Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has placed increased strain on health care workers and disrupted childcare and schooling arrangements in unprecedented ways. As substantial gender inequalities existed in medicine before the pandemic, physician mothers may be at particular risk for adverse professional and psychological consequences.ObjectiveTo assess gender differences in work-family factors and mental health among physician parents during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study included 276 US physicians enrolled in the Intern Health Study since their first year of residency training. Physicians who had participated in the primary study as interns during the 2007 to 2008 and 2008 to 2009 academic years and opted into a secondary longitudinal follow-up study were invited to complete an online survey in August 2018 and August 2020.ExposuresWork-family experience included 3 single-item questions and the Work and Family Conflict Scale, and mental health symptoms included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were work-to-family and family-to-work conflict and depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms during August 2020. Depressive symptoms between 2018 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) and 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic) were compared by gender.ResultsAmong 215 physician parents who completed the August 2020 survey, 114 (53.0%) were female and the weighted mean (SD) age was 40.1 (3.57) years. Among physician parents, women were more likely to be responsible for childcare or schooling (24.6% [95% CI, 19.0%-30.2%] vs 0.8% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.1%]; P < .001) and household tasks (31.4% [95% CI, 25.4%-37.4%] vs 7.2% [95% CI, 3.5%-10.9%]; P < .001) during the pandemic compared with men. Women were also more likely than men to work primarily from home (40.9% [95% CI, 35.1%-46.8%] vs 22.0% [95% CI, 17.2%-26.8%]; P < .001) and reduce their work hours (19.4% [95% CI, 14.7%-24.1%] vs 9.4% [95% CI, 6.0%-12.8%]; P = .007). Women experienced greater work-to-family conflict (β = 2.79; 95% CI, 1.00 to 4.59; P = .03), family-to-work conflict (β = 3.09; 95% CI, 1.18-4.99; P = .02), and depressive (β = 1.76; 95% CI, 0.56-2.95; P = .046) and anxiety (β = 2.87; 95% CI, 1.49-4.26; P < .001) symptoms compared with men. We observed a difference between women and men in depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic (mean [SD] PHQ-9 score: 5.05 [6.64] vs 3.52 [5.75]; P = .009) that was not present before the pandemic (mean [SD] PHQ-9 score: 3.69 [5.26] vs 3.60 [6.30]; P = .86).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found significant gender disparities in work and family experiences and mental health symptoms among physician parents during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may translate to increased risk for suicide, medical errors, and lower quality of patient care for physician mothers. Institutional and public policy solutions are needed to mitigate the potential adverse consequences for women's careers and well-being.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, health care provider well-being was affected by various challenges in the work environment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the perceived work environment and mental well-being of a sample of emergency physicians (EPs), emergency medicine (EM) nurses, and emergency medical services (EMS) providers during the pandemic.MethodsWe surveyed attending EPs, resident EPs, EM nurses, and EMS providers from 10 academic sites across the United States. We used latent class analysis (LCA) to estimate the effect of the perceived work environment on screening positive for depression/anxiety and burnout controlling for respondent characteristics. We tested possible predictors in the multivariate regression models and included the predictors that were significant in the final model.ResultsOur final sample included 701 emergency health care workers. Almost 23% of respondents screened positive for depression/anxiety and 39.7% for burnout. Nurses were significantly more likely to screen positive for depression/anxiety (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-3.86) and burnout (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.22-3.49) compared to attendings. The LCA analysis identified four subgroups of our respondents that differed in their responses to the work environment questions. These groups were identified as Work Environment Risk Group 1, an overall good work environment; Risk Group 2, inadequate resources; Risk Group 3, lack of perceived organizational support; and Risk Group 4, an overall poor work environment. Participants in the two groups who perceived their work conditions as most adverse were significantly more likely to screen positive for depression/anxiety (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.05-3.42; and aOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.14-3.66) compared to participants working in environments perceived as less adverse.ConclusionsWe found a strong association between a perceived adverse working environment and poor mental health, particularly when organizational support was deemed inadequate. Targeted strategies to promote better perceptions of the workplace are needed.

Project description:BackgroundPhysicians increasingly show symptoms of burnout due to the high job demands they face, posing a risk for the quality and safety of care. Job and personal resources as well as support interventions may function as protective factors when demands are high, specifically in times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the Job Demands-Resources theory, this longitudinal study investigated how monthly fluctuations in job demands and job and personal resources relate to exhaustion and work engagement and how support interventions are associated with these outcomes over time.MethodsA longitudinal survey consisting of eight monthly measures in the period 2020-2021, completed by medical specialists and residents in the Netherlands. We used validated questionnaires to assess job demands (i.e., workload), job resources (e.g., job control), personal resources (e.g., psychological capital), emotional exhaustion, and work engagement. Additionally, we measured the use of specific support interventions (e.g., professional support). Multilevel modeling and longitudinal growth curve modeling were used to analyze the data.Results378 medical specialists and residents were included in the analysis (response rate: 79.08%). Workload was associated with exhaustion (γ = .383, p < .001). All job resources, as well as the personal resources psychological capital and self-judgement were associated with work engagement (γs ranging from -.093 to .345, all ps < .05). Job control and psychological capital attenuated the workload-exhaustion relationship while positive feedback and peer support strengthened it (all ps < .05). The use of professional support interventions (from a mental health expert or coach) was related to higher work engagement (estimate = .168, p = .032) over time. Participation in organized supportive group meetings was associated with higher exhaustion over time (estimate = .274, p = .006).ConclusionsJob and personal resources can safeguard work engagement and mitigate the risk of emotional exhaustion. Professional support programs are associated with higher work engagement over time, whereas organized group support meetings are associated with higher exhaustion. Our results stress the importance of professional individual-level interventions to counteract a loss of work engagement in times of crisis.

Project description:ObjectivesThe objective was to provide a longitudinal assessment of anxiety levels and work and home concerns of U.S. emergency physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe performed a longitudinal, cross-sectional email survey of clinically active emergency physicians (attending, fellow, and resident) at seven academic emergency departments. Follow-up surveys were sent 4 to 6 weeks after the initial survey and assessed the following: COVID-19 patient exposure, availability of COVID-19 testing, levels of home and workplace anxiety/stress, changes in behaviors, and performance on a primary care posttraumatic stress disorder screen (PC-PTSD-5). Logistic regression explored factors associated with a high PC-PTSD-5 scale score (≥3), indicating increased risk for PTSD.ResultsOf the 426 surveyed initial respondents, 262 (61.5%) completed the follow-up survey. While 97.3% (255/262) reported treating suspected COVID-19 patients, most physicians (162/262, 61.8%) had not received testing themselves. In follow-up, respondents were most concerned about the relaxing of social distancing leading to a second wave (median score = 6, IQR = 4-7). Physicians reported a consistently high ability to order COVID-19 tests for patients (median score = 6, IQR = 5-7) and access to personal protective equipment (median score = 6, IQR = 5-6). Women physicians were more likely to score ≥ 3 than men on the PC-PTSD-5 screener on the initial survey (43.3% vs. 22.5%; Δ 20.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.3% to 31.5%), and despite decreases in overall proportions, this discrepancy remained in follow-up (34.7% vs. 16.8%; Δ 17.9%, 95% CI = 7.1% to 28.1%). In examining the relationship between demographics, living situations, and institution location on having a PC-PTSD-5 score ≥ 3, only female sex was associated with a PC-PTSD-5 score ≥ 3 (adjusted odds ratio = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.28 to 4.79).ConclusionsWhile exposure to suspected COVID-19 patients was nearly universal, stress levels in emergency physicians decreased with time. At both initial and follow-up assessments, women were more likely to test positive on the PC-PTSD-5 screener compared to men.

Dataset Information

Emergency Physician Work Environments During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Publications

Emergency Physician Work Environments During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets