Dataset Information

Post COVID-19 mental health symptoms and quality of life among COVID-19 frontline clinicians: a comparative study using propensity score matching approach.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The extent and severity of post-COVID-19 mental health symptoms among frontline clinicians are not clear. This study compared mental health symptoms (i.e., depression, anxiety, and insomnia symptoms) and global quality of life (QOL) after the first COVID-19 outbreak between the COVID-19 treating and non-COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians.

Methods

This cross-sectional, comparative, convenient-sampling study was conducted between October 13 and 22, 2020, which was five months after the first COVID-19 outbreak in China was brought under control. The severity of depression, anxiety, insomnia symptoms, and global QOL of the clinicians were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 items (GAD-7), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire-brief version (WHOQOL-BREF), respectively. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to identify comparable COVID-19 treating and non-COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians. A generalized linear model (GLM) was used to assess the differences in PHQ-9, GAD-7, ISI, and QOL scores between the COVID-19 treating and non-COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians.

Results

In total, 260 COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians and 260 matched non- COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians were included. Non-COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians experienced more frequent workplace violence (WPV) than the COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians (χ² = 7.6, p = 0.006). COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians reported higher QOL compared to their non-COVID-19 treating frontline counterparts (b = 0.3, p = 0.042), after adjusting for WPV experience. COVID-19 treating and non- COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians reported similar PHQ-9, GAD-7, and ISI total scores (all p values > 0.05).

Conclusion

This study did not reveal more severe post-COVID-19 mental health symptoms in COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians compared to non-COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians. It is possible that the implementation of timely and appropriate mental health, social and financial supports could have prevented the worsening of mental health symptoms among the COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians after the first COVID-19 outbreak in China.

SUBMITTER: Zhao YJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9461449 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Post COVID-19 mental health symptoms and quality of life among COVID-19 frontline clinicians: a comparative study using propensity score matching approach.

Zhao Yan-Jie YJ Xing Xiaomeng X Tian Tengfei T Wang Qian Q Liang Sixiang S Wang Zhe Z Cheung Teris T Su Zhaohui Z Tang Yi-Lang YL Ng Chee H CH Sha Sha S Xiang Yu-Tao YT

Translational psychiatry 20220909 1

<h4>Background</h4>The extent and severity of post-COVID-19 mental health symptoms among frontline clinicians are not clear. This study compared mental health symptoms (i.e., depression, anxiety, and insomnia symptoms) and global quality of life (QOL) after the first COVID-19 outbreak between the COVID-19 treating and non-COVID-19 treating frontline clinicians.<h4>Methods</h4>This cross-sectional, comparative, convenient-sampling study was conducted between October 13 and 22, 2020, which was fiv ...[more]

PMID: 36085292

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) methods can potentially be used to relieve the pressure that the COVID-19 pandemic has exerted on public health. In cases of medical resource shortages caused by the pandemic, changes in people's preferences for AI clinicians and traditional clinicians are worth exploring.ObjectiveWe aimed to quantify and compare people's preferences for AI clinicians and traditional clinicians before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess whether people's preferences were affected by the pressure of pandemic.MethodsWe used the propensity score matching method to match two different groups of respondents with similar demographic characteristics. Respondents were recruited in 2017 and 2020. A total of 2048 respondents (2017: n=1520; 2020: n=528) completed the questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Multinomial logit models and latent class models were used to assess people's preferences for different diagnosis methods.ResultsIn total, 84.7% (1115/1317) of respondents in the 2017 group and 91.3% (482/528) of respondents in the 2020 group were confident that AI diagnosis methods would outperform human clinician diagnosis methods in the future. Both groups of matched respondents believed that the most important attribute of diagnosis was accuracy, and they preferred to receive combined diagnoses from both AI and human clinicians (2017: odds ratio [OR] 1.645, 95% CI 1.535-1.763; P<.001; 2020: OR 1.513, 95% CI 1.413-1.621; P<.001; reference: clinician diagnoses). The latent class model identified three classes with different attribute priorities. In class 1, preferences for combined diagnoses and accuracy remained constant in 2017 and 2020, and high accuracy (eg, 100% accuracy in 2017: OR 1.357, 95% CI 1.164-1.581) was preferred. In class 2, the matched data from 2017 were similar to those from 2020; combined diagnoses from both AI and human clinicians (2017: OR 1.204, 95% CI 1.039-1.394; P=.011; 2020: OR 2.009, 95% CI 1.826-2.211; P<.001; reference: clinician diagnoses) and an outpatient waiting time of 20 minutes (2017: OR 1.349, 95% CI 1.065-1.708; P<.001; 2020: OR 1.488, 95% CI 1.287-1.721; P<.001; reference: 0 minutes) were consistently preferred. In class 3, the respondents in the 2017 and 2020 groups preferred different diagnosis methods; respondents in the 2017 group preferred clinician diagnoses, whereas respondents in the 2020 group preferred AI diagnoses. In the latent class, which was stratified according to sex, all male and female respondents in the 2017 and 2020 groups believed that accuracy was the most important attribute of diagnosis.ConclusionsIndividuals' preferences for receiving clinical diagnoses from AI and human clinicians were generally unaffected by the pandemic. Respondents believed that accuracy and expense were the most important attributes of diagnosis. These findings can be used to guide policies that are relevant to the development of AI-based health care.

Project description:BackgroundThrombosis is a unique complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) are detected in COVID-19 patients, their clinical significance remains elusive. We evaluated the prevalence of aPL and serum concentrations of beta-2 glycoprotein I (β2GPI), a major self-antigen for aPL, in Japanese COVID-19 patients with and without thrombosis.MethodsThis retrospective single-center nested case-control study included 594 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between January 2020 and August 2021. Thrombotic complications were collected from medical records. Propensity score-matching method (PSM) (1:2 matching including age, sex, severity on admission, and prior history of thrombosis) was performed to compare the prevalence and titer of aPL (anti-cardiolipin (aCL) IgG/IgM, anti-β2GPI IgG/IgM/IgA, and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibody (aPS/PT) IgG/IgM) and serum β2GPI concentration. In addition, PSM (1:1 matching including age and sex) was performed to compare the serum β2GPI concentration between COVID-19 patients and healthy donors.ResultsAmong the patients, 31 patients with thrombosis and 62 patients without were compared. The prevalence of any aPLs was indifferent regardless of the thrombosis (41.9% in those with thrombosis vs. 38.7% in those without, p =0.82). The positive rates of individual aPL were as follows: anti-CL IgG (9.7% vs. 1.6%, p =0.11)/IgM (0% vs. 3.2%, p =0.55), anti-β2GP1 IgG (22.6% vs. 9.7%, p =0.12)/IgA (9.7% vs. 9.7%, p =1.0)/IgM (0% vs. 0%, p =1.0), and anti-PS/PT IgG (0% vs. 1.6%, p =1.0)/IgM (12.9% vs. 21.0%, p =0.41), respectively. The aPL titers were also similar regardless of thrombosis. The levels of β2GPI in COVID-19 patients were lower than those in the healthy donors.ConclusionAlthough aPLs were frequently detected in Japanese COVID-19 patients, their prevalence and titer were irrelevant to thrombotic complications. While COVID-19 patients have lower levels of serum β2GPI than healthy blood donors, β2GPI levels were indifferent regardless of thrombosis. Although most of the titers were below cut-offs, positive correlations were observed among aPLs, suggesting that the immune reactions against aPL antigens were induced by COVID-19. We should focus on the long-term thromboembolic risk and the development of APS in the aPL-positive patients with high titer or multiple aPLs.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of either hydroxychloroquine, triple combination therapy (TCT), favipiravir, dexamethasone, remdesivir, or COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in comparison with standard-of-care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 using real-world data from Saudi Arabia.Patients and methodsA secondary database analysis was conducted using the Saudi Ministry of Health database for patients with COVID-19. Adult (≥18 years) hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021 were included in the analysis. A propensity score matching technique was used to establish comparable groups for each therapeutic approach. Lastly, an independent t-test and chi-square test were used to compare the matching groups in the aspects of the duration of hospitalization, length of stay (LOS) in intensive care units (ICU), in-hospital mortality, and composite poor outcome. Multilevel logistic regression model was used to assess the association between the severity stage of COVID-19 and the outcomes while using the medication or intervention used as a grouping variable in the model.ResultsThe mean duration of hospitalization was significantly longer for patients who received TCT, favipiravir, dexamethasone, or CCP compared to patients who did not receive these therapies, with a mean difference ranging between 2.2 and 4.9 days for dexamethasone and CCP, respectively. Furthermore, the use of favipiravir or CCP was associated with a longer stay in ICU. Remdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. A higher risk of mortality and poorer composite outcome were associated with the use of favipiravir or dexamethasone. However, the logistic regression model reveled that the difference between the two matched cohorts was due to the severity stage not the medication. Additionally, the use of hydroxychloroquine, TCT, or CCP had no impact on the incidence of in-hospital mortality or composite poor outcomes.ConclusionRemdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. The observed worsened treatment outcomes associated with the use of dexamethasone or FPV shall be attributed to the severity stage rather than the medication use. In light of these varied results, additional studies are needed to continue evaluating the actual benefits of these therapies.

Dataset Information

Post COVID-19 mental health symptoms and quality of life among COVID-19 frontline clinicians: a comparative study using propensity score matching approach.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Post COVID-19 mental health symptoms and quality of life among COVID-19 frontline clinicians: a comparative study using propensity score matching approach.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets