Dataset Information

Protecting the front line: a cross-sectional survey analysis of the occupational factors contributing to healthcare workers' infection and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with significant occupational stressors and challenges for front-line healthcare workers (HCWs), including COVID-19 exposure risk. Our study sought to assess factors contributing to HCW infection and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA.

Design

We conducted a cross sectional survey of HCWs (physicians, nurses, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), non-clinical staff) during May 2020. Participants completed a 42-item survey assessing disease transmission risk (clinical role, work environment, availability of personal protective equipment) and mental health (anxiety, depression and burn-out).

Setting

The questionnaire was disseminated over various social media platforms. 3083 respondents from 48 states, the District of Columbia and US territories accessed the survey.

Participants

Using a convenience sample of HCWs who worked during the pandemic, 3083 respondents accessed the survey and 2040 participants completed at least 80% of the survey.

Primary outcome

Prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 infection, in addition to burn-out, depression and anxiety symptoms.

Results

Participants were largely from the Northeast and Southern USA, with attending physicians (31.12%), nurses (26.80%), EMTs (13.04%) with emergency medicine department (38.30%) being the most common department and specialty represented. Twenty-nine per cent of respondents met the criteria for being a probable case due to reported COVID-19 symptoms or a positive test. HCWs in the emergency department (31.64%) were more likely to contract COVID-19 compared with HCWs in the ICU (23.17%) and inpatient settings (25.53%). HCWs that contracted COVID-19 also reported higher levels of depressive symptoms (mean diff.=0.31; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.47), anxiety symptoms (mean diff.=0.34; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52) and burn-out (mean diff.=0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.71).

Conclusion

HCWs have experienced significant physical and psychological risk while working during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings highlight the urgent need for increased support for provider physical and mental health well-being.

SUBMITTER: Firew T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7580061 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Protecting the front line: a cross-sectional survey analysis of the occupational factors contributing to healthcare workers' infection and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA.

Firew Tsion T Sano Ellen D ED Lee Jonathan W JW Flores Stefan S Lang Kendrick K Salman Kiran K Greene M Claire MC Chang Bernard P BP

BMJ open 20201021 10

<h4>Objective</h4>The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with significant occupational stressors and challenges for front-line healthcare workers (HCWs), including COVID-19 exposure risk. Our study sought to assess factors contributing to HCW infection and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA.<h4>Design</h4>We conducted a cross sectional survey of HCWs (physicians, nurses, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), non-clinical staff) during May 2020. Participants complet ...[more]

PMID: 33087382

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ObjectivesWorkplace violence (WPV) against healthcare workers (HCWs) is a global issue. Our research aimed to elucidate the status and associated factors of WPV among front-line/non-front-line HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignThis cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs in Hangzhou City through multistage sampling from December 2020 to January 2021.ParticipantsThis study included 14 909 valid samples (N=3748 front-line HCWs and N=11 161 non-front-line HCWs).Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe assessed the WPV status by Chinese version of WPV questionnaire. Binary logistic regression model was established to examine the associated factors of front-line/non-front-line HCWs experiencing WPV.ResultsThe total WPV prevalence equalled 37.25% for front-line HCWs and 27.73% for non-front-line HCWs. Among front-line HCWs, females were less likely to experience WPV (OR 0.837, 95% CI 0.710 to 0.988), while individuals who were undergraduate (OR 1.251, 95% CI 1.061 to 1.541) and had higher professional title (intermediate: OR 1.475, 95% CI 1.227 to 1.772; advanced: OR 1.693, 95% CI 1.294 to 2.216) were more likely to suffer from WPV; for non-front-line HCWs, individuals who aged over 50 years old (OR 0.721, 95% CI 0.563 to 0.969), had worked between 10 and 19 years (OR 0.847, 95% CI 0.749 to 0.958) and worked in the non-graded hospital (OR 0.714, 95% CI 0.614 to 0.832) had less chance to experience WPV, while individuals who had higher educational level (undergraduate: OR 1.323, 95% CI 1.179 to 1.484; ≥graduate: OR 1.519, 95% CI 1.217 to 1.895), were nurse (OR 1.142, 95% CI 1.031 to 1.265), and had higher professional title (intermediate: OR 1.458, 95% CI 1.297 to 638; advanced: OR 1.928, 95% CI 1.607 to 2.313) were more inclined to suffer from WPV (p all<0.05).ConclusionsThis study indicates that the prevalence of WPV among front-line HCWs is significantly higher than among non-front-line HCWs. Policy-makers should prioritise COVID-19 front-line HCWs, especially those with high educational levels and professional titles.

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.

Dataset Information

Protecting the front line: a cross-sectional survey analysis of the occupational factors contributing to healthcare workers' infection and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Primary outcome

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Protecting the front line: a cross-sectional survey analysis of the occupational factors contributing to healthcare workers' infection and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets