Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 61
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
2.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(37): e27294, 2021 Sep 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1434549

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: This study aimed to assess the association between role conflict and ambiguity among nurses in primary healthcare centers (PHCs) in Saudi Arabia and their stress levels during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.In this online cross-sectional study, sociodemographic and occupational characteristics, role conflict, and ambiguity of 432 nurses were assessed using the Bowling Scale for Role Conflict and Ambiguity and stress was assessed using the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale from September 27 to October 17, 2020. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for above-median stress levels of nurses with average and high (2nd and 3rd tertiles) role conflict and ambiguity compared with nurses with low role conflict and ambiguity (1st tertile).The mean (standard deviation) age of the nurses was 36.5 ±â€Š6.6 years, and 25.9% of them were males. After adjusting for PHC type and working hours, nurses with average and high role conflict had significantly higher stress rates than those with low role conflict, with ORs (95% CIs) of 2.69 (1.62-4.46) and 6.31 (3.78-10.53), respectively. Similarly, nurses with average- and high-role ambiguity had significantly higher stress than those with low role ambiguity, with ORs (95% CIs) of 2.15 (1.30-3.55) and 7.68 (4.54-13.01), respectively. Increasing stress rates were detected across increasing categories of role conflict and ambiguity (P values for trend <.001).We found that role conflict and ambiguity were associated with stress among nurses in PHCs in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Nurse's Role , Occupational Stress/etiology , Adult , COVID-19/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Nurses , Occupational Stress/psychology , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Saudi Arabia , Surveys and Questionnaires
3.
Eur J Gen Pract ; 27(1): 184-190, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1334099

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) in family medicine (FM) in Croatia work in a demanding environment caused by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Besides particular circumstances in healthcare, an unknown virus, social distancing, and homeschooling, the capital was hit with the earthquake during the lockdown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the influence of demographic characteristics, professional differences, medical history, and specific stressors on the psychological outcomes. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with the online questionnaire containing the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) was conducted from 1st to 15 May 2020 in FM. RESULTS: HCPs (534, 35% response rate), predominantly female (84.5%), participated in the research. High prevalence of stress (30.9%), anxiety (33.1%), depression (30.7%), and PTSD (33.0%) were found. Female participants had higher results in the anxiety subscale of DASS-21 and IES-R scores. Pre-existing conditions were associated with higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and PTSD. The IES-R score for PTSD showed borderline correlation (p = 0.053) with working in regions with the highest incidence of COVID-19. Having schoolchildren made a difference on a stress subscale in DASS-21 (p < 0.043), but the earthquake did not have an impact. CONCLUSION: Family physicians and nurses in FM in Croatia are under a great mental load during the COVID-19 outbreak. Results suggest that HCPs of the female sex, with pre-existing chronic conditions, work in regions with a high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 or have schoolchildren at greater risk of the poor psychological outcome.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/psychology , Depression/etiology , Nurses/psychology , Occupational Stress/etiology , Physicians, Family/psychology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology , Adolescent , Adult , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Croatia/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/epidemiology , Disasters , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Earthquakes , Female , Health Surveys , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Stress/diagnosis , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Prevalence , Psychological Tests , Risk Factors , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/diagnosis , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/epidemiology , Young Adult
4.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(7): e2118425, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1326716

