Dataset Information

Interventions for the well-being of healthcare workers during a pandemic or other crisis: scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The aim of this scoping review was to identify pre-existing interventions to support the well-being of healthcare workers during a pandemic or other crisis and to assess the quality of these interventions.

Design

Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review framework was used to identify the types of evidence available in the field of well-being interventions for healthcare workers during a pandemic. PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and ERIC databases were searched to find interventions for the well-being of doctors during pandemics. Owing to a lack of results, this search was expanded to all healthcare workers and to include any crisis. Databases were searched in June 2020 and again in October 2020.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Articles were included that studied healthcare workers, reported an intervention design and were specifically designed for use during a pandemic or other crisis. Well-being was defined broadly and could include psychological, physical, social or educational interventions.

Results

Searching produced 10 529 total academic references of which 2062 were duplicates. This left 8467 references. Of these, 16 met our inclusion criteria and were included in data extraction. During data extraction, three more papers were excluded. This left 13 papers to summarise and report. Of these 13 papers, 6 were prospective studies and 7 were purely descriptive. None of the interventions were theoretically informed in their development and the quality of the evidence was generally deemed poor.

Conclusions

There are no high-quality, theory-based interventions for the well-being of healthcare workers during a pandemic or other crisis. Given that previous pandemics have been shown to have a negative effect on healthcare workers well-being, it is imperative this shortcoming is addressed. This scoping review highlights the need for high-quality, theory-based and evidence-based interventions for the well-being of healthcare workers during a pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Cairns P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8375449 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed substantial burdens on clinicians and there is a need to better understand the impact on mental health and well-being. This scoping review investigates the prevalence of mental health concerns in anaesthetists, risk and protective factors for mental well-being, and anaesthetists' pandemic-related concerns and support. We searched online databases for articles published between January 2020 and May 2022, using search terms related to: anaesthesia; burnout, well-being, mental health or stress; and COVID-19. We identified 20 articles comprising 19 different populations of anaesthetists (n = 8680) from 14 countries. Studies identified the prevalence of the following condition in anaesthetists: burnout (14-59%); stress (50-71%); anxiety (11-74%); depression (12-67%); post-traumatic stress (17-25%); psychological distress (52%); and insomnia (17-61%). Significant risk factors for poorer mental health included: direct COVID-19-related issues (fear of self and family exposure to infection; requirement for quarantine); practitioner health factors (insomnia; comorbidities); psychosocial factors (loneliness; isolation; perceived lack of support at home and work); demographic factors (female gender; non-white ethnicity; LGBTQIA+); and workplace factors (redeployment outside area of clinical practice; increased work effort; personal protective equipment shortages). Protective factors identified included: job satisfaction; perceived organisational justice; older age; and male sex. Anaesthetists' self-reported concerns related to: personal protective equipment; resource allocation; fear of infection; fear of financial loss; increased workload; and effective communication of protocols for patient treatment. Support from family, colleagues and hospital management was identified as an important coping mechanism. Findings from this review may support the design of interventions to enhance anaesthetists' psychological health during pandemic conditions and beyond. Future research should include consistent psychological outcome measures and rigorous experimental design beyond cross-sectional studies.

Project description:ObjectivePandemics negatively impact healthcare workers' (HCW's) mental health and well-being causing additional feelings of anxiety, depression, moral distress and post-traumatic stress. A comprehensive review and evidence synthesis of HCW's mental health and well-being interventions through pandemics reporting mental health outcomes was conducted addressing two questions: (1) What mental health support interventions have been reported in recent pandemics, and have they been effective in improving the mental health and well-being of HCWs? (2) Have any mobile apps been designed and implemented to support HCWs' mental health and well-being during pandemics?DesignA narrative evidence synthesis was conducted using Cochrane criteria for synthesising and presenting findings when systematic review and pooling data for statistical analysis are not suitable due to the heterogeneity of the studies.Data sourcesEvidence summary resources, bibliographic databases, grey literature sources, clinical trial registries and protocol registries were searched.Eligibility criteriaSubject heading terms and keywords covering three key concepts were searched: SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (or similar infectious diseases) epidemics, health workforce and mental health support interventions. Searches were limited to English-language items published from 1 January 2000 to 14 June 2022. No publication-type limit was used.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors determined eligibility and extracted data from identified manuscripts. Data was synthesised into tables and refined by coauthors.Results2694 studies were identified and 27 papers were included. Interventions were directed at individuals and/or organisations and most were COVID-19 focused. Interventions had some positive impacts on HCW's mental health and well-being, but variable study quality, low sample sizes and lack of control conditions were limitations. Two mobile apps were identified with mixed outcomes.ConclusionHCW interventions were rapidly designed and implemented with few comprehensively described or evaluated. Tailored interventions that respond to HCWs' needs using experience co-design for mental health and well-being are required with process and outcome evaluation.

Project description:Healthcare workers are at a high risk of psychological morbidity in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is significant variability in the impact of this crisis on individual healthcare workers, which can be best explained through an appreciation of the construct of resilience. Broadly speaking, resilience refers to the ability to successfully adapt to stressful or traumatic events, and thus plays a key role in determining mental health outcomes following exposure to such events. A proper understanding of resilience is vital in enabling a shift from a reactive to a proactive approach for protecting and promoting the mental well-being of healthcare workers. Research in the past decade has identified six areas that provide promising leads in understanding the biological basis of individual variations in resilience. These are: (1) the key role played by the monoamines noradrenaline and serotonin, (2) the centrality of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in influencing stress vulnerability and resilience, (3) the intimate links between the immune system and stress sensitivity, (4) the role of epigenetic modulation of gene expression in influencing the stress response, (5) the role played by certain neuropeptides as a natural "brake" mechanism in the face of stress, and (6) the neurobiological mechanisms by which environmental factors, such as exercise, diet, and social support, influence resilience to subsequent life events. Though much of this research is still in its early stages, it has already provided valuable information on which strategies - including dietary changes, lifestyle modification, environmental modification, psychosocial interventions, and even pharmacological treatments - may prove to be useful in fostering resilience in individuals and groups. This paper examines the above evidence more closely, with a specific focus on the challenges faced by healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and provides suggestions regarding how it may be translated into real-world interventions, as well as how the more tentative hypotheses advanced in this field may be tested during this critical period.

Project description:IntroductionThe work-to-retirement transition involves a process of psychologically and behaviourally distancing oneself from the workforce that is often accompanied by other social changes. The person is confronted with new social roles, expectations, challenges and opportunities that can influence lifestyle and well-being. In the scientific literature, we find recent reports of interventions aimed at improving health and well-being in people at retirement age. However, there is still a gap of knowledge on how different interventions during retirement might improve health status. We intend to conduct a scoping review with the aim of describing interventions for improving well-being across the retirement transition.Methods and analysisThe methodological framework described by Arksey and O'Malley; the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines as well as the Preferred Reporting Items for scoping reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols statements will be followed. Eligibility criteria comprise of: (a) all type of original studies, review articles or reports published on journals as well as grey literature; (b) describing interventions to improve the well-being in adults across their retirement transition; (c) including participants before, during and after retirement; (d) all publications must describe variables associated with participants' physical and/or psychological and/or social well-being and/or perceived quality of life related to these; (e) no language restriction and (f) published from January 2000 to March 2019. The main findings will be summarised using a narrative descriptive synthesis approach and grouped following the population, concept and context principles. A stakeholder meeting will be held to provide feedback on the findings and to develop next steps in research and practice.Ethics and disseminationApproval from a research ethics committee is not required, as no personal information will be collected. We plan to disseminate our research findings at different levels: scientific community, clinical and social arenas, as well as to healthcare leaders and policymakers and general population. The project has been registered at Open Science Framework with the name TRANSITS: work to retirement transition project.

Project description:IntroductionThis study examined the psychological wellbeing of Healthcare Workers (HCWs) during COVID-19 in a mental health setting, associations of psychosocial wellbeing with coping style, and ways that organisations can mitigate the psychosocial burden on HCWs.MethodsThirty-seven Mental HCWs (MHCWs) from infected and non-infected wards (control group), were recruited and assessed at three timepoints. Psychological wellbeing, perceived cohesion, and coping style (Brief-COPE) were assessed. Reports on individual coping and feedback on the organisation were collected through in-depth interview. Comparison between infected and non-infected wards, as well as comparison of psychosocial measures and perceived cohesion, across the three timepoints were made. As there were no significant changes in coping styles across the timepoints, Timepoint 1 (T1) coping style was used to correlate with the psychosocial measures across all timepoints. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative data.ResultsMHCWs from infected wards reported significantly higher levels of stress, χ2(1) = 6.74, p = 0.009, effect size: medium (ε2 = 0.198), and more severe sleep disturbance (PSQI), χ2(1) = 6.20, p = 0.013, effect size: medium (ε2 = 0.182), as compared to the control group at T2. They also engaged in more problem-focused coping (T2 and T3) and emotion-focused coping (T2). As expected, negative coping style was correlated with negative outcomes except problem-focused coping that was correlated with both negative (sleep disturbance and anxiety symptoms) and positive outcomes (wellbeing). Emotion-focused coping was moderately correlated (Tb = 0.348, p<0.017) with higher levels of wellbeing at T2. Thematic analyses revealed MHCWs felt supported by the responsiveness of the institution, emotional and informational support, and the availability from direct leaders, presence of team and hospital leaders on the ground, helped build trust and confidence in the leadership.ConclusionsMHCWs experienced significantly higher levels of stress and sleep disturbance during COVID-19. The ways that organizations can offset the psychological burden of pandemics on MHCWs are discussed.