The CopeNYP program: A model for brief treatment of psychological distress among healthcare workers and hospital staff.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kanellopoulos D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8420093 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPandemics and natural disasters are immensely stressful events for frontline healthcare workers, as they provide patient care to a population undergoing the impacts of the disaster while experiencing such impacts to their personal lives themselves. With increased stressors to an already demanding job, frontline healthcare workers are at a higher risk of adverse effects to their mental health. The current COVID-19 pandemic has already shown to have had significant impact on the mental health of healthcare workers with increased rates of burnout, anxiety and depression. There is already literature showing the utility of individual programs at improving mental health, however, interventions at the organizational level are not well explored. This scoping review aims to provide an overview and determine the utility of a systematic review of the current body of literature assessing the effectiveness of mental health interventions at the organizational level for healthcare workers during or after a public health emergency.MethodsElectronic databases such as Medline on OVID, CENTRAL, PsycINFO on OVID and Embase on OVID were searched. A targeted search of the grey literature was conducted to identify any non-indexed studies. The population, concept and context approach was used to develop the eligibility criteria. Articles were included if (1) they assessed the impact of interventions to improve wellbeing or reduce the distress on healthcare personnel, first responders or military actively providing medical care; (2) provided quantitative or qualitative data with clearly defined outcomes that focused on established mental health indicators or qualitative descriptions on distress and wellbeing, validated scales and workplace indicators; (3) focused on organizational level interventions that occurred in a public health crisis.ResultsThe literature search resulted in 4007 citations and 115 potentially relevant full-text papers. All except 5 were excluded. There were four review articles and one experimental study. There were no other unpublished reports that warranted inclusion.ConclusionsThere is a distinct lack of research examining organizational interventions addressing mental resilience and well-being in healthcare workers in disaster settings. A systematic review in this area would be low yield. There is a clear need for further research in this area.
| S-EPMC9299961 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To date, little effort has been made to examine if frontline workers who deal with COVID-19 patients are more likely to experience discrimination than second-line workers. Also, little information has appeared on how COVID-19-related discrimination affects PTSD symptoms in healthcare workers. We aimed to examine the association between COVID-19-related discrimination and frontline worker status. We further aimed to examine how COVID-19-related discrimination was associated with PTSD symptoms and psychological distress. We studied 647 healthcare workers. For the association between COVID-19-related discrimination and frontline worker status, we conducted multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex and living alone. For the association of COVID-19-related discrimination with PTSD symptoms and psychological distress, we performed multivariable regression using hierarchical adjustments for age, sex, living alone, alcohol consumption, exercise and frontline worker status. Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were used. A total of 136 individuals worked on the frontline and the largest group were nurses (n = 81, 59.6%). Frontline workers had increased odds of COVID-19-related discrimination compared with second-line workers (odds ratio = 2.60, 95% CI = 1.37-4.96). COVID-19-related discrimination was associated with PTSD symptoms and psychological distress even at the highest level of adjustment (β = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.10-1.23; β = 2.43, 95% CI = 0.91-3.95, respectively). Frontline workers are more likely to experience COVID-19-related discrimination than second-line workers. Such discrimination may result in PTSD symptoms and psychological distress. Interventions to prevent COVID-19-related discrimination against healthcare workers, for example anti-discrimination campaigns, are important.
| S-EPMC9538840 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The manual for the Japanese Stress Check Program recommends use of the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ) from among the program's instruments and proposes criteria for defining "high-stress" workers. This study aimed to examine how accurately the BJSQ identifies workers with or without potential psychological distress.We used an online survey to administer the BJSQ with a psychological distress scale (K6) to randomly selected workers (n=1,650). We conducted receiver operating characteristics curve analyses to estimate the screening performance of the cutoff points that the Stress Check Program manual recommends for the BJSQ.Prevalence of workers with potential psychological distress defined as K6 score ≥13 was 13%. Prevalence of "high-risk" workers defined using criteria recommended by the program manual was 16.7% for the original version of the BJSQ. The estimated values were as follows: sensitivity, 60.5%; specificity, 88.9%; Youden index, 0.504; positive predictive value, 47.3%; negative predictive value, 93.8%; positive likelihood ratio, 6.0; and negative likelihood ratio, 0.4. Analyses based on the simplified BJSQ indicated lower sensitivity compared with the original version, although we expected roughly the same screening performance for the best scenario using the original version.Our analyses in which psychological distress measured by K6 was set as the target condition indicate less than half of the identified "high-stress" workers warrant consideration for secondary screening for psychological distress.
