Dataset Information

Global vascular surgeons' experience, stressors, and coping during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented challenges for health care systems globally. We designed and administered a global survey to examine the effects of COVID-19 on vascular surgeons and explore the COVID-19-related stressors faced, coping strategies used, and support structures available.

Methods

The Pandemic Practice, Anxiety, Coping, and Support Survey for Vascular Surgeons was an anonymous cross-sectional survey sponsored by the Society for Vascular Surgery Wellness Task Force. The survey analysis evaluated the effects of COVID-19-related stressors on vascular surgeons measured using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale. The 28-item Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced inventory was used to assess the active and avoidant coping strategies. Survey data were collected using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) from April 14, 2020 to April 24, 2020 inclusive. Additional qualitative data were collected using open-ended questions. Univariable and multivariable analyses of the factors associated with the anxiety levels and qualitative analysis were performed.

Results

A total of 1609 survey responses (70.5% male; 82.5% vascular surgeons in practice) from 58 countries (43.4% from United States; 43.4% from Brazil) were eligible for analysis. Some degree of anxiety was reported by 54.5% of the respondents, and 23.3% reported moderate or severe anxiety. Most respondents (?60%) reported using active coping strategies and the avoidant coping strategy of "self-distraction," and 20% used other avoidant coping strategies. Multivariable analysis identified the following factors as significantly associated with increased self-reported anxiety levels: staying in a separate room at home or staying at the hospital or a hotel after work (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.79), donning and doffing personal protective equipment (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.41-2.33), worry about potential adverse patient outcomes due to care delay (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.16-1.87), and financial concerns (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.49-2.42). The factors significantly associated with decreased self-reported anxiety levels were hospital support (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91) and the use of positive reframing as an active coping strategy (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.95).

Conclusions

Vascular surgeons globally have been experiencing multiple COVID-19-related stressors during this devastating crisis. These findings have highlighted the continued need for hospital systems to support their vascular surgeons and the importance of national societies to continue to invest in peer-support programs as paramount to promoting the well-being of vascular surgeons during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Shalhub S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7457940 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global vascular surgeons' experience, stressors, and coping during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Shalhub Sherene S Mouawad Nicolas J NJ Malgor Rafael D RD Johnson Adam P AP Wohlauer Max V MV Coogan Sheila M SM Loveland Katherine A KA Cuff Robert F RF Leonardi Claudia C Coleman Dawn M DM Sheahan Malachi G MG Woo Karen K

Journal of vascular surgery 20200831 3

<h4>Background</h4>The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented challenges for health care systems globally. We designed and administered a global survey to examine the effects of COVID-19 on vascular surgeons and explore the COVID-19-related stressors faced, coping strategies used, and support structures available.<h4>Methods</h4>The Pandemic Practice, Anxiety, Coping, and Support Survey for Vascular Surgeons was an anonymous cross-sectional survey sponsored by the ...[more]

PMID: 32882345

Similar Datasets

Project description:This study aimed to analyze stressors to which medical staff is vulnerable due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. It also imposes a hierarchy on complex relations among stressors for excavating underlying structure and builds a model of interrelationships contrasting reality. The design of this study comprises a literature survey, data collection from primary sources, and analysis. Stressors have been explored from within current published/unpublished literature and validated by experts through approval vote. Data were collected from the focus group (panel of experts), and interpretive structural modeling (ISM) was used as the research methodology. Findings of ISM are avowed through "cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification" (MICMAC) analysis. As a result of the literature survey, a list of stressors was generated, and a total of 19 stressors qualified as representative of the phenomenon. The results of ISM show that two stressors (i.e., "unavailability of proper personal protective equipment (PPE)" and "lack of proper communication") emerged as the most critical stressors since they occupy the bottom of the model, whereas, four stressors (i.e., "anxious about isolation/quarantine," "subject to violent crimes," "feeling frustrated and powerless," and "exhausting shifts/hours without clear end") are relatively less critical since they occupy the top of the model. The rest of the stressors occupy the middle of the model and therefore, have moderate-severe effects on frontline soldiers. The results of MICMAC show that the stressor "subject to violent crimes" is classified in the dependent cluster and the remaining fall in the linkage cluster but no stressor falls in independent and autonomous. Overall results indicate that all stressors are relevant to the phenomenon under this study, but they are currently not settled. This study is invaluable for policymakers, frontline soldiers, researchers, the international community, and society since it provides a lot of new information that is helpful in refining strategies and combating influential stressors.

Project description:Increasing cases, insufficient amount of personal protection equipment, extremely demanding workloads, and lack of adequate therapies to save lives can contribute to a psychological burden directly related to working during disease outbreaks. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at a high risk of contracting COVID-19 due to its ability to spread efficiently through asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals. There are limited studies assessing the pandemic's psychological impact on HCWs, specifically those in close proximity to hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Our study explored the emotions, perceived stressors, and coping strategies of front-line HCWs at high risk of exposure to COVID-19 during the first surge at our community-based teaching hospital, the epicenter of COVID-19 in Connecticut. A validated comprehensive questionnaire derived and modified from previous epidemics was used to inquire about staff feelings, factors that caused stress and factors that mitigated stress. Personal coping strategies and factors that can increase staff's motivation to work during future events of similar nature were also asked. Emotional reactions, coping mechanisms, and stressors varied by healthcare role, while some experiences and reactions were similar among groups. Willingness to participate in a second wave of the pandemic or future outbreaks is strongly driven by adequate personal protective equipment, financial recognition, and recognition from management, similarly reported in previous disease outbreaks. All groups felt a reduction in stress due to a sense of camaraderie and teamwork, as well as when sharing jokes or humor with colleagues. Our HCWs at high risk of exposure experienced significant emotional distress during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. By understanding the needs and experiences of our HCWs at highest risk, we can improve our psychological support using targeted interventions during future waves of this pandemic or similar devastating events.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic necessitated an abrupt transition to exclusive virtual interviewing for maternal-fetal medicine fellowship programs.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program directors' approaches to exclusive virtual interviews and to obtain program director feedback on the virtual interview experience to guide future interview cycles.Study designA novel cross-sectional online survey was distributed through the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine to program directors after the completion of the interview season, but before the results of the National Resident Matching Program on October 14, 2020. Survey data were collected anonymously and managed using secure Research Electronic Data Capture electronic data capture tools.ResultsOverall 71 of 89 program directors (80%) responded. All respondents completed their 2020 interviews 100% virtually. Nearly half of program directors (33 of 68, 49%) interviewed more candidates in 2020 than in 2019. Of those who interviewed more candidates in 2020, the mean number of additional candidates per fellowship position was 5.8 (standard deviation, ±3.8). Almost all program directors reported no (35 of 71, 49%) or minimal (34 of 71, 48%) negative impact of technical difficulties on their virtual interview processes. Most programs structured their interview to a half day (4 hours) or less for the candidates. Many programs were able to adapt their supplemental interview materials and events for the candidates into a virtual format, including a virtual social event hosted by 31 of 71 programs (44%). The virtual social event was most commonly casual and led by current fellows. Ultimately, all program directors reported that the virtual interview experience was as expected or better than expected. However, most program directors felt less able to provide candidates with a comprehensive and accurate representation of their program on a virtual platform compared with their previous in-person experiences (46 of 71 [65%] reported minimally, moderately, or significantly less than in-person). In addition, most program directors felt their ability to get to know candidates and assess their "fit" with the program was less than previous in-person years (44 of 71 [62%] reported minimally, moderately, or significantly less than in-person). In a hypothetical future year without any public health concerns, there were 23 of 71 respondents (32%) who prefer exclusive in-person interviews, 24 of 71 (34%) who prefer exclusive virtual interviews, and 24 of 71 (34%) who prefer a hybrid of virtual and in-person interviews.ConclusionThe virtual interview experience was better than expected for most program directors. However, most program directors felt less able to present their programs and assess the candidates on a virtual platform compared with previous in-person experiences. Despite this, most program directors are interested in at least a component of virtual interviewing in future years. Future efforts are needed to refine the virtual interview process to optimize the experience for program directors and candidates.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The current ongoing pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) has globally affected 213 countries and territories with more than 2.5 million confirmed cases and thousands of casualties. The unpredictable and uncertain COVID-19 outbreak has the potential of adversely affecting the psychological health on individual and community level. Currently all efforts are focused on the understanding of epidemiology, clinical features, mode of transmission, counteract the spread of the virus, and challenges of global health, while crucially significant mental health has been overlooked in this endeavor. METHOD:This review is to evaluate past outbreaks to understand the extent of adverse effects on psychological health, psychological crisis intervention, and mental health management plans. Published previous and current articles on PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Elsevier about psychological impact of infectious diseases outbreaks and COVID-19 has been considered and reviewed. COMMENTS:COVID-19 is leading to intense psychosocial issues and comprising mental health marking a secondary health concern all around the world. Globally implementing preventive and controlling measures, and cultivating coping and resilience are challenging factors; modified lifestyle (lockdown curfew, self-isolation, social distancing and quarantine); conspiracy theories, misinformation and disinformation about the origin, scale, signs, symptoms, transmission, prevention and treatment; global socioeconomic crisis; travel restrictions; workplace hazard control; postponement and cancellation of religious, sports, cultural and entertainment events; panic buying and hoarding; incidents of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, stigma, psychological pressure of productivity, marginalization and violence; overwhelmed medical centers and health organizations, and general impact on education, politics, socioeconomic, culture, environment and climate - are some of the risk factors to aggravate further problems.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:While most pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 cases are not life threatening, some children have severe disease requiring emergent resuscitative interventions. Resuscitation events present risks to healthcare provider safety and the potential for compromised patient care. Current resuscitation practices and policies for children with suspected/confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 are unknown. DESIGN:Multi-institutional survey regarding inpatient resuscitation practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. SETTING:Internet-based survey. SUBJECTS:U.S. PICU representatives (one per institution) involved in resuscitation system planning and oversight. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Of 130 institutions surveyed, 78 (60%) responded. Forty-eight centers (62%) had admitted coronavirus disease 2019 patients; 26 (33%) reported code team activation for patients with suspected/confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. Sixty-seven respondents (86%) implemented changes to inpatient emergency response systems. The most common changes were as follows: limited number of personnel entering patient rooms (75; 96%), limited resident involvement (71; 91%), and new or refined team roles (74; 95%). New or adapted technology is being used for coronavirus disease 2019 resuscitations in 58 centers (74%). Most institutions (57; 73%) are using enhanced personal protective equipment for all coronavirus disease 2019 resuscitation events; 18 (23%) have personal protective equipment policies dependent on the performance of aerosol generating procedures. Due to coronavirus disease 2019, most respondents are intubating earlier during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (56; 72%), utilizing video laryngoscopy (67; 86%), pausing chest compressions during laryngoscopy (56; 72%), and leaving patients connected to the ventilator during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (56; 72%). Responses were varied regarding airway personnel, prone cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ventilation strategy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation without an airway in place, and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Most institutions (46; 59%) do not have policies regarding limitations of resuscitation efforts in coronavirus disease 2019 patients. CONCLUSIONS:Most U.S. pediatric institutions rapidly adapted their resuscitation systems and practices in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Changes were commonly related to team members and roles, personal protective equipment, and airway and breathing management, reflecting attempts to balance quality resuscitation with healthcare provider safety.

Dataset Information

Global vascular surgeons' experience, stressors, and coping during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Global vascular surgeons' experience, stressors, and coping during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets