Dataset Information

Factors Associated With Psychological Distress in Health-Care Workers During an Infectious Disease Outbreak: A Rapid Systematic Review of the Evidence.

ABSTRACT: Objective: Health-care workers (HCW) are at risk for psychological distress during an infectious disease outbreak, such as the coronavirus pandemic, due to the demands of dealing with a public health emergency. This rapid systematic review examined the factors associated with psychological distress among HCW during an outbreak. Method: We systematically reviewed literature on the factors associated with psychological distress (demographic characteristics, occupational, social, psychological, and infection-related factors) in HCW during an outbreak (COVID-19, SARS, MERS, H1N1, H7N9, and Ebola). Four electronic databases were searched (2000 to 15 November 2020) for relevant peer-reviewed research according to a pre-registered protocol. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify fixed, modifiable, and infection-related factors linked to distress and psychiatric morbidity. Results: From the 4,621 records identified, 138 with data from 143,246 HCW in 139 studies were included. All but two studies were cross-sectional. The majority of the studies were conducted during COVID-19 (k = 107, N = 34,334) and SARS (k = 21, N = 18,096). Consistent evidence indicated that being female, a nurse, experiencing stigma, maladaptive coping, having contact or risk of contact with infected patients, and experiencing quarantine, were risk factors for psychological distress among HCW. Personal and organizational social support, perceiving control, positive work attitudes, sufficient information about the outbreak and proper protection, training, and resources, were associated with less psychological distress. Conclusions: This review highlights the key factors to the identify HCW who are most at risk for psychological distress during an outbreak and modifying factors to reduce distress and improve resilience. Recommendations are that HCW at risk for increased distress receive early interventions and ongoing monitoring because there is evidence that HCW distress can persist for up to 3 years after an outbreak. Further research needs to track the associations of risk and resilience factors with distress over time and the extent to which certain factors are inter-related and contribute to sustained or transient distress.

SUBMITTER: Sirois FM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7876062 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly affected health care workers (HCWs), including their mental health. However, there has been limited evidence on this topic in the Vietnamese context. Therefore, this study aimed to explore COVID-19-related, psychological stress risk factors among HCWs, their concerns and demands for mental health support during the pandemic period. Methods: We employed a cross-sectional study design with convenience sampling. An online, self-administered questionnaire was used and distributed through social media among medical and non-medical HCWs from April 22 to May 12, 2020. HCWs were categorized either as frontline or non-frontline. We measured the prevalence of psychological stress using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) instrument. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with psychological stress among HCWs. Results: Among the 774 enrolled participants, 761 (98.3%) eligible subjects were included in the analysis. Most respondents were females (58.2%), between 31 and 40 years of age (37.1%), lived in areas where confirmed COVID-19 cases had been reported (61.9%), medical HCWs (59.9%) and practiced being at the frontline (46.3%). The prevalence of stress was 34.3%. We identified significant risk factors such as being frontline HCWs (odds ratio [OR] = 1.77 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-2.67]), perceiving worse well-being as compared to those before the COVID-19 outbreak [OR = 4.06 (95% CI: 2.15-7.67)], and experiencing chronic diseases [OR = 1.67 (95% CI: (1.01-2.77)]. Majority (73.9%) were concerned about testing positive for COVID-19 and exposing the infection to their families. Web-based psychological interventions that could provide knowledge on managing mental distress and consulting services were highly demanded among HCWs. Conclusion: The prevalence of psychological stress among HCWs in Vietnam during the COVID-19 pandemic was high. There were also significant risk factors associated with it. Psychological interventions involving web-based consulting services are highly recommended to provide mental health support among HCWs.

Project description:Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a significant health threat. Health care worker (HCWs) are at a significant risk of infection which may cause high levels of psychological distress. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychological impact of the COVID-19 on HCWs and factors which were associated with these stresses during the first outbreak in Shanghai. Methods: Between February 9 and 21, 2020, a total of 3,114 frontline HCWs from 26 hospitals in Shanghai completed an online survey. The questionnaire included questions on their sociodemographic characteristics, 15 stress-related questions, and General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Exploratory factor analysis was applied to the 15 stress-related questions which produced four distinct factors for evaluation. Multiple linear regression models were performed to explore the association of personal characteristics with each score of the four factors. Binary logistic analysis was used to explain the association of personal characteristics and these four factors with the GHQ-12. Results: There were 2,691 valid surveys received. The prevalence of emotional distress (defined as GHQ-12 ≥ 12) was noted in 47.7% (95%CI:45.7-49.6%) HCWs. Females (OR = 1.43, 95%CI:1.09-1.86) were more likely to have a psychological distress than males. However, HCWs who work in secondary hospitals (OR = 0.71, 95% CI:0.58-0.87) or had a no contact history (OR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.35-0.58) were less likely to suffer psychological distress. HCWs who were nurses, married, and had a known contact history were highly likely to have anxiety. HCWs working at tertiary hospitals felt an elevated anxiety regarding the infection, a lack of knowledge, and less protected compared to those who worked at secondary hospitals. Conclusions: Our study shows that the frontline HCWs had a significant psychosocial distress during the COVID-19 outbreak in Shanghai. HCWs felt a lack of knowledge and had feelings of being not protected. It is necessary for hospitals and governments to provide additional trainings and psychological counseling to support the first-line HCWs.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has placed sustained demand on health systems globally, and the capacity to provide critical care has been overwhelmed in some jurisdictions. It is unknown which triage criteria for allocation of resources perform best to inform health system decision-making. We sought to summarize and describe existing triage tools and ethical frameworks to aid healthcare decision-making during infectious disease outbreaks.MethodsWe conducted a rapid review of triage criteria and ethical frameworks for the allocation of critical care resources during epidemics and pandemics. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and SCOPUS from inception to November 3, 2020. Full-text screening and data abstraction were conducted independently and in duplicate by three reviewers. Articles were included if they were primary research, an adult critical care setting, and the framework described was related to an infectious disease outbreak. We summarized each triage tool and ethical guidelines or framework including their elements and operating characteristics using descriptive statistics. We assessed the quality of each article with applicable checklists tailored to each study design.ResultsFrom 11,539 unique citations, 697 full-text articles were reviewed and 83 articles were included. Fifty-nine described critical care triage protocols and 25 described ethical frameworks. Of these, four articles described both a protocol and ethical framework. Sixty articles described 52 unique triage criteria (29 algorithm-based, 23 point-based). Few algorithmic- or point-based triage protocols were good predictors of mortality with AUCs ranging from 0.51 (PMEWS) to 0.85 (admitting SOFA >?11). Most published triage protocols included the substantive values of duty to provide care, equity, stewardship and trust, and the procedural value of reason.ConclusionsThis review summarizes available triage protocols and ethical guidelines to provide decision-makers with data to help select and tailor triage tools. Given the uncertainty about how the COVID-19 pandemic will progress and any future pandemics, jurisdictions should prepare by selecting and adapting a triage tool that works best for their circumstances.

Project description:PurposeChina was affected by an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 2019-2020. Research data are needed to develop evidence-driven strategies to reduce the adverse psychological and occupational impacts on healthcare workers (HCWs).MethodsFrom March 1, 2020, to March 8, 2020, 946 HCWs in China completed a survey consist of sociodemographic data, precautionary measures against COVID-19, and concerns about COVID-19. Self-administered questionnaire were collected to assess psychological and occupational adverse outcomes of HCWs. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the outcomes.ResultsA total of 55.0%, 56.0% and 48.3% of the HCWs experienced burnout, psychological distress and posttraumatic stress, respectively. A total of seven factors were independently associated with burnout: good health status (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.71), fear of contagion (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.003-1.79), avoiding contact with children (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03-1.91), enough staff support at the workplace (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38-0.92), having to work overtime (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.03-1.83), maladaptive coping (OR 3.28, 95% CI 2.42-4.45) and adaptive coping (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.62). A total of 11 factors were independently associated with high psychological distress: having one child (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.77), good health status (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39-0.83), alcohol abuse (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.02-2.25), thinking the epidemic would continue for quite a long time (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.08-2.34), wearing extra-work clothes (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.06-2.15),effective protective equipment (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.90), enough staff support at the workplace (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.89), unable to take care of families (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.42-2.78), economic losses (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.14-2.31), maladaptive coping (OR 6.88, 95% CI 4.75-9.97),and adaptive coping (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.21-0.41). These factors were independently associated with posttraumatic stress: living with the elderly (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04-2.05), alcohol abuse (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.002-1.98), working at a 3A hospital(OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49-0.88), acquaintances confirmed COVID-19 (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.20-3.84), fear of contagion (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.40-2.50), believing they would survive if infected (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46-0.86), self-disinfected after arriving home (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.01-2.02), interpersonal isolation (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.21-2.26), unable to take care of families (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.05-1.88) and maladaptive coping (OR 3.09, 95% CI 2.32-4.11).ConclusionThe variance in adverse outcomes was explained by the effect of various factors, which will help policymakers better prepare for subsequent potential outbreaks of COVID-19.

Dataset Information

Factors Associated With Psychological Distress in Health-Care Workers During an Infectious Disease Outbreak: A Rapid Systematic Review of the Evidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets