Dataset Information

Role of access to personal protective equipment, treatment prioritization decisions, and changes in job functions on health workers' mental health outcomes during the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the initial COVID-19 outbreak, organizational changes were required to ensure adequate staffing in healthcare facilities. The extent to which organizational changes impacted the mental wellbeing of healthcare workers (HCWs) remains unexplored. Here we analyzed the association between three work-related stressors (reported access to protective equipment, change in job functions, and patient prioritization decision-making) and mental health outcomes (depression symptoms, psychological distress, suicidal thoughts, and fear of infection) in a large sample of Spanish HCWs during the initial COVID-19 outbreak.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study including HCWs from three regions of Spain between April 24th and June 22nd, 2020. An online survey measured sociodemographic characteristics, work-related stressors, fear of infection, and mental health outcomes (depression [PHQ-9], psychological distress [GHQ-12], death wishes [C-SSRS]). We conducted mixed-effects regression models to adjust all associations for relevant individual- and region-level sources of confounding.

Results

We recruited 2,370 HCWs. Twenty-seven percent screened positive for depression and 74% for psychological distress. Seven percent reported death wishes. Respondents were more afraid of infecting their loved ones than of getting infected themselves. All work-related stressors were associated with depression symptoms and psychological distress in adjusted models.

Limitations

Non-probabilistic sampling, potential reverse causation.

Conclusions

Modifiable work-related stressors are associated with worse mental health among HCWs. Our results suggest that workplace prevention strategies for HCWs should provide sufficient protective equipment, minimize changes in job functions, favor the implementation of criteria for patient triage and on-call bioethics committees, and facilitate access to stepped-care, evidence-based mental health treatment.

SUBMITTER: Mediavilla R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8403068 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Ebola virus disease (EVD) health facility transmission can result in infection and death of health workers. The World Health Organization (WHO) supports countries in preparing for and responding to public health emergencies, which often require developing new guidance in short timelines with scarce evidence. The objective of this study was to understand frontline physicians' and nurses' perspectives about personal protective equipment (PPE) use during the 2014-2016 EVD outbreak in West Africa and to incorporate these findings into the development process of a WHO rapid advice guideline. Methods : We surveyed frontline physicians and nurses deployed to West Africa between March and September of 2014. Results: We developed the protocol, obtained ethics approval, delivered the survey, analysed the data and presented the findings as part of the evidence-to-decision tables at the expert panel meeting where the recommendations were formulated within eight weeks. Forty-four physicians and nurses responded to the survey. They generally felt at low or extremely low risk of virus transmission with all types of PPE used. Eye protection reduced the ability to provide care, mainly due to impaired visibility because of fogging. Heat and dehydration were a major issue for 76% of the participants using goggles and for 64% using a hood. Both gowns and coveralls were associated with significant heat stress and dehydration. Most participants (59%) were very confident that they were using PPE correctly. Conclusion : Our study demonstrated that it was possible to incorporate primary data on end-users' preferences into a rapid advice guideline for a public health emergency in difficult field conditions. Health workers perceived a balance between transmission protection and ability to care for patients effectively while wearing PPE. These findings were used by the guideline development expert panel to formulate WHO recommendations on PPE for frontline providers caring for EVD patients in outbreak conditions.

Project description:SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus with high infectivity and has caused dramatic pressure on health systems all over the world. Appropriate personal protection for medical staffs is critical. For ocular protection, there is ongoing hot debate and concern for potential ocular transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Ocular manifestations and positive detection of viral RNA in ocular samples were only reported in very small number of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, health care workers need to face patients more closely and have higher risk of aerosol contamination. Thus, appropriate ocular protection for medical workers is still recommended by organizations such as WHO and American Academy of Ophthalmology. Although eye goggles provide excellent protection and are mandatory for medical practitioners with high risk of exposure, they are not ideal for common clinical practice, because they can disturb vision due to extensive formation of water droplets and frequently cause moderate to severe discomfort after longtime wearing, which have been reported to interfere with working status. For the majority of medical workers who don't deal with high risk patients, they are not advised to wear goggles in daily practice. However, they also face the risk of infection due to the presence of asymptomatic carriers. Especially in situations with high risk of ocular exposure, such as close physical examination, eye surgery, dental clinics and surgery, ocular protection may be needed. Griffithsin has been shown to directly bind to spike proteins and has anti-viral activity against a broad spectrum of viruses, including coronavirus. Griffithsin is found to inhibit the entry of SARS-CoV at relatively low concentration and is stable and non-toxic. SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV share the same entry receptors and their spike proteins are similar in conformation. We hypothesize that contact lenses containing nanoparticles loaded with griffithsin may provide sufficient ocular protection for medical staffs without high risk of exposure during the outbreak period of SARS-CoV-2. If proven effective, griffithsin-loaded contact lens can be considered as a supplementary ocular protective equipment for medical workers who can tolerate well. The daily disposable contact lens should be applied as needed and refrain from extended wearing in order to reduce potential side effects.

Project description:In this paper, we examine the cost effectiveness of investment in personal protective equipment (PPE) for protecting health care workers (HCWs) against two infectious diseases: Ebola virus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This builds on similar work published for COVID-19 in 2020. We developed two separate decision-analytic models using a payer perspective to compare the costs and effects of multiple PPE use scenarios for protection of HCW against Ebola and MRSA. Bayesian multivariate sensitivity analyses were used to consider the uncertainty surrounding all key parameters for both diseases. We estimate the cost to provide adequate PPE for a HCW encounter with an Ebola patient is $13.04, which is associated with a 97% risk reduction in infections. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $3.98 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Because of lowered infection and disability rates, this investment is estimated to save $132.27 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 1,014%. For MRSA, the cost of adequate PPE for one HCW encounter is $0.88, which is associated with a 53% risk reduction in infections. The mean ICER is $362.14 per DALY averted. This investment is estimated to save $20.18 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 2,294%. In terms of total health savings per death averted, investing in adequate PPE is the dominant strategy for Ebola and MRSA, suggesting that it is both more costly and less clinically optimal to not fully invest in PPE for these diseases. There are many compelling reasons to invest in PPE to protect HCWs. This analysis examines the economic case, building on previous evidence that protecting HCWs with PPE is cost-effective for COVD-19. Ebola and MRSA scenarios were selected to allow assessment of both endemic and epidemic infectious diseases. While PPE is cost-effective for both conditions, compared to our analysis for COVID-19, PPE is relatively more cost-effective for Ebola and relatively less so for MRSA. Further research is needed to assess shortfalls in the PPE supply chain identified during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure an efficient and resilient supply in the face of future pandemics.

Project description:ObjectivesEffective implementation of prevention and control actions by health professionals is substantial to contain the deadly COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, this study aimed to assess health care worker's practice of using personal protective equipment and psychological preparedness against the COVID-19 pandemic in Eastern Ethiopia.MethodsA facility-based cross-sectional study design was used. The health care workers (HCW) who were working in the selected health facilities were randomly selected. Variables that had p-value of < 0.15 were transformed to multivariable logistic regression model. Finally, the significance level was declared at the p-value < 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsA total of 418 HCWs were randomly selected and included in this study. The study participants mean age was 27.96 years with a ±5.6SD. HCWs who were male (adjusted odds ratio(AOR) = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.29-3.79), regularly using sanitizer, accessing COVID-19 management guideline (AOR = 2.83, 95% CI: 1.46-5.47), trained on COVID-19 prevention methods (AOR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.4-4.7), hopeless of eventually getting COVID-19 at workplace (AOR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.13-3.28), and feeling unsafe at work when using standard precautions (AOR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.27-0.79) were associated with good PPE using compared to their counterparts. Moreover, nursing/midwifery professionals practiced good personal protective equipment compared to physicians (AOR = 3.7, 95% CI: 1.8-7.7).ConclusionThe study demonstrated that being a male, being a nurse/midwifery, regularly sanitizing hands/medical equipment, having COVID-19 management guidelines, trained on COVID-19, and feeling of eventually getting COVID-19 at workplace had a positive association with PPE utilization. Besides, the study revealed that not feeling safe at work when using standard precautions was negatively associated with PPE utilization of HCWs. Therefore, the prevention priorities should be given to frontline HCWs by providing all possible support and strictly implementing the prevention and control guidelines of COVID-19 to prevent the health system from collapse.