Dataset Information

Protective and Risk Factors for Medical and Nursing Staff Suffering From Psychological Symptoms During COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: Background: With the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic in China, the general public but also medical staff were confronted with psychological challenges, suffering from the highly infectious and unknown characteristics of COVID-19. In this study, we surveyed psychological symptoms including anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders in medical staff. Method: A questionnaire star/WeChat link-based survey assessing the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression, the Insomnia Severity Index, Social Support scales in addition to lifestyle, and income level was conducted and included 8,288 medical staff from 24 provinces in China. Pearson Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to evaluate single risk factors and significant differences in psychological symptoms before and during the outbreak of COVID-19. Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for the risk factors of anxiety, depression, and sleep disorder symptoms. Results: Medical staff had a high incidence of psychological symptoms, which was more prominent during the COVID-19 epidemic. Comparatively, females, nurses, first-line department, never exercised, and low income were risk factors for psychological symptoms. Social support including objective support, subjective support, support utility, and regular sports over 3 times per week were protective and manageable elements that could protect from and manage the psychological symptoms of medical staff. Conclusion: The susceptibility of psychological symptoms among medical staff should be of concern to policymakers and the public in the long-term, and the aggravation of mental health problems of medical staff could be eased by providing adequate social support during and after the COVID-19 outbreak.

SUBMITTER: Luo H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8086510 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 caused panic and psychological stress throughout the World. We investigated the extent of adverse psychological reactions in two medical staff groups in China, and explored the importance of online psychological assistance for them. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey including Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) was utilized to assess anxiety, depression, and insomnia. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to match sex and age between the two groups. Differences in the prevalence of adverse psychological reactions between the two groups were compared by a Chi-square test. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was utilized to search for associated adverse psychological reaction factors of two groups. Results: A total of 2,920 medical staff took part in the survey, including 470 frontline and 2,450 non-frontline medical staff. The risk of the frontline group experiencing anxiety, depression, insomnia-early, insomnia-middle, and insomnia-late were 1.16, 1.28, 1.26, 1.22, 1.28 times those of the non-frontline group after PSM. For frontline medical staff, the spinsterhood state (OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.00-1.51; P = 0.05) was a risk factor for anxiety. Bachelor or college degree (OR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.24-4.02, P = 0.01) and a contact history with COVID-19 patients (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.10-2.40; P = 0.02) were risk factors for insomnia. For non-frontline medical staff, being a woman (OR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.08-2.06, P = 0.01) was a risk factor for anxiety, whilst being in a middle age group was a protective factor for anxiety (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.50-0.99, P = 0.04) and depression (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45-0.93, P = 0.02). Being a woman (OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.14-1.89, P = 0.003) and working in a COVID-19 unit (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.11-1.54, P = 0.001) were risk factors for insomnia, whilst the spinsterhood state (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67-0.95; P = 0.01) was a protective factor for insomnia. Online forms of psychological aid were all popular with medical staff. Conclusions: The prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia in frontline medical staff was significantly higher than in the non-frontline group. Appropriate intervention methods should be adopted according to the different influencing factors of the two groups. Online psychological aid was the preferred mechanism for relieving psychological problems.

Project description:BackgroundA large portion of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the United States have occurred in nursing homes; however, current literature including the frontline perspective of staff working in nursing homes is limited. The objective of this qualitative assessment was to better understand what individual and facility level factors may have contributed to the impact of COVID-19 on Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) and Environmental Services (EVS) staff working in nursing homes.MethodsBased on a simple random sample from the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), 7,520 facilities were emailed invitations requesting one CNA and/or one EVS staff member for participation in a voluntary focus group over Zoom. Facility characteristics were obtained via NHSN and publicly available sources; participant demographics were collected via SurveyMonkey during registration and polling during focus groups. Qualitative information was coded using NVIVO and Excel.ResultsThroughout April 2021, 23 focus groups including 110 participants from 84 facilities were conducted homogenous by participant role. Staffing problems were a recurring theme reported. Participants often cited the toll the pandemic took on their emotional well-being, describing increased stress, responsibilities, and time needed to complete their jobs. The lack of consistent and systematic guidance resulting in frequently changing infection prevention protocols was also reported across focus groups.ConclusionsAddressing concerns of low wages and lack of financial incentives may have the potential to attract and retain employees to help alleviate nursing home staff shortages. Additionally, access to mental health resources could help nursing home staff cope with the emotional burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. These frontline staff members provided invaluable insight and should be included in improvement efforts to support nursing homes recovering from the impact of COVID-19 as well as future pandemic planning.

Project description:BackgroundAfter the first of three COVID-19 vaccination clinics in U.S. nursing homes (NHs), the median vaccination coverage of staff was 37.5%, indicating the need to identify strategies to increase staff coverage. We aimed at comparing the facility-level activities, policies, incentives, and communication methods associated with higher staff COVID-19 vaccination coverage.MethodsDesign. Case-control analysis.SettingNationally stratified random sample of 1338 U.S. NHs participating in the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program.ParticipantsNursing home leadership.MeasurementDuring February 4-March 2, 2021, we surveyed NHs with low (<35%), medium (40%-60%), and high (>75%) staff vaccination coverage, to collect information on facility strategies used to encourage staff vaccination. Cases were respondents with medium and high vaccination coverage, whereas controls were respondents with low coverage. We used logistic regression modeling, adjusted for county and NH characteristics, to identify strategies associated with facility-level vaccination coverage.ResultsWe obtained responses from 413 of 1338 NHs (30.9%). Compared with facilities with lower staff vaccination coverage, facilities with medium or high coverage were more likely to have designated frontline staff champions (medium: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.6, 95% CI 1.3-10.3; high: aOR 2.9, 95% CI 1.1-7.7) and set vaccination goals (medium: aOR 2.4, 95% 1.0-5.5; high: aOR 3.7, 95% CI 1.6-8.3). NHs with high vaccination coverage were more likely to have given vaccinated staff rewards such as T-shirts compared with NHs with low coverage (aOR 3.8, 95% CI 1.3-11.0). Use of multiple strategies was associated with greater likelihood of facilities having medium or high vaccination coverage: For example, facilities that used ≥9 strategies were three times more likely to have high staff vaccination coverage than facilities using <6 strategies (aOR 3.3, 95% CI 1.2-8.9).ConclusionsUse of designated champions, setting targets, and use of non-monetary awards were associated with high NH staff COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

Dataset Information

Protective and Risk Factors for Medical and Nursing Staff Suffering From Psychological Symptoms During COVID-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure