Dataset Information

Insomnia and stress of physicians during COVID-19 outbreak.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Healthcare workers are at high risk of developing sleep disorders during an outbreak. This study aimed to measure severity of sleep difficulty and its correlation with duration of deal with suspected/confirmed cases of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in physicians.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 268 physicians from different medical settings were included during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Results

The mean age and experience of physicians were 35.06 (33-70 years) and 10.13 years. The median duration of dealing with suspected/confirmed cases of COVID-19 was 1.0 (0-30 days). The mean sleep score and stress of physicians were 8.43 of 24.0 and 4.20 of 10, respectively. More than two-thirds of the physicians were sleepless (68.3%) and majority had stress (93.7%). The study did not find a significant difference in sleep score of physicians with different specialties (P = 0.059). However, most physicians were sleepless; including anesthesia and intensive care (77.8%); general physicians (80.8%), and obstetrics and gynecology (80.0%). They were sleepless in morning (58.7%); evening (77.8%); night (100%); and multi-shift (70.9%). The physicians who dealt with suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 or with stress had more escalated sleep compared to those who did not deal with patients or without stress (9.39 vs. 7.17 and 8.78 vs. 2.69 P < 0.001). The sleep of physicians was escalated with increasing stress (r = 0.558; P < 0.001) and a number of days that physicians dealt with suspected/confirmed cases of COVID-19 (r = 0.210; P = 0.001), respectively.

Conclusion

The study confirmed that working with COVID-19 patients has a negative effect on the sleep of physicians.

SUBMITTER: Abdulah DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7237900 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuring infectious disease outbreaks, healthcare workers are at high risk of infection, infecting others, and psychological distress. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of stress and anxiety in physicians during the COVID-19 outbreak in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region and assess their associated factors.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was carried out in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan Region, from March 28 to April 15, 2020. An online self-administered survey questionnaire was used to collect data from physicians working in specialized COVID-19 centers and other healthcare facilities. The level of stress was measured based on the 10-items Perceived Stress Scale. The level of anxiety was measured based on the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale.ResultsA total of 370 participants responded to the perceived stress component of the survey, of whom 57 (15.4%) had low perceived stress, 249 (67.3%) had moderate stress, and 64 (17.3%) had high stress. Being female was significantly associated with having moderate/high stress (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.40 (95% CI 1.31-4.39)). A total of 201 participants responded to the generalized anxiety disorder component of the survey, of whom 19 (9.5%) had no anxiety, 57 (28.4%) had mild anxiety, 79 (39.3%) had moderate anxiety, and 46 (22.9%) had severe anxiety. Working in COVID-19 centers (AOR = 2.23 (95% CI 1.02-4.86)) and being general practitioners (AOR = 4.16 (95% CI 1.14-15.14)) were significantly associated with having moderate/severe anxiety.ConclusionA considerable proportion of physicians experience stress and anxiety during the COVID-19 outbreak in Iraqi Kurdistan region. Generalists and those in special COVID-19 units report the greatest anxiety. There a need to establish mechanisms to reduce the risks of stress and anxiety among physicians. Mental health coping interventions through counseling should be based on COVID-19 protocol guidelines. Interventions should also emphasize physicians' ability to work safely and efficiently in providing care to the patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA. METHODS:A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit. RESULTS:Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres. CONCLUSION:Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies.