Counseling and support services for healthcare workers in German university hospitals during the pandemic-descriptive results of a Germany-wide cross-sectional survey.

Background: Due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) are experiencing tremendous levels of emotional and physical stress. Hospitals are trying to help personnel cope with work-related pressure. The aim of this study was to assess HCWs' awareness and utilization of counseling and support services during the pandemic, HCWs' unmet counseling and support needs, and the type and content of these services. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from January to June 2021 through the German national research organization Network University Medicine (NUM). All participating hospitals (6 in total) were asked to inform their employees about the study. Results: A total of 1,495 HCWs were included in the analysis. Of these, 42.8% (n = 637) were frontline HCWs (who had contact with COVID-19 patients), 23.1% (n = 344) were second-line HCWs (who only had contact with non-COVID-19 patients) and 34.1% (n = 508) had no contact with any patients. Participating hospitals offer various counseling and support services for their staff. The percentage of respondents who were unaware of available counseling and support services ranged from 5.0 to 42.0%. Depending on the type of counseling and support services, 23.0-53.6% of the respondents indicated that counseling and support services were provided but not used, while 1.7-11.6% indicated that, despite the need for them, such services were not available. HCWs' overall satisfaction with the provided counseling and support services and their unmet support needs differed by patient contact: Frontline HCWs reported more unmet needs for counseling and support than second-line HCWs, while second-line HCWs reported more unmet needs than HCWs without patient contact. Conclusion: The results indicate that hospitals should make more efforts to inform HCWs about available counseling and support services. Hospitals could also create networks where HCWs could share information about the type and content of services and their experiences with various counseling and support services. These steps would enable hospitals to respond more quickly and effectively to the problems facing HCWs during pandemics.

Mental Health Impact of Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Individuals with Pre-Existing Mental Disorders: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Research.

In view of disease-related threats, containment measures, and disrupted healthcare, individuals with pre-existing mental illness might be vulnerable to adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous reviews indicated increased mental distress, with limited information on peri-pandemic changes. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify longitudinal research investigating pre- to peri-pandemic and/or peri-pandemic changes of mental health in patients, focusing on the early phase and considering specific diagnoses. PsycINFO, Web of Science, the WHO Global literature on coronavirus disease database, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register weresearched through 31 May 2021. Studies were synthesized using vote counting based on effect direction. We included 40 studies mostly from Western, high-income countries. Findings were heterogeneous, with improving and deteriorating mental health observed compared to pre-pandemic data, partly depending on underlying diagnoses. For peri-pandemic changes, evidence was limited, with some suggestion of recovery of mental distress. Study quality was heterogeneous; only few studies investigated potential moderators (e.g., chronicity of mental illness). Mental health effects on people with pre-existing conditions are heterogeneous within and across diagnoses for pre- to peri-pandemic and peri-pandemic comparisons. To improve mental health services amid future global crises, forthcoming research should understand medium- and long-term effects, controlling for containment measures.

[Willingness to get vaccinated among hospital staff in Germany: What is the role of COVID-19 conspiracy assumptions?] / Impfbereitschaft von Krankenhauspersonal in Deutschland: Welche Rolle spielen Verschwörungsannahmen zu COVID-19?

BACKGROUND: A critical factor in achieving widespread immunity against COVID-19 is the willingness of previously unvaccinated individuals to get vaccinated. Medical staff play a key role in this, as they ensure healthcare during the pandemic and for many serve as a source of information about vaccinations. Among the factors that negatively influence the general willingness to get vaccinated are conspiracy assumptions and the spread of misinformation. OBJECTIVE: The willingness of hospital staff in Germany to get vaccinated and various influencing variables were examined to obtain indicators that could help increase the general willingness to get vaccinated. METHODS: Between January and June 2021, a voluntary and anonymous online survey conducted as part of the egePan joint project of the national network for university medicine (funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research) was used to assess the willingness to be vaccinated, individual social characteristics, the belief in conspiracy assumptions, and communication items in German hospitals. RESULTS: In comparison with the general population, physicians and scientific staff in particular indicated an increased willingness to get vaccinated. Conspiracy assumptions were not very widespread but most frequent among administrative and nursing staff. Conspiracy assumptions were negatively associated with the willingness to get vaccinated. Predictors for a higher willingness to get vaccinated were the perceived safety and effectiveness of vaccinations and a higher age. DISCUSSION: Since the perceived safety and effectiveness of vaccinations have a positive effect on the willingness to get vaccinated, educational work and transparent information transfer could counteract the spread of conspiracy assumptions and increase vaccination rates among hospital staff.

Interventions to foster resilience in nursing staff: A systematic review and meta-analyses of pre-pandemic evidence.

