Dataset Information

The mental health of NHS staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: two-wave Scottish cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health and social care workers (HSCWs) are at risk of experiencing adverse mental health outcomes (e.g. higher levels of anxiety and depression) because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This can have a detrimental effect on quality of care, the national response to the pandemic and its aftermath.

Aims

A longitudinal design provided follow-up evidence on the mental health (changes in prevalence of disease over time) of NHS staff working at a remote health board in Scotland during the COVID-19 pandemic, and investigated the determinants of mental health outcomes over time.

Method

A two-wave longitudinal study was conducted from July to September 2020. Participants self-reported levels of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7) and mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) at baseline and 1.5 months later.

Results

The analytic sample of 169 participants, working in community (43%) and hospital (44%) settings, reported substantial levels of depression and anxiety, and low mental well-being at baseline (depression, 30.8%; anxiety, 20.1%; well-being, 31.9%). Although mental health remained mostly constant over time, the proportion of participants meeting the threshold for anxiety increased to 27.2% at follow-up. Multivariable modelling indicated that working with, and disruption because of, COVID-19 were associated with adverse mental health changes over time.

Conclusions

HSCWs working in a remote area with low COVID-19 prevalence reported substantial levels of anxiety and depression, similar to those working in areas with high COVID-19 prevalence. Efforts to support HSCW mental health must remain a priority, and should minimise the adverse effects of working with, and disruption caused by, the COVID-19 pandemic.

SUBMITTER: De Kock JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8755549 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: In response to rapid global spread of the newly emerged coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), universities transitioned to online learning and telework to decrease risks of inter-person contact. To help administrators respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and better understand its impacts, we surveyed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among NOVA University employees and assessed community mental health. Methods: Data were collected from voluntary participants at six NOVA University locations, in the Lisbon metropolitan area, from June 15-30, 2020. All subjects provided written informed consent. Of 1,627 recruited participants (mean age 42.0 ± 12.3 years), 1,624 were tested. Prior to blood collection, participants completed a questionnaire that assessed: COVID-19 symptoms during the previous 14 days, chronic non-communicable diseases, chronic medication, anxiety, and depression symptoms. SARS-CoV-2 serology tests were then performed, and results communicated approximately 4 days after blood draw. Participants with positive serology tests were contacted to assess COVID-19 symptoms since February. Results: Estimated prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies was 3.1% (n = 50), of which 43.5% reported symptoms in the previous 4 months. The Medical School had the highest seroprevalence (6.2%). Participants reported having at least one chronic disease (63.7%), depression-like symptoms (2.1%), and anxiety symptoms (8.1%). Rates of depression and anxiety symptoms were significantly higher in women, with sleep hours and occasional alcohol consumption negatively associated with depression. Male gender, older age, and sleep hours negatively associated with anxiety symptoms. School of employment and presence of comorbidities positively associated with anxiety. Conclusion: By measuring seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among NOVA employees and assessing subjects' mental health, we aim to help administrators at European public universities in urban areas, such as Lisbon, Portugal, better understand the needs of their communities. This study resulted in implementation of a stricter contingency plan in the Medical School, while other schools continued to follow Government mitigation guidelines. These findings may also guide the development of tailored strategies to ensure physical and mental health of the academic community during this pandemic crisis. We conclude that, together with COVID-19 contingency plans, psychological support services and facilities to help people effectively face pandemic-associated challenges and minimise anxiety and depression should be implemented.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the experiences of service users, carers and staff seeking or providing secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignQualitative interview study, codesigned with mental health service users and carers.MethodsWe conducted semistructured, telephone or online interviews with a purposively constructed sample; a lived experience researcher conducted and analysed interviews with service users. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method.SettingNational Health Service (NHS) secondary mental health services in England between June and August 2020.ParticipantsOf 65 participants, 20 had either accessed or needed to access English secondary mental healthcare during the pandemic; 10 were carers of people with mental health difficulties; 35 were members of staff working in NHS secondary mental health services during the pandemic.ResultsExperiences of remote care were mixed. Some service users valued the convenience of remote methods in the context of maintaining contact with familiar clinicians. Most participants commented that a lack of non-verbal cues and the loss of a therapeutic 'safe space' challenged therapeutic relationship building, assessments and identification of deteriorating mental well-being. Some carers felt excluded from remote meetings and concerned that assessments were incomplete without their input. Like service users, remote methods posed challenges for clinicians who reported uncertainty about technical options and a lack of training. All groups expressed concern about intersectionality exacerbating inequalities and the exclusion of some service user groups if alternatives to remote care are lost.ConclusionsThough remote mental healthcare is likely to become increasingly widespread in secondary mental health services, our findings highlight the continued importance of a tailored, personal approach to decision making in this area. Further research should focus on which types of consultations best suit face-to-face interaction, and for whom and why, and which can be provided remotely and by which medium.