Dataset Information

Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic: Protocol and results of first three weeks from an international cross-section survey - focus on health professionals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The psychological impact of COVID-19, resultant measures and future consequences to life will be unveiled in time.

Aim

To investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19, resultant restrictions, impact on behaviours and mental wellbeing globally. This early analysis, explores positive and adverse factors and behaviours with focus on healthcare professionals.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional survey, using a questionnaire based on published approaches to understand the psychological impact of COVID-19. The survey will be repeated at 6 months because of rapidly changing situation.

Results

We have presented results from first 3 weeks of the survey. Conclusions may change as more individuals take part over time. 7,917 participants completed the survey in the first 3 weeks; 7,271 are from the United Kingdom. 49.7% of the participants are healthcare professionals. There is high representation of female participants. Participants reporting suicidal thoughts is 32%. Healthcare professionals have reported mild depression and anxiety in higher proportions. Increasing age and female gender report higher compliance with government advice on COVID 19 whereas higher education, homeowners, key worker status, high alcohol, drug use and participants with pre-existing suicidal thoughts reported low compliance with government advice. Participants who reported suicidal thoughts pre-COVID are less likely to communicate with friends and family, or engage in coping strategies.

Conclusions

Evidence has shown an adverse psychological impact of previous pandemics on the population, especially wellbeing of healthcare professionals. Research should focus on identifying the need, preparing services and determining the factors that enhance and build resilience.

Funding

This survey is linked to a MRC global health research program of the Portsmouth-Brawijaya center for Global Health, Population, and Policy, (MR/N006267/1), University of Portsmouth.

SUBMITTER: Rathod S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7507987 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has initiated an upheaval in society and has been the cause of considerable stress during this period. Healthcare professionals have been on the front line during this health crisis, particularly paramedical staff. The aim of this study was to assess the high level of stress of healthcare workers during the first wave of the pandemic.Materials and methodsThe COVISTRESS international study is a questionnaire disseminated online collecting demographic and stress-related data over the globe, during the pandemic. Stress levels were evaluated using non-calibrated visual analog scale, from 0 (no stress) to 100 (maximal stress).ResultsAmong the 13,537 individuals from 44 countries who completed the survey from January to June 2020, we included 10,051 workers (including 1379 healthcare workers, 631 medical doctors and 748 paramedical staff). The stress levels during the first wave of the pandemic were 57.8 ± 33 in the whole cohort, 65.3 ± 29.1 in medical doctors, and 73.6 ± 27.7 in paramedical staff. Healthcare professionals and especially paramedical staff had the highest levels of stress (p < 0.001 vs non-healthcare workers). Across all occupational categories, women had systematically significantly higher levels of work-related stress than men (p < 0.001). There was a negative correlation between age and stress level (r = -0.098, p < 0.001). Healthcare professionals demonstrated an increased risk of very-high stress levels (>80) compared to other workers (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.87-2.41). Paramedical staff risk for very-high levels of stress was higher than doctors' (1.88, 1.50-2.34). The risk of high levels of stress also increased in women (1.83, 1.61-2.09; p < 0.001 vs. men) and in people aged <50 (1.45, 1.26-1.66; p < 0.001 vs. aged >50).ConclusionsThe first wave of the pandemic was a major stressful event for healthcare workers, especially paramedical staff. Among individuals, women were the most at risk while age was a protective factor.

Project description:A global survey among dentists was used to identify the various impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on this professional group. Special attention was given to perception and assessment of infection risk. From May to August 2020, the questionnaire was delivered in 36 countries by respective research groups and was completed by 52,491 dental professionals. The survey was designed as a cross-sectional survey based on a previously standardized questionnaire. This study focuses on the part of the questionnaire that deals with the perception of the infection risk of COVID-19 by dentists and their patients. A logistic regression model was used, which consisted of four Likert items as response options and the additional self-reported routine or emergency treatment as the dependent variable. Analysis by continent found that European and Asian dentists were particularly likely to be infected at work (OR = 1.45 95%CI = 1.02/1.84 and OR = 2.68, 95%CI = 1.45/3.22, respectively), while it was likely that Australian dentists did not feel particularly at risk due to low infection rates. Three quarters of Americans treated only emergencies during this survey period, while Europeans (64.71%) and Asians (66.67%) provided mostly routine care. This could affect the Europeans' confidence that they would not be able to protect themselves from infections in the long-term. The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on dental professionals' infection risk perception is determined by the geographical origin of dentists. This study shows that, especially in high-incidence countries, infection risk perception was higher when dentists tried to provide routine dental procedures to their patients. Dental professionals can offer themselves and their patients good protection by maintaining high standards of hygiene. However, their concerns should be taken seriously and the dental professionals' group that is of great importance for oral health care and prevention, should not be neglected in the future, even in the event of emerging pandemics.

Project description:Study designInternational survey.ObjectiveA positive safety culture has been linked to better surgical outcomes, less hospital costs and less patient harm and severity-adjusted mortality, making safety attitudes relevant for society and both patient and health care provider. The aim of the current study is to assess attitudes toward safety culture among spinal care professionals.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to members of AOSpine International in 2016. The survey consisted out of 3 parts: (1) demographics, (2) the Safety Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ), and (3) expectations of responsibility for improving the safety culture. The SAQ measured job satisfaction, teamwork, and safety climate, perceptions of management, stress recognition, and working conditions. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with safety attitudes.ResultsA total of 356 respondents replied. The SAQ showed that respondents in Africa have a significant lower score (odds ratio [OR] 0.19, P < .05) on working conditions, compared with spine professionals in Asia. Respondents in North America had the highest odds of having a higher score (OR 4.04, P < .05) compared with respondents in Asia. Gender, continent, occupation, tenure, and the number of employees in the clinic were not associated with the dimensions of safety culture (P > .05). The majority expected the surgeon to be mainly responsible for improving the safety culture in the operating room and at management level.ConclusionsThere was a lot of variety among different respondents worldwide albeit respondents in Africa scored significantly lower on working conditions, compared with spine professionals in Asia and North America, suggesting that wealthier countries have better working conditions which may lead toward better safety attitudes. Closer collaboration between hospital management and clinicians seems to be a target for improvement in safety culture. Furthermore, to show clinical relevance in this field, studies correlating safety attitudes with outcomes after spine surgery are warranted.