Dataset Information

A Key Factor for Psychosomatic Burden of Frontline Medical Staff: Occupational Pressure During the COVID-19 Pandemic in China.

ABSTRACT: The global outbreak of COVID-19 has severely affected the entire population, especially healthcare staff on the frontline, who bear heavy psychosomatic burdens. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 723 participants in China from April 26 to May 9, 2020. We evaluated the psychosomatic status, including depression, anxiety, quality of life, somatic symptoms, stress, sleep disturbances, and posttraumatic stress symptoms in different exposure groups. We explored the risk factors that affect psychosomatic burdens and analyzed the relationship between psychosomatic problems and medical occupations. We found that the psychosomatic burdens of medical staff were significantly greater than those of non-medical staff (p < 0.01) and were positively related with the number of COVID-19 patients they came in contact with. Occupational pressure was a key factor for healthcare staff's psychosomatic problems (p < 0.01 for quality of life, somatic symptoms, anxiety, depression, stress; p = 0.012 for sleep disturbances), and it had a strong canonical correlation (p < 0.01). Workload and time allocation (WTA), one of the subdimensional indicators of occupational pressure, was strongly correlated with psychosomatic indicators. We suggest that rationalization of WTA is a desirable approach for anti-epidemic medical employees to alleviate psychosomatic burdens. Public health interventions should be undertaken to reduce the occupational pressure on this special population, which is critical for mitigation. This study presents results regarding the psychosomatic burdens of the healthcare workforce related to occupational pressure and provides multilevel data with groups of different exposure risks for policymakers to protect medical personnel. These findings draw attention to the working environments of healthcare workers and provide applicable results for clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Yi J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7848019 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Key Factor for Psychosomatic Burden of Frontline Medical Staff: Occupational Pressure During the COVID-19 Pandemic in China.

Yi Juanjuan J Kang Lijing L Li Jun J Gu Jianfang J

Frontiers in psychiatry 20210118

The global outbreak of COVID-19 has severely affected the entire population, especially healthcare staff on the frontline, who bear heavy psychosomatic burdens. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 723 participants in China from April 26 to May 9, 2020. We evaluated the psychosomatic status, including depression, anxiety, quality of life, somatic symptoms, stress, sleep disturbances, and posttraumatic stress symptoms in different exposure groups. We explored the risk factors that affect ps ...[more]

PMID: 33536948

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Psychiatric hospitals need safe working environments to promote productivity at the workplace. Even though occupational health and safety is not completely new to the corporate society, its scope is largely limited to the manufacturing/processing industries which are perceived to pose greater dangers to workers than the health sector. This paper sought to explore the experiences of frontline nursing personnel on the occupational health and safety conditions in two psychiatric hospitals in Ghana. METHODS:This is an exploratory cross-sectional study among 296 nurses and nurse-assistants in Accra (n = 164) and Pantang (n = 132) psychiatric hospitals using the proportional stratified random sampling technique. Multivariate Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression test was conducted to ascertain the determinants of staff exposure to occupational health hazards and the frequency of exposure to these occupational health hazards on daily basis. RESULTS:Knowledge levels on occupational health hazards was high in Accra and Pantang psychiatric hospitals (i.e. 92 and 81% respectively), but barely 44% of the 296 interviewed staff in the two hospitals said they reported their most recent exposure to an occupational health hazard to hospital management. It was found that staff who worked for more years on the ward had higher likelihood of exposure to occupational health hazards than those who worked for lesser years (p = 0.002). The category of occupational health hazards reported most were the physical health hazards. Psychosocial hazards were the least reported health hazards. Frequency of exposure to occupational health hazards on daily basis was positively associated with work schedules of staff particularly, staff on routine day schedule (Coef = 4.49, p = 0.011) and those who alternated between day and night schedules (Coef = 4.48, p = 0.010). CONCLUSION:Occupational health and safety conditions in the two hospitals were found to be generally poor. Even though majority of the staff knew about occupational health and safety, less than half of them reported exposure to workplace health hazards. Key stakeholders such as the Ministry of Health in collaboration with the Mental Health Authority should intensify efforts towards effective enforcement of existing policies on safety in healthcare institutions, particularly psychiatric hospitals where exposure to occupational health hazards is more prevalent.

Project description:Background Staff who perform fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures are among the most highly radiation-exposed groups in medicine. However, there are limited data on monthly or annual doses (or dose trends over time) for these workers. Purpose To summarize occupational badge doses (lens dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent values) for medical staff performing or assisting with FGI procedures in 3 recent years after accounting for uninformative values and one- versus two-badge monitoring protocol. Materials and Methods Badge dose entries of medical workers believed to have performed or assisted with FGI procedures were retrospectively collected from the largest dosimetry provider in the United States for 49 991, 81 561, and 125 669 medical staff corresponding to years 2009, 2012, and 2015, respectively. Entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedures staff were excluded. Monthly and annual occupational doses were described using summary statistics. Results After exclusions, 22.2% (153 033 of 687 912) of the two- and 32.9% (450 173 of 1 366 736) of the one-badge entries were judged to be informative. There were 335 225 and 916 563 of the two- and one-badge entries excluded, respectively, with minimal readings in the above-apron badge. Among the two-badge entries, 123 595 were incomplete and 76 059 had readings indicating incorrect wear of the badges. From 2009 to 2015 there was no change in lens dose equivalent values among workers who wore one badge (P = .96) or those who wore two badges (P = .23). Annual lens dose equivalents for workers wearing one badge (median, 6.9 mSv; interquartile range, 3.8213.8 mSv; n = 6218) were similar to those of staff wearing two badges (median, 7.1 mSv; interquartile range, 4.6-11.2 mSv; n = 1449) (P = .18), suggesting a similar radiation environment. Conclusion These workers are among the highest exposed to elevated levels of ionizing radiation, although their occupational doses are within U.S. regulatory limits. This is a population that requires consistent and accurate dose monitoring; however, failure to return one or both badges, reversal of badges, and improper badge placement are a major hindrance to this goal. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Karellas in this issue.

Project description:Background The high prevalence rates of mental disorders in China contrast a comparatively low care capacity from qualified trained medical doctors in the mental health field. The main objective of our cooperation project was to develop and implement advanced postgraduate training for medical doctors for their acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes in the field of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy in China. Methods Monitoring and evaluation as part of the advanced training in Beijing were conducted following the Kirkpatrick training approach using four levels of evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior and results. We performed a continuous course evaluation, assessed the respective learning goal attainment, conducted a pre-post evaluation of reasons and goals for participation in the training, and measured the treatment effects on the patient side. Results The implementation of training standards in the field of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy for medical doctors and the transfer of didactic knowledge and skills for Chinese lecturers were achieved. A total of 142 mainly medical doctors attended the 2-year training. Ten medical doctors were trained as future teachers. All learning goals were reached. The content and didactics of the curriculum were rated with an overall grade of 1.23 (1 = very good to 5 = very bad). The highest rated elements were patient life interviews, orientation on clinical practice and communication skills training. The achievement of learning objectives for each block (depression, anxiety disorders, somatic symptom disorder, coping with physical diseases) was rated between 1 and 2 (1 = very well achieved to 5 = not achieved) for all items from participants’ perspectives. On the patient side (n = 415), emotional distress decreased and quality of life and the doctor–patient alliance improved significantly. Discussion Advanced training in psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy was successfully implemented. The results of the evaluation show high participant satisfaction and the successful achievement of all learning objectives. A more detailed and extensive evaluation of the data, such as an analysis of the development of the participants as psychotherapists, is in preparation. The continuation of the training under Chinese guidance is guaranteed.

Project description:BackgroundIn times of the global corona pandemic health care workers (HCWs) fight the disease at the frontline of healthcare services and are confronted with an exacerbated load of pandemic burden. Psychosocial resources are thought to buffer adverse effects of pandemic stressors on mental health. This rapid review summarizes evidence on the specific interplay of pandemic burden and psychosocial resources with regard to the mental health of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal was to derive potential starting points for supportive interventions.MethodsWe conducted a rapid systematic review following the recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. We searched 7 databases in February 2021 and included peer-reviewed quantitative studies, that reported related data on pandemic stressors, psychosocial resources, and mental health of HCWs.Results46 reports were finally included in the review and reported data on all three outcomes at hand. Most studies (n = 41) applied a cross-sectional design. Our results suggest that there are several statistically significant pandemic risk factors for mental health problems in HCWs such as high risk and fear of infection, while resilience, active and emotion-focused coping strategies as well as social support can be considered beneficial when protecting different aspects of mental health in HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence for patterns of interaction between outcomes were found in the context of coping style when facing specific pandemic stressors.ConclusionsOur results indicate that several psychosocial resources may play an important role in buffering adverse effects of pandemic burden on the mental health of HCWs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, causal interpretations of mentioned associations are inadequate due to the overall low study quality and the dominance of cross-sectional study designs. Prospective longitudinal studies are required to elucidate the missing links.

Dataset Information

A Key Factor for Psychosomatic Burden of Frontline Medical Staff: Occupational Pressure During the COVID-19 Pandemic in China.

Publications

A Key Factor for Psychosomatic Burden of Frontline Medical Staff: Occupational Pressure During the COVID-19 Pandemic in China.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets