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:Upper respiratory viral infections can decrease the sense of smell either by inflammatory restriction of nasal airflow that carries the odorant molecules or through interference in olfactory sensory neuron function. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, triggered by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), worldwide reports of severe smell loss (anosmia/hyposmia) revealed a different type of olfactory dysfunction associated with respiratory virus infection. Since self-reported perception of smell is subjective and SARS-CoV-2 exposure is variable in the general population, we aimed to study a population that would be more homogeneously exposed to the virus. Here, we investigated the prevalence of olfactory loss in frontline health professionals diagnosed with COVID-19 in Brazil, one of the major epicenters of the disease. We also analyzed the rate of olfactory function recovery and the particular characteristics of olfactory deficit in this population. A widely disclosed cross-sectional online survey directed to health care workers was developed by a group of researchers to collect data concerning demographic information, general symptoms, otolaryngological symptoms, comorbidities, and COVID-19 test results. Of the 1,376 health professionals who completed the questionnaire, 795 (57.8%) were working directly with COVID-19 patients, either in intensive care units, emergency rooms, wards, outpatient clinics, or other areas. Five-hundred forty-one (39.3%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 509 (37%) were not tested. Prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19-positive subjects was 83.9% (454 of 541) compared to 12.9% (42 of 326) of those who tested negative and to 14.9% (76 of 509) of those not tested. Olfactory dysfunction incidence was higher in those working in wards, emergency rooms, and intensive care units compared to professionals in outpatient clinics. In general, remission from olfactory symptoms was frequent by the time of responses. Taste disturbances were present in 74.1% of infected participants and were significantly associated with hyposmia. In conclusion, olfactory dysfunction is highly correlated with exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in health care professionals, and remission rates up to 2 weeks are high.

Project description:BackgroundSimilar 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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:BackgroundHealthcare professionals working at the frontline, dealing with COVID-19 patients or their samples, should know about variants of concern (VOCs) and their transmissibility, disease severity, and vaccine efficacy. Healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perceptions towards new VOCs affect their practice and attitudes towards their patients. Moreover, these perceptions might significantly impact their patients' perceptions of new COVID-19 variants and public vaccine acceptability.MethodsOnline and paper-based questionnaires were distributed among Healthcare professionals in Jordan between August 2021 and October 2021.ResultsAmong 423 HCPs who participated in this study, a majority believe that when viruses mutate, they become more transmissible (77.8%), more deadly (61.7%), and pathogenic (64.8%). In addition, half of the respondents, perceived current treatments as partially effective against VOCs and current diagnostics to be efficient. However, all VOCs were perceived as more transmissible, more virulent, and related to higher mortality rates when compared to the original strain. Regarding immunity against VOCs, (57.4%) of respondents believe in partial immunity against re-infection, and most respondents were either unsure about the current vaccines' efficacy or agreed that available vaccines would be ineffective. However, respondents (44.4%) still believe that people previously infected should get vaccinated. Respondents referred to the Ministry of Health as the most reliable source of information (45.6%) and the party responsible for educating the public about COVID-19 VOCs (57.9%). Travel was not a source of worry among respondents. However, they were worried about their families getting the new COVID-19 VOCs from their work. Similar proportions agreed/disagreed on the efficacy of the precautions and infection control measures currently applied by the government for preventing the spread of the new COVID-19 VOCs.ConclusionCampaigns, workshops, and webinars targeting vaccines are highly recommended among HCPs to increase public acceptance of the vaccine and further booster shots.

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

Tweets