Dataset Information

COVID-19 survey burden for health care workers: literature review and audit.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Concerns have been raised about the quantity and quality of research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly related to the mental health and wellbeing of health care workers (HCWs). For understanding the volume, source, methodological rigour and degree of overlap in COVID-19, studies were conducted among HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK).

Study design

Mixed methods approach, literature review and audit.

Methods

First, a literature review of published research studies and second, an audit of studies HCWs have been invited to complete. For the literature review, we searched Medline, PsycINFO and Nexis, webpages of three medical organisations (Royal Society of Medicine, Royal College of Nursing and British Medical Association), and the YouGov website. For the audit, a non-random purposive sample of six HCWs from different London NHS Trusts reviewed email, WhatsApp and SMS messages they received for study invitations.

Results

The literature review identified 27 studies; the audit identified 70 study invitations. Studies identified by the literature review were largely of poor methodological rigour: only eight studies (30%) provided response rate, one study (4%) reported having ethical approval, and one study (4%) reported funding details. There was substantial overlap in the topics measured. In the audit, volunteers received a median of 12 invitations. The largest number of study invitations were for national surveys (n = 23), followed by local surveys (n = 16) and research surveys (n = 8).

Conclusion

HCWs have been asked to complete numerous surveys that frequently have methodological shortcomings and overlapping aims. Many studies do not follow scientific good-practice and generate questionable, non-generalisable results.

SUBMITTER: Gnanapragasam SN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8148427 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the high efficacy of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), rare breakthrough infections have been reported, including infections among health care workers. Data are needed to characterize these infections and define correlates of breakthrough and infectivity.MethodsAt the largest medical center in Israel, we identified breakthrough infections by performing extensive evaluations of health care workers who were symptomatic (including mild symptoms) or had known infection exposure. These evaluations included epidemiologic investigations, repeat reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays, antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT), serologic assays, and genomic sequencing. Correlates of breakthrough infection were assessed in a case-control analysis. We matched patients with breakthrough infection who had antibody titers obtained within a week before SARS-CoV-2 detection (peri-infection period) with four to five uninfected controls and used generalized estimating equations to predict the geometric mean titers among cases and controls and the ratio between the titers in the two groups. We also assessed the correlation between neutralizing antibody titers and N gene cycle threshold (Ct) values with respect to infectivity.ResultsAmong 1497 fully vaccinated health care workers for whom RT-PCR data were available, 39 SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections were documented. Neutralizing antibody titers in case patients during the peri-infection period were lower than those in matched uninfected controls (case-to-control ratio, 0.361; 95% confidence interval, 0.165 to 0.787). Higher peri-infection neutralizing antibody titers were associated with lower infectivity (higher Ct values). Most breakthrough cases were mild or asymptomatic, although 19% had persistent symptoms (>6 weeks). The B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant was found in 85% of samples tested. A total of 74% of case patients had a high viral load (Ct value, <30) at some point during their infection; however, of these patients, only 17 (59%) had a positive result on concurrent Ag-RDT. No secondary infections were documented.ConclusionsAmong fully vaccinated health care workers, the occurrence of breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 was correlated with neutralizing antibody titers during the peri-infection period. Most breakthrough infections were mild or asymptomatic, although persistent symptoms did occur.

Project description:BackgroundThe literature shows the negative psychological impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on frontline healthcare workers. However, few are known about the mental health of physicians and nurses working in general hospitals during the outbreak, caring for patients with COVID-19 or not.ObjectivesThis survey assessed differences in mental health in physicians and nurses working in COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 medical care units.DesignA cross-sectional mixed-mode survey was used to assess burnout, insomnia, depression, anxiety, and stress.SettingA total of 1,244 physicians and nurses from five general hospitals in Belgium, working in COVID-19 care units (CCU), non-COVID-19 care units (NCCU), or both (CCU + NCCU) were informed of the study.ParticipantsSix hundred forty-seven healthcare workers participated in the survey (response rate = 52%).MeasurementsValidated instruments were used to assess the outcomes: the PFI (burnout/professional fulfillment), the ISI (insomnia), and the DASS-21 (depression, anxiety, and stress).ResultsResults showed high prevalence of burnout, insomnia, depression, and anxiety among participants. After adjusting for confounders, multivariate analysis of variance showed no differences between CCU, NCCU, and CCU + NCCU workers. Univariate general linear models showed higher level of burnout, insomnia, and anxiety among nurses in comparison to physicians. Being a nurse, young, isolated, with an increased workload were risk factors for worse mental health outcomes.LimitationsThe mental health of the tested sample, before the outbreak, is unknown. Moreover, this cross-sectional design provides no information on the evolution of the mental health outcomes over time.ConclusionDirectly caring for patients with COVID-19 is not associated with worse mental health outcomes among healthcare workers in general hospitals. High prevalence of burnout, insomnia, depression, and anxiety among physicians and nurses requires special attention, and specific interventions need to be implemented.Protocol registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04344145.