BACKGROUND: Given the chronic work-related stressors experienced by nursing staff in today's healthcare systems, international evidence suggests an elevated risk of developing stress-related mental symptoms. Therefore, identifying effective methods to foster resilience (i.e., maintenance or fast recovery of mental health despite stressor exposure) seems crucial. To date, little is known about the efficacy of these interventions in nurses. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed at summarizing the evidence on the pre-pandemic efficacy of psychological interventions to foster resilience, to improve mental symptoms and well-being as well as to promote resilience factors in nurses. Based on training programs with evidence for positive effects on resilience and mental health in meta-analyses, we aimed at identifying important and helpful intervention techniques. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses based on a Cochrane review on pre-pandemic resilience interventions in healthcare professionals. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and 11 other databases were searched until June 2020 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. Trial registers, reference lists and contact with authors were additional sources. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included studies. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analyses for five primary outcomes, including resilience. The intervention contents and techniques were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Of 39,794 records retrieved, 24 studies were included in the review (N = 1879 randomized participants), 17 in meta-analyses (n = 1020 participants). At post-intervention, we found very-low certainty evidence of moderate effects in favor of resilience training for resilience (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.39; 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.12-0.66) and well-being (SMD 0.44; 95% CI 0.15-0.72), while there was no evidence of effects on symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress. The improvement of well-being was sustained in the short-term (≤3 months), with additional delayed benefits for anxiety and stress. There was no evidence of effects at later follow-ups, with the caveat of only three available studies. Among nine programs with evidence of positive moderate effect sizes, intervention contents included mindfulness and relaxation, psychoeducation, emotion regulation, cognitive strategies, problem-solving and the strengthening of internal and external resources. CONCLUSIONS: Given the chronic stressor exposure in nursing staff, our findings may guide both the design and implementation of nurse-directed resilience interventions. To improve the certainty of evidence, more rigorous high-quality research using improved study designs (e.g., larger sample sizes, longer follow-up periods) is urgently needed. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017082827.

Changes and Challenges in Inpatient Mental Health Care During the First Two High Incidence Phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany - Results From the COVID Ψ Psychiatry Survey.

Psychiatric inpatient treatment, an important pillar of mental health care, is often of longer duration in Germany than in other countries. The COVID-19 pandemic called for infection prevention and control measures and thereby led to shifts in demand and inpatient capacities. The Germany-wide COVID Ψ Psychiatry Survey surveyed department heads of German psychiatric inpatient institutions. It assessed changes in utilization during the first two high incidence phases of the pandemic (spring 2020 and winter 2020/21) and also consequences for care, telemedicine experiences, hygiene measures, treatment of patients with mental illness and co-occuring SARS-CoV-2, and coercive measures in such patients. A total of n = 71 psychiatric departments (of 346 contacted) participated in the survey. The results showed a median decrease of inpatient treatment to 80% of 2019 levels and of day hospital treatment to 50% (first phase) and 70% (second phase). Reductions were mainly due to decreases in elective admissions, and emergency admissions remained unchanged or increased in 87% of departments. Utilization was reduced for affective, anxiety, personality, and addiction disorders but appeared roughly unaffected for psychotic disorders. A lack of integration of patients into their living environment, disease exacerbations, loss of contact, and suicide attempts were reported as problems resulting from reduced capacities and insufficient outpatient treatment alternatives. Almost all departments (96%) treated patients with severe mental illness and co-occurring SARS-CoV-2 infection. The majority established special wards and separate areas for (potentially) infectious patients. Telephone and video consultations were found to provide benefits in affective and anxiety disorders. Involuntary admissions of persons without mental illness because of infection protection law violations were reported by 6% of the hospitals. The survey showed high adaptability of psychiatric departments, which managed large capacity shifts and introduced new services for infectious patients, which include telemedicine services. However, the pandemic exacerbated some of the shortcomings of the German mental health system: Avoidable complications resulted from the lack of cooperation and integrated care sequences between in- and outpatient sectors and limited options for psychiatric hospitals to provide outpatient services. Preventive approaches to handle comparable pandemic situations in the future should focus on addressing these shortcomings.

Protective and Risk Factors for Mental Distress and Its Impact on Health-Protective Behaviors during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic between March 2020 and March 2021 in Germany.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is posing a global public health burden. These consequences have been shown to increase the risk of mental distress, but the underlying protective and risk factors for mental distress and trends over different waves of the pandemic are largely unknown. Furthermore, it is largely unknown how mental distress is associated with individual protective behavior. Three quota samples, weighted to represent the population forming the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring study (24 March and 26 May 2020, and 9 March 2021 with >900 subjects each), were used to describe the course of mental distress and resilience, to identify risk and protective factors during the pandemic, and to investigate their associations with individual protective behaviors. Mental distress increased slightly during the pandemic. Usage of cognitive reappraisal strategies, maintenance of a daily structure, and usage of alternative social interactions decreased. Self-reported resilience, cognitive reappraisal strategies, and maintaining a daily structure were the most important protective factors in all three samples. Adherence to individual protective behaviors (e.g., physical distancing) was negatively associated with mental distress and positively associated with frequency of information intake, maintenance of a daily structure, and cognitive reappraisal. Maintaining a daily structure, training of cognitive reappraisal strategies, and information provision may be targets to prevent mental distress while assuring a high degree of individual protective behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Effects of the respective interventions have to be confirmed in further studies.

[Mental burden, resilience and tendency towards absenteeism among healthcare personnel in Germany during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020 : An ad hoc survey]. / Psychische Belastung, Resilienz und Absentismusneigung bei Gesundheitspersonal in Deutschland während der ersten COVID-19-Pandemiewelle im Frühjahr 2020 : Eine Ad-hoc-Befragung.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with extensive changes in the public and private life in Germany. Healthcare personnel are particularly exposed to additional stressors. OBJECTIVE: To identify the mental burden, resilience, tendency towards absenteeism and associated factors during the COVID-19 pandemic in an anonymous cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Data on sociodemographics, occupational situation, contact to COVID-19 patients, mental burden, stressors, resilience, risk and protective factors were assessed among a convenience sample of healthcare personnel in spring 2020 (5 April 2020-7 May 2020). A comparison with the general population in Germany before and during the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted. RESULTS: After the evaluation of 650 completed questionnaires, an increased mental burden was found compared to the German general population before the pandemic, while the mental burden was reduced compared to the general population during the pandemic. The self-reported resilience was slightly higher compared to the general population before and during the pandemic. The COVID-19-related stressors and worries were the most important risk factors, self-efficacy and optimism the most important protective factors. The mental burden was moderately correlated with the intention to change the profession and the tendency towards absenteeism. CONCLUSION: Mental burden in healthcare personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a higher tendency towards taking sick leave. In order to support healthcare personnel interventions that foster resources, such as self-efficacy and optimism should be offered to particularly vulnerable groups .

Mental burden and its risk and protective factors during the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Mental burden due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been widely reported for the general public and specific risk groups like healthcare workers and different patient populations. We aimed to assess its impact on mental health during the early phase by comparing pandemic with prepandemic data and to identify potential risk and protective factors. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analyses, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from January 1, 2019 to May 29, 2020, and screened reference lists of included studies. In addition, we searched PubMed and PsycINFO for prepandemic comparative data. Survey studies assessing mental burden by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the general population, healthcare workers, or any patients (eg, COVID-19 patients), with a broad range of eligible mental health outcomes, and matching studies evaluating prepandemic comparative data in the same population (if available) were included. We used multilevel meta-analyses for main, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses, focusing on (perceived) stress, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and sleep-related symptoms as primary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 2429 records retrieved, 104 were included in the review (n = 208,261 participants), 43 in the meta-analysis (n = 71,613 participants). While symptoms of anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.40; 95% CI 0.15-0.65) and depression (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.07-1.27) were increased in the general population during the early phase of the pandemic compared with prepandemic conditions, mental burden was not increased in patients as well as healthcare workers, irrespective of COVID-19 patient contact. Specific outcome measures (eg, Patient Health Questionnaire) and older comparative data (published ≥5 years ago) were associated with increased mental burden. Across the three population groups, existing mental disorders, female sex, and concerns about getting infected were repeatedly reported as risk factors, while older age, a good economic situation, and education were protective. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis paints a more differentiated picture of the mental health consequences in pandemic situations than previous reviews. High-quality, representative surveys, high granular longitudinal studies, and more research on protective factors are required to better understand the psychological impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and to help design effective preventive measures and interventions that are tailored to the needs of specific population groups.

Psychomorbidity, Resilience, and Exacerbating and Protective Factors During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused mental stress in a number of ways: overstrain of the health care system, lockdown of the economy, restricted opportunities for interpersonal contact and excursions outside the home and workplace, and quarantine measures where necessary. In this article, we provide an overview of psychological distress in the current pandemic, identifying protective factors and risk factors. METHODS: The PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for relevant publications (1 January 2019 - 16 April 2020). This study was registered in OSF Registries (osf.io/34j8g). Data on mental stress and resilience in Germany were obtained from three surveys carried out on more than 1000 participants each in the framework of the COSMO study (24 March, 31 March, and 21 April 2020). RESULTS: 18 studies from China and India, with a total of 79 664 participants, revealed increased stress in the general population, with manifestations of depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and sleep disturbances. Stress was more marked among persons working in the health care sector. Risk factors for stress included patient contact, female sex, impaired health status, worry about family members and significant others, and poor sleep quality. Protective factors included being informed about the increasing number of persons who have recovered from COVID, social support, and a lower perceived infectious risk. The COSMO study, though based on an insufficiently representative population sample because of a low questionnaire return rate (<20%), revealed increased rates of despondency, loneliness, and hopelessness in the German population as compared to norm data, with no change in estimated resilience. CONCLUSION: Stress factors associated with the current pandemic probably increase stress by causing anxiety and depression. Once the protective factors and risk factors have been identified, these can be used to develop psychosocial interventions. The informativeness of the results reported here is limited by the wide variety of instruments used to acquire data and by the insufficiently representative nature of the population samples.