Health and wellbeing of staff working at higher education institutions globally during the post-COVID-19 pandemic period: Evidence from a cross-sectional study (preprint)

Background The ongoing global crisis of Higher Education (HE) institutions during the post-COVID-19 pandemic period has increased the likelihood of enduring psychological stressors for staff. This study aimed to identify factors associated with job insecurity, burnout, psychological distress and coping amongst staff working at HE institutions globally.Methods An anonymous cross-sectional study was conducted in 2023 with staff at HE institutions across 16 countries. Job insecurity was measured using the Job Insecurity Scale (JIS), burnout using the Perceived Burnout measure question, psychological distress using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), and coping using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Multivariable logistic regression with a stepwise variable selection method was used to identify associations.Results A total of 2,353 staff participated; the mean age (± SD) was 43(± 10) years and 61% were females. Most staff (85%) did not feel job insecurity, one-third (29%) perceived burnout in their jobs, more than two-thirds (73%) experienced moderate to very high levels of psychological distress, and more than half (58%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping. Perceived job insecurity was associated with staff working in research [Adjusted Odds Ratio 1.37 (95% Confidence Intervals 1.04–1.81)] and part-time, having an academic appointment [2.45 (1.78–3.27)], perceived burnout and moderate to very high level of psychological distress. Perceived burnout was associated with being female [1.35 (1.12–1.63)], having a leadership appointment [1.30 (1.05–1.61)], perceived job insecurity, and moderate to very high levels of psychological distress. Staff with administrative roles [1.26 (1.04–1.52)], mental health issues [2.73 (1.79–4.15)], perceived job insecurity, and perceived burnout were associated with moderate to very high levels of psychological distress. Staff who perceived their mental health as good to excellent [3.36 (2.69–4.19)] were more likely to have medium to high resilient coping.Conclusions Factors identified in this study should be considered in reviewing and updating current support strategies for staff at HE institutions across all countries to reduce stress and burnout and improve wellbeing.

COVID-19: Factors Associated with Psychol­­­ogical Distress, Fear, and Coping Strategies among Community Members Across 17 Countries (preprint)

Background: The current pandemic of COVID-19 impacted the psychological wellbeing of populations globally. Objectives: We aimed to examine the extent and identify associated factors of psychological distress, fear of COVID-19, and coping.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study across 17 countries during Jun-2020 to Jan-2021. Levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale), and coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale) were assessed. Results: A total of 8,559 people participated; mean age (±SD) was 33(±13) years, 64% were females and 40% self-identified as frontline workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (1.56 [1.29-1.90]), comorbidity with mental health conditions (3.02 [1.20-7.60]) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress and fear. Doctors had higher psychological distress (1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (1.30 [1.03-1.65]). Conclusions: The extent of psychological distress, fear of COVID and coping varied by country; however, some groups were more vulnerable than others. There is an urgent need to prioritise health and well-being of these people through well-designed intervention that may need to be tailored to meet country specific requirements.

COVID-19: Psychol­­­ogical Distress, Fear, and Coping Strategies Among Community Members Across 17 Countries (preprint)

Background: The current pandemic of COVID-19 impacted the psychological wellbeing of populations globally. Our study aimed to examine the extent and associated factors to psychological distress, the level of fear of COVID-19, and coping strategies amongst a diverse range of community people in multi-country settings.Methods: A cross-sectional study across 17 countries was conducted. Psychological distress (based on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale) was categorized into low and moderate to very high, fear of COVID-19 (based on the Fear of COVID-19 Scale) was categorized into low and high, and coping (based on the Brief Resilient Coping Scale) was categorized into low and medium to high. For country-wise comparisons, we selected the reference country based on the lowest prevalence of each outcome and examined the status for other countries. Multivariate analyses were conducted to adjust potential confounders including in-country variations; adjusted odds ratio (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.Findings: A total of 8559 people participated in this study. Mean age (±SD) was 33 (±13) years and two-thirds (64%) were females. More than one-third (40%) self-identified as frontline or essential service workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate to very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (AOR 1.56 [1.29-1.90]), being affected by the change of financial situation, comorbidity with mental health conditions (AOR 3.02 [1.20-7.60]), unsure contact with COVID-19 patient, and use of healthcare services in the last six months were associated with moderate to very high levels of psychological distress. Doctors had higher psychological distress (AOR 1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (AOR 0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (AOR 1.30 [1.03-1.65]). Participants from 10 countries (Hong Kong, Oman, Libya, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Egypt) demonstrated significantly higher psychological stress compared to the participants from Thailand. Participants from four countries (Oman, Indonesia, Hong Kong and Pakistan) exhibited higher levels of fear of COVID-19 compared to those from Libya. Participants from 12 countries (Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Hong Kong, UAE, Palestine, Thailand, Oman, Nepal, Indonesia and Syria) demonstrated statistically significant medium to high resilience coping compared to those from Australia.Interpretation: Females and people with existing mental health issues were the most vulnerable groups of populations for adverse psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic across 17 countries. While these two groups had ongoing challenges in a COVID-free world, the pandemic worsened their wellbeing. There is an urgent need to prioritise their needs. Adequate medical and social support along with specific health promotion policies should be considered within the strategic response to the ongoing pandemic and future crises.Funding Information: None.Declaration of Interests: We declare no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: Ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee from each participating country. The survey was voluntary in nature and it was clarified in the PLIS, so that participants got the opportunity to have informed decision to participate in the study. Privacy and confidentiality of the collected data were maintained. All responses were anonymous and there was no information about the identity of the participants.