Dataset Information

Protocol of the Study on Emergency Health Care Workers' Responses Evaluated by Karasek Questionnaire: The SEEK-Study Protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Stress is a significant public health concern that can be self-evaluated using the job control demands model from Karasek. Emergency health care workers are particularly exposed to stress because of the intrinsic characteristics associated with the job (i.e., life-threatening emergencies, overcrowding, lack of bed spaces). However, these attributes have never been studied using the Karasek model.

Methods

An observational, prospective, multicentric study in French Emergency Departments will be conducted using a cohort of emergency health care workers. Four questionnaires before a control day and after a nightshift will be assessed every 5 years in the same emergency departments. Also, the Karasek questionnaire, a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Maslach Burnout Inventory scale, the Hospital Anxiety, Depression Scale, and a food intake questionnaire will be evaluated. Salivary biomarkers (cortisol, immunoglobulin A, lysozyme) will be collected from every emergency health care worker who consents to participating in the study.

Conclusion

This study will provide a point of care for the emergency health care workers' stress situation every 5 years. Ethics: This protocol was registered in Clinical Trials under the identification NCT02401607 after the French Ethics Committee's approval.

SUBMITTER: Bouillon-Minois JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8069162 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceUninsured people uniquely rely on the emergency department (ED) for care as they are less likely to have access to lower-cost alternatives. Prior work has demonstrated that most uninsured patients are at risk of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) after being hospitalized for life-saving care. The risk of CHE for a single treat-and-release ED visit that does not result in a hospitalization among uninsured patient encounters is currently unknown.ObjectiveTo estimate the overall national risk of CHE among uninsured patients after a single treat-and-release ED visit from 2006 through 2017, and to characterize this risk across key traits.Design setting and populationThis cross-sectional study is based on a nationally representative sample of hospital-based ED visits between 2006 and 2017 in the United States (US) from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS). It examined outpatient ED visits among uninsured patients.Main outcomes and measuresRisk of CHE for ED care defined as an ED charge that exceeds 40% of one's estimated annual post-subsistence income.ResultsFrom 2006 to 2017, there were 41.7 million NEDS encounters that met inclusion criteria for this analysis, equating to a nationally weighted estimate of 184.6 million uninsured treat-and-release ED encounters over this period. The median ED charge for a single treat-and-release encounter grew from $842 in 2006 to $2033 by 2017. Approximately 1 in 5 uninsured patients (18% [95% CI, 18.0%-18.0%]) were at risk of CHE for a single treat-and-release ED visit over the study period. This estimated CHE risk increased from 13.6% (95% CI, 13.6%-13.6%) in 2006 to 22.6% (95% CI, 22.6%-22.7%) in 2017. Those living in the lowest income quartile faced a disproportionate share of this risk, with nearly 1 in 3 (28.5% [95% CI, 28.5%-28.6%]) facing CHE risk in 2017. In 2017, an estimated 3.2 million patient encounters nationally were at risk of CHE after a single treat-and-release ED visit.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional analysis from 2006 to 2017 of 184.6 million uninsured treat-and-release visits found that 1 in 5 uninsured patient encounters are at risk for CHE. This risk has grown over time. Future policies designed to improve access for unscheduled care must consider the unique role of the ED as the de facto safety net and ensure that uninsured patients are not at undue risk of financial harm for seeking care.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care workers are at the front line against COVID-19. The risk of transmission decreases with adequate knowledge of infection prevention methods. However, health care workers reportedly lack a proper attitude and knowledge of different viral outbreaks.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the knowledge and attitude of health care workers in Saudi Arabia toward COVID-19. Assessment of these parameters may help researchers focus on areas that require improvement.MethodsA cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted among 563 participants recruited from multiple cities in Saudi Arabia. An online questionnaire was shared via social media applications, which contained questions to health care workers about general information regarding COVID-19 and standard practices.ResultsThe mean age of the study population was 30.7 (SD 8) years. Approximately 8.3% (47/563) of the health care workers were isolated as suspected cases of COVID-19, and 0.9% (n=5) were found positive. The majority agreed that social distancing, face masks, and hand washing are effective methods for preventing disease transmission. However, only 63.7% (n=359) knew the correct duration of hand washing. Almost 70% (n=394) strictly adhered to hand hygiene practices, but less than half complied with the practice of wearing a face mask. Significant differences in health care workers' attitudes were observed on the basis of their city of residence, their adherence to COVID-19 practices, and their compliance with the use of a face mask. Among the health care workers, 27.2% (n=153) declared that they will isolate themselves at home and take influenza medication if they experience COVID-19 symptoms.ConclusionsThe majority of health care workers in Saudi Arabia presented acceptable levels of general knowledge on COVID-19, but they lack awareness in some crucial details that may prevent disease spread. Intense courses and competency assessments are highly recommended. Prevention of disease progression is the only option for the time being.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Social inequities are widening globally, contributing to growing health and health care inequities. Health inequities are unjust differences in health and well-being between and within groups of people caused by socially structured, and thus avoidable, marginalizing conditions such as poverty and systemic racism. In Canada, such conditions disproportionately affect Indigenous persons, racialized newcomers, those with mental health and substance use issues, and those experiencing interpersonal violence. Despite calls to enhance equity in health care to contribute to improving population health, few studies examine how to achieve equity at the point of care, and the impacts of doing so. Many people facing marginalizing conditions experience inadequate and inequitable treatment in emergency departments (EDs), which makes people less likely to access care, paradoxically resulting in reliance on EDs through delays to care and repeat visits, interfering with effective care delivery and increasing human and financial costs. EDs are key settings with potential for mitigating the impacts of structural conditions and barriers to care linked to health inequities. METHODS:EQUIP is an organizational intervention to promote equity. Building on promising research in primary health care, we are adapting EQUIP to emergency departments, and testing its impact at three geographically and demographically diverse EDs in one Canadian province. A mixed methods multisite design will examine changes in key outcomes including: a) a longitudinal analysis of change over time based on structured assessments of patients and staff, b) an interrupted time series design of administrative data (i.e., staff sick leave, patients who leave without care being completed), c) a process evaluation to assess how the intervention was implemented and the contextual features of the environment and process that are influential for successful implementation, and d) a cost-benefit analysis. DISCUSSION:This project will generate both process- and outcome-based evidence to improve the provision of equity-oriented health care in emergency departments, particularly targeting groups known to be at greatest risk for experiencing the negative impacts of health and health care inequities. The main deliverable is a health equity-enhancing framework, including implementable, measurable interventions, tested, refined and relevant to diverse EDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trials.gov # NCT03369678 (registration date November 18, 2017).

Project description:BackgroundPreliminary country-specific reports suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has a negative impact on the mental health of the healthcare workforce. In this paper, we summarize the protocol of the COVID-19 HEalth caRe wOrkErS (HEROES) study, an ongoing, global initiative, aimed to describe and track longitudinal trajectories of mental health symptoms and disorders among health care workers at different phases of the pandemic across a wide range of countries in Latin America, Europe, Africa, Middle-East, and Asia.MethodsParticipants from various settings, including primary care clinics, hospitals, nursing homes, and mental health facilities, are being enrolled. In 26 countries, we are using a similar study design with harmonized measures to capture data on COVID-19 related exposures and variables of interest during two years of follow-up. Exposures include potential stressors related to working in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as sociodemographic and clinical factors. Primary outcomes of interest include mental health variables such as psychological distress, depressive symptoms, and posttraumatic stress disorders. Other domains of interest include potentially mediating or moderating influences such as workplace conditions, trust in the government, and the country's income level.ResultsAs of August 2021, ~ 34,000 health workers have been recruited. A general characterization of the recruited samples by sociodemographic and workplace variables is presented. Most participating countries have identified several health facilities where they can identify denominators and attain acceptable response rates. Of the 26 countries, 22 are collecting data and 2 plan to start shortly.ConclusionsThis is one of the most extensive global studies on the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, including a variety of countries with diverse economic realities and different levels of severity of pandemic and management. Moreover, unlike most previous studies, we included workers (clinical and non-clinical staff) in a wide range of settings.

Project description:BackgroundIn Finland, school doctors examine all children at predetermined ages in addition to annual health checks by school nurses. This study explored the association of study questionnaire-assessed need for and school doctor-evaluated benefit of routine health checks conducted by doctors.MethodsBetween August 2017 and August 2018, we recruited a random sample of 1341 children in grades 1 and 5 (aged seven and eleven years, respectively) from 21 elementary schools in four Finnish municipalities. Children mainly studying in special education groups or whose parents needed an interpreter were excluded. School nurses performed their health check as usual. Parents, nurses, and teachers then completed study questionnaires that assessed the concerns of parents, school nurses, and teachers regarding each child's physical, mental and social health. Doctors, blinded to the responses, routinely examined all the children. The primary outcome measures were (1) the need for a health check based on the study questionnaires and (2) the benefit/harm of the appointment as estimated by the doctors according to predetermined criteria, and (3) the patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) of benefit/harm of the appointment as estimated by the parents and children. We compared the need for a health check with the doctor-evaluated benefit using multilevel logistic regression.ResultsThe participation rate was 75.5 %. According to all questionnaires, 20-25 % of the 1013 children had no need for a health check. The doctors regarded 410 (40.6 %) and the parents 812 (83.4 %) of the appointments as being beneficial. Respondents rarely reported harm. The children who were classified as needing a health check more often benefitted from the health check (assessed by the doctor) than children with no need for one (OR 3.53; 95 % CI 2.41-5.17).ConclusionsThe need for a health check is an important predictor of school-doctor evaluated benefit of the health check. This approach could allow school doctors to allocate time for the children who need them most.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT03178331, registration June 6th 2017.