Dataset Information

Protecting the mental and physical well-being of frontline health care workers during COVID-19: Study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed health care workers at unprecedented risk of stress, burnout, and moral injury. This paper describes the design of an ongoing cluster randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of Stress First Aid (SFA) to Usual Care (UC) in protecting the well-being of frontline health care workers.

Methods

We plan to recruit a diverse set of hospitals and health centers (eight matched pairs of hospitals and six pairs of centers), with a goal of approximately 50 HCW per health center and 170 per hospital. Participating sites in each pair are randomly assigned to SFA or UC (i.e., whatever psychosocial support is currently being received by HCW). Each site identified a leader to provide organizational support of the study; SFA sites also identified at least one champion to be trained in the intervention. Using a "train the trainer" model, champions in turn trained their peers in selected HCW teams or units to implement SFA over an eight-week period. We surveyed HCW before and after the implementation period. The primary outcomes are posttraumatic stress disorder and general psychological distress; secondary outcomes include depression and anxiety symptoms, sleep problems, social functioning problems, burnout, moral distress, and resilience. In addition, through in-depth qualitative interviews with leaders, champions, and HCW, we assessed the implementation of SFA, including acceptability, feasibility, and uptake.

Discussion

Results from this study will provide initial evidence for the application of SFA to support HCW well-being during a pandemic.

Trial registration

(Clinicaltrials.govNCT04723576).

SUBMITTER: Dong L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9023359 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may aggravate workplace conditions that impact health-care workers' mental health. However, it can also place other stresses on workers outside of their work. This study determines the effect of COVID-19 on symptoms of negative and positive mental health and the workforce's experience with various sources of support. Effect modification by demographic variables was also studied. A cross-sectional survey study, conducted between 2 April and 4 May 2020 (two waves), led to a convenience sample of 4509 health-care workers in Flanders (Belgium), including paramedics (40.6%), nurses (33.4%), doctors (13.4%) and management staff (12.2%). About three in four were employed in university and acute hospitals (29.6%), primary care practices (25.7%), residential care centers (21.3%) or care sites for disabled and mental health care. In each of the two waves, participants were asked how frequently (on a scale of 0-10) they experienced positive and negative mental health symptoms during normal circumstances and during last week, referred to as before and during COVID-19, respectively. These symptoms were stress, hypervigilance, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, unable to relax, fear, irregular lifestyle, flashback, difficulty concentrating, feeling unhappy and dejected, failing to recognize their own emotional response, doubting knowledge and skills and feeling uncomfortable within the team. Associations between COVID-19 and mental health symptoms were estimated by cumulative logit models and reported as odds ratios. The needed support was our secondary outcome and was reported as the degree to which health-care workers relied on sources of support and how they experienced them. All symptoms were significantly more pronounced during versus before COVID-19. For hypervigilance, there was a 12-fold odds (odds ratio 12.24, 95% confidence interval 11.11-13.49) during versus before COVID-19. Positive professional symptoms such as the feeling that one can make a difference were less frequently experienced. The association between COVID-19 and mental health was generally strongest for the age group 30-49 years, females, nurses and residential care centers. Health-care workers reported to rely on support from relatives and peers. A considerable proportion, respectively, 18 and 27%, reported the need for professional guidance from psychologists and more support from their leadership. The toll of the crisis has been heavy on health-care workers. Those who carry leadership positions at an organizational or system level should take this opportunity to develop targeted strategies to mitigate key stressors of health-care workers' mental well-being.

Project description:BackgroundMental health has come to be understood as not merely the absence of mental illness but also the presence of mental well-being, and recent interventions have sought to increase well-being in various populations. A population that deserves particular attention is that of health care workers, whose occupations entail high levels of stress, especially given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. A neuroscience-based web-based well-being program for health care workers-the Thrive program-has been newly developed to promote habits and activities that contribute to brain health and overall mental well-being.ObjectiveThis paper describes the protocol for a randomized controlled trial whose objective is to evaluate the Thrive program in comparison with an active control condition to measure whether the program is effective at increasing well-being and decreasing symptoms of psychological distress in health care workers at a designated Australian hospital.MethodsThe trial will comprise two groups (intervention vs active control) and 4 measurement occasions over a 12-week period. A survey will be administered in each of weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12, and the well-being program will be delivered in weeks 1-7 (via web-based video presentations or digital pamphlets). Each of the 4 surveys will comprise a range of questionnaires to measure well-being, psychological distress, and other key variables. The planned analyses will estimate group-by-time interaction effects to test the hypothesis that mental health will increase over time in the intervention condition relative to the active control condition.ResultsThe Thrive program was delivered to a small number of wards at the hospital between February 2021 and July 2021, and it will be delivered to the remaining wards from October 2021 to December 2021. A power calculation has recommended a sample size of at least 200 participants in total. A linear mixed model will be used to estimate the interaction effects.ConclusionsThis trial seeks to evaluate a new web-based well-being program for health care workers at a major public hospital. It will contribute to the growing body of research on mental well-being and ways to promote it.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000027819; https://tinyurl.com/58wwjut9.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/34005.

Project description:IntroductionThis study examined the psychological wellbeing of Healthcare Workers (HCWs) during COVID-19 in a mental health setting, associations of psychosocial wellbeing with coping style, and ways that organisations can mitigate the psychosocial burden on HCWs.MethodsThirty-seven Mental HCWs (MHCWs) from infected and non-infected wards (control group), were recruited and assessed at three timepoints. Psychological wellbeing, perceived cohesion, and coping style (Brief-COPE) were assessed. Reports on individual coping and feedback on the organisation were collected through in-depth interview. Comparison between infected and non-infected wards, as well as comparison of psychosocial measures and perceived cohesion, across the three timepoints were made. As there were no significant changes in coping styles across the timepoints, Timepoint 1 (T1) coping style was used to correlate with the psychosocial measures across all timepoints. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative data.ResultsMHCWs from infected wards reported significantly higher levels of stress, χ2(1) = 6.74, p = 0.009, effect size: medium (ε2 = 0.198), and more severe sleep disturbance (PSQI), χ2(1) = 6.20, p = 0.013, effect size: medium (ε2 = 0.182), as compared to the control group at T2. They also engaged in more problem-focused coping (T2 and T3) and emotion-focused coping (T2). As expected, negative coping style was correlated with negative outcomes except problem-focused coping that was correlated with both negative (sleep disturbance and anxiety symptoms) and positive outcomes (wellbeing). Emotion-focused coping was moderately correlated (Tb = 0.348, p<0.017) with higher levels of wellbeing at T2. Thematic analyses revealed MHCWs felt supported by the responsiveness of the institution, emotional and informational support, and the availability from direct leaders, presence of team and hospital leaders on the ground, helped build trust and confidence in the leadership.ConclusionsMHCWs experienced significantly higher levels of stress and sleep disturbance during COVID-19. The ways that organizations can offset the psychological burden of pandemics on MHCWs are discussed.

Project description:BackgroundFrontline health care workers are experiencing a myriad of physical and psychosocial challenges amid the COVID-19 pandemic. There is growing recognition that digital technologies have the potential to improve the well-being of frontline workers. However, there has been limited development of wellness interventions using mobile health (mHealth) technology. More importantly, little research has been conducted on how frontline workers perceive mHealth-based support to promote their well-being.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore frontline workers' experience of conventional psychological wellness programs and their perceptions of the usefulness of mHealth apps and features for promoting well-being. It also sought to identify factors that could potentially influence uptake and retention of an mHealth-based wellness program.MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews using purposive sampling with frontline workers involved in the COVID-19 response. Various visual materials, collated from existing mHealth app features, were presented to facilitate discussion. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis based on grounded theory was undertaken. Themes were subsequently mapped to key nudge strategies-those commonly used for mHealth development-to assess participants' preferences for particular features and their reasoning.ResultsA total of 42 frontline workers participated in 12 one-on-one interviews or focus group discussions. Frontline workers generally had a limited ability to identify their own psychological problems and liked the reminders functionality of the app to track their mood over time. A personalized goal-setting feature (ie, tailoring) and in-app resources were generally valued, while frequent coaching and messages (ie, framing) were seen as a distraction. The majority of participants desired a built-in chat function with a counselor (ie, guidance) for reasons of accessibility and protection of privacy. Very few participants appreciated a gamification function. Frontline workers commonly reported the need for ongoing social support and desired access to an in-app peer support community (ie, social influence). There were, however, concerns regarding potential risks from virtual peer interactions. Intrinsic motivational factors, mHealth app technicality, and tangible rewards were identified as critical for uptake and retention.ConclusionsOur study highlights the potential of mHealth apps with relevant features to be used as wellness tools by frontline health care workers. Future work should focus on developing a nonintrusive and personalized mHealth app with in-app counseling, peer support to improve well-being, and tangible and extrinsic rewards to foster continued use.

Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing access to mental health services in biomedical settings (e.g., primary care and specialty clinics) in low- and middle-income countries. Traditional healing continues to be widely available and used in these settings as well. Our goal was to explore how the general public, traditional healers, and biomedical clinicians perceive the different types of services and make decisions regarding using one or both types of care.MethodsWe conducted in-depth interviews using a pilot tested semi-structured protocol around the subjects of belief, traditional healers, and seeking care. We conducted 124 interviews comprising 40 traditional healers, 79 general community members, and five physicians. We then performed qualitative analyses according to a grounded theoretical approach.ResultsA majority of the participants endorsed belief in both supernatural and medical causes of illness and sought care exclusively from healers, medical practitioners, and/or both. Our findings also revealed several pathways and barriers to care that were contingent upon patient-, traditional healer-, and medical practitioner-specific attitudes. Notably, a subset of community members duplicated care across multiple, equally-qualified medical providers before seeing a traditional healer and vice versa. In view of this, the majority of our participants stressed the importance of an efficient, medically plural society. Though participants desired a more collaborative model, no consistent proposal emerged on how to bridge traditional and biomedical practices. Instead, participants offered suggestions which comprised three broad categories: (1) biomedical training of traditional healers, (2) two-way referrals between traditional and biomedical providers, and (3) open-dialogue to foster mutual understanding among traditional and biomedical providers.ConclusionParticipants offered several approaches to collaboration between medical providers and traditional healers, however if we compare it to the history of previous attempts, education and understanding between both fields may be the most viable option in low- and middle-income contexts such as Nepal. Further research should expand and investigate opportunities for collaborative learning and/or care across not only Nepal, but other countries with a history of traditional and complimentary medicine.

Project description:IntroductionThe mental health and well-being of children and young people who have been in care (ie, care-experienced) are a priority. There are a range of interventions aimed at addressing these outcomes, but the international evidence-base remains ambiguous. There is a paucity of methodologically robust systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness, with few considering the contextual conditions under which evaluations were conducted. This is important in understanding the potential transferability of the evidence-base across contexts. The present systematic review will adopt a complex systems perspective to synthesise evidence reporting evaluations of mental health and well-being interventions for care-experienced children and young people. It will address impact, equity, cost-effectiveness, context, implementation and acceptability. Stakeholder consultation will prioritise a programme theory, and associated intervention, that may progress to further development and evaluation in the UK.Methods and analysisWe will search 16 bibliographic databases from 1990 to June 2020. Supplementary searching will include citation tracking, author recommendation, and identification of evidence clusters relevant to included evaluations. The eligible population is children and young people (aged ≤25 years) with experience of being in care. Outcomes are (1) mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders; (2) subjective well-being; (3) self-harm; suicidal ideation; suicide. Study quality will be appraised with methodologically appropriate tools. We will construct a taxonomy of programme theories and intervention types. Thematic synthesis will be used for qualitative data reporting context, implementation and acceptability. If appropriate, meta-analysis will be conducted with outcome and economic data. Convergent synthesis will be used to integrate syntheses of qualitative and quantitative data.Ethics and disseminationWe have a comprehensive strategy for engagement with care-experienced children and young people, carers and social care professionals. Dissemination will include academic and non-academic publications and conference presentations. Ethical approval from Cardiff University's School of Social Sciences REC will be obtained if necessary.Prospero registration numberCRD42020177478.