Psychological wellbeing and the association with burnout in a cohort of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Burnout, depression, and anxiety are prevalent among healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic and have been previously shown to contribute to poor health outcomes and reduced quality of care. Positive psychological constructs such as positive affect and meaning and purpose are related to resilience in the face of significant stress. No studies have examined these associations among a cohort of HCWs during this pandemic. The purpose of this study was to examine the association of depression, anxiety, positive affect, and meaning and purpose with burnout among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. We utilized data from a cross-sectional survey conducted between September 29-December 8, 2021, among a cohort of 2,411 HCWs from a large, tertiary academic health care system in the Chicago area. We employed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures for depression, anxiety, positive affect, and meaning and purpose and burnout was measured by the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI). The majority (80.88%) of HCWs in this study identified as White, Non-Hispanic race/ethnicity, female sex (82.37%), and roughly one third were between ages 30–39 years old (30.98%). Registered nurses (26.96%) accounted for the largest single occupation group. The mean burnout score was 36.87 (SD = 7.65), with 53.38% of participants classified as having burnout, and registered nurses demonstrating the highest proportions of burnout (63.54%). Higher depression (coef = 0.15, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001) and anxiety (coef = 0.25, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001) scores were associated with higher burnout in multivariable linear regression models. Increased positive affect (coef= −0.19, SE= 0.02, p < 0.001) and meaning and purpose (coef= −0.12, SE= 0.01, p < 0.001) scores were significantly associated with reduced burnout. Positive affect and meaning and purpose were inversely associated with burnout among a cohort of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies of positive affect and meaning and purpose suggest the potential buffering effect that these indices may have on burnout. Future research is needed to examine the effect of positive affect and meaning and purpose on mitigating the negative impacts of burnout, depression, and anxiety among HCWs as they cope with the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Psychological wellbeing and the association with burnout in a cohort of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Burnout, depression, and anxiety are prevalent among healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic and have been previously shown to contribute to poor health outcomes and reduced quality of care. Positive psychological constructs such as positive affect and meaning and purpose are related to resilience in the face of significant stress. No studies have examined these associations among a cohort of HCWs during this pandemic. The purpose of this study was to examine the association of depression, anxiety, positive affect, and meaning and purpose with burnout among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. We utilized data from a cross-sectional survey conducted between September 29-December 8, 2021, among a cohort of 2,411 HCWs from a large, tertiary academic health care system in the Chicago area. We employed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures for depression, anxiety, positive affect, and meaning and purpose and burnout was measured by the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI). The majority (80.88%) of HCWs in this study identified as White, Non-Hispanic race/ethnicity, female sex (82.37%), and roughly one third were between ages 30-39 years old (30.98%). Registered nurses (26.96%) accounted for the largest single occupation group. The mean burnout score was 36.87 (SD = 7.65), with 53.38% of participants classified as having burnout, and registered nurses demonstrating the highest proportions of burnout (63.54%). Higher depression (coef = 0.15, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001) and anxiety (coef = 0.25, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001) scores were associated with higher burnout in multivariable linear regression models. Increased positive affect (coef= -0.19, SE= 0.02, p < 0.001) and meaning and purpose (coef= -0.12, SE= 0.01, p < 0.001) scores were significantly associated with reduced burnout. Positive affect and meaning and purpose were inversely associated with burnout among a cohort of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies of positive affect and meaning and purpose suggest the potential buffering effect that these indices may have on burnout. Future research is needed to examine the effect of positive affect and meaning and purpose on mitigating the negative impacts of burnout, depression, and anxiety among HCWs as they cope with the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine intentions and uptake in a tertiary-care healthcare system: A longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are a high-priority group for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and serve as sources for public information. In this analysis, we assessed vaccine intentions, factors associated with intentions, and change in uptake over time in HCWs. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of COVID-19 seroprevalence was conducted with HCWs in a large healthcare system in the Chicago area. Participants completed surveys from November 25, 2020, to January 9, 2021, and from April 24 to July 12, 2021, on COVID-19 exposures, diagnosis and symptoms, demographics, and vaccination status. RESULTS: Of 4,180 HCWs who responded to a survey, 77.1% indicated that they intended to get the vaccine. In this group, 23.2% had already received at least 1 dose of the vaccine, 17.4% were unsure, and 5.5% reported that they would not get the vaccine. Factors associated with intention or vaccination were being exposed to clinical procedures (vs no procedures: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.65) and having a negative serology test for COVID-19 (vs no test: AOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.24-1.73). Nurses (vs physicians: AOR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.17-0.33), non-Hispanic Black (vs Asians: AOR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.59), and women (vs men: AOR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.30-0.50) had lower odds of intention to get vaccinated. By 6-months follow-up, >90% of those who had previously been unsure were vaccinated, whereas 59.7% of those who previously reported no intention of getting vaccinated, were vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination in HCWs was high, but variability in vaccination intention exists. Targeted messaging coupled with vaccine mandates can support uptake.

Serologic Status and SARS-CoV-2 Infection over 6 Months of Follow Up in Healthcare Workers in Chicago: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the changes in severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic status and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in healthcare workers (HCWs) over 6-months of follow-up. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: HCWs in the Chicago area. METHODS: Cohort participants were recruited in May and June 2020 for baseline serology testing (Abbott anti-nucleocapsid IgG) and were then invited for follow-up serology testing 6 months later. Participants completed monthly online surveys that assessed demographics, medical history, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and exposures to SARS-CoV-2. The electronic medical record was used to identify SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity during follow-up. Serologic conversion and SARS-CoV-2 infection or possible reinfection rates (cases per 10,000 person days) by antibody status at baseline and follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 6,510 HCWs were followed for a total of 1,285,395 person days (median follow-up, 216 days). For participants who had baseline and follow-up serology checked, 285 (6.1%) of the 4,681 seronegative participants at baseline seroconverted to positive at follow-up; 138 (48%) of the 263 who were seropositive at baseline were seronegative at follow-up. When analyzed by baseline serostatus alone, 519 (8.4%) of 6,194 baseline seronegative participants had a positive PCR after baseline serology testing (4.25 per 10,000 person days). Of 316 participants who were seropositive at baseline, 8 (2.5%) met criteria for possible SARS-CoV-2 reinfection (ie, PCR positive >90 days after baseline serology) during follow-up, a rate of 1.27 per 10,000 days at risk. The adjusted rate ratio for possible reinfection in baseline seropositive compared to infection in baseline seronegative participants was 0.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Seropositivity in HCWs is associated with moderate protection from future SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Seroprevalence and Correlates of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Health Care Workers in Chicago.

BACKGROUND: Identifying factors associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among health care workers (HCWs) may help health systems optimize SARS-CoV-2 infection control strategies. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the Northwestern HCW SARS-CoV-2 Serology Cohort Study. We used the Abbott Architect Nucleocapsid IgG assay to determine seropositivity. Logistic regression models (adjusted for demographics and self-reported community exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) were fit to quantify the associations between occupation group, health care delivery tasks, and community exposure and seropositive status. RESULTS: A total of 6510 HCWs, including 1794 nurses and 904 non-patient-facing administrators, participated. The majority were women (79.6%), 74.9% were White, 9.7% were Asian, 7.3% were Hispanic, and 3.1% were non-Hispanic Black. The crude prevalence of seropositivity was 4.8% (95% CI, 4.6%-5.2%). Seropositivity varied by race/ethnicity as well as age, ranging from 4.2% to 9.6%. Out-of-hospital exposure to COVID-19 occurred in 9.3% of HCWs, 15.0% (95% CI, 12.2%-18.1%) of whom were seropositive; those with family members diagnosed with COVID-19 had a seropositivity rate of 54% (95% CI, 44.2%-65.2%). Support service workers (10.4%; 95% CI, 4.6%-19.4%), medical assistants (10.1%; 95% CI, 5.5%-16.6%), and nurses (7.6%; 95% CI, 6.4%-9.0%) had significantly higher seropositivity rates than administrators (referent; 3.3%; 95% CI, 2.3%-4.4%). However, after adjustment, nursing was the only occupation group with a significantly higher odds (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9) of seropositivity. Exposure to patients receiving high-flow oxygen therapy and hemodialysis was significantly associated with 45% and 57% higher odds for seropositive status, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: HCWs are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection from longer-duration exposures to people infected with SARS-CoV-2 within health care settings and their communities of residence.

Readability, content, and quality of COVID-19 patient education materials from academic medical centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 has spread rapidly resulted in a global pandemic and public health crisis. The internet is a frequently used resource for providing patient education materials (PEMs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the readability, content, and quality of web-based PEMs on COVID-19 from US academic medical centers. METHODS: The names of US medical schools were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges website (n = 145). Institutional, hospital, and heath encyclopedia websites associated with each schools' medical center were identified using Google. Readability of COVID-19 PEMs was calculated using three validated indices: (1) Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level, (2) Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and (3) Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook. Content was evaluated using a scoring matrix based on materials available on the Center for Disease Control website. The Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Print (PEMAT-P) was used to assess usability and actionability. RESULTS: A total of 141 (97%) PEMs met inclusion criteria and were analyzed for readability, content, and quality. The mean readability was above the recommended sixth grade reading level (P < .001). Content was variable across PEMs. The PEMAT-P scores reflected good understandability with a median score of 83% (IQR 75%-87%), while actionability was poor with a median score of 41% (IQR 40%-60%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite availability of web-based PEMs for COVID-19, the readability was significantly higher than the National Institute of Health and US Department of Health and Human Services recommended sixth grade reading level and actionability of PEMs was low. It is critical to provide readable PEMs on COVID-19 to effectively disseminate accurate information and facilitate patients' understanding of the virus, how it spreads, and how to protect themselves.