Dataset Information

Risk Perception, Protective Behaviors, and General Anxiety during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic among Affiliated Health Care Professionals in Taiwan: Comparisons with Frontline Health Care Professionals and the General Public.

ABSTRACT: This study aimed to compare risk perception, information sources, adoption of protective behaviors against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and levels of general anxiety among affiliated health care professionals, frontline health care professionals, and the general public in Taiwan. We recruited participants via a Facebook advertisement. We determined the risk perception, information sources, adoption of protective behaviors against COVID-19, and levels of general anxiety among 1954 respondents. In total, 269 affiliated healthcare workers, 371 frontline healthcare workers, and 1314 members of the general public were recruited into this study. The results indicated that both affiliated and frontline health care professionals had a higher level of risk perception of COVID-19, and more adopted protective behaviors against COVID-19 than the general public. No significant differences in risk perception or the adoption of protective behaviors were identified between affiliated, and frontline, health care professionals. Affiliated health care professionals had a lower level of general anxiety than the general public, whereas frontline health care professionals exhibited no significant difference in level of general anxiety compared with the general public or affiliated health care professionals. As important members of COVID-19 treatment teams, the need for psychological and educational support in affiliated health care professionals should receive attention.

SUBMITTER: Chou WP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7764763 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk Perception, Protective Behaviors, and General Anxiety during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic among Affiliated Health Care Professionals in Taiwan: Comparisons with Frontline Health Care Professionals and the General Public.

Chou Wei-Po WP Wang Peng-Wei PW Chen Shiou-Lan SL Chang Yu-Ping YP Wu Chia-Fen CF Lu Wei-Hsin WH Yen Cheng-Fang CF

International journal of environmental research and public health 20201213 24

This study aimed to compare risk perception, information sources, adoption of protective behaviors against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and levels of general anxiety among affiliated health care professionals, frontline health care professionals, and the general public in Taiwan. We recruited participants via a Facebook advertisement. We determined the risk perception, information sources, adoption of protective behaviors against COVID-19, and levels of general anxiety among 1954 respond ...[more]

PMID: 33322220

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Doing "more" in healthcare can be a major threat to the delivery of high-quality health care. It is important to identify the supplier-induced demand (SID) of health care. This study aims to test SID hypothesis by comparing health care utilization among patients affiliated with healthcare professionals and their counterpart patients not affiliated with healthcare professionals.Methods: We used coarsened exact matching to compare the health care utilization and expenditure between patients affiliated and not affiliated with healthcare professionals. Using cross-sectional data of the China Labour-force Dynamics Survey (CLDS) in 2014, we identified 806 patients affiliated with healthcare professionals and 22,788 patients not affiliated with healthcare professionals. The main outcomes were outpatient proportion and expenditure as well as inpatient proportion and expenditure.Results: The matched outpatient proportion of patients not affiliated with healthcare professionals was 0.6% higher (P?=?0.754) than that of their counterparts, and the matched inpatient proportion was 1.1% lower (P?=?0.167). Patients not affiliated with healthcare professionals paid significantly more (680 CNY or 111 USD, P?<?0.001) than their counterparts did per outpatient visit (1126 CNY [95% CI 885-1368] vs. 446 CNY [95% CI 248-643]), while patients not affiliated with healthcare professionals paid insignificantly less (2061 CNY or 336 USD, P?=?0.751) than their counterparts did per inpatient visit (15583 CNY [95% CI 12052-19115] vs. 17645 CNY [95% CI 4884-30406]).Conclusion: Our results lend support to the SID hypothesis and highlight the need for policies to address the large outpatient care expenses among patients not affiliated with healthcare professionals. Our study also suggests that as the public becomes more informed, the demand of health care may persist while heath care expenditure per outpatient visit may decline sharply due to the weakened SID. To address misbehaviors and contain health care costs, it is important to realign provider incentives.

