control/methods , Occupational Stress/complications , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/blood , Female , Humans , Italy , Male
10.
BMJ Case Rep ; 13(10)2020 Oct 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-901291

ABSTRACT

A previously fit and well 37-year-old male healthcare worker presented with confusion, psychotic symptoms and a suicide attempt in the context of a new COVID-19 diagnosis. Following surgical interventions and an extended admission to the intensive care unit, he made a good recovery in terms of both his physical and mental health. A number of factors likely contributed to his presentation, including SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe insomnia, worry, healthcare worker-related stress, and the unique social and psychological stressors associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. This case highlights the need to further characterise the specific psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 in community settings, and should remind general medical clinicians to be mindful of comorbid psychiatric symptoms when assessing patients with newly diagnosed COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Psychotic Disorders/complications , Psychotic Disorders/diagnosis , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/diagnosis , Suicide, Attempted/prevention & control , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Humans , Male , Nurses, Male/psychology , Occupational Stress/complications , Occupational Stress/diagnosis , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Prognosis , Psychotic Disorders/drug therapy , Psychotic Disorders/physiopathology , Risk Assessment , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/complications , Stress, Psychological , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL