Dataset Information

Family medicine practitioners' stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the world in early 2020. In France, General Practitioners (GPs) were not involved in the care organization's decision-making process before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This omission could have generated stress for GPs. We aimed first to estimate the self-perception of stress as defined by the 10-item Perceived Stress Score (PSS-10), at the beginning of the pandemic in France, among GPs from the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, a french administrative area severely impacted by COVID-19. Second, we aimed to identify factors associated with a self-perceived stress (PSS-10 ≥ 27) among socio-demographic characteristics of GPs, their access to reliable information and to personal protective equipment during the pandemic, and their exposure to well established psychosocial risk at work.

Methods

We conducted an online cross-sectional survey between 8th April and 10th May 2020. The self-perception of stress was evaluated using the PSS-10, so to see the proportion of "not stressed" (≤20), "borderline" (21 ≤ PSS-10 ≤ 26), and "stressed" (≥27) GPs. The agreement to 31 positive assertions related to possible sources of stress identified by the scientific study committee was measured using a 10-point numeric scale. In complete cases, factors associated with stress (PSS-10 ≥ 27) were investigated using logistic regression, adjusted on gender, age and practice location. A supplementary analysis of the verbatims was made.

Results

Overall, 898 individual answers were collected, of which 879 were complete. A total of 437 GPs (49%) were stressed (PSS-10 ≥ 27), and 283 GPs (32%) had a very high level of stress (PSS-10 ≥ 30). Self-perceived stress was associated with multiple components, and involved classic psychosocial risk factors such as emotional requirements. However, in this context of health crisis, the primary source of stress was the diversity and quantity of information from diverse sources (614 GPs (69%, OR = 2.21, 95%CI [1.40-3.50], p < 0.001). Analysis of verbatims revealed that GPs felt isolated in a hospital-based model.

Conclusion

The first wave of the pandemic was a source of stress for GPs. The diversity and quantity of information received from the health authorities were among the main sources of stress.

SUBMITTER: Dutour M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7882249 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic imposed an acute, sharp rise in the use of video consultations (VCs) by general practitioners (GPs) in Norway.ObjectiveThis study aims to document GPs' experiences with the large-scale uptake of VCs in the natural experiment context of the pandemic.MethodsA nationwide, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among Norwegian GPs during the pandemic lockdown (April 14-May 3, 2020). Each respondent was asked to evaluate up to 10 VCs. Basic demographic characteristics of the GPs and their practices were collected. The associations between GPs' perceived suitability of the VCs, the nature of the patients' main problems, prior knowledge of the patients (relational continuity), and follow-up of previously presented problems (episodic continuity) were explored using descriptive statistics, diagrams, and chi-square tests.ResultsIn total, 1237 GPs (26% of the target group) responded to the survey. Among these, 1000 GPs offered VCs, and 855 GPs evaluated a total of 3484 VCs. Most GPs who offered VCs (1000/1237; 81%) had no experience with VCs before the pandemic. Overall, 51% (1766/3476) of the evaluated VCs were considered to have similar or even better suitability to assess the main reason for contact, compared to face-to-face consultations. In the presence of relational continuity, VCs were considered equal to or better than face-to-face consultations in 57% (1011/1785) of cases, as opposed to 32% (87/274) when the patient was unknown. The suitability rate for follow-up consultations (episodic continuity) was 61% (1165/1919), compared to 35% (544/1556) for new patient problems. Suitability varied considerably across clinical contact reasons. VCs were found most suitable for anxiety and life stress, depression, and administrative purposes, as well as for longstanding or complex problems that normally require multiple follow-up consultations. The GPs estimate that they will conduct about 20% of their consultations by video in a future, nonpandemic setting.ConclusionsOur study of VCs performed in general practice during the pandemic lockdown indicates a clear future role for VCs in nonpandemic settings. The strong and consistent association between continuity of care and GPs' perceptions of the suitability of VCs is a new and important finding with considerable relevance for future primary health care planning.

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has had far-ranging consequences for general physical and mental health. Country-specific research reveals a general reduction in mental and physical well-being, due to measures undertaken to stop the spread of COVID-19 disease. However, research is yet to examine the impact of the pandemic on global psychological distress and its effects upon vulnerable groups. Exploration of the factors that potentially mediate the relationship between stress and mental health during this period is needed, to assist in undertaking concrete measures to mitigate psychological distress and support vulnerable groups. Therefore, this study examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychological distress globally, and identified factors that may exacerbate decline in mental health. N = 1653 participants (mean age 42.90 ± 13.63 years; 30.3% males) from 63 countries responded to the survey. Depression and anxiety were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire and State Trait Anxiety Inventory, respectively. Other measures included the Perceived Stress Scale, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, 3-item UCLA Loneliness Scale and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Globally, consistently high levels of stress, anxiety, depression and poor sleep were observed regardless of number of COVID-19 cases. Over 70% of the respondents had greater than moderate levels of stress, with 59% meeting the criteria for clinically significant anxiety and 39% reporting moderate depressive symptoms. People with a prior mental health diagnosis experienced greater psychological distress. Poor sleep, lower levels of resilience, younger age and loneliness significantly mediated the links between stress and depression, and stress and anxiety. Age-based differences revealed that younger age-groups were more vulnerable to stress, depression and anxiety symptoms. Results show that these vulnerable individuals need more support. Age-specific interventions for modifiable factors that mediate the psychological distress need to urgently deployed to address the global mental health pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundDue to the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, conventional face-to-face academic conferences have been restricted, and many of these conferences have moved onto the internet.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the virtual conferences in the field of urology during the COVID-19 pandemic and provide suggestions for better organization of such conferences.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 30 to June 15, 2020, in China. Our team designed a 23-item questionnaire to investigate the conferences attended by urologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. SPSS 22.0 (IBM Corporation) was applied to analyze the data collected.ResultsA total of 330 Chinese urologists participated in our survey, and the response rate was 89.7% (330/368). Among the participants, 40.9% (135/330) were associate chief physicians. The proportion of participants who took part in conventional face-to-face academic conferences decreased from 92.7% (306/330) before the COVID-19 pandemic to 22.1% (73/330) during the pandemic (P<.001). In contrast, the proportion of urologists who took part in virtual conferences increased from 69.4% (229/330) to 90% (297/330) (P<.001). Most urologists (70.7%, 210/297) chose to participate in the virtual conferences at home and thought that a meeting length of 1-2 hours was most appropriate. Among the urologists, 73.7% (219/297) reported that their participation in the virtual conferences went smoothly, while the remaining respondents reported that they had experienced lags in video and audio streaming during the virtual conferences. When comparing conventional face-to-face conferences with virtual conferences, 70.7% (210/297) of the respondents thought that both conference formats were acceptable, while 17.9% (53/297) preferred virtual conferences and 11.5% (34/297) preferred conventional face-to-face meetings.ConclusionsVirtual conferences are increasing in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, many aspects of these conferences could be improved for better organization.