Project description:Similar to the general public, mental health professionals sometimes also have negative attitudes towards individuals with mental illness; which could ultimately affect the quality of care received by the patients. This study aims to explore attitudes to mental illness among mental health professionals in Singapore; make comparisons with the general population; and investigate the significant correlates.A cross-sectional design was used. Eligible participants were recruited from the Institute of Mental Health, Singapore. Attitudes to mental illness among the mental health professionals were measured using an adapted 26-item Attitudes to Mental Illness questionnaire (AMI). An earlier study amongst the general population in Singapore had used the same tool; however, factor analysis suggested a 20-item, 4-factor structure (AMI-SG) was the best fit. This 4-factor structure was applied among the current sample of mental health professionals to allow comparisons between the professionals and the general population. Data were collected through an online survey tool 'Questionpro' from February to April 2016, and 379 participants were included in the current analysis. Attitudes to mental illness among these professionals were compared to those of the general population, which were captured as part of a national study conducted from March 2014 to April 2015.The 20-item, 4-factor structure AMI-SG derived from the general population was applicable among the mental health professionals in Singapore. Compared to the general population, mental health professionals had significantly more positive attitudes to mental illness; however their scores on 'social distancing' did not differ from the general population. Indian ethnicity was negatively associated with 'social distancing' and 'social restrictiveness' among the professionals; while higher education was negatively related to 'prejudice and misconception'. Compared to nurses, doctors showed significantly more positive attitudes on 'social restrictiveness' and 'prejudice and misconception'. Having family or close friends diagnosed with mental illness was negatively associated with 'social distancing' among the professionals.The AMI-SG is an effective tool to measure attitudes to mental illness among mental health professionals in Singapore. Although the professionals had significantly more positive attitudes to mental illness than the general public in Singapore, their attitudes on 'social distancing' resembled closely that of the general public. Professionals tended to have more negative attitudes if they were nurses, less educated, and of Chinese ethnicity. More studies are needed to explore the underlying reasons for the differences and to generalize these findings among mental health professionals elsewhere.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess racial and ethnic disparities in care for Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries and whether disparities differ between health system-affiliated physician organizations (POs) and nonaffiliated POs.Data sourcesWe used Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty (MD-PPAS), Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS), IRS Form 990, 100% Medicare FFS claims, and race/ethnicity estimated using the Medicare Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding 2.0 algorithm.Study designUsing a sample of 16 007 POs providing primary care in 2015, we assessed racial/ethnic disparities on 12 measures derived from claims (2 cancer screenings; diabetic eye examinations; continuity of care; two medication adherence measures; three measures of follow-up visits after acute care; all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, all-cause readmissions, and ambulatory care-sensitive admissions). We decomposed these "total" disparities into within-PO and between-PO components using models with PO random effects. We then pair-matched 1853 of these POs that were affiliated with health systems to similar nonaffiliated POs. We examined differences in within-PO disparities by affiliation status by interacting each nonwhite race/ethnicity with an affiliation indicator.Data collection/extraction methodsMedicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty identified POs billing Medicare; PECOS and IRS Form 990 identified health system affiliations. Beneficiaries age 18 and older were attributed to POs using a plurality visit rule.Principal findingsWe observed total disparities in 12 of 36 comparisons between white and nonwhite beneficiaries; nonwhites received worse care in 10. Within-PO disparities exceeded between-PO disparities and were substantively important (>=5 percentage points or>=0.2 standardized differences) in nine of the 12 comparisons. Among these 12, nonaffiliated POs had smaller disparities than affiliated POs in two comparisons (P < .05): 1.6 percentage points smaller black-white disparities in follow-up after ED visits and 0.6 percentage points smaller Hispanic-white disparities in breast cancer screening.ConclusionsWe find no evidence that system-affiliated POs have smaller racial and ethnic disparities than nonaffiliated POs. Where differences existed, disparities were slightly larger in affiliated POs.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence consistently shows that people with advanced dementia experience suboptimal end of life care compared to those with cancer; with increased hospitalisation, inadequate pain control and fewer palliative care interventions. Understanding the views of those service managers and frontline staff who organise and provide care is crucial in order to develop better end of life care for people with dementia.Methods and findingsQualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted from 2013 to 2015 with 33 service managers and 54 staff involved in frontline care, including doctors, nurses, nursing and care home managers, service development leads, senior managers/directors, care assistants and senior care assistants/team leads. All were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants represented a diverse range of service types and occupation. Transcripts were subject to coding and thematic analysis in data meetings. Analysis of the data led to the development of seven key themes: Recognising end of life (EOL) and tools to support end of life care (EOLC), Communicating with families about EOL, Collaborative working, Continuity of care, Ensuring comfort at EOL, Supporting families, Developing and supporting staff. Each is discussed in detail and comprise individual and collective views on approaches to good end of life care for people with dementia.ConclusionsThe significant challenges of providing good end of life care for people with dementia requires that different forms of expertise should be recognised and used; including the skills and knowledge of care assistants. Successfully engaging with people with dementia and family members and helping them to recognise the dying trajectory requires a supportive integration of emotional and technical expertise. The study strengthens the existing evidence base in this area and will be used with a related set of studies (on the views of other stakeholders and observations and interviews conducted in four services) to develop an evidence-based intervention.

Dataset Information

Risk Perception, Protective Behaviors, and General Anxiety during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic among Affiliated Health Care Professionals in Taiwan: Comparisons with Frontline Health Care Professionals and the General Public.

Publications

Risk Perception, Protective Behaviors, and General Anxiety during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic among Affiliated Health Care Professionals in Taiwan: Comparisons with Frontline Health Care Professionals and the General Public.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure