Dataset Information

Individual Differences in the Affective Response to Pandemic-Related Stressors in COVID-19 Health Care Workers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We investigated the evolving prevalence of mood and anxiety symptoms among health care workers from May 2020 to January 2021, risk factors for adverse outcomes, and characteristic modes of affective responses to pandemic-related stressors.

Methods

A total of 2307 health care workers (78.9% female, modal age 25-34 years) participated in an online survey assessing depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale) symptoms, demographic variables, and self-reported impact of pandemic-related stressors. A total of 334 subjects were reassessed ∼6 months later.

Results

The prevalence of clinically significant depression and anxiety was 45.3% and 43.3%, respectively, and a majority (59.9%-62.9%) of those individuals had persistent significant symptoms at 6-month follow-up. Younger age, female gender, and specific occupations (support staff > nurses > physicians) were associated with increased depressive and anxiety symptoms. The most important risk factors were social isolation and fear of contracting COVID-19. The prevalence of clinically significant mood and anxiety symptoms increased by 39.8% from May 2020 to January 2021. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scores were highly correlated and associated with nearly identical risk factors, suggesting that they are not capturing independent constructs in this sample. Principal component analysis identified seven orthogonal symptom domains with unique risk factors.

Conclusions

Clinically significant mood and anxiety symptoms are highly prevalent and persistent among health care workers, and are associated with numerous risk factors, the strongest of which are related to pandemic stressors and potentially modifiable. Interventions aimed at reducing social isolation and mitigating the impact of fear of infection warrant further study.

SUBMITTER: Zebley B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8529885 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe Australian COVID-19 Frontline Healthcare Workers study examined the prevalence and severity of mental health symptoms during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This substudy examined the differences in psychological well-being between rural and metropolitan health care workers (HCWs).DesignA nationwide survey conducted between August and October 2020.Setting and participantsAustralian HCWs were recruited through multiple strategies.Main outcome measuresDemographics, mental health outcomes (anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] and burnout).ResultsComplete responses were included from 7846 participants, with 1473 (18.8%) in regional or remote ('rural') areas and 81.2% in metropolitan areas. Rural participants were older, more likely to work in allied health, nursing or in health administration, and had worked longer in their profession than metropolitan participants. Levels of resilience were similar (p = 0.132), but there was significantly higher prevalence of pre-COVID-19 pandemic mental illness in the rural workforce (p < 0.001). There were high levels of current mental health issues: moderate-severe PTSD (rural 38.0%; metropolitan 41.0% p = 0.031); high depersonalisation (rural 18.1%; metropolitan 20.7% p = 0.047); and high emotional exhaustion (rural 46.5%; metropolitan 43.3% p = 0.002). Among rural participants, mental health symptoms were associated with younger age, worry about being blamed if they contracted COVID-19, fear of transmitting COVID-19 to their family, experiencing worsening relationships and working in primary care or allied health.ConclusionDespite having low COVID-19 case numbers in rural Australian health services compared with metropolitan counterparts over the course of 2020, there were widespread mental health impacts on the workforce. Rural health services need specific and flexible training, education, work policies and practices that support psychological well-being now in preparedness for ongoing or future crises.

Project description:BackgroundThere is considerable evidence of widespread emotional distress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing number of studies have assessed posttraumatic growth related to the current pandemic; but, none have considered whether reported growth is real or illusory (i.e., characterized by avoidant or defensive coping that results in higher levels of distress). The purpose of this study was to extend this literature by assessing growth specific to the pandemic in people reporting high levels of COVID-related stress and estimating the extent of real and illusory COVID-19-related growth.MethodsParticipants were 893 adults from Canada and the United States with high levels of COVID-related stress who provided complete responses on measures of posttraumatic growth, disability, and measures of general and COVID-related distress as part of a larger longitudinal survey.ResultsApproximately 77 % of participants reported moderate to high growth in at least one respect, the most common being developing greater appreciation for healthcare workers, for the value of one's own life, for friends and family, for each day, as well as changing priorities about what is important in life and greater feelings of self-reliance. Consistent with predictions, cluster analysis identified two clusters characterized by high growth, one comprising 32 % of the sample and reflective of real growth (i.e., reporting little disability and stable symptoms across time) and the other comprising 17 % of the sample and reflective of illusory growth (i.e., reporting high disability and worsening symptoms). These clusters did not differ in terms of socially desirable response tendencies; but, the illusory growth cluster reported greater increases in alcohol use since onset of the pandemic.ConclusionConsistent with research regarding personal growth in response to prior pandemics and COVID-19, we found evidence to suggest moderate to high levels of COVID-related growth with respect to appreciation for healthcare workers, life, friends and family, and self-reliance. Findings from our cluster analysis support the thesis that many reports of COVID-related personal growth reflect ineffectual pandemic-related coping as opposed to true growth. These findings have important implications for developing strategies to optimize stress resilience and posttraumatic growth during chronically stressful events such as pandemics.

Project description:ImportanceMental health and coping difficulties among health care workers (HCWs) have been reported during pandemics and particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectiveTo examine sources of distress and concern for HCWs in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsIn this qualitative study, a critical discourse analysis was performed of questions posed by HCWs to hospital senior leadership between March 16, 2020, and December 1, 2020, through an online employee forum as part of a larger mixed-methods evaluation of a stepped-care mental health support program for HCWs at 1 of Canada's largest health care institutions. Questions could be submitted online anonymously in advance of the virtual forums on COVID-19 by any of the University Health Network's 21 555 employees, and staff members were able to anonymously endorse questions by upvoting, indicating that an already posed question was of interest.Main outcomes and measuresThemes, text structure, and rhetorical devices used within the questions were analyzed, taking into consideration their larger institutional and societal context.ResultsUnique individual views of the forums ranged from 2062 to 7213 during the study period. Major individual-level concerns related to risks of contamination and challenges coping with increased workloads as a result of the pandemic intersected with institutional-level challenges, such as feeling or being valued within the health care setting and long-standing stratifications between types of HCWs. Concerns were frequently reported in terms of calls for clarity or demands for transparency from the institutional leadership.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this qualitative study suggest that larger institutional-level and structural concerns need to be addressed if HCWs are to be engaged in support and coping programs. Potential service users may be dissuaded from seeing their needs as being met by workplace mental health interventions that solely relate to individual-level concerns.