Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a mental health stepped-care programme for healthcare workers with psychological distress in crisis settings: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Evidence-based mental health interventions to support healthcare workers (HCWs) in crisis settings are scarce.

Objective

To evaluate the capacity of a mental health intervention in reducing anxiety and depression symptoms in HCWs, relative to enhanced care as usual (eCAU), amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We conducted an analyst-blind, parallel, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We recruited HCWs with psychological distress from Madrid and Catalonia (Spain). The intervention arm received a stepped-care programme consisting of two WHO-developed interventions adapted for HCWs: Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and Problem Management Plus (PM+). Each intervention lasted 5 weeks and was delivered remotely by non-specialist mental health providers. HCWs reporting psychological distress after DWM completion were invited to continue to PM+. The primary endpoint was self-reported anxiety/depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale) at week 21.

Findings

Between 3 November 2021 and 31 March 2022, 115 participants were randomised to stepped care and 117 to eCAU (86% women, mean age 37.5). The intervention showed a greater decrease in anxiety/depression symptoms compared with eCAU at the primary endpoint (baseline-adjusted difference 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 to 6.7; standardised effect size 0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). No serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusions

Brief stepped-care psychological interventions reduce anxiety and depression during a period of stress among HCWs.

Clinical implications

Our results can inform policies and actions to protect the mental health of HCWs during major health crises and are potentially rapidly replicable in other settings where workers are affected by global emergencies.

Trial registration number

NCT04980326.

SUBMITTER: Mediavilla R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10254812 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of a mental health stepped-care programme for healthcare workers with psychological distress in crisis settings: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Mediavilla Roberto R Felez-Nobrega Mireia M McGreevy Kerry R KR Monistrol-Mula Anna A Bravo-Ortiz María-Fe MF Bayón Carmen C Giné-Vázquez Iago I Villaescusa Rut R Muñoz-Sanjosé Ainoa A Aguilar-Ortiz Salvatore S Figueiredo Natasha N Nicaise Pablo P Park A-La AL Petri-Romão Papoula P Purgato Marianna M Witteveen Anke B AB Underhill James J Barbui Corrado C Bryant Richard R Kalisch Raffael R Lorant Vincent V McDaid David D Melchior Maria M Sijbrandij Marit M Haro Josep Maria JM Ayuso-Mateos Jose Luis JL

BMJ mental health 20230601 1

<h4>Background</h4>Evidence-based mental health interventions to support healthcare workers (HCWs) in crisis settings are scarce.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the capacity of a mental health intervention in reducing anxiety and depression symptoms in HCWs, relative to enhanced care as usual (eCAU), amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted an analyst-blind, parallel, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We recruited HCWs with psychological distress from Madrid and Catalonia ...[more]

PMID: 37263708

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPandemics and natural disasters are immensely stressful events for frontline healthcare workers, as they provide patient care to a population undergoing the impacts of the disaster while experiencing such impacts to their personal lives themselves. With increased stressors to an already demanding job, frontline healthcare workers are at a higher risk of adverse effects to their mental health. The current COVID-19 pandemic has already shown to have had significant impact on the mental health of healthcare workers with increased rates of burnout, anxiety and depression. There is already literature showing the utility of individual programs at improving mental health, however, interventions at the organizational level are not well explored. This scoping review aims to provide an overview and determine the utility of a systematic review of the current body of literature assessing the effectiveness of mental health interventions at the organizational level for healthcare workers during or after a public health emergency.MethodsElectronic databases such as Medline on OVID, CENTRAL, PsycINFO on OVID and Embase on OVID were searched. A targeted search of the grey literature was conducted to identify any non-indexed studies. The population, concept and context approach was used to develop the eligibility criteria. Articles were included if (1) they assessed the impact of interventions to improve wellbeing or reduce the distress on healthcare personnel, first responders or military actively providing medical care; (2) provided quantitative or qualitative data with clearly defined outcomes that focused on established mental health indicators or qualitative descriptions on distress and wellbeing, validated scales and workplace indicators; (3) focused on organizational level interventions that occurred in a public health crisis.ResultsThe literature search resulted in 4007 citations and 115 potentially relevant full-text papers. All except 5 were excluded. There were four review articles and one experimental study. There were no other unpublished reports that warranted inclusion.ConclusionsThere is a distinct lack of research examining organizational interventions addressing mental resilience and well-being in healthcare workers in disaster settings. A systematic review in this area would be low yield. There is a clear need for further research in this area.

Project description:IntroductionPrevious studies have suggested association between brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and the stress level of workers. However, no studies have investigated the potential of salivary mature BDNF (mBDNF) level as a noninvasive biomarker for psychological distress. This study aimed to explore the reliability of salivary mBDNF as a biomarker for psychological distress in healthcare workers. Furthermore, we examined the relationship between salivary and plasma mBDNF levels and their correlation with age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and exercise habits.MethodsFifty-one healthy healthcare workers (26 men) from the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, participated in this study. In this cross-sectional study, participants provided demographic information. Psychological distress was assessed using the Kessler 6 (K6). Saliva and blood samples were collected, and mBDNF was measured by ELISA. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was performed to analyze the relationship between mBDNF (saliva and plasma) and K6. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 17.0, and a significance level of p < .05 was applied.ResultsThe median K6 score was 1 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0-3). The median (IQR) salivary mBDNF was 1.36 (1.12-1.96) pg/mL, whereas the mean (standard deviation) plasma mBDNF was 1261.11 (242.98) pg/mL. No correlation was observed between salivary and plasma mBDNF concentrations or with the K6 score. Additionally, there were no associations between salivary or plasma mBDNF concentrations and age, sex, or exercise habits. Finally, an association between plasma mBDNF concentration and BMI was found only in univariate analysis.ConclusionOur findings indicate that salivary mBDNF can be accurately measured noninvasively in healthcare workers. Within our study sample, salivary mBDNF did not demonstrate any correlation with K6 and plasma mBDNF. Future studies with a larger study sample and a diverse study population consisting of healthy participants and patients with psychiatric disorders are warranted.

Project description:ObjectiveOur study aims to understand the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic among healthcare workers (HCWs) at acute hospital settings in the South-East of Ireland, as a crucial step in guiding policies and interventions to maintain their psychological well-being.DesignObservational cohort study.Participants and setting472 HCWs participated from two distinct acute hospital settings, A and B, in the South-East of Ireland.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMeasures of psychological distress-depression, anxiety, acute and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-as dictated by the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R). An independent sample t-test and a Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine significance of difference in continuous variables between groups. Categorical variables were assessed for significance with a χ2 test for independence.ResultsThe DASS-21 provided independent measures of depression (mean 4.57, IQR 2-7), anxiety (mean 3.87, IQR 1-6) and stress (mean 7.41, IQR 4-10). Positive scores were reflected in 201 workers (42.6%) for depression and 213 (45.1%) for both anxiety and stress. The IES-R measured subjective distress on three subscales: intrusion (mean 1.085, IQR 0.375-1.72), avoidance (mean 1.008, IQR 0.375-1.5) and hyperarousal (mean 1.084, IQR 0.5-1.667). Overall, 195 cases (41.3%) were concerning for PTSD. Site B scored significantly higher across all parameters of depression (5.24 vs 4.08, p<0.01), anxiety (4.66 vs 3.3, p<0.01), stress (8.91 vs 6.33, p<0.01) and PTSD (0.058 vs 0.043, p<0.01). Worse outcomes were also noted in HCWs with underlying medical ailments.ConclusionPsychological distress is prevalent among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic; screening for adverse mental and emotional outcomes and developing timely tailored preventative measures with effective feedback are vital to protect their psychological well-being, both in the immediate and long-term.

Project description:IntroductionThis study examined the psychological wellbeing of Healthcare Workers (HCWs) during COVID-19 in a mental health setting, associations of psychosocial wellbeing with coping style, and ways that organisations can mitigate the psychosocial burden on HCWs.MethodsThirty-seven Mental HCWs (MHCWs) from infected and non-infected wards (control group), were recruited and assessed at three timepoints. Psychological wellbeing, perceived cohesion, and coping style (Brief-COPE) were assessed. Reports on individual coping and feedback on the organisation were collected through in-depth interview. Comparison between infected and non-infected wards, as well as comparison of psychosocial measures and perceived cohesion, across the three timepoints were made. As there were no significant changes in coping styles across the timepoints, Timepoint 1 (T1) coping style was used to correlate with the psychosocial measures across all timepoints. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative data.ResultsMHCWs from infected wards reported significantly higher levels of stress, χ2(1) = 6.74, p = 0.009, effect size: medium (ε2 = 0.198), and more severe sleep disturbance (PSQI), χ2(1) = 6.20, p = 0.013, effect size: medium (ε2 = 0.182), as compared to the control group at T2. They also engaged in more problem-focused coping (T2 and T3) and emotion-focused coping (T2). As expected, negative coping style was correlated with negative outcomes except problem-focused coping that was correlated with both negative (sleep disturbance and anxiety symptoms) and positive outcomes (wellbeing). Emotion-focused coping was moderately correlated (Tb = 0.348, p<0.017) with higher levels of wellbeing at T2. Thematic analyses revealed MHCWs felt supported by the responsiveness of the institution, emotional and informational support, and the availability from direct leaders, presence of team and hospital leaders on the ground, helped build trust and confidence in the leadership.ConclusionsMHCWs experienced significantly higher levels of stress and sleep disturbance during COVID-19. The ways that organizations can offset the psychological burden of pandemics on MHCWs are discussed.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) have experienced anxiety and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. We established and report findings from an occupational health programme for HCWs in Zimbabwe that offered screening for SARS-CoV-2 with integrated screening for comorbidities including common mental disorder (CMD) and referral for counselling.MethodsQuantitative outcomes were fearfulness about COVID-19, the Shona Symptom Questionnaire (SSQ-14) score (cutpoint 8/14) and the number and proportion of HCWs offered referral for counselling, accepting referral and counselled. We used chi square tests to identify factors associated with fearfulness, and logistic regression was used to model the association of fearfulness with wave, adjusting for variables identified using a DAG. Qualitative data included 18 in-depth interviews, two workshops conducted with HCWs and written feedback from counsellors, analysed concurrently with data collection using thematic analysis.ResultsBetween 27 July 2020-31 July 2021, spanning three SARS-CoV-2 waves, the occupational health programme was accessed by 3577 HCWs from 22 facilities. The median age was 37 (IQR 30-43) years, 81.9% were women, 41.7% said they felt fearful about COVID-19 and 12.1% had an SSQ-14 score ≥ 8. A total of 501 HCWs were offered referral for counselling, 78.4% accepted and 68.9% had ≥1 counselling session. Adjusting for setting and role, wave 2 was associated with increased fearfulness over wave 1 (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.00-1.60). Qualitative data showed high levels of anxiety, psychosomatic symptoms and burnout related to the pandemic. Mental wellbeing was affected by financial insecurity, unmet physical health needs and inability to provide quality care within a fragile health system.ConclusionsHCWs in Zimbabwe experience a high burden of mental health symptoms, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainable mental health interventions must be multisectoral addressing mental, physical and financial wellbeing.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a mental health stepped-care programme for healthcare workers with psychological distress in crisis settings: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Background

Objective

Methods

Findings

Conclusions

Clinical implications

Trial registration number

Publications

Effectiveness of a mental health stepped-care programme for healthcare workers with psychological distress in crisis settings: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets