Dataset Information

Risk of COVID-19-related bullying, harassment and stigma among healthcare workers: an analytical cross-sectional global study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Essential healthcare workers (HCW) uniquely serve as both COVID-19 healers and, potentially, as carriers of SARS-CoV-2. We assessed COVID-19-related stigma and bullying against HCW controlling for social, psychological, medical and community variables.

Design

We nested an analytical cross-sectional study of COVID-19-related stigma and bullying among HCW within a larger mixed-methods effort assessing COVID-19-related lived experience and impact. Adjusted OR (aOR) and 95% CIs evaluated the association between working in healthcare settings and experience of COVID-19-related bullying and stigma, controlling for confounders. Thematic qualitative analysis provided insight into lived experience of COVID-19-related bullying.

Setting

We recruited potential participants in four languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian) through Amazon Mechanical Turk's online workforce and Facebook.

Participants

Our sample included 7411 people from 173 countries who were aged 18 years or over.

Findings

HCW significantly experienced more COVID-19-related bullying after controlling for the confounding effects of job-related, personal, geographic and sociocultural variables (aOR: 1.5; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.0). HCW more frequently believed that people gossip about others with COVID-19 (OR: 2.2; 95% CI 1.9 to 2.6) and that people with COVID-19 lose respect in the community (OR: 2.3; 95% CI 2.0 to 2.7), both which elevate bullying risk (OR: 2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.2, and OR: 3.5; 95% CI 2.9 to 4.2, respectively). The lived experience of COVID-19-related bullying relates frequently to public identities as HCW traverse through the community, intersecting with other domains (eg, police, racism, violence).

Interpretation

After controlling for a range of confounding factors, HCW are significantly more likely to experience COVID-19-related stigma and bullying, often in the intersectional context of racism, violence and police involvement in community settings.

SUBMITTER: Dye TD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7780430 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) have found themselves and their families more susceptible to contracting COVID-19. This puts them at a higher risk of psychological distress, which may compromise patient care. In this study, we aim to explore the risk perceptions and psychological distress between HCWs and non-healthcare workers (NHCWs) in Pakistan.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using an online self-administered questionnaire. Psychological distress was assessed through The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Comparisons were made between HCWs (front/backend, students/graduates) and NHCWs related to risk perceptions and stress levels related to COVID-19. Following tests for normality (Shapiro-Wilk test), variables that fulfilled the normality assumption were compared using the independent samples t-test, while for other variables Mann-Whitney U-test was employed. Pearson Chi-square test was used to compare categorical data. Multiple logistic regression techniques examined the association of participant age, gender, household income, and the presence of COVID-19 symptoms with depression and anxiety levels.ResultsData from 1406 respondents (507 HCWs and 899 NHCWs) were analyzed. No significant difference was observed between HCWs and NHCWs' perception of susceptibility and severity towards COVID-19. While healthcare graduates perceived themselves (80% graduates vs 66% students, p-value 0.011) and their family (82% graduates vs 67% students, p-value 0.008) to be more susceptible to COVID-19, they were less likely to experience depression than students. Frontline HCWs involved in direct patient care perceived themselves (83% frontline vs. 70% backend, p-value 0.003) and their family (84% frontline vs. 72% backend, p-value 0.006) as more susceptible to COVID-19 than backend healthcare professionals. Over half of the respondents were anxious (54% HCWs and 55% NHCWs). Female gender, younger age, lower income, and having COVID-19 related symptoms had a significant effect on the anxiety levels of both HCWs and NHCWs.ConclusionFrontline HCWs, young people, women, and individuals with lower income were at a higher risk of psychological distress due to the pandemic. Government policies should thus be directed at ensuring the mental well-being of frontline HCWs and improving their satisfaction to strengthen the health care delivery system. The findings suggest the need to provide mental health support for health workers.

Project description:BackgroundStudies on the impact of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID) for healthcare workers (HCWs) rarely include the full spectrum of hospital workers, including less visible patient support roles. In the early days of the pandemic, COVID testing was preferentially available to HCWs. The objective of this study was to understand how individual experiences for all HCWs during the pandemic were associated with perceptions of access to, and receipt of COVID testing .MethodsAll hospital employees (n = 6736) in a single academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey regarding perceived access to, and receipt of COVID testing during the first wave of the pandemic (March - August 2020). Responses were linked to human resources data. Log binomial univariate and multivariable models were used to estimate associations between individual and employment variables and COVID testing.ResultsA total of 2543 employees responded to the survey (38 %). The mean age was 40 years (± 14). Respondents were female (76 %), white (55 %), worked as nurses (27 %), administrators (22 %) and patient support roles (22 %); 56 % of respondents wanted COVID testing. Age (RR 0.91, CI 0.88-0.93), full time status (RR 0.85, CI 0.79-0.92), employment tenure (RR 0.96, CI 0.94-0.98), changes in quality of life (RR 0.94, CI 0.91-0.96), changes in job duties (RR 1.19, CI 1.03-1.37), and worry about enough paid sick leave (RR 1.21, CI 1.12-1.30) were associated with interest in testing. Administrators (RR 0.64, CI 0.58-0.72) and patient support staff (RR 0.85, CI 0.78-0.92) were less likely than nurses to want testing. Age (RR 1.04, CI 1.01-1.07), material hardships (RR 0.87, CI 0.79-0.96), and employer sponsored insurance (RR 1.10, CI 1.00-1.22) were associated with receiving a COVID test. Among all employees, only administrative/facilities staff were less likely to receive COVID testing (RR 0.69, CI 0.59-0.79).ConclusionsThis study adds to our understanding of how hospital employees view availability of COVID testing. Hazard pay or other supports for hospital workers may increase COVID testing rates. These findings may be applicable to perceived barriers towards vaccination receipt.

Project description:Background and aimsHealthcare worker burnout has been linked to increased patient safety risk, low work professionalism, and low satisfaction with the care encounter. This study aimed to find the prevalence and factors associated with burnout among healthcare workers in acute care settings at a national referral hospital in Tanzania.MethodsAn analytical cross-sectional study was performed at a national referral hospital in Tanzania. Healthcare workers at the departments of Emergency Medicine, Intensive Care Unit, and Anesthesia at Muhimbili National Hospital were recruited from January 2021 to March 2021. A two-part questionnaire adopted from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and MBI-Human Services Survey tool were administered to measure burnout. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and percentages, and variables were compared using logistic regression.ResultsA total of 174 healthcare workers were issued questionnaires to participate in the study. With a response rate of 78%, 135 healthcare workers were included in the study, 43.7% were from the intensive care unit; the majority were female (63.7%), and assistant nursing officers (42%). The prevalence of burnout among participants was 62%, with 90.4% of participants showing a high level of emotional exhaustion. A longer duration of a single-day shift was associated with increased burnout among work-related factors (p < 0.001). Fewer night-time sleeping hours, tobacco use, and lack of regular exercise were significantly associated with increased burnout among social-related factors (p < 0.001).ConclusionThe study showed an alarmingly high prevalence of burnout among healthcare workers in the acute care setting of Muhimbili National Hospital. Personal well-being and participation in wellness programs have been associated with a reduced prevalence of burnout. The hospital should address the issue of burnout among its healthcare workers. This also calls for immediate action, necessitating further studies at the regional and national levels to ascertain the burden and causes of burnout in this setting.

Project description:BackgroundPsychological resilience facilitates adaptation in stressful environments and is an important personal characteristic that enables workers to navigate occupational challenges. Few studies have evaluated the factors associated with psychological resilience in healthcare workers.ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence and factors associated with psychological resilience in a group of South African medical doctors and ambulance personnel.Materials and methodsThis analytical cross-sectional study used secondary data obtained from two studies conducted among healthcare workers in 2019 and 2022. Self-reported factors associated with resilience, as measured by the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-10 (CD-RISC-10), were evaluated. R statistical software was used for analysing the data and performing statistical tests.ResultsA total of 647 healthcare workers were included in the study, of which 259 were doctors and 388 were ambulance personnel. Resilience scores were low overall (27.6 ± 6.6) but higher for ambulance personnel (28.0 ± 6.9) than for doctors (27.1 ± 6.0) (p = 0.006). Female gender (OR 1.94, 95%CI 1.03-3.72, p = 0.043), job category (OR 6.94 95%CI 1.22-60.50, p = 0.044) and overtime work (OR 13.88, 95%CI 1.61-368.00, p = 0.044) significantly increased the odds of low resilience for doctors. Conversely, salary (OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.02-0.64, p = 0.024) and current smoking status (OR 0.16, 95%CI 0.02-0.66, p = 0.027) significantly reduced the odds of low resilience amongst doctors. In addition, only previous alcohol use significantly reduced the odds of low resilience for ambulance personnel (OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.20-0.94, p = 0.038) and overall sample (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.29-0.91, p = 0.024).ConclusionsResilience was relatively low in this group of South African healthcare workers. The strong association between low resilience and individual and workplace factors provides avenues for early intervention and building resilience among healthcare workers.