Dataset Information

Longitudinal comparisons of mental health, burnout and well-being in patient-facing, non-patient-facing healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the CoPE-HCP study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic may disproportionately affect the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs), especially patient-facing HCPs.

Aims

To longitudinally examine mental health in HCPs versus non-HCPs, and patient-facing HCPs versus non-patient-facing HCPs.

Method

Online surveys were distributed to a cohort at three phases (baseline, July to September 2020; phase 2, 6 weeks post-baseline; phase 3, 4 months post-baseline). Each survey contained validated assessments for depression, anxiety, insomnia, burnout and well-being. For each outcome, we conducted mixed-effects logistic regression models (adjusted for a priori confounders) comparing the risk in different groups at each phase.

Results

A total of 1574 HCPs and 147 non-HCPs completed the baseline survey. Although there were generally higher rates of various probable mental health issues among HCPs versus non-HCPs at each phase, there was no significant difference, except that HCPs had 2.5-fold increased risk of burnout at phase 2 (emotional exhaustion: odds ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.15-5.46, P = 0.021), which increased at phase 3 (emotional exhaustion: odds ratio 3.32, 95% CI 1.40-7.87, P = 0.006; depersonalisation: odds ratio 3.29, 95% CI 1.12-9.71, P = 0.031). At baseline, patient-facing HCPs (versus non-patient-facing HCPs) had a five-fold increased risk of depersonalisation (odds ratio 5.02, 95% CI 1.65-15.26, P = 0.004), with no significant difference in the risk for other outcomes. The difference in depersonalisation reduced over time, but patient-facing HCPs still had a 2.7-fold increased risk of emotional exhaustion (odds ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.28-5.85, P = 0.009) by phase 3.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic had a huge impact on the mental health and well-being of both HCPs and non-HCPs, but there is disproportionately higher burnout among HCPs, particularly patient-facing HCPs.

SUBMITTER: Kapil V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9530379 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Longitudinal comparisons of mental health, burnout and well-being in patient-facing, non-patient-facing healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the CoPE-HCP study.

Kapil Vikas V Collett George G Godec Thomas T Gupta Jaya J Maniero Carmela C Ng Sher M SM McIntosh Iris I Kumar Abhishek A Nair Satheesh S Kotecha Ashish A Janmohamed Azara A Antoniou Sotiris S Khan Rehan R Khanji Mohammed Y MY Siddiqui Imrana I Gupta Ajay A

BJPsych open 20220927 5

<h4>Background</h4>The COVID-19 pandemic may disproportionately affect the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs), especially patient-facing HCPs.<h4>Aims</h4>To longitudinally examine mental health in HCPs versus non-HCPs, and patient-facing HCPs versus non-patient-facing HCPs.<h4>Method</h4>Online surveys were distributed to a cohort at three phases (baseline, July to September 2020; phase 2, 6 weeks post-baseline; phase 3, 4 months post-baseline). Each survey contained validated ass ...[more]

PMID: 36164721

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOne potential modifiable factor to improve the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs) during the pandemic is lifestyle.AimsThis study aimed to assess whether an improved lifestyle during the pandemic is associated with improved mental health symptoms and mental well-being in HCPs over time.MethodsThis was a cohort study involving an online survey distributed at two separate time points during the pandemic (baseline (July-September 2020) and follow-up (December 2020-March 2021)) to HCPs working in primary or secondary care in the UK. Both surveys assessed for major depressive disorder (MDD) (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7)), mental well-being (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Score (SWEMWBS)) and self-reported lifestyle change (compared with the start of the pandemic) on multiple domains. Cumulative scores were calculated to estimate overall lifestyle change compared with that before the pandemic (at both baseline and follow-up). At each time point, separate logistic regression models were constructed to relate the lifestyle change score with the presence of MDD, GAD and low mental well-being. Linear regression models were also developed relating the change in lifestyle scores from baseline to follow-up to changes in PHQ-9, GAD-7 and SWEMWBS scores.Results613 HCPs completed both baseline assessment and follow-up assessment. Consistent significant cross-sectional associations between increased lifestyle change scores and a reduced risk of MDD, GAD and low mental well-being were observed at both baseline and follow-up. Over the study period, a whole unit increase in the change in novel scores (ie, improved overall lifestyle) over 4 months was inversely associated with changes in PHQ-9 (adjusted coefficient: -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.73 to -0.30, p<0.001) and GAD-7 scores (adjusted coefficient: -0.32, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.10, p=0.004) and positively associated with the change in SWEMWBS scores (adjusted coefficient: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.55, p<0.001).ConclusionsImproved lifestyle over time is associated with improved mental health and mental well-being in HCPs during the pandemic. Improving lifestyle could be a recommended intervention for HCPs to help mitigate the mental health impact during the current and future pandemics.Trial registration numberNCT04433260.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented strain to healthcare systems worldwide and posed unique challenges to the healthcare professionals (HCPs) and the general public.ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health, behavioral, and physical wellbeing of HCPs in the early and mid-term periods of the pandemic in comparison to non-HCPs. Thus, facilitating and guiding optimum planning and delivery of support to HCPs.Methods and analysisAn observational cross-sectional survey and cohort study aiming to enroll over 1050 participants (minimum, 800 HCPs and 250 controls). Study questionnaires will be completed at baseline and after 6-weeks and 4-months. Recruitment initiated July 2020. The study was designed in London, United Kingdom, but open to participants worldwide. Baseline: Questionnaires comprising of validated self-administered screening tools for depression, anxiety, sleep-related issues, wellbeing, and burnout. The questionnaires also explore changes in behavior and physical wellbeing of the participants. In addition, associations of these mental health and behavioral factors with work-related factors and support will be explored. Six-weeks and 4-months follow-up: Follow-up questionnaires will assess change in symptoms of anxiety and depression, sleep disorders, use of alcohol and other substances, behavioral or interpersonal relationship changes. Physical wellbeing will be assessed through the presence of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection and absence from work. We will also evaluate the impact of variable provision of personal protection equipment (supply and training), extended working hours, and concern for the wellbeing of family members, anxiety levels, and evidence of burnout.Statistical considerationsThe study has 80% power to detect a 10% difference of combined depression and/or anxiety symptoms between the groups using two-sided type 1 error at 0.05 at baseline. Assuming that only 50% of these HCPs agree to be a part of a cohort survey, we will have 80% power to detect around 12% difference in the two groups in reported physical symptoms (20% vs. 32.3%), or prevalence of depression and/or anxiety at the end of the study.EthicsThe study was approved by the Cambridge East, Research Ethics Committee (20/EE/0166).Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04433260.

Project description:There is a growing need for interventions to improve well-being in healthcare workers, particularly since the onset of COVID-19.ObjectivesTo synthesise evidence since 2015 on the impact of interventions designed to address well-being and burnout in physicians, nurses and allied healthcare professionals.DesignSystematic literature review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Google Scholar were searched in May-October 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies that primarily investigated burnout and/or well-being and reported quantifiable preintervention and postintervention outcomes using validated well-being measures were included.Data extraction and synthesisFull-text articles in English were independently screened and quality assessed by two researchers using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Results were synthesised and presented in both quantitative and narrative formats. Meta-analysis was not possible due to variations in study designs and outcomes.ResultsA total of 1663 articles were screened for eligibility, with 33 meeting inclusion criterium. Thirty studies used individually focused interventions, while three were organisationally focused. Thirty-one studies used secondary level interventions (managed stress in individuals) and two were primary level (eliminated stress causes). Mindfulness-based practices were adopted in 20 studies; the remainder used meditation, yoga and acupuncture. Other interventions promoted a positive mindset (gratitude journaling, choirs, coaching) while organisational interventions centred on workload reduction, job crafting and peer networks. Effective outcomes were reported in 29 studies, with significant improvements in well-being, work engagement, quality of life and resilience, and reductions in burnout, perceived stress, anxiety and depression.ConclusionThe review found that interventions benefitted healthcare workers by increasing well-being, engagement and resilience, and reducing burnout. It is noted that the outcomes of numerous studies were impacted by design limitations that is, no control/waitlist control, and/or no post intervention follow-up. Suggestions are made for future research.

Project description:IntroductionBurnout among healthcare professionals in intensive care units (ICUs) is a serious issue that leads to early retirement and medication errors. Their gender, lower years of experience, and lower education have been reported as risk factors. Simultaneously, mutual support-commonly referred to as "back-up behavior," in which staff members support each other-is critical for team performance. However, little is known about the influence of mutual support among ICU healthcare professionals on burnout. The U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality refers to mutual support as the involvement of team members in: assisting one another, providing and receiving feedback, and exerting assertive and advocacy behaviors when patient safety is threatened.ObjectiveThis study aimed to verify the hypothesis that lower mutual support among ICU healthcare professionals is associated with increased probability of burnout.MethodsA web-based survey was conducted from March 4 to 20, 2021. All ICU healthcare professionals in Japan were included. An invitation was sent via the mailing list of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and asked to mail to local communities and social network services. We measured burnout severity using the Maslach Burnout-Human Services Survey and mutual support using the TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Perceptions Questionnaire, as well as occupational background. The cutoff value for burnout was predefined and conducted logistic regression.ResultsWe received 335 responses, all of which were analyzed. The majority of respondents were nurses (58.5%), followed by physicians (18.5%) and clinical engineers (10.1%). The burnout group scored significantly lower on mutual support than the non-burnout group. After adjusting for covariates in a logistic regression, low mutual support was an independent factor predicting a high probability of burnout.ConclusionsThis study suggests that it is important to focus on mutual support among ICU healthcare professionals to reduce the frequency of burnout.

Dataset Information

Longitudinal comparisons of mental health, burnout and well-being in patient-facing, non-patient-facing healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the CoPE-HCP study.

Background

Aims

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Longitudinal comparisons of mental health, burnout and well-being in patient-facing, non-patient-facing healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the CoPE-HCP study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets