Dataset Information

Psychological Reactions of Hospital Workers to a Pandemic: A Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and SARS in 2003.

ABSTRACT: Epidemic viral infections, including the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and SARS-CoV-2 in 2019, have brought tremendous loss to people across the nations. The aim of this study was to compare the psychological impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 2020 and the SARS pandemic in 2003 on hospital workers. Hospital workers at a medical center in Southern Taiwan (n = 1816) were invited to complete questionnaires (SARS-CoV-2 Exposure Experience, the Impact of Event Scale, the Chinese Health Questionnaire, and the Distress Thermometer). The current data were compared to the data collected from hospital workers (n = 1257) at the same medical center during the SARS pandemic in 2003. We found the psychological impact on hospital workers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was significantly lower than that during the previous SARS period. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic period, hospital workers with SARS experience were more accepting of the risk, felt a greater responsibility to take care of the SARS-CoV-2 patients, and were more likely to perceive the danger of becoming infected. The associated factors of psychiatric morbidity in hospital workers with SARS experience were being female, the degree of intrusion severity, and severity of psychological distress. Proper management strategies and lessons learned from the SARS experience might have led to low psychiatric morbidity during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Lee Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8775670 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Psychological Reactions of Hospital Workers to a Pandemic: A Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and SARS in 2003.

Lee Yu Y Wang Liang-Jen LJ Chou Wen-Jiun WJ Chiang Ming-Chu MC Huang Shan S Lin Yi-Chun YC Lin Jie-Yi JY Chiu Nien-Mu NM Chen Chih-Hung CH Lee Ing-Kit IK Kung Chia-Te CT Wang Chih-Chi CC Chong Mian-Yoon MY

International journal of environmental research and public health 20220112 2

Epidemic viral infections, including the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and SARS-CoV-2 in 2019, have brought tremendous loss to people across the nations. The aim of this study was to compare the psychological impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 2020 and the SARS pandemic in 2003 on hospital workers. Hospital workers at a medical center in Southern Taiwan (<i>n</i> = 1816) were invited to complete questionnaires (SARS-CoV-2 Exposure Experience, the Impact of Event ...[more]

PMID: 35055654

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has posed a huge challenge to healthcare systems and their personnel worldwide. The study of the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCW), through prevalence studies, will let us know viral expansion, individuals at most risk and the most exposed areas in healthcare organizations. The aim of this study is to gauge the impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in our hospital workforce and identify groups and areas at increased risk.Methods and findingsThis is a cross-sectional and incidence study carried out on healthcare workers based on molecular and serological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 3013 HCW invited to participate, 2439 (80.9%) were recruited, including 674 (22.4%) who had previously consulted at the Occupational Health Service (OHS) for confirmed exposure and/or presenting symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. A total of 411 (16.9%) and 264 (10.8%) healthcare workers were SARS-CoV-2 IgG and rRT-PCR positive, respectively. The cumulative prevalence considering all studies (IgG positive HCW and/or rRT-PCR positive detection) was 485 (19.9%). SARS-CoV-2 IgG-positive patients in whom the virus was not detected were 221 (9.1%); up to 151 of them (68.3%) did not report any compatible symptoms nor consult at the OHS for this reason. Men became more infected than women (25% vs 18.5%, p = 0.0009), including when data were also classified by age. COVID-19 cumulative prevalence among the HCW assigned to medical departments was higher (25.2%) than others, as well as among medical staff (25.4%) compared with other professional categories (p<0.01).ConclusionsThe global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCW of our centre has been 19.9%. Doctors and medical services personnel have had the highest prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but many of them have not presented compatible symptoms. This emphasizes the performance of continuous surveillance methods of the most exposed health personnel and not only based on the appearance of symptoms.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to describe the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the specific impact of a universal SARS-CoV-2 testing programme on obstetric patients and healthcare workers at The Ottawa Hospital.MethodsThis was a follow-up survey study of obstetric healthcare workers and then-pregnant patients who participated in a SARS-CoV-2 testing programme conducted in The Ottawa Hospital obstetrical triage units from 19 October to 17 November 2020. Surveys explored the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the testing programme on participants' psychological well-being. Responses were collected from April to September 2021. Descriptive summary statistics were calculated for both groups.ResultsDuring hospitalization for delivery, obstetric patients (n = 143) worried about giving COVID-19 to their new baby (88.11%), catching COVID-19 (83.22%), and giving COVID-19 to their partner (76.22%). Patients felt relief at being tested for COVID-19 during the universal testing programme (24.65%) and at getting their results (28.87%). Patients also believed that universal SARS-CoV-2 testing was a good way to slow COVID-19 spread (79.72%), reduce anxiety (75.52%), and increase relief (76.22%). In addition, patients felt good about participating in research that could help others (91.61%). Among obstetric healthcare workers (n = 94), job satisfaction decreased and job stress increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The universal testing programme led to minor increases in healthcare worker job stress and burden, particularly among nurses, but the majority (85.23%) believed it was a valuable research initiative.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative psychological impact on obstetric patients and healthcare workers. Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing was generally viewed favourably and may serve as an effective strategy for estimating COVID-19 prevalence without adding undue stress onto patients and healthcare workers during the pandemic.

Project description:Secondary transports of patients from one hospital to another are indicated for medical reasons or to address local constraints in capacity. In particular, interhospital transports of critically ill infectious patients present a logistical challenge and can be key in the effective management of pandemic situations. The state of Saxony in Germany has two characteristics that allow for an extensive evaluation of secondary transports in the pandemic year 2020/2021. First, all secondary transports are centrally coordinated by a single institution. Second, Saxony had the highest SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and the highest COVID-19 associated mortality in Germany. This study evaluates secondary interhospital transports from March 2019 to February 2021 in Saxony with a detailed analysis of transport behaviour during the pandemic phase March 2020 to February 2021. Our analysis includes secondary transports of SARS-CoV-2 patients and compares them to secondary transports of non-infectious patients. In addition, our data show differences in demographics, SARS-CoV-2- incidences, ICU occupancy of COVID-19 patients, and COVID-19 associated mortality in all three regional health clusters in Saxony. In total, 12,282 secondary transports were analysed between March 1st, 2020 and February 28th, 2021, of which 632 were associated with SARS-CoV-2 (5.1%) The total number of secondary transports changed slightly during the study period March 2020 to February 2021. Transport capacities for non-infectious patients were reduced due to in-hospital and out-of-hospital measures and could be used for transport of SARS-CoV-2 patients. Infectious transfers lasted longer despite shorter distance, occurred more frequently on weekends and transported patients were older. Primary transport vehicles were emergency ambulances, transport ambulances and intensive care transport vehicles. Data analysis based on hospital structures showed that secondary transports in correlation to weekly case numbers depend on the hospital type. Maximum care hospitals and specialized hospitals show a maximum of infectious transports approximately 4 weeks after the highest incidences. In contrast, standard care hospitals transfer their patients at the time of highest SARS-CoV-2 case numbers. Two incidence peaks were accompanied by two peaks of increased secondary transport. Our findings show that interhospital transfers of SARS-CoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 patients differ and that different hospital care levels initiated secondary transports at different times during the pandemic.

Dataset Information

Psychological Reactions of Hospital Workers to a Pandemic: A Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and SARS in 2003.

Publications

Psychological Reactions of Hospital Workers to a Pandemic: A Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and SARS in 2003.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets