Dataset Information

Perceived risk and distress related to COVID-19 in healthcare versus non-healthcare workers of Pakistan: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have found themselves and their families more susceptible to contracting COVID-19. This puts them at a higher risk of psychological distress, which may compromise patient care. In this study, we aim to explore the risk perceptions and psychological distress between HCWs and non-healthcare workers (NHCWs) in Pakistan.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online self-administered questionnaire. Psychological distress was assessed through The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Comparisons were made between HCWs (front/backend, students/graduates) and NHCWs related to risk perceptions and stress levels related to COVID-19. Following tests for normality (Shapiro-Wilk test), variables that fulfilled the normality assumption were compared using the independent samples t-test, while for other variables Mann-Whitney U-test was employed. Pearson Chi-square test was used to compare categorical data. Multiple logistic regression techniques examined the association of participant age, gender, household income, and the presence of COVID-19 symptoms with depression and anxiety levels.

Results

Data from 1406 respondents (507 HCWs and 899 NHCWs) were analyzed. No significant difference was observed between HCWs and NHCWs' perception of susceptibility and severity towards COVID-19. While healthcare graduates perceived themselves (80% graduates vs 66% students, p-value 0.011) and their family (82% graduates vs 67% students, p-value 0.008) to be more susceptible to COVID-19, they were less likely to experience depression than students. Frontline HCWs involved in direct patient care perceived themselves (83% frontline vs. 70% backend, p-value 0.003) and their family (84% frontline vs. 72% backend, p-value 0.006) as more susceptible to COVID-19 than backend healthcare professionals. Over half of the respondents were anxious (54% HCWs and 55% NHCWs). Female gender, younger age, lower income, and having COVID-19 related symptoms had a significant effect on the anxiety levels of both HCWs and NHCWs.

Conclusion

Frontline HCWs, young people, women, and individuals with lower income were at a higher risk of psychological distress due to the pandemic. Government policies should thus be directed at ensuring the mental well-being of frontline HCWs and improving their satisfaction to strengthen the health care delivery system. The findings suggest the need to provide mental health support for health workers.

SUBMITTER: Abid A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8783178 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesWorkplace violence (WPV) against healthcare workers (HCWs) is a global issue. Our research aimed to elucidate the status and associated factors of WPV among front-line/non-front-line HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignThis cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs in Hangzhou City through multistage sampling from December 2020 to January 2021.ParticipantsThis study included 14 909 valid samples (N=3748 front-line HCWs and N=11 161 non-front-line HCWs).Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe assessed the WPV status by Chinese version of WPV questionnaire. Binary logistic regression model was established to examine the associated factors of front-line/non-front-line HCWs experiencing WPV.ResultsThe total WPV prevalence equalled 37.25% for front-line HCWs and 27.73% for non-front-line HCWs. Among front-line HCWs, females were less likely to experience WPV (OR 0.837, 95% CI 0.710 to 0.988), while individuals who were undergraduate (OR 1.251, 95% CI 1.061 to 1.541) and had higher professional title (intermediate: OR 1.475, 95% CI 1.227 to 1.772; advanced: OR 1.693, 95% CI 1.294 to 2.216) were more likely to suffer from WPV; for non-front-line HCWs, individuals who aged over 50 years old (OR 0.721, 95% CI 0.563 to 0.969), had worked between 10 and 19 years (OR 0.847, 95% CI 0.749 to 0.958) and worked in the non-graded hospital (OR 0.714, 95% CI 0.614 to 0.832) had less chance to experience WPV, while individuals who had higher educational level (undergraduate: OR 1.323, 95% CI 1.179 to 1.484; ≥graduate: OR 1.519, 95% CI 1.217 to 1.895), were nurse (OR 1.142, 95% CI 1.031 to 1.265), and had higher professional title (intermediate: OR 1.458, 95% CI 1.297 to 638; advanced: OR 1.928, 95% CI 1.607 to 2.313) were more inclined to suffer from WPV (p all<0.05).ConclusionsThis study indicates that the prevalence of WPV among front-line HCWs is significantly higher than among non-front-line HCWs. Policy-makers should prioritise COVID-19 front-line HCWs, especially those with high educational levels and professional titles.

Project description:BackgroundJordan has experienced several COVID-19 waves in the past 2 years. Cross-sectional studies have been conducted to evaluate distress in healthcare practitioners (HCPs), but there is limited evidence with regards to the impact of continuing pandemic waves on levels of distress in HCPs. We previously studied psychological distress in HCPs during the start of the pandemic (period 1, when cases were infrequent and the country was in lockdown), and demonstrated that HCPs were experiencing considerable stress, despite the country reporting low caseloads at the time. In this study, we sought to utilize the same methodology to reexamine levels of distress as COVID-19 peaked in the country and HCPs began managing large numbers of COVID-19 cases (period 2).MethodsA cross-sectional online survey utilizing a tool previously used during period 1 was completed by HCPs working in various settings. Demographic, professional and psychological factors such as distress, anxiety, depression, burnout, sleep issues, exhaustion, and fear were assessed; and coping strategies also were measured. Items in the tool were assessed for reliability and validity. A multivariable regression was used to identify factors that continued to impact distress during period 2.ResultsSamples in both periods (n = 937, n = 876, respectively) were relatively comparable in demographic characteristics, but in period 2, a greater proportion of nurses and healthcare practitioners reported working in general hospitals. During the pandemic peak (period 2), 49.0% of HCPs reported high levels of distress (compared to 32% in period 1); anxiety and depression scores were approximately 21% higher in period 2; and 50.6% reported fatigue (compared to 34.3% in period 1). Variables significantly associated with greater distress in period 2 included experiencing burnout, experiencing sleep disturbances, being fatigued, having fatalistic fears, and having fears related to workload. Conversely, being male, reporting satisfaction at work, and using positive coping practices were associated with a significantly lower odds of being in distress.ConclusionsBetween the two periods (early pandemic and first wave), COVID-19-related mental health continued to deteriorate among HCPs, highlighting the need to do more to support HCP front-liners facing COVID-19 surges.

Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 outbreak has caused enormous strain on healthcare systems, and healthcare trainees, which comprise the future healthcare workforce, may be a vulnerable group. It is essential to assess the psychological distress experienced by healthcare trainees during the COVID-19 outbreak.Design, setting and participantsA cross-sectional study with 4184 healthcare trainees at Sichuan University in China was implemented during 7-13 February 2020. Participants were grouped by training programmes (medicine, medical technology and nursing) and training stages (undergraduate, postgraduate and residency).Main outcomesCOVID-19-related psychological distress and acute stress reaction (ASR) were assessed using the Kessler 6-item Psychological Distress Scale and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, respectively. We estimated the ORs of distress by comparing trainees across programmes and training stages using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsSignificant psychological distress was found in 1150 (30.90%) participants and probable ASR in 403 (10.74%). Compared with the nursing trainees, the medical trainees (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.95) reported a higher burden of psychological distress during the outbreak, while the medical technology trainees (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.62) reported similar symptom scores. Postgraduates (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.08) in medicine had higher levels of distress than their undergraduate counterparts did, whereas the nursing residents (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.71) reported a lower burden than did nursing undergraduates. A positive association was found between having active clinical duties during the outbreak and distress (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.39), particularly among the medical trainees (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.33) and undergraduates (OR 4.20, 95% CI 1.61 to 11.70). No clear risk patterns of ASR symptoms were observed.ConclusionsMedical trainees, particularly postgraduates and those with active clinical duties, were at risk for psychological distress during the COVID-19 outbreak. Stress management may be considered for high-risk healthcare trainees.

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge transfer of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) involves the dissemination of created/acquired information on MERS-CoV in hospitals, making this information accessible to all healthcare workers (HCWs). This study evaluated the perceived effectiveness of MERS-CoV educational programs and knowledge transfer among primary care HCWs at a hospital in Saudi Arabia that witnessed the largest outbreak of confirmed MERS-CoV cases in this country.MethodsA survey was distributed among primary care HCWs at five clinics in Saudi Arabia in 2016. Those with non-direct patient care responsibilities were excluded. Their knowledge was evaluated against facts published by Mayo Clinic Foundation, and its percentage mean score (PMS) ± standard deviation was calculated. HCWs' perceived effectiveness of educational programs and knowledge transfer was classified as negative or positive.ResultsSample comprised of 404 HCWs, of which 64% were females and 36% were males. Almost 26% were ≤ 30 years old, and 42% had > 10 years of work experience. Almost 46.5% were nurses, 23.0% physicians, 18.1% were pharmacists, and 12.4% were technical staff. PMS for knowledge was 71.1 ± 19.4. The prevalence of negative perceptions towards educational programs was 22.5% and of knowledge transfer was 20.8%. Older(> 40 years of age) and more experienced(> 10 years) HCWs had the highest PMS for knowledge(73.4 ± 18.9,P = 0.005 and 76.9 ± 15.7,P < 0.001 respectively). Negative perceptions of educational programs (49.4 ± 20.7; P < 0.001) and knowledge transfer (46.0 ± 19.7; P = 0.001) were associated with a lower knowledge PMS. Males were 2.4[95% confidence interval 1.4-4.2] times and 2.0[1.1-3.5] times more likely to have negative perceptions of educational programs and knowledge transfer (adjusted (adj.)P = 0.001 and adj. P = 0.023, respectively). Physicians/pharmacists were 1.8[1.03-3.11] and 2.8[1.6-5.0] times more likely to have negative perceptions of both outcomes (adj. P = 0.038 and adj. P = 0.001, respectively). Less experienced HCWs were 2.1[1.3-3.5] times and 4.9[2.6-9.2] times more likely to exhibit negative perceptions of the two outcomes (adj. P < 0.001 each).ConclusionsA negative perception of the effectiveness of MERS-CoV knowledge transfer was associated with poorer knowledge and was more prevalent among male HCWs, physicians/pharmacists and less experienced HCWs. Hospitals should always refer to efficient knowledge sharing and educational strategies that render beneficial outcomes to patients, HCWs, and the public community.