Dataset Information

Mental health and well-being of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: contrasting guidelines with experiences in practice.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Substantial evidence has highlighted the importance of considering the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and several organisations have issued guidelines with recommendations. However, the definition of well-being and the evidence base behind such guidelines remain unclear.

Aims

The aims of the study are to assess the applicability of well-being guidelines in practice, identify unaddressed healthcare workers' needs and provide recommendations for supporting front-line staff during the current and future pandemics.

Method

This paper discusses the findings of a qualitative study based on interviews with front-line healthcare workers in the UK (n = 33), and examines them in relation to a rapid review of well-being guidelines developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 14).

Results

The guidelines placed greater emphasis on individual mental health and psychological support, whereas healthcare workers placed greater emphasis on structural conditions at work, responsibilities outside the hospital and the invaluable support of the community. The well-being support interventions proposed in the guidelines did not always respond to the lived experiences of staff, as some reported not being able to participate in these interventions because of understaffing, exhaustion or clashing schedules.

Conclusions

Healthcare workers expressed well-being needs that aligned with socio-ecological conceptualisations of well-being related to quality of life. This approach to well-being has been highlighted in literature on support of healthcare workers in previous health emergencies, but it has not been monitored during this pandemic. Well-being guidelines should explore the needs of healthcare workers, and contextual characteristics affecting the implementation of recommendations.

SUBMITTER: Vera San Juan N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7844154 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The current Covid-19 pandemic has affected the physical and mental stressors of hospital-based healthcare workers, but the extent of such effects are required to be quantified. This survey looked at data on nurses' perception across teaching hospitals to assess the impacts of Covid-19 on working conditions, exposure to stressors, and mental health symptoms. We implemented a population survey with a cross-sectional design in teaching hospitals affiliated with Medical Sciences Universities in Iran from April to November 2021. Participants were about 1200 health care workers, including hospital nursing staff, assistants, and technicians. Final data were assembled from 831 hospital nurses across surgery, dialysis, intensive care, emergency care, cardiac care, internal medicine, gynecology, and pediatric wards. Self-reported data were collected directly from survey participants. We collected information on variables including gender, marital status, employment status, occupational health training, evaluation of work environment stressors, fear of Covid-19, and occupational burnout constructs, specifically reflecting emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Focus groups of faculties evaluated and edited items to test the content wording and to define the content that are valid measures of the variables. The questionnaires were assessed for their reliability. Manual data entries were double-checked for errors. Data were recorded and categorized consistently to ensure the replicability of the data in the future. Statistical descriptive and analytical analyses were performed on the data. Data reported on the frequencies and mean values of responses and the variations of mental health in terms of worktime schedules. Chi- square, ANOVA, and correlation analyses determined relations between variables. The compiled data shed light on the exposure and response to physical and psychosocial factors and mental health symptoms among nurses during the pandemic. The data files detailed in this article can be further reused to inform workplace determinants of health in hospital settings. The obtained scores and existing dataset on mental health outcomes can help future studies to consider resilience strategies that should be provided among nurses.

Project description:Healthcare workers are at a high risk of psychological morbidity in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is significant variability in the impact of this crisis on individual healthcare workers, which can be best explained through an appreciation of the construct of resilience. Broadly speaking, resilience refers to the ability to successfully adapt to stressful or traumatic events, and thus plays a key role in determining mental health outcomes following exposure to such events. A proper understanding of resilience is vital in enabling a shift from a reactive to a proactive approach for protecting and promoting the mental well-being of healthcare workers. Research in the past decade has identified six areas that provide promising leads in understanding the biological basis of individual variations in resilience. These are: (1) the key role played by the monoamines noradrenaline and serotonin, (2) the centrality of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in influencing stress vulnerability and resilience, (3) the intimate links between the immune system and stress sensitivity, (4) the role of epigenetic modulation of gene expression in influencing the stress response, (5) the role played by certain neuropeptides as a natural "brake" mechanism in the face of stress, and (6) the neurobiological mechanisms by which environmental factors, such as exercise, diet, and social support, influence resilience to subsequent life events. Though much of this research is still in its early stages, it has already provided valuable information on which strategies - including dietary changes, lifestyle modification, environmental modification, psychosocial interventions, and even pharmacological treatments - may prove to be useful in fostering resilience in individuals and groups. This paper examines the above evidence more closely, with a specific focus on the challenges faced by healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and provides suggestions regarding how it may be translated into real-world interventions, as well as how the more tentative hypotheses advanced in this field may be tested during this critical period.

Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing international interest in the concept of mental well-being and its contribution to all aspects of human life. Demand for instruments to monitor mental well-being at a population level and evaluate mental health promotion initiatives is growing. This article describes the development and validation of a new scale, comprised only of positively worded items relating to different aspects of positive mental health: the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS).MethodsWEMWBS was developed by an expert panel drawing on current academic literature, qualitative research with focus groups, and psychometric testing of an existing scale. It was validated on a student and representative population sample. Content validity was assessed by reviewing the frequency of complete responses and the distribution of responses to each item. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the hypothesis that the scale measured a single construct. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Criterion validity was explored in terms of correlations between WEMWBS and other scales and by testing whether the scale discriminated between population groups in line with pre-specified hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was assessed at one week using intra-class correlation coefficients. Susceptibility to bias was measured using the Balanced Inventory of Desired Responding.ResultsWEMWBS showed good content validity. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the single factor hypothesis. A Cronbach's alpha score of 0.89 (student sample) and 0.91 (population sample) suggests some item redundancy in the scale. WEMWBS showed high correlations with other mental health and well-being scales and lower correlations with scales measuring overall health. Its distribution was near normal and the scale did not show ceiling effects in a population sample. It discriminated between population groups in a way that is largely consistent with the results of other population surveys. Test-retest reliability at one week was high (0.83). Social desirability bias was lower or similar to that of other comparable scales.ConclusionWEMWBS is a measure of mental well-being focusing entirely on positive aspects of mental health. As a short and psychometrically robust scale, with no ceiling effects in a population sample, it offers promise as a tool for monitoring mental well-being at a population level. Whilst WEMWBS should appeal to those evaluating mental health promotion initiatives, it is important that the scale's sensitivity to change is established before it is recommended in this context.

Project description:BackgroundHealth and social care workers (HSCWs) have carried a heavy burden during the COVID-19 crisis and, in the challenge to control the virus, have directly faced its consequences. Supporting their psychological wellbeing continues, therefore, to be a priority. This rapid review was carried out to establish whether there are any identifiable risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes amongst HSCWs during the COVID-19 crisis.MethodsWe undertook a rapid review of the literature following guidelines by the WHO and the Cochrane Collaboration's recommendations. We searched across 14 databases, executing the search at two different time points. We included published, observational and experimental studies that reported the psychological effects on HSCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsThe 24 studies included in this review reported data predominantly from China (18 out of 24 included studies) and most sampled urban hospital staff. Our study indicates that COVID-19 has a considerable impact on the psychological wellbeing of front-line hospital staff. Results suggest that nurses may be at higher risk of adverse mental health outcomes during this pandemic, but no studies compare this group with the primary care workforce. Furthermore, no studies investigated the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social care staff. Other risk factors identified were underlying organic illness, gender (female), concern about family, fear of infection, lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and close contact with COVID-19. Systemic support, adequate knowledge and resilience were identified as factors protecting against adverse mental health outcomes.ConclusionsThe evidence to date suggests that female nurses with close contact with COVID-19 patients may have the most to gain from efforts aimed at supporting psychological well-being. However, inconsistencies in findings and a lack of data collected outside of hospital settings, suggest that we should not exclude any groups when addressing psychological well-being in health and social care workers. Whilst psychological interventions aimed at enhancing resilience in the individual may be of benefit, it is evident that to build a resilient workforce, occupational and environmental factors must be addressed. Further research including social care workers and analysis of wider societal structural factors is recommended.

Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may aggravate workplace conditions that impact health-care workers' mental health. However, it can also place other stresses on workers outside of their work. This study determines the effect of COVID-19 on symptoms of negative and positive mental health and the workforce's experience with various sources of support. Effect modification by demographic variables was also studied. A cross-sectional survey study, conducted between 2 April and 4 May 2020 (two waves), led to a convenience sample of 4509 health-care workers in Flanders (Belgium), including paramedics (40.6%), nurses (33.4%), doctors (13.4%) and management staff (12.2%). About three in four were employed in university and acute hospitals (29.6%), primary care practices (25.7%), residential care centers (21.3%) or care sites for disabled and mental health care. In each of the two waves, participants were asked how frequently (on a scale of 0-10) they experienced positive and negative mental health symptoms during normal circumstances and during last week, referred to as before and during COVID-19, respectively. These symptoms were stress, hypervigilance, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, unable to relax, fear, irregular lifestyle, flashback, difficulty concentrating, feeling unhappy and dejected, failing to recognize their own emotional response, doubting knowledge and skills and feeling uncomfortable within the team. Associations between COVID-19 and mental health symptoms were estimated by cumulative logit models and reported as odds ratios. The needed support was our secondary outcome and was reported as the degree to which health-care workers relied on sources of support and how they experienced them. All symptoms were significantly more pronounced during versus before COVID-19. For hypervigilance, there was a 12-fold odds (odds ratio 12.24, 95% confidence interval 11.11-13.49) during versus before COVID-19. Positive professional symptoms such as the feeling that one can make a difference were less frequently experienced. The association between COVID-19 and mental health was generally strongest for the age group 30-49 years, females, nurses and residential care centers. Health-care workers reported to rely on support from relatives and peers. A considerable proportion, respectively, 18 and 27%, reported the need for professional guidance from psychologists and more support from their leadership. The toll of the crisis has been heavy on health-care workers. Those who carry leadership positions at an organizational or system level should take this opportunity to develop targeted strategies to mitigate key stressors of health-care workers' mental well-being.

Project description:IntroductionAs the world continues to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, emerging evidence suggests that individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds may be disproportionately affected. The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) project has been initiated to generate rapid evidence on whether and why ethnicity affects COVID-19 diagnosis and clinical outcomes in healthcare workers (HCWs) in the UK, through five interlinked work packages/work streams, three of which form the basis of this protocol. The ethico-legal work (Work Package 3) aims to understand and address legal, ethical and acceptability issues around big data research; the HCWs' experiences study (Work Package 4) explores their work and personal experiences, perceptions of risk, support and coping mechanisms; the stakeholder engagement work (Work Package 5) aims to provide feedback and support with the formulation and dissemination of the project recommendations.Methods and analysisWork Package 3 has two different research strands: (A) desk-based doctrinal research; and (B) empirical qualitative research with key opinion leaders. For the empirical research, in-depth interviews will be conducted digitally and recorded with participants' permission. Recordings will be transcribed, coded and analysed using thematic analysis. In Work Package 4, online in-depth interviews and focus groups will be conducted with approximately 150 HCWs, from across the UK, and these will be recorded with participants' consent. The recordings will be transcribed and coded and data will be analysed using thematic analysis. Work Package 5 will achieve its objectives through regular group meetings and in-group discussions.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been received from the London-Brighton & Sussex Research Ethics Committee of the Health Research Authority (Ref No 20/HRA/4718). Results of the study will be published in open-access journals, and disseminated through conference presentations, project website, stakeholder organisations, media and scientific advisory groups.Trial registration numberISRCTN11811602.