Dataset Information

Psychological distress and trauma in doctors providing frontline care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom and Ireland: a prospective longitudinal survey cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctors is a significant concern. Due to the emergence of multiple pandemic waves, longitudinal data on the impact of COVID-19 are vital to ensure an adequate psychological care response. The primary aim was to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma in frontline doctors during the acceleration, peak and deceleration of the COVID-19 first wave. Personal and professional factors associated with psychological distress are also reported.

Design

A prospective online three-part longitudinal survey.

Setting

Acute hospitals in the UK and Ireland.

Participants

Frontline doctors working in emergency medicine, anaesthetics and intensive care medicine during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

Primary outcome measures

Psychological distress and trauma measured using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the Impact of Events-Revised.

Results

The initial acceleration survey distributed across networks generated a sample of 5440 doctors. Peak and deceleration response rates from the original sample were 71.6% (n=3896) and 56.6% (n=3079), respectively. Prevalence of psychological distress was 44.7% (n=1334) during the acceleration, 36.9% (n=1098) at peak and 31.5% (n=918) at the deceleration phase. The prevalence of trauma was 23.7% (n=647) at peak and 17.7% (n=484) at deceleration. The prevalence of probable post-traumatic stress disorder was 12.6% (n=343) at peak and 10.1% (n=276) at deceleration. Worry of family infection due to clinical work was the factor most strongly associated with both distress (R²=0.06) and trauma (R²=0.10).

Conclusion

Findings reflect a pattern of elevated distress at acceleration and peak, with some natural recovery. It is essential that policymakers seek to prevent future adverse effects through (a) provision of vital equipment to mitigate physical and psychological harm, (b) increased awareness and recognition of signs of psychological distress and (c) the development of clear pathways to effective psychological care.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN10666798.

SUBMITTER: Roberts T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8275363 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHow population mental health has evolved across the COVID-19 pandemic under varied lockdown measures is poorly understood, and the consequences for health inequalities are unclear.ObjectiveTo investigate changes in mental health and sociodemographic inequalities from before and across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in 11 longitudinal studies.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included adult participants from 11 UK longitudinal population-based studies with prepandemic measures of psychological distress. Analyses were coordinated across these studies, and estimates were pooled. Data were collected from 2006 to 2021.ExposuresTrends in the prevalence of poor mental health were assessed in the prepandemic period (time period 0 [TP 0]) and at 3 pandemic TPs: 1, initial lockdown (March to June 2020); 2, easing of restrictions (July to October 2020); and 3, a subsequent lockdown (November 2020 to March 2021). Analyses were stratified by sex, race and ethnicity, education, age, and UK country.Main outcomes and measuresMultilevel regression was used to examine changes in psychological distress from the prepandemic period across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological distress was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire, the Kessler 6, the 9-item Malaise Inventory, the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, the 8-item or 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression across different studies.ResultsIn total, 49 993 adult participants (12 323 [24.6%] aged 55-64 years; 32 741 [61.2%] women; 4960 [8.7%] racial and ethnic minority) were analyzed. Across the 11 studies, mental health deteriorated from prepandemic scores across all 3 pandemic periods, but there was considerable heterogeneity across the study-specific estimated effect sizes (pooled estimate for TP 1: standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.06-0.25; TP 2: SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.27; TP 3: SMD, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.32). Changes in psychological distress across the pandemic were higher in women (TP 3: SMD, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11, 0.35) than men (TP 3: SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.26) and lower in individuals with below-degree level education at TP 3 (SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.30) compared with those who held degrees (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.38). Increased psychological distress was most prominent among adults aged 25 to 34 years (SMD, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.14-0.84) and 35 to 44 years (SMD, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.10-0.60) compared with other age groups. No evidence of changes in distress differing by race and ethnicity or UK country were observed.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, the substantial deterioration in mental health seen in the UK during the first lockdown did not reverse when lockdown lifted, and a sustained worsening was observed across the pandemic period. Mental health declines have been unequal across the population, with women, those with higher degrees, and those aged 25 to 44 years more affected than other groups.

Project description:BackgroundPrior evidence links posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, separately, with chronic inflammation. However, whether effects are similar across each independently or potentiated when both are present is understudied. We evaluated combined measures of PTSD and depression in relation to inflammatory biomarker concentrations.MethodsData are from women (n's ranging 628-2797) in the Nurses' Health Study II. Trauma exposure, PTSD, and depression symptoms were ascertained using validated questionnaires. We examined (a) a continuous combined psychological distress score summing symptoms for PTSD and depression, and (b) a categorical cross-classified measure of trauma/PTSD symptoms/depressed mood status (reference group: no trauma or depressed mood). Three inflammatory biomarkers (C-reactive protein [CRP], interleukin-6 [IL-6], tumor necrosis factor alpha receptor 2 [TNFR2]) were assayed from at least one of two blood samples collected 10-16 years apart. We examined associations of our exposures with levels of each biomarker concentration (log-transformed and batch-corrected) as available across the two time points (cross-sectional analyses; CRP, IL-6 and TNFR2) and with rate of change in biomarkers across time (longitudinal analyses; CRP and IL-6) using separate linear mixed effects models.ResultsIn sociodemographic-adjusted models accounting for trauma exposure, a one standard deviation increase in the continuous combined psychological distress score was associated with 10.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 5.2-15.4%) higher CRP and 1.5% (95% CI: 0.5-2.5%) higher TNFR2 concentrations cross-sectionally. For the categorical exposure, women with trauma/PTSD symptoms/ depressed mood versus those with no trauma or depressed mood had 29.5% (95% CI: 13.3-47.9%) higher CRP and 13.1% (95% CI: 5.1-21.7%) higher IL-6 cross-sectionally. In longitudinal analysis, trauma/PTSD symptoms/depressed mood was associated with increasing CRP levels over time.ConclusionsHigh psychological distress levels with trauma exposure is associated with elevated inflammation and is a potential biologic pathway by which distress can impact development of inflammatory-related chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease. Considering multiple forms of distress in relation to these pathways may provide greater insight into who is at risk for biologic dysregulation and later susceptibility to chronic diseases.

Project description:The coronavirus pandemic has necessitated extraordinary human resilience in order to preserve and prolong life and social order. Risks to health and even life are being confronted by workers in health and social care, as well as those in roles previously never defined as "frontline," such as individuals working in community supply chain sectors. The strategy adopted by the United Kingdom (UK) government in facing the challenges of the pandemic was markedly different from other countries. The present study set out to examine what variables were associated with resilience, burnout, and wellbeing in all sectors of frontline workers, and whether or not these differed between the UK and Republic of Ireland (RoI). Individuals were eligible if they were a frontline worker (in health and social care, community supply chain, or other emergency services) in the UK or RoI during the pandemic. Part of a larger, longitudinal study, the participants completed an online survey to assess various aspects of their daily and working lives, along with their attitudes toward their government's handling of the crisis, and measurement of psychological variables associated with heroism (altruism, meaning in life, and resilient coping). A total of 1,305 participants (N = 869, 66.6% from the UK) provided sufficient data for analysis. UK-based workers reported lower wellbeing than the RoI-based participants. In multivariate models, both psychological and pandemic-related variables were associated with levels of resilience, burnout, and wellbeing in these workers, but which pandemic-related variables were associated with outcomes differed depending on the country. The judgment of lower timeliness in their government's response to the pandemic appeared to be a key driver of each outcome for the UK-based frontline workers. These findings provide initial evidence that the different strategies adopted by each country may be associated with the overall wellbeing of frontline workers, with higher detriment observed in the UK. The judgment of the relatively slow response of the UK government to instigate their pandemic measures appears to be associated with lower resilience, higher burnout, and lower wellbeing in frontline workers in the UK.

Project description:BackgroundPediatric disorders include a range of highly penetrant, genetically heterogeneous conditions amenable to genomewide diagnostic approaches. Finding a molecular diagnosis is challenging but can have profound lifelong benefits.MethodsWe conducted a large-scale sequencing study involving more than 13,500 families with probands with severe, probably monogenic, difficult-to-diagnose developmental disorders from 24 regional genetics services in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Standardized phenotypic data were collected, and exome sequencing and microarray analyses were performed to investigate novel genetic causes. We developed an iterative variant analysis pipeline and reported candidate variants to clinical teams for validation and diagnostic interpretation to inform communication with families. Multiple regression analyses were performed to evaluate factors affecting the probability of diagnosis.ResultsA total of 13,449 probands were included in the analyses. On average, we reported 1.0 candidate variant per parent-offspring trio and 2.5 variants per singleton proband. Using clinical and computational approaches to variant classification, we made a diagnosis in approximately 41% of probands (5502 of 13,449). Of 3599 probands in trios who received a diagnosis by clinical assertion, approximately 76% had a pathogenic de novo variant. Another 22% of probands (2997 of 13,449) had variants of uncertain significance in genes that were strongly linked to monogenic developmental disorders. Recruitment in a parent-offspring trio had the largest effect on the probability of diagnosis (odds ratio, 4.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16 to 5.31). Probands were less likely to receive a diagnosis if they were born extremely prematurely (i.e., 22 to 27 weeks' gestation; odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.68), had in utero exposure to antiepileptic medications (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.67), had mothers with diabetes (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.67), or were of African ancestry (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.78).ConclusionsAmong probands with severe, probably monogenic, difficult-to-diagnose developmental disorders, multimodal analysis of genomewide data had good diagnostic power, even after previous attempts at diagnosis. (Funded by the Health Innovation Challenge Fund and Wellcome Sanger Institute.).