ABSTRACT

Importance: Mental health and coping difficulties among health care workers (HCWs) have been reported during pandemics and particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To examine sources of distress and concern for HCWs in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, a critical discourse analysis was performed of questions posed by HCWs to hospital senior leadership between March 16, 2020, and December 1, 2020, through an online employee forum as part of a larger mixed-methods evaluation of a stepped-care mental health support program for HCWs at 1 of Canada's largest health care institutions. Questions could be submitted online anonymously in advance of the virtual forums on COVID-19 by any of the University Health Network's 21 555 employees, and staff members were able to anonymously endorse questions by upvoting, indicating that an already posed question was of interest. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes, text structure, and rhetorical devices used within the questions were analyzed, taking into consideration their larger institutional and societal context. Results: Unique individual views of the forums ranged from 2062 to 7213 during the study period. Major individual-level concerns related to risks of contamination and challenges coping with increased workloads as a result of the pandemic intersected with institutional-level challenges, such as feeling or being valued within the health care setting and long-standing stratifications between types of HCWs. Concerns were frequently reported in terms of calls for clarity or demands for transparency from the institutional leadership. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study suggest that larger institutional-level and structural concerns need to be addressed if HCWs are to be engaged in support and coping programs. Potential service users may be dissuaded from seeing their needs as being met by workplace mental health interventions that solely relate to individual-level concerns.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Health , Occupational Health , Occupational Stress , Pandemics , Workplace , Adaptation, Psychological , Attitude of Health Personnel , Canada , Hospitals , Humans , Leadership , Occupational Exposure , Occupational Stress/etiology , Occupational Stress/prevention & control , Personnel Management , Psychological Distress , Qualitative Research , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Workload
5.
Semin Nephrol ; 41(3): 253-261, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1287646

ABSTRACT

Across the world, challenges for clinicians providing health care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are highly prevalent and have been widely reported. Perspectives of provider groups have conveyed wide-ranging experiences of adversity, distress, and resilience. In understanding and responding to the emotional and psychological implications of the pandemic for renal clinicians, it is vital to recognize that many experiences also have been ethically challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted rapid and extensive transformation of health care systems and widely impacted care provision, heightening the risk of barriers to fulfillment of ethical duties. Given this, it is likely that some clinicians also have experienced moral distress, which can occur if an individual is unable to act in accordance with their moral judgment owing to external barriers. This review presents a global perspective of potential experiences of moral distress in kidney care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using nephrology cases, we discuss why moral distress may be experienced by health professionals when withholding or withdrawing potentially beneficial treatments owing to resource constraints, when providing care that is inconsistent with local prepandemic best practice standards, and when managing dual professional and personal roles with conflicting responsibilities. We argue that in addition to responsive and appropriate health system supports, resources, and education, it is imperative for health care providers to recognize and prevent moral distress to foster the psychological well-being and moral resilience of clinicians during extended periods of crisis within health systems.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Kidney Diseases/therapy , Morals , Nephrology , Occupational Stress/etiology , Psychological Distress , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology , Adult , Aged, 80 and over , Bioethical Issues , Delivery of Health Care/ethics , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nephrology/ethics
6.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0252809, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1264218

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Health care professionals are at higher risk of developing stress-related problems during outbreaks, due to the overwhelming clinical workload, fear of contagion, and inadequate protective gears. So, in order to monitoring mental health issues and to understand the factors evidence-based interventions is important. Therefore, this study was aimed to assess perceived stress and associated factors among health care professionals working in the context of COVID-19, Southern Ethiopia. METHODS: Institution based cross-sectional study was conducted among 798 health care professionals from the 1st May to 1st June 2020. The study participants were selected using simple random sampling technique after allocating a proportion to each health institute based on the size of health care professionals. A pre-tested and structured interviewer-administered questionnaire using KOBO collect survey tool was used to collect data. A total score of >20 points was considered as the cut off for experiencing perceived stress based on perceived stress scale. Both bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis were performed to identify associated factors. The level of statistical significance was set at a p-value of less than 0.05 in multivariable logistic regression. RESULT: Nearly two-thirds 61.8% (95% CI: 58.4%, 65.2%) of HCPs had perceived stress. Not having COVID-19 updated information (AOR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.31, 4.43), not at all confident on coping with stress (AOR = 9.94, 95% CI:3.74, 26.41), somewhat confident in coping with stress (AOR = 4.69, 95% CI:2.81, 7.84), moderately confident on coping with stress (AOR = 2.36, 95% CI: 1.46, 3.82), and not getting along well with people (AOR = 4.88, 95% CI: 1.42, 16.72) were positively association with perceived stress. However, feeling overwhelmed by the demand of everyday life (AOR = 0.52 95% CI: 0.35, 0.77) and worrying about what other people think about them (AOR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.81) were negatively associated with perceived stress. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 update, confidence in coping with stress, getting along with people, worrying about what other people think about them, and feeling overwhelmed by the demand of everyday life were factors significantly associated with perceived stress. The provision of COVID-19 update to HCPs along with wider strategies to support their psychological wellbeing is vital.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Occupational Stress/psychology , Adaptation, Psychological , Cross-Sectional Studies , Ethiopia/epidemiology , Female , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Male , Occupational Stress/etiology , Public Health
7.
Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment (Engl Ed) ; 14(2): 106-112, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1240607

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: After the outbreak of the COVID-19 was considered a global pandemic in March 2020, the state of alarm was declared in Spain. In this situation, health professionals are experiencing high levels of stress due to the overload of work the pandemic is generating and the conditions in which they are working. The aim of this study was to evaluate the factors that can destabilize the mental health of these professionals in our context. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample was composed of 421 health professionals. The data were gathered by an online questionnaire sent to them by e-mail. The DASS-21 was used to assess anxiety, stress and depression, and the EAI to measure sleep difficulties. In addition, other descriptive variables that could be related to psychological symptomatology were collected from the sample. RESULTS: The results show that the COVID-19 pandemic has generated symptoms of stress, anxiety, depression and insomnia among health workers, with higher levels among women and older professionals. Some factors such as having been in contact with the virus or fear at work, triggered greater symptomatology. CONCLUSIONS: In this critical situation, professionals are in the front line and therefore, are directly exposed to certain risks and stressors. This contributes to the development of diverse psychological symptoms. Consequently, it is recommended to offer them psychological help in order to reduce the emotional impact of the COVID-19, and thus, to ensure not only the mental health of our health professionals, but also the adequate care they provide.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Depression/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Stress/etiology , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders/etiology , Spain/epidemiology , Young Adult
8.
Psychosom Med ; 83(4): 373-379, 2021 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1218021

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The outbreak of COVID-19 that commenced in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, has caused extensive public health concerns and posed substantial challenges to health professionals, especially for those in the center of the epidemic. The current study aimed to assess the prevalence, related factors, and mechanism of acute stress disorder (ASD) among health professionals in Wuhan during this critical period. METHODS: The study used a cross-sectional design. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to the frontline health professionals in Wuhan hospitals from January 28 to February 1, 2020. Mental health-related measurements included ASD, depression, anxiety, conflict experiences, hostility, and psychosomatic symptoms. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the factors associated with ASD among health professionals. RESULTS: A total of 332 frontline health professionals were included in the analysis (mean [standard deviation] age = 32.21 [8.77] years; 78.0% women). ASD was a prominent mental health problem in the health professionals surveyed, with a prevalence of 38.3%. Anxiety (24.7%) and depression (20.2%) were also common. Structural equation modeling analyses revealed that emotional distress (i.e., anxiety and depressive symptoms) fully mediated the association between conflicts with ASD (the standardized indirect coefficient ß = 0.47, p = .016). The most common reported symptom was chest pain (51.2%). ASD was significantly associated with psychosomatic symptoms. The majority (67.8%) reported being easily annoyed or irritated, and ASD was associated with hostility. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 outbreak, a substantial number of health professionals in Wuhan suffered from ASD. Furthermore, ASD was found to be associated with psychosomatic symptoms as well as the hostility. The poor mental health of health professionals has detrimental impacts both on the well-being of staff in health care systems and may adversely affect the quality of patient care. We call for interventions that aim to relieve the psychological and occupational stress. Considering that most of our participants were young, female frontline health professionals, the results may not be generalized to more heterogenous samples.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Occupational Stress/etiology , Stress Disorders, Traumatic, Acute/etiology , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Female , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Medically Unexplained Symptoms , Models, Statistical , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Prevalence , Stress Disorders, Traumatic, Acute/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
9.
Psychoneuroendocrinology ; 129: 105245, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1216368

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline healthcare workers have been exposed to very stressful conditions. Measuring hair cortisol concentrations (HCCs), which reflect the integrated long-term cortisol levels, may elucidate the impact of COVID-19 related stress on healthcare professionals. In the current study, we investigated experienced stress in 693 healthcare workers, with hair samples for cortisol analysis collected from a subset of 67 female nurses. The HCCs in two 3 cm hair segments corresponding to periods before and during the peak of the first wave of COVID-19 were compared. To evaluate the effect of working in the first line, the sample was divided into two groups based on the COVID-19 risk estimated by the nurses. Covariates in the model included perceived stress (PSS), perceived social support (MSPSS), and quality of sleep (PSQI) measured via an online questionnaire. The data showed that more than 75% of healthcare workers agreed that COVID-19 led to increased stress at their workplace. The hair cortisol analysis showed higher HCCs in the hair segments corresponding to the time of the pandemic compared to hair corresponding to an earlier period (partial η290%CI = 0.123-0.397); in the same model, higher HCCs were also found in nurses from high-risk environments compared to low-risk ones (partial η290%CI = 0.002-0.176). None of the subjective questionnaire measures were significant predictors of HCCs. In conclusion, these data showed that HCCs reflect the increased stress among nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the difference in nurses between high- and low-risk environments.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hydrocortisone/metabolism , Nurses , Occupational Stress/etiology , Occupational Stress/metabolism , Adult , Female , Hair/metabolism , Humans , Middle Aged , Slovakia , Social Support
10.
Ann Clin Psychiatry ; 33(2): 101-107, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1194814

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic may adversely impact the mental health of health care workers (HCWs). To address this issue, it is essential to determine levels of anxiety, depression, and traumatic stress, and sources of stress, and to identify subgroups of HCWs at a higher risk of adverse mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of symptoms of mental illness in HCWs in the area surrounding Detroit, Michigan. The online survey included questions about demographics, health and clinical factors, and sources of stress. Several tools were used to assess psychiatric symptoms among HCWs, including the Perceived Stress Scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item assessment, and the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5. The adequacy of personal protective equipment, patient resources, and training for highly contagious diseases were rated. RESULTS: The sample (N = 129) was predominantly female (51.2%) and White (65.9%), with 30.2% screening positive for clinical follow-up to assess anxiety, 20.9% for moderate to severe depression, and 16.3% for elevated traumatic stress. Differences were found by self-reported psychiatric diagnosis and chronic conditions, and role on treatment teams. CONCLUSIONS: Frontline HCWs demonstrate high levels of stress and trauma symptoms. Timely screening and accommodations may be needed during health care crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel , Occupational Stress , Stress, Psychological , Adult , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/etiology , Female , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Michigan/epidemiology , Needs Assessment , Occupational Health/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Stress/diagnosis , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Occupational Stress/etiology , Occupational Stress/psychology , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress Disorders, Traumatic/etiology , Stress Disorders, Traumatic/prevention & control , Stress, Psychological/diagnosis , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology
11.
Med Sci Monit ; 27: e930812, 2021 Apr 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1192441

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND Providing oncology services during a pandemic can contribute to mental health challenges among healthcare workers. The present study aimed to evaluate the levels of depression, anxiety, and stress in healthcare and administrative staff in 5 oncology institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in 2020 during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) questionnaire. MATERIAL AND METHODS A cross-sectional observational study enrolled 175 healthcare and administrative workers from 5 oncology institutions in BiH during December 2020. Data were collected using a questionnaire that captured general information about the participants and a DASS-21 questionnaire. RESULTS Statistical analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the levels of depression, anxiety, and stress (P=0.003, P=0.011, and P=0.022, respectively) among participants with comorbidities connected with increased risk of severe illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared with participants without comorbidities. There was also a statistically significant difference in the levels of stress among participants from different cities (P=0.031). Supplement intake and educational level were significantly related (P=0.012). High levels of stress and anxiety were accompanied by high levels of depression among participants (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS The findings from the present study showed that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an effect on depression, anxiety, and stress levels in oncology staff in BiH. Monitoring these levels and providing interventions and support to oncology staff are increasingly important for their wellbeing and retention at a time of global crisis in healthcare.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cancer Care Facilities , Depression/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/etiology , Anxiety/history , Bosnia and Herzegovina , COVID-19/history , Comorbidity , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/etiology , Depression/history , Female , History, 21st Century , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Stress/diagnosis , Occupational Stress/etiology , Occupational Stress/history , Prevalence , Public Health Surveillance , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
12.
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
13.
Emerg Med J ; 38(6): 450-459, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1175182

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To quantify psychological distress experienced by emergency, anaesthetic and intensive care doctors during the acceleration phase of COVID-19 in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: Initial cross-sectional electronic survey distributed during acceleration phase of the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in the UK and Ireland (UK: 18 March 2020-26 March 2020 and Ireland: 25 March 2020-2 April 2020). Surveys were distributed via established specialty research networks, within a three-part longitudinal study. Participants were doctors working in emergency, anaesthetic and intensive medicine during the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in acute hospitals across the UK and Ireland. Primary outcome measures were the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Additional questions examined personal and professional characteristics, experiences of COVID-19 to date, risk to self and others and self-reported perceptions of health and well-being. RESULTS: 5440 responses were obtained, 54.3% (n=2955) from emergency medicine and 36.9% (n=2005) from anaesthetics. All levels of doctor seniority were represented. For the primary outcome of GHQ-12 score, 44.2% (n=2405) of respondents scored >3, meeting the criteria for psychological distress. 57.3% (n=3045) had never previously provided clinical care during an infectious disease outbreak but over half of respondents felt somewhat prepared (48.6%, n=2653) or very prepared (7.6%, n=416) to provide clinical care to patients with COVID-19. However, 81.1% (n=4414) either agreed (31.1%, n=2709) or strongly agreed (31.1%, n=1705) that their personal health was at risk due to their clinical role. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that during the acceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of frontline doctors working in acute care reported psychological distress as measured by the GHQ-12. Findings from this study should inform strategies to optimise preparedness and explore modifiable factors associated with increased psychological distress in the short and long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10666798.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Physicians/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Anesthesia/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/psychology , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Ireland/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Stress/etiology , Physicians/psychology , Psychological Distress , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
14.
Psychosom Med ; 83(4): 380-386, 2021 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1165577

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Primary care physicians (PCPs) play a key role in responding to the COVID-19 epidemic. The objective of this study was to explore the influencing factors associated with self-reported psychological distress among a sample of PCPs in China in relation to COVID-19. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to a sample of PCPs in Chengdu city between February 10 and February 13, 2020. The survey consisted of three sections: demographic characteristics, COVID-19-related questions, and the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). After 5 months, a follow-up survey investigating the change of the GHQ-12 was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 712 PCPs completed the baseline survey (11.8% of those invited), 55.6% were female and 74.4% were aged between 30 and 49 years. High levels of psychological distress (GHQ-12 ≥3) were observed in 29.2% and were associated with low preparedness, high work impact, working with infected residents, personal life impact, and concerns, as well as older age and being married (p values < .05). Logistic regression analysis showed that psychological distress was associated with low preparedness (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87-0.96), high work impact (OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.03-1.20), personal life impact (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.07-1.17), and safety-related concerns (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.02-1.16). At the 5-month assessment point, high psychological distress was less frequent (21.8%). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has resulted in high levels of distress in approximately 30% of PCPs in China. Factors associated with high psychological distress levels include low preparedness and high levels of work impact, personal life impact, and concerns. These findings highlight the importance of enhancing psychological health throughout the course of infectious pandemics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Occupational Stress/etiology , Physicians, Primary Care/psychology , Psychological Distress , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Physicians, Primary Care/statistics & numerical data , Risk Factors , Surveys and Questionnaires
16.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(5): e24503, 2021 Feb 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1125447

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: Recently, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has greatly threatened global public health. The responsibility of healthcare-associated infection control professionals (ICPs) is to prevent and control the nosocomial infections. The mental health status of ICPs deserves more attention, however, the correlational research is still lacking. This study aims to investigate the incidence and risk factors of mental health status among ICPs in China during the outbreak of COVID-19.A national cross-sectional survey was performed. The online questionnaire was completed by 9228 ICPs from 3776 hospitals throughout China. Data collection tools were used, including demographics data questionnaire, the Chinese version of the 12-item general health questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the Chinese version of the psychological capital questionnaire (PCQ) for medical staff. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted.The total score of mental health of Chinese ICPs was 3.45 ±â€Š2.57. 5608 (60.77%) ICPs might have mental health problems. The psychological capital was in the upper-middle level with an average score of 3.72 ±â€Š0.38. An increased mental health problem risk was associated with the greater self-efficacy and working in the public hospital; a significantly lower risk was obtained by working in the second-class hospital rather than in the third-class hospitals. Besides, mental health problem risk of ICPs working in hospitals of the western economic region or northeast economic region was more significant than that in hospitals of the central economic region. However, a lower risk was caused by the unmarried than married, and working years in department ≤1 year contributed to the lower risk than that >20 years. Moreover, fewer working hours per week, higher values of hope, and optimism each were contributed to a lower risk.Chinese healthcare-associated ICPs were under different levels of mental health problems in fighting against COVID-19. More importantly, we should actively deal with the mental health problem of ICPs and help them get rid of psychological disorders.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Infection Control Practitioners , Infection Control , Occupational Exposure , Occupational Stress , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , China/epidemiology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/organization & administration , Infection Control Practitioners/psychology , Infection Control Practitioners/statistics & numerical data , Male , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Occupational Stress/etiology , Occupational Stress/prevention & control , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
17.
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry ; 110: 110292, 2021 08 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1117498

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Emotional wellbeing of healthcare workers is critical to the quality of patient care, and effective function of health services. The corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic exerted unique physical and emotional demands on healthcare workers, however little is known about the emotional wellbeing of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in resource-restricted settings. This study investigated the prevalence of psychological distress, and sleep problems in healthcare workers in a COVID-19 referral hospital in Nigeria. METHODS: A total of 303 healthcare workers were interviewed with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) to evaluate psychological distress, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) to assess multidimensional aspects of sleep, including quality, latency, duration, habitual efficiency, disturbances, use of sleeping medications and daytime dysfunction. RESULTS: The participants were mostly males, 183(60.4%) and mean age was 38.8(SD = 8.9) years. Most of the participants were married (70.3%), had spent less than 10 years in service (72.9%), and had no medical comorbidity (92.1%). The prevalence of psychological distress was 23.4%, and six in every ten participants reported sleep problems. The largest proportion of participants reported difficulty in sleep latency (81.5%), duration (71.3%), and daytime dysfunction (69.6%), while approximately one third (32%) each reported using sleep medication, and had difficulty with sleep quality. Psychological distress was inter-related with poor sleep problems (p = 0.001; effect size = 0.2). CONCLUSION: The prevalence rates of psychological distress and sleep problems during the COVID-19 pandemic were several folds the rates previously reported in similar contexts. Preventative psychosocial support services for healthcare workers are indicated. The creation of a culturally-sensitive interdisciplinary blueprint for locally-viable actions model are strongly suggested ahead of future emergency situations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Occupational Stress/etiology , Psychological Distress , Sleep Wake Disorders/etiology , Workplace/psychology , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nigeria/epidemiology , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Occupational Stress/psychology , Prevalence , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Workplace/statistics & numerical data
18.
Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment (Engl Ed) ; 14(2): 83-89, 2021.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1111839

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: In order to reduce distress associated with working with COVID-19 patients, several psychological intervention programmes for healthcare workers have been developed in Spain. We aimed to describe the main characteristics and components of these programmes for healthcare workers treating COVID-19 patients in Spanish hospitals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online survey was designed to evaluate the main characteristics of psychological intervention programmes for healthcare workers during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Valid responses were received from 36 hospitals. Most of these programmes offered both in-person and online therapy. The most common aim of these interventions was emotional regulation, which was treated by psychoeducational and cognitive-behavioural techniques in individual interventions. Group interventions mainly used psychoeducation and mindfulness. Only half of the teams that offered in-person interventions received training in the proper use of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Several hospitals in Spain have developed mental health interventions for healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, deploying a wide range of therapeutic modalities and techniques. The rapid implementation of these programmes during the pandemic suggests that safety may not have received sufficient attention. The planning and development of interventions for healthcare workers during pandemics merits greater attention by national and regional authorities and institutions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Health Services/supply & distribution , Mental Health , Occupational Health , Occupational Stress/etiology , Occupational Stress/prevention & control , Psychological Distress , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Spain/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...