| S-EPMC5557823 | biostudies-other
Project description:The levels of psychological distress and burnout among healthcare staff are high, with negative implications for patient care. A growing body of evidence indicates that workplace programmes based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) are effective for improving employees' general psychological health. However, there is a paucity of research examining the specific psychological and/or behavioural processes through which workplace ACT programmes transmit their beneficial effects. The aim of this randomised controlled trial was to investigate the outcomes and putative processes of change in a 4-session ACT training programme designed to reduce psychological distress among healthcare staff (n = 98). Ninety-eight employees of a healthcare organisation were randomly allocated to the ACT intervention or to a waiting list control group. Study measures were administered on four occasions (baseline, mid-intervention, post-intervention, and follow-up) over a three-month evaluation period. Results showed that the ACT intervention led to a significant decrease in symptoms of psychological distress and a less pronounced reduction in burnout. These effects were mediated primarily via an improvement in mindfulness skills and values-based behaviour and moderated by participants' initial levels of distress. At four-week post-intervention, 48% of participants who received the ACT intervention showed reliable improvements in psychological distress, with just under half of the aforementioned improvements (46.15%) meeting criteria for clinically significant change. The results advance ACT as an effective stress management intervention for healthcare staff. The findings should be confirmed in a large scale randomised controlled trial with longer follow-up and cost-effectiveness analyses.
| S-EPMC9020690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) have experienced anxiety and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. We established and report findings from an occupational health programme for HCWs in Zimbabwe that offered screening for SARS-CoV-2 with integrated screening for comorbidities including common mental disorder (CMD) and referral for counselling.MethodsQuantitative outcomes were fearfulness about COVID-19, the Shona Symptom Questionnaire (SSQ-14) score (cutpoint 8/14) and the number and proportion of HCWs offered referral for counselling, accepting referral and counselled. We used chi square tests to identify factors associated with fearfulness, and logistic regression was used to model the association of fearfulness with wave, adjusting for variables identified using a DAG. Qualitative data included 18 in-depth interviews, two workshops conducted with HCWs and written feedback from counsellors, analysed concurrently with data collection using thematic analysis.ResultsBetween 27 July 2020-31 July 2021, spanning three SARS-CoV-2 waves, the occupational health programme was accessed by 3577 HCWs from 22 facilities. The median age was 37 (IQR 30-43) years, 81.9% were women, 41.7% said they felt fearful about COVID-19 and 12.1% had an SSQ-14 score ≥ 8. A total of 501 HCWs were offered referral for counselling, 78.4% accepted and 68.9% had ≥1 counselling session. Adjusting for setting and role, wave 2 was associated with increased fearfulness over wave 1 (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.00-1.60). Qualitative data showed high levels of anxiety, psychosomatic symptoms and burnout related to the pandemic. Mental wellbeing was affected by financial insecurity, unmet physical health needs and inability to provide quality care within a fragile health system.ConclusionsHCWs in Zimbabwe experience a high burden of mental health symptoms, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainable mental health interventions must be multisectoral addressing mental, physical and financial wellbeing.
| S-EPMC9055394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth care workers (HCWs) presented frequent concerns regarding their health and their families' health and high levels of psychological distress during previous disease outbreaks, such as the SARS outbreak, which was associated with social isolation and intentional absenteeism. We aimed to assess HCWs concerns and anxiety, perceived sufficiency of information, and intended behavior during the recent A/H1N1 influenza pandemic and their associations with psychological distress.MethodBetween September 1st and 30th, 2009, 469 health-care workers (HCWs) of a tertiary teaching hospital completed a 20-item questionnaire regarding concerns and worries about the new A/H1N1 influenza pandemic, along with Cassileth's Information Styles Questionnaire (part-I) and the GHQ-28.ResultsMore than half of the present study's HCWs (56.7%) reported they were worried about the A/H1N1 influenza pandemic, their degree of anxiety being moderately high (median 6/9). The most frequent concern was infection of family and friends and the health consequences of the disease (54.9%). The perceived risk of being infected was considered moderately high (median 6/9). Few HCWs (6.6%) had restricted their social contacts and fewer (3.8%) felt isolated by their family members and friends because of their hospital work, while a low percentage (4.3%) indented to take a leave to avoid infection. However, worry and degree of worry were significantly associated with intended absenteeism (p < 0.0005), restriction of social contacts (p < 0.0005), and psychological distress (p = 0.036). Perceived sufficiency of information about several aspects of the A/H1N1 influenza was moderately high, and the overall information about the A/H1N1 influenza was considered clear (median 7.4/9). Also, perceived sufficiency of information for the prognosis of the infection was significantly independently associated with the degree of worry about the pandemic (p = 0.008).ConclusionsA significant proportion of HCWs experienced moderately high anxiety about the pandemic, and their degree of worry was an independent correlate of psychological distress. Since perceived sufficiency of information about the A/H1N1 influenza prognosis was associated with reduced degree of worry, hospital managers and consultation-liaison psychiatry services should try to provide for HCWs' need for information, in order to offer favourable working conditions in times of extreme distress, such as the current and future pandemics.
| S-EPMC2990753 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWork stress and compassion fatigue are prevalent among healthcare staff and their negative effects on staff well-being and patient care are well-known. This paper reports on the implementation and evaluation of Schwartz Rounds® (Rounds) in UK healthcare organizations, predominantly part of the National Health Service (NHS). Rounds are one-hour, typically monthly, multidisciplinary forums during which clinical and nonclinical healthcare staff discuss the emotional and social demands of delivering patient care. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of Rounds attendance on the psychological distress, work engagement, compassion and self-reflection of healthcare staff.MethodsWe used a pre-post control design to assess the effect of Rounds attendance across 10 UK healthcare organizations. This design was most appropriate given the voluntary nature of Rounds and ensured the study had ecological validity. Self-reported data were collected from attenders and non-attenders at baseline and at eight-months follow-up. The outcomes were psychological distress, work engagement, compassion and self-reflection.ResultsDuring the 8 months' study duration, regular attenders (N = 51) attended Rounds on average 4 times (2-8). Attenders showed a significantly greater decrease in psychological distress (as measured with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)) than non-attenders (N = 233; odds ratio of 0.197; 95% confidence interval (0.047-0.823)). However, Rounds attendance had no significant effect on work engagement, compassion and self-reflection.ConclusionsRounds attendance was linked to a 19% reduction in psychological distress adjusting for covariates. As an organization-wide intervention, Rounds thus constitute an effective, relatively low-cost intervention to assist staff in dealing with the demands of their work and to improve their well-being.
| S-EPMC8076663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Covid-19 outbreak has taken a substantial toll on the mental and physical wellbeing of healthcare workers (HCWs), impacting healthcare systems at a global scale. One year into the pandemic, the need to establish the prevalence of sleep dysfunction and psychological distress in the face of COVID-19, identify risk and protective factors and explore effective countermeasures remains of critical importance. Despite implicit limitations relating to the quality of available studies, a plethora of evidence to-date suggests that a considerable proportion of HCWs experience significant sleep disturbances (estimated to afflict every two in five HCWs) as well as mood symptoms (with more than one in five reporting high levels of depression or anxiety). Younger age, female gender, frontline status, fear or risk of infection, occupation, current or past mental health concerns, and a lower level of social support were all associated with a greater risk of disturbed sleep and adverse psychological outcomes. Furthermore, we discuss the link between sleep deprivation, susceptibility to viral infections and psychosocial wellbeing, in relevance to COVID-19 and summarize the existing evidence regarding the presence and predictors of traumatic stress/PTSD and burnout in HCWs. Finally, we highlight the role of resilience and tailored interventions in order to mitigate vulnerability and prevent long-term physical and psychological implications. Indeed, promoting psychological resilience through an enhanced social support network has proven crucial for HCWs in coping under these strenuous circumstances. Future research should aim to provide high quality information on the long-term consequences and the effectiveness of applied interventions.
| S-EPMC8277954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant challenges for frontline healthcare workers' (FHW), raising many mental health and wellbeing concerns for this cohort. To facilitate identification of risk and protective factors to inform treatment and interventions, this study investigated key predictors of psychological distress and subjective wellbeing in FHWs.MethodsDuring the Omicron wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2022), Victorian (Australia) doctors, nurses, allied health and non-medical staff from Emergency Departments, Intensive Care units, Aged Care, Hospital In The Home, and COVID Wards completed a cross-sectional survey consisting of the Kessler 6 item (Psychological Distress), Personal Wellbeing Index (Subjective Wellbeing), Coronavirus Health Impact Survey tool (COVID-19 related factors) and occupational factors. Multivariable linear regressions were used to evaluate unadjusted and adjusted associations. Relative weight analysis was used to compare and identify key predictors.ResultsOut of 167 participants, 18.1% screened positive for a probable mental illness and a further 15.3% screened positive for low wellbeing. Key risk factors for greater psychological distress included COVID infection worries, relationship stress and younger age. For both psychological distress and lower wellbeing, health status and supervisor support were key protective factors, while infection risks were key risk factors. Only positive changes in relationship quality was protective of lower wellbeing.ConclusionThis study highlights the significance of social determinants and individual level factors alongside work related factors, in influencing FHWs' mental health and wellbeing during public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings suggest that future interventions and supports should take a more holistic approach that considers work, social and individual level factors when supporting FHWs' mental health and wellbeing.
| S-EPMC10361570 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether trends in psychological distress exist in the United States and whether trends in healthcare expenditures and outpatient visits were associated with psychological distress.Study designSequential cross-sectional study of nationally representative data.MethodsWe examined data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 1997 to 2004 linked to 2 years of subsequent Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data. Psychological distress was measured in the NHIS using the K6, a 6-item scale of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, which we classified as no/low, mild-moderate, or severe. We examined subsequent annualized total, outpatient, and office-based expenditures, and outpatient and office-based visits from MEPS.ResultsPsychological distress remained stable from 1997 to 2004. There were upward trends in overall healthcare expenditures (P <.001) and outpatient expenditures (P <.001), but not outpatient visits. Overall healthcare expenditures, outpatient expenditures, and outpatient visits significantly increased as psychological distress increased from no/low to mild-moderate to severe. The interaction between psychological distress strata and year was not significant for expenditures or for visits.ConclusionsThe upward trend in total and outpatient healthcare expenditures in the United States appears unrelated to psychological distress, although healthcare expenditures are consistently higher among those with greater psychological distress. Future work will explore the impact of treatment on costs and stability of the nation's mental health over time.
| S-EPMC3322665 | biostudies-literature