Dataset Information

Experiences of frontline healthcare workers and their views about support during COVID-19 and previous pandemics: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Healthcare workers across the world have risen to the demands of treating COVID-19 patients, potentially at significant cost to their own health and wellbeing. There has been increasing recognition of the potential mental health impact of COVID-19 on frontline workers and calls to provide psychosocial support for them. However, little attention has so far been paid to understanding the impact of working on a pandemic from healthcare workers' own perspectives or what their views are about support.

Methods

We searched key healthcare databases (Medline, PsychINFO and PubMed) from inception to September 28, 2020. We also reviewed relevant grey literature, screened pre-print servers and hand searched reference lists of key texts for all published accounts of healthcare workers' experiences of working on the frontline and views about support during COVID-19 and previous pandemics/epidemics. We conducted a meta-synthesis of all qualitative results to synthesise findings and develop an overarching set of themes and sub-themes which captured the experiences and views of frontline healthcare workers across the studies.

Results

This review identified 46 qualitative studies which explored healthcare workers' experiences and views from pandemics or epidemics including and prior to COVID-19. Meta-synthesis derived eight key themes which largely transcended temporal and geographical boundaries. Participants across all the studies were deeply concerned about their own and/or others' physical safety. This was greatest in the early phases of pandemics and exacerbated by inadequate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), insufficient resources, and inconsistent information. Workers struggled with high workloads and long shifts and desired adequate rest and recovery. Many experienced stigma. Healthcare workers' relationships with families, colleagues, organisations, media and the wider public were complicated and could be experienced concomitantly as sources of support but also sources of stress.

Conclusions

The experiences of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic are not unprecedented; the themes that arose from previous pandemics and epidemics were remarkably resonant with what we are hearing about the impact of COVID-19 globally today. We have an opportunity to learn from the lessons of previous crises, mitigate the negative mental health impact of COVID-19 and support the longer-term wellbeing of the healthcare workforce worldwide.

SUBMITTER: Billings J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8419805 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a well-documented negative impact on the mental health and wellbeing of frontline healthcare workers (HCWs). Whilst no research has to date been carried out to explore the challenges experienced by the families of HCWs, some previous research has been conducted with military families, demonstrating that family members of deployed military personnel may also be affected seriously and negatively.ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore the experiences, views, and mental health impact on frontline HCWs' families during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK and what support the families of frontline HCWs may need.MethodClose family members and friends of HCWs were interviewed. Transcripts were analysed in line with the principles of reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsWe completed fourteen interviews with three siblings, one mother, one friend, and nine spouses of HCWs. Family members were highly motivated to support healthcare workers and felt an intense sense of pride in their work. However, they also experienced increased domestic responsibilities and emotional burden due to anxiety about their loved ones' work. The fact that sacrifices made by family members were not noticed by society, the anxiety they felt about their family's physical health, the impact of hearing about traumatic experiences, and the failure of healthcare organisations to meet the needs of the HCWs all negatively affected the family members.ConclusionsWe have an ethical responsibility to attend to the experiences and needs of the families of healthcare professionals. This study emphasises the experiences and needs of family members of healthcare professionals, which have hitherto been missing from the literature. Further research is needed to hear from more parents, siblings and friends, partners in same sex relationships, as well as children of HCWs, to explore the variety of family members and supporters' experiences more fully.Highlights• COVID19 has impacted families of HCWs as well as workers themselves. They have experienced more anxiety, increased practical burden, significant physical health risks and been exposed vicariously to workers' traumatic experiences. We must ensure HCW families are better supported.

Project description:ObjectivesTo report frontline healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. To understand HCWs' fears and concerns surrounding PPE, their experiences following its guidance and how these affected their perceived ability to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignA rapid qualitative appraisal study combining three sources of data: semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with frontline HCWs (n=46), media reports (n=39 newspaper articles and 145 000 social media posts) and government PPE policies (n=25).ParticipantsInterview participants were HCWs purposively sampled from critical care, emergency and respiratory departments as well as redeployed HCWs from primary, secondary and tertiary care centres across the UK.ResultsA major concern was running out of PPE, putting HCWs and patients at risk of infection. Following national level guidance was often not feasible when there were shortages, leading to reuse and improvisation of PPE. Frequently changing guidelines generated confusion and distrust. PPE was reserved for high-risk secondary care settings and this translated into HCWs outside these settings feeling inadequately protected. Participants were concerned about differential access to adequate PPE, particularly for women and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic HCWs. Participants continued delivering care despite the physical discomfort, practical problems and communication barriers associated with PPE use.ConclusionThis study found that frontline HCWs persisted in caring for their patients despite multiple challenges including inappropriate provision of PPE, inadequate training and inconsistent guidance. In order to effectively care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline HCWs need appropriate provision of PPE, training in its use as well as comprehensive and consistent guidance. These needs must be addressed in order to protect the health and well-being of the most valuable healthcare resource in the COVID-19 pandemic: our HCWs.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare systems and healthcare workers (HCWs) faced significant demands and unique challenges. In this qualitative study, we explore the effects of the COVID-19 public health policies on British Columbia's frontline HCWs, describe what worked in the management of the pandemic, and elucidate the lessons learned that could be applied to future pandemic preparedness, recovery and response.MethodsThis qualitative descriptive study is part of a larger, national multi-case study on pandemic policy communication and uptake. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from November 2020- June 2021 with fourteen HCWs working in long-term care (LTC), acute care and public health settings. Data were inductively coded, and analyzed following a resilience framework for public health emergency preparedness, which emphasizes the essential elements of a public health system, vital to all phases of health emergency management, readiness, response and recovery.ResultsHCWs experienced confusion, frustration, uncertainty, anxiety, fatigue and stress, during the pandemic and detailed challenges that affected policy implementation. This included communication and coordination inconsistencies between the province and regional health authorities; lack of involvement of frontline staff in pandemic planning; inadequate training and support; inadequate personal protective equipment resource capacity and mobilization; and staffing shortages. HCWs recommended increased collaboration between frontline staff and policy makers, investment in preparing and practicing pandemic plans, and the need for training in emergency management and infection prevention and control.ConclusionsPandemic planning, response and recovery should include inputs from actors/key stakeholders at the provincial, regional and local levels, to facilitate better coordination, communication and outcomes. Also, given the critical roles of frontline HCWs in policy implementation, they should be adequately supported and consideration must be given to how they interpret and act on policies. Bi-directional communication channels should be incorporated between policymakers and frontline HCWs to verify the appropriate adoption of policies, reflective learning, and to ensure policy limitations are being communicated and acted upon by policy makers.

Project description:BackgroundOver the past decade, global health policy has increased its focus on measures to halt further increase in tuberculosis (TB) incidence and management of diabetes mellitus (DM). However, the vertical management of these two diseases have not achieved much in addressing the adverse effects of the rising tuberculosis-diabetes co-epidemic. This necessitated the World Health Organisation and the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease to develop a framework to manage this dual disease burden. TB-DM co-epidemic is a public health concern in Ghana, adversely threatening the country's fragile health systems. Since frontline healthcare workers are critical in health policy implementation, this study used Lipsky's theoretical framework of street-level bureaucracy to explore their experiences in implementing the collaborative framework at the health facility level in Ghana.MethodsThis qualitative study was conducted between July to September 2019 using an exploratory design. Data was generated using a semi-structured interview guide designed to elicit information on knowledge of TB-DM comorbidity as well as systems for co-management. Twenty-three in-depth interviews were conducted among purposively selected frontline healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, TB task- shifting officers, TB institutional coordinators and hospital managers) from three health facilities in the Northern Region of Ghana. The lead author also conducted observations and document reviews, in order to fully address the study objectives. Thematic analysis was guided by the Lipsky's theoretical framework of street level bureaucracy.ResultsThe findings revealed three main themes and six sub-themes. Main themes were Prioritisation of TB/HIV co-infection while negating TB-DM comorbidity, Poor working conditions, and Coping mechanisms, whereas sub-themes were Low knowledge and awareness of TB-DM comorbidity, Limited awareness of the collaborative framework, High workload in TB & DM Clinics, Multiple roles, Inadequate training, and Space shortage.ConclusionsFrontline healthcare workers had limited knowledge of TB-DM comorbidity and the collaborative framework, which, in turn adversely affected the effectiveness in implementing the framework. The effective implementation of the framework begins with raising awareness about the framework through in service training amongst the frontline healthcare workers. Additionally, an integrated screening tool to detect both TB and DM would help achieve early detection of TB-DM comorbidity.

Project description:BackgroundUrinary tract infections (UTIs) are a common and significant problem for patients, clinicians, and healthcare services. Recurrent UTIs (rUTIs) are common, with a 3% prevalence in the UK. Although acute UTIs have a significant negative impact on the lives of patients, evidence of the impact of rUTIs is limited. To enhance shared decision-making around rUTI management, it is important to understand both the patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perspectives. The objective of this qualitative evidence synthesis is to understand patients' and HCPs' experiences and views in the management of rUTIs.MethodsA qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) was performed that included primary qualitative studies involving patients with rUTIs or primary care HCPs who manage patients with rUTIs, up to June 2022. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, ASSIA, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, OpenGrey, and the Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC). The QES was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022295662). Reciprocal translation was conducted and developed into a line of argument synthesis. We appraised the confidence in our review findings by using GRADE-CERQual.ResultsTwelve studies were included in the final review; ten of those included patients, and three included HCPs (one study included both). Our review demonstrates that women with rUTIs have a unique experience, but it is generally of a chronic condition with significant impacts on numerous aspects of their lives. Antibiotics can be "transformative", but patients have serious concerns about their use and feel non-antibiotic options need further research and discussion. HCPs share similar views about the impacts of rUTIs and concerns about antibiotic use and find the management of rUTIs to be complex and challenging. Based on our GRADE-CERQual assessment of the review findings, we have moderate confidence in those related to patients and low confidence in those related to HCPs. New conceptual models for both patients and HCPs are presented.ConclusionsThis review has significant clinical implications. Patients require information on antibiotic alternative acute and preventative treatments for rUTIs, and this is not currently being addressed. There are communication gaps around the impact of rUTIs on patients, their perceived expectation for antibiotics, and the reasons for treatment failure. Further development of current clinical guidance and a patient decision aid would help address these issues.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that pregnant women receive influenza vaccination; however, uptake of the vaccine remains low. Maternity health care professionals (MHCPs) play an important role in motivating pregnant women to receive the influenza vaccine. However, factors such as MHCPs' views and knowledge about the vaccine, and time constraints due to workload may influence MHCPs' practices and opinions about women receiving the influenza vaccine during pregnancy. To date, the qualitative evidence exploring MHCPs' views and experiences around influenza vaccine uptake in pregnant women has not been synthesised.AimTo systematically review and thematically synthesise qualitative evidence that explores the views and experiences of MHCPs involved in the provision of the maternal influenza vaccine worldwide.MethodsFive databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science) were searched, supplemented with searches of included paper reference lists and grey literature. Study selection was conducted by up to three researchers applying pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality assessment was undertaken, data were extracted, coded and synthesised to develop descriptive and analytical themes.ResultsEight studies involving 277 participants were included. Seventeen descriptive themes were interpreted, embedded within six analytical themes. MHCPs perceived that maternal influenza vaccination delivery can be facilitated by trusting relationships, good communication, knowledge about the vaccine leading to confidence in recommending vaccine, electronic vaccination prompts, and presence of national guidelines. However, workload, time constraints, MHCP's perception of pregnant women's concerns, and social/cultural/environmental influences could prevent the likelihood of delivery of influenza vaccine. Knowledgeable MHCPs who were regularly updated about vaccination based on scientific evidence were more confident when discussing and recommending the influenza vaccine to pregnant women. In addition, the presence of national policies and guidelines and electronic prompts for maternal influenza vaccination would enhance the delivery of the vaccine.ConclusionOur findings suggest that approaches to enhance the vaccination uptake rate in pregnant women include addressing MHCPs barriers to discussing influenza vaccination through education, sufficient time for discussions, and electronic prompts about vaccination, as well as evidence based local and national guidelines.

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:ObjectiveTo identify COVID-19 work-related stressors and experiences associated with sleep difficulties in HCW, and to assess the role of depression and traumatic stress in this association.MethodsA cross-sectional study of HCW using self-report questionnaires, during the first peak of the pandemic in Israel (April 2020), conducted in a large tertiary medical center in Israel. Study population included 189 physicians and nurses working in designated COVID-19 wards and a comparison group of 643 HCW. Mean age of the total sample was 41.7 ± 11.1, 67% were female, 42.1% physicians, with overall mean number of years of professional experience 14.2 ± 20. The exposure was working in COVID-19 wards and related specific stressors and negative experiences. Primary outcome measurement was the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Secondary outcomes included the Primary Care-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Screen (PC-PTSD-5); the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression; the anxiety module of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS); Pandemic-Related Stress Factors (PRSF) and witnessing patient suffering and death.ResultsCompared with non-COVID-19 HCW, COVID-19 HCW were more likely to be male (41.3% vs. 30.7%) and younger (36.91 ± 8.81 vs. 43.14 ± 11.35 years). COVID-19 HCW reported higher prevalence of sleep difficulties: 63% vs. 50.7% in the non-COVID group (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15-2.29, p = 0.006), mostly difficulty maintaining sleep: 26.5% vs. 18.5% (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.11-2.44, p = 0.012). Negative COVID-19 work-related experiences, specifically witnessing patient physical suffering and death, partially explained the association. Although past psychological problems and current depression and PTSD were associated with difficulty maintaining sleep, the main association remained robust also after controlling for those conditions in the full model.Conclusion and relevanceCOVID-19 frontline HCW were more likely to report sleep difficulties, mainly difficulty maintaining sleep, as compared with non-COVID-19 HCW working at the same hospital. Negative patient-care related experiences likely mediated the increased probability for those difficulties. Future research is needed to elucidate the long-term trajectories of sleep difficulties among HCW during large scale outbreaks, and to identify risk factors for their persistence.