Dataset Information

Quality of life among health care workers with and without prior COVID-19 infection in Bangladesh.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health care workers have been facing difficulties in coping with the COVID-19 infection from the beginning. The study aimed to compare Quality of Life (QOL) among health care workers (HCWs) with and without prior COVID-19 disease.

Methods

This study was conducted from July 2020 to January 2021 among 444 HCWs. We randomly interviewed 3244 participants for our earlier nationwide survey from a list of COVID-19 positive cases after their recovery, and we found 222 HCWs among the respondents. We randomly chose 222 HCWs unaffected by COVID as a comparison group from our selected hospitals. We measured QOL using World Health Organization's WHOQOL-BREF tool. Physical, psychological, environmental, and social ties were the four areas assessed on a 5-point Likert scale where a higher score suggests better QOL. Due to pandemic restrictions, we used telephonic interviews for data collection.

Results

A higher QOL score was observed in HCWs with prior COVID-19 infection in all four domains than HCWs without previous COVID-19 conditions. Comorbidity was negatively associated with QOL scores of the physical (p = 0.001) and (p < 0.001) and psychological (p = 0.05, and (p < 0.05) domains for non-COVID and COVID-affected groups, respectively. Current smoking was significantly associated with lower psychological (p = 0.019) and environmental (p = 0.007) QOL scores among HCWs with prior COVID-19 infection. Hospitalization history due to COVID infection was a contributing factor for lower physical QOL scores (p = 0.048). Environmental (p = 0.016) QOL scores were significantly associated with the monthly income in the prior COVID-19 infection group, and physical scores were significantly associated (p = 0.05) with a monthly income in the non-COVID group.

Conclusion

Governmental and non-governmental stakeholders should focus on potentially modifiable factors to improve health care workers' quality of life.

SUBMITTER: Rahman MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9233781 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality of life among health care workers with and without prior COVID-19 infection in Bangladesh.

Rahman Mahfil Ara MA Sagar Soumik Kha SK Dalal Koustuv K Barsha Sabrina Yesmin SY Ara Tasnim T Khan Md Abdullah Saeed MAS Saha Shuvajit S Sarmin Tanjina T Hossian Mosharop M Nabi Mohammad Hayatun MH Rahman Mohammad Lutfor ML Hawlader Mohammad Delwer Hossain MDH

BMC health services research 20220625 1

<h4>Background</h4>Health care workers have been facing difficulties in coping with the COVID-19 infection from the beginning. The study aimed to compare Quality of Life (QOL) among health care workers (HCWs) with and without prior COVID-19 disease.<h4>Methods</h4>This study was conducted from July 2020 to January 2021 among 444 HCWs. We randomly interviewed 3244 participants for our earlier nationwide survey from a list of COVID-19 positive cases after their recovery, and we found 222 HCWs amon ...[more]

PMID: 35752784

Similar Datasets

Project description:Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) quickly surged the whole world and affected people's physical, mental, and social health thereby upsetting their quality of life. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the quality of life (QoL) of COVID-19 positive patients after recovery in Bangladesh. This was a study of adult (aged ≥18 years) COVID-19 individuals from eight divisions of Bangladesh diagnosed and confirmed by Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) from June 2020 to November 2020. Given a response rate of 60% in a pilot study, a random list of 6400 COVID-19 patients was generated to recruit approximately 3200 patients from eight divisions of Bangladesh and finally a total of 3244 participants could be recruited for the current study. The validated Bangla version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire was used to assess the QoL. Data were analyzed by STATA (Version 16.1) and R (Version 4.0.0). All the procedures were conducted following ethical approval and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The mean scores of QoL were highest for the physical domain (68.25±14.45) followed by social (65.10±15.78), psychological (63.28±15.48), and environmental domain (62.77±13.07). Psychological and physical domain scores among females were significantly lower than the males (p<0.001). The overall quality of life was lower in persons having a chronic disease. Participants over 45 years of age were 52% less likely to enjoy good physical health than the participants aged below 26 years (AOR: 0.48, CI: 0.28-0.82). The quality of life of employed participants was found 1.8 times higher than the unemployed (AOR: 1.80, CI: 1.11-2.91). Those who were admitted to hospitals during infection had a low QoL score in physical, psychological, and socials domains. However, QoL improved in all aspect except the psychological domain for each day passed after the diagnosis. These findings call for a focus on the quality of life of the COVID-19 affected population, with special emphasis given to females, older adults, unemployed, and people with comorbidities.

Project description:BackgroundVaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) is recommended during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce the risk of infection for themselves and their patients, as well as to encourage their patients to get immunized. The present study aimed to investigate the psychological outcomes and associated factors among vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs against COVID-19 infection in Bangladesh.MethodsFrom March to August 2021, an online nationwide survey was conducted with a total of 2,038 Bangladeshi HCWs. The frequency of symptoms of general health problems, depression, anxiety, stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, insomnia, and loneliness was assessed using the Bangla versions of the GHQ-12, PHQ-2, GAD-2, PSS-4, PC-PTSD-5, ISI, and UCLA-LS scales, respectively.ResultsCompared with unvaccinated HCWs (n = 1,058), vaccinated HCWs (n = 980) had a statistically significant lower prevalence of general health problems (16.7 vs. 59.1%), depression (15.6 vs. 31.9%), post-traumatic stress disorder (22.3 vs. 30.8%), insomnia (23.8 vs. 64.9%), and loneliness symptoms (13.9 vs. 21.8%). Among vaccinated HCWs, females were significantly associated with a higher risk of symptoms of general health problems (AOR, 2.71; 95% CI, 0.97-7.60), anxiety (AOR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.14-4.13), and loneliness (AOR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.11-5.73). Except for anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, participants living in urban areas had a significantly lower risk of all psychological outcomes (e.g., depression: AOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.27-0.67; stress: AOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.88). Respondents who were married were significantly less likely to experience symptoms of general health problems (AOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02-0.39), depression (AOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.22-0.82), insomnia (AOR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.20-1.03), and loneliness (AOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.92). Participants who worked as doctors were significantly less chance of experiencing symptoms of general health problems (AOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.37), depression (AOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.87), and anxiety (AOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.78). On the other hand, unvaccinated HCWs who were 18-29 years old and had <5 years of work experience were significantly associated with a higher risk of all psychological outcomes except anxiety and insomnia symptoms (e.g., depression among 18-29 years old: AOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.27-2.60; stress among those with <5 years of work experience: AOR, 2.37; 95% CI, 0.93-6.07). Participants who worked as nurses were significantly more likely to suffer from depression (AOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.84-2.46), anxiety (AOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.24-1.73), and stress (AOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.89) symptoms. Except for anxiety and stress symptoms, respondents who worked as frontline workers and provided direct care to infected patients were the significantly higher chance of experiencing all psychological outcomes (e.g., depression among who worked as frontline workers: AOR, 2.41; 95% CI, 0.23-3.73; insomnia among those who provide direct care to infected patients: AOR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.34-3.06). Participants who were infected with COVID-19 had a significantly less chance of experiencing symptoms of general health problems (AOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.22), depression (AOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.92), and anxiety (AOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87).ConclusionsTo control the infection and improve psychological outcomes, this study suggests emphasizing the vaccinated to unvaccinated HCWs as soon as possible. They also required special attention, health-related education, and psychological support.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the antibody response to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers (HCW), comparing individuals with previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals.MethodsHCW were tested at T0 (day of first dose), T1 (day of second dose) and T2 (2-3 weeks after second dose) for IgG anti-nucleocapsid protein, IgM anti-spike protein and IgG anti-receptor binding domain (IgG-RBD-S). The antibody response was compared between four main groups: group A, individuals with previous infection and positive antibodies at baseline; group B, individuals with the same history but negative antibodies; group C, individuals with no infection history but positive antibodies; group D, naive individuals. Repeated measures analysis was used to compare results over time-points.ResultsA total of 1935 HCW were included. Median IgG-RBD-S titre was significantly higher for group A (232 individuals) than for group B (56 individuals) both at T1 (A: 22 763 AU/mL, interquartile range (IQR) 14 222-37 204 AU/mL; B: 1373 AU/mL, IQR 783-3078 AU/mL, p 0.0003) and T2 (A: 30 765 AU/mL, IQR 19 841-42 813 AU/mL; B: 13 171 AU/mL, IQR 2324-22 688 AU/mL, p 0.0038) and for group D (1563 individuals; 796 AU/mL, IQR 379-1510 AU/mL at T1; 15 494 AU/mL, IQR 9122-23 916 AU/mL at T2, p < 0.0001 for both time-points). T1 values of group A were also significantly higher than T2 values of group D (p < 0.0001). Presence of symptoms, younger age and being female were associated with stronger antibody response. HCW infected in March showed a significantly stronger response (T1: 35 324 AU/mL, IQR 22 003-44 531 AU/mL; T2: 37 648 AU/mL, IQR 27 088-50 451 AU/mL) than those infected in November (T1: 18 499 AU/mL, IQR 11 492-27 283 AU/mL; T2: 23 210 AU/mL, IQR 18 074-36 086 AU/mL, p < 0.0001 for both time-points.ConclusionsIndividuals with past SARS-CoV-2 infection had a strong antibody response after one single vaccine shot. A single dose might be sufficient for this group, regardless of the time elapsed since infection; however, the clinical correlation with antibody response needs to be studied.

Project description:BackgroundThe safety of health care workers (HCWs) in Bangladesh and the factors associated with getting COVID-19 have been infrequently studied. The aim of this study was to address this gap by assessing the capacity development and safety measures of HCWs in Bangladesh who have been exposed to COVID-19 and by identifying the factors associated with respondents' self-reported participation in capacity development trainings and their safety practices.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was based on an online survey of 811 HCWs working at 39 dedicated COVID-19 hospitals in Bangladesh. A pretested structured questionnaire consisting of questions related to respondents' characteristics, capacity development trainings and safety measures was administered. Binary logistic regressions were run to assess the association between explanatory and dependent variables.ResultsAmong the respondents, 58.1% had been engaged for at least 2 months in COVID-19 care, with 56.5% of them attending capacity development training on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), 44.1% attending training on hand hygiene, and 35% attending training on respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette. Only 18.1% reported having read COVID-19-related guidelines. Approximately 50% of the respondents claimed that there was an inadequate supply of PPE for hospitals and HCWs. Almost 60% of the respondents feared a high possibility of becoming COVID-19-positive. Compared to physicians, support staff [odds ratio (OR) 4.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.25-8.51] and medical technologists (OR 8.77, 95% CI 3.14-24.47) were more exhausted from working in COVID-19 care. Respondents with longer duty rosters were more exhausted, and those who were still receiving infection prevention and control (IPC) trainings were less exhausted (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.86). Those who read COVID-19 guidelines perceived a lower risk of being infected by COVID-19 (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.67). Compared to the respondents who strongly agreed that hospitals had a sufficient supply of PPE, others who disagreed (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.31-5.51) and strongly disagreed (OR 5.05, 95% CI 2.15-11.89) had a higher apprehension of infection by COVID-19.ConclusionThe findings indicated a need for necessary support, including continuous training, a reasonable duty roster, timely diagnosis of patients, and an adequate supply of quality PPE.

Dataset Information

Quality of life among health care workers with and without prior COVID-19 infection in Bangladesh.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Quality of life among health care workers with and without prior COVID-19 infection in Bangladesh.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets