Interventions to support the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic: a mixed methods systematic review

A Mobile Phone-Based Intervention to Reduce Mental Health Problems in Health Care Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic (PsyCovidApp): Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The global health emergency generated by the COVID-19 pandemic is posing an unprecedented challenge to health care workers, who are facing heavy workloads under psychologically difficult situations. Mental mobile Health (mHealth) interventions are now being widely deployed due to their attractive implementation features, despite the lack of evidence about their efficacy in this specific population and context.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of a psychoeducational, mindfulness-based mHealth intervention to reduce mental health problems in health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted a blinded, parallel-group, controlled trial in Spain. Health care workers providing face-to-face health care to patients with COVID-19 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive the PsyCovidApp intervention (an app targeting emotional skills, healthy lifestyle behavior, burnout, and social support) or a control app (general recommendations about mental health care) for 2 weeks. The participants were blinded to their group allocation. Data were collected telephonically at baseline and after 2 weeks by trained health psychologists. The primary outcome was a composite of depression, anxiety, and stress (overall score on the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 [DASS-21]). Secondary outcomes were insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index), burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey), posttraumatic stress (Davidson Trauma Scale), self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale), and DASS-21 individual scale scores. Differences between groups were analyzed using general linear modeling according to an intention-to-treat protocol. Additionally, we measured the usability of the PsyCovidApp (System Usability Scale). The outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of the treatment allocation.

RESULTS

Between May 14 and July 25, 2020, 482 health care workers were recruited and randomly assigned to PsyCovidApp (n=248) or the control app (n=234). At 2 weeks, complete outcome data were available for 436/482 participants (90.5%). No significant differences were observed between the groups at 2 weeks in the primary outcome (standardized mean difference -0.04; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.04; P=.15) or in the other outcomes. In our prespecified subgroup analyses, we observed significant improvements among health care workers consuming psychotropic medications (n=79) in the primary outcome (-0.29; 95% CI -0.48 to -0.09; P=.004), and in posttraumatic stress, insomnia, anxiety, and stress. Similarly, among health care workers receiving psychotherapy (n=43), we observed improvements in the primary outcome (-0.25; 95% CI -0.49 to -0.02; P=.02), and in insomnia, anxiety, and stress. The mean usability score of PsyCovidApp was high (87.21/100, SD 12.65). After the trial, 208/221 participants in the intervention group (94.1%) asked to regain access to PsyCovidApp, indicating high acceptability.

CONCLUSIONS

In health care workers assisting patients with COVID-19 in Spain, PsyCovidApp, compared with a control app, reduced mental health problems at 2 weeks only among health care workers receiving psychotherapy or psychotropic medications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04393818; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04393818.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Professionals and General Population During "First Wave" of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study Conducted in Sicily, Italy

On December 31, 2019, an outbreak of lower respiratory infections was documented in Wuhan caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Since the beginning, SARS-CoV-2 has caused many infections among healthcare workers (HCWs) worldwide. Aims of this study were: a. to compare the distribution among the HCWs and the general population of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Western Sicily and Italy; b. to describe the characteristics of HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the western Sicilian healthcare context during the first wave of the epidemic diffusion in Italy. Incidence and mean age of HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2 were comparable in Western Sicily and in the whole Italian country. The 97.6% of infections occurred in HCWs operating in non-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) working environments, while an equal distribution of cases between hospital and primary care services context was documented. Nurses and healthcare assistants, followed by physicians, were the categories more frequently infected by SARS-CoV-2. The present study suggests that healthcare workers are easily infected compared to the general population but that often infection could equally occur in hospital and non-hospital settings. Safety of HCWs in counteracting the COVID-19 pandemic must be strengthened in hospital [adequate provision of personal protective equipment (PPE), optimization of human resources, implementation of closed and independent groups of HCWs, creation of traffic control building and dedicated areas in every healthcare context] and non-hospital settings (influenza vaccination, adequate psychophysical support, including refreshments during working shifts, adequate rest, and family support).

Theory-driven, rapid formative research on quality improvement intervention for critical care of patients with COVID-19 in Argentina

The challenges of implementing interventions in healthcare settings have been more apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. This pre-implementation evaluation used a rapid qualitative approach to explore barriers and facilitators to an intervention in intensive care units in Argentina, aimed to promote the use of personal protection equipment, provide emotional support for professionals, and achieve patient flow goals. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with health professionals of 15 public hospitals in Argentina. Normalization Process Theory was used to guide content analysis of the data. Participants identified potential barriers such as the incorporation of non-specialist staff, shortage of resources, lack of communication between groups and shifts. Potential facilitators were also identified: regular feedback and communication related to implementation, adequate training for new and non-specialist staff, and incentives (e.g., scholarships). The immediacy of the pandemic demanded rapid qualitative research, sharing actionable findings in real time.

Frontline interdisciplinary clinician perspectives on caring for patients with COVID-19: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the drivers of distress and motivations faced by interdisciplinary clinicians who were on the frontline caring for patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN

50 semistructured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis.

SETTING

A safety-net hospital in Denver, Colorado.

PARTICIPANTS

Interdisciplinary frontline clinicians including physicians, advance practice providers, nurses, respiratory therapists and paramedics providing inpatient hospital care to patients hospitalised for COVID-19.

RESULTS

Fifty clinicians (32 women and 18 men) participated. Five themes with respective subthemes (in parentheses) were identified: depersonalisation and barriers to care (impeding rapport and compassion, focusing on infection risk at the expense of high-quality care, grief from witnessing patients suffer in isolation), powerless in uncertainty (inescapable awareness of personal risk, therapeutic doubt in a void of evidence, confronting ethical dilemmas, struggling with dynamic and unfamiliar challenges), overwhelmed and exhausted (burden of personal protective equipment (PPE), information overload and confusion, overstretched by additional responsibilities at work, compounded by personal life stressors, feeling vulnerable and dispensable, compassion fatigue, distress from the disproportionate impact on socially oppressed communities), bolstering morale and confidence (motivated by community and family support, equipped with data), and driven by moral duty (responsibility to patient care and community, collegial solidarity and collaboration, contributing to the greater good).

CONCLUSION

Frontline clinicians reported distress due to the challenges of PPE, uncertainty and powerlessness, new responsibilities at work and home, losing control of their schedules, grief from witnessing patients suffer in isolation and witnessing healthcare disparities exacerbated by this pandemic. Clinicians feel supported by their colleagues, families, and community and were driven by a sense of moral duty. Healthcare system should adopt strategies to minimise distress faced by interdisciplinary clinicians on the frontline of COVID-19.

Overview of sleep management during COVID-19

The sleep of millions has suffered during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Prevalence rates of 20-45% are reported globally for insomnia symptoms during the pandemic. Affected populations include the public and health care workers. A sleep deprived society faces the increased burden of COVID-related economic disruption, psychosocial problems, substance abuse, and suicide. Disordered sleep is not expected to disappear with control of infection, making interventions acutely necessary. The question becomes how to manage the sleep dysfunction during and after the pandemic. Depression and anxiety are prominent complaints during pandemic restrictions. Insomnia symptoms and fatigue continue even as mood improves in those who are in recovery from COVID-19 infection. Management of disturbed sleep and mental health is particularly needed in frontline health care workers. This overview describes 53 publications, as of February 2021, on disturbed sleep during the pandemic, treatment studies on COVID-related sleep disturbance, and need to rely on current treatment guidelines for common sleep disorders. The available research during the first year of COVID-19 has generally described symptoms of poor sleep rather than addressing treatment strategies. It covers digital cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-i) for the public and frontline workers, recognizing the need of greater acceptance and efficacy of controlled trials of CBT for affected groups. Recommendations based on a tiered public health model are discussed.

The impact of COVID-19 on the professional and personal lives of pediatric oncology social workers

PURPOSE

Describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work structure, daily care provided, personal lives, and practice models for pediatric oncology social workers (POSW).

RESEARCH APPROACH

Cross-sectional online survey on APOSW professional listserv from 10/5/2020 to 11/20/2020.

SAMPLE

101 surveys were completed by POSW from 31 states and the District of Columbia.

METHODS

Data were summarized descriptively and with semantic content analyses.

FINDINGS

Surveys were completed by social workers from diverse work settings. Seventy-five percent of social workers were deemed "essential," and 45% reported working primarily from home. Most (56%) adopted a form of telehealth for patient care, although 71% did not receive telehealth training and 87% perceived lesser quality of care with telehealth. Nearly 80% of respondents reported not being able to provide optimum psychosocial care. Notable stressors on social work practice included worry about exposure to COVID-19, limited resources, lack of contact with and increased emotional needs of patients and families, managing patient and family concerns about COVID-19, and isolation from colleagues. Inequity and social justice issues were identified. Despite challenges, over 60% of POSW endorsed positive changes to their work life resulting from the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

As the COVID-19 pandemic persists, POSW have adapted to a changing work environment, different modes of service provision, and stark health inequities to meet the needs of patients and families in a crisis.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL PROVIDERS

COVID-19 vastly impacted the personal and professional lives of POSW, warranting attentiveness to lessons learned and future directions.

Factors Associated With Post-traumatic Growth Among Healthcare Workers Who Experienced the Outbreak of MERS Virus in South Korea: A Mixed-Method Study

Background: Infectious disease outbreaks such as COVID-19 and MERS pose a major threat to healthcare workers' (HCWs) physical and mental health. Studies exploring the positive changes gained from adapting to traumatic events, known as post-traumatic growth (PTG), have attracted much attention. However, it is unclear which factors or experiences lead to PTG among HCWs. The purpose of this mixed-method study was to investigate factors associated with PTG among HCWs who experienced the MERS outbreak in South Korea, and fully describe their experience of developing PTG.

Methods: Quantitative data from 78 participants were collected using psychometric tools for Psychological distress, Resilience, and Support for coping, and Post-traumatic growth. Qualitative interviews were conducted with seven nurses. Data were analyzed using the qualitative content analysis method according to the sub-themes of resilience, which was the main factor associated with PTG.

Results: We found resilience to have a significant impact on PTG (ß =0.486, p = 0.001). Thus the qualitative interviews were analyzed using the core concepts of resilience. Qualitative interviews with nurses illustrated how participants experienced the development of resilience in terms of its sub-factors: hardiness, persistence, optimism, and support.

Conclusion: HCWs who endured the MERS outbreak showed high levels of PTG, and the analysis of the interview data provided a fuller understanding on the experience of remaining resilient and developing PTG. These results provide practical and pragmatic information helpful for developing intervention strategies and protocols that can help HCWs transform adversity into growth and development.

SARS/MERS/SARS-CoV-2 Outbreaks and Burnout Syndrome among Healthcare Workers. An Umbrella Systematic Review

The coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic is putting a severe strain on all healthcare systems. Several occupational risk factors are challenging healthcare workers (HCWs) who are at high risk of mental health outcomes, including Burnout Syndrome (BOS). BOS is a psychological syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses concerning BOS and coronavirus (SARS/MERS/SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks was carried out on PubMed Central/Medline, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, and Epistemonikos databases. Data relating to COVID-19 is insufficient, but in previous SARS and MERS outbreaks about one-third of HCWs manifested BOS. This prevalence rate is similar to the figure recorded in some categories of HCWs exposed to chronic occupational stress and poor work organization during non-epidemic periods. Inadequate organization and worsening working conditions during an epidemic appear to be the most likely causes of BOS. Preventive care and workplace health promotion programs could be useful for protecting healthcare workers during pandemics, as well as during regular health activities.

CORONAcrisis-An Observational Study on the Experience of Healthcare Professionals in a University Hospital during a Pandemic Emergency

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide and has posed unique challenges to healthcare professionals. Caring for patients during a pandemic may have negative impacts on their mental health. We describe the first part of a study using a mixed-method sequential explanatory design (QUANT→QUAL). This quantitative part examines the experiences of healthcare professionals during the pandemic in a University Hospital in Italy. We performed a cross-sectional hospital-based survey involving all healthcare professionals between 19 May 2020 and 3 June 2020. Perceived Stress Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire, and General Anxiety Disorder scores were calculated, in order to assess how the pandemic emergency changed the occupational and social habits of the healthcare professionals. The mean age of the 275 respondents was 47 years and females accounted for 80.2%. A total of 29.8% had a Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) score ≥25, 22.9% scored ≥15 on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scale, and 17.1% scored ≥15 on the General Anxiety Disorder (GAD) scale. Stress symptoms were mostly manifested for interviewees over 55, females, those who live far from their family, those who have only one child, and those who had a qualification lower than high school or who had a medical specialization. Our findings show a relevant level of psychological distress, anxiety, and depression in up to 30% of the sample, highlighting a significant psychological burden in all professionals.

Has the COVID 19 Virus Changed Adherence to Hand Washing among Healthcare Workers?

The aim of the study was to assess adherence to hand washing by healthcare workers (HCWs) and its variations over time in hospital wards. We wanted to check whether the pandemic had changed the behavior of HCWs. The study was conducted between 1 January 2015, and 31 December 2020. The HCWs were observed to assess their compliance with the Five Moments for Hand Hygiene. We described the percentage of adherence to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines stratified per year, per specialty areas, per different types of HCWs. We also observed the use of gloves. Descriptive data were reported as frequencies and percentages. We observed 13,494 hand hygiene opportunities. The majority of observations concerned nurses who were confirmed as the category most frequently involved with patients. Hospital's global adherence to WHO guidelines did not change in the last six years. During the pandemic, the rate of adherence to the procedure increased significantly only in Intensive Care Unit (ICU). In 2020, the use of gloves increased in pre-patient contact. The hand-washing permanent monitoring confirmed that it is very difficult to obtain the respect of correct hand hygiene in all opportunities, despite the ongoing pandemic and the fear of contagion.

Interventions to address mental health issues in healthcare workers during infectious disease outbreaks: A systematic review

Considering the importance of evidence on interventions to tackle mental health problems in healthcare workers (HCWs) during pandemics, we conducted a systematic review, aiming to identify and summarize the implemented interventions to deal with mental health issues of HCWs during infectious disease outbreaks and report their effectiveness. Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycInfo electronic databases were searched until October 2nd, 2020. Primary-data articles, describing any implemented interventions and their effectiveness were considered pertinent. Studies were screened according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria and subsequently data extraction was performed. Twenty-four articles, referring to SARS, Ebola, Influenza AH1N1 and COVID-19 were included. Interventions addressing mental health issues in HCWs during pandemics/epidemics were grouped into four categories: 1) informational support (training, guidelines, prevention programs), 2) instrumental support (personal protective equipment, protection protocols); 3) organizational support (manpower allocation, working hours, re-organization of facilities/structures, provision of rest areas); 4) emotional and psychological support (psychoeducation and training, mental health support team, peer-support and counselling, therapy, digital platforms and tele-support). These results might be helpful for researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers to develop evidence-based sustainable interventions and guidelines, aiming to prevent or reduce the immediate and long-term effect of pandemics on mental health status of HCWs.

COVID-Well Study: Qualitative Evaluation of Supported Wellbeing Centres and Psychological First Aid for Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Supported wellbeing centres were set up in UK hospital trusts as an early intervention aimed at mitigating the psychological impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers. These provided high quality rest spaces with peer-to-peer psychological support provided by National Health Service (NHS) staff volunteers called 'wellbeing buddies', trained in psychological first aid. The aim of the study was to explore the views of centre visitors and operational staff towards this COVID-19 workforce wellbeing provision. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were undertaken with twenty-four (20F, 4M) employees from an acute hospital trust in the UK. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed, data were handled and analysed using thematic analysis. Interviews generated 3 over-arching themes, and 13 sub-themes covering 'exposure and job roles', 'emotional impacts of COVID-19 and 'the wellbeing centres'. Supported wellbeing centres were viewed as critical for the wellbeing of hospital employees during the first surge of COVID-19 in the UK. Wellbeing initiatives require managerial advocacy and must be inclusive. Job-related barriers to work breaks and accessing staff wellbeing provisions should be addressed. High quality rest spaces and access to peer-to-peer support are seen to benefit individuals, teams, organisations and care quality. Training NHS staff in psychological first aid is a useful approach to supporting the wellbeing of the NHS workforce during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sources of Health Anxiety for Hospital Staff Working during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the likelihood that hospital staff will report symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress has increased. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative influences of circumstantial, demographic, and trait–state anxiety variables on health anxiety in this group. Methods: A total of 168 hospital staff members (mean age: 28.91 years; 56.5% females) participated in the study. They completed a series of questionnaires covering sociodemographic characteristics, health anxiety, state–trait anxiety, and job-related information. Participants also reported whether they had close acquaintances (friends, family members) infected with COVID-19. Results: Higher health anxiety was related to both trait and state anxiety. Working on the frontline, being in contact with close acquaintances infected with COVID-19, and higher state and trait anxiety predicted higher health anxiety. Gender, age, and educational background were not predictors. Conclusions: In a sample of hospital staff, subjective feelings of anxiety about one own’s health were related to personality traits, individual experiences of having close acquaintances infected with COVID-19, and working on the frontline.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Helsinki University Hospital Personnel Psychological Well-Being: Six-Month Follow-Up Results

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unequally distributed extra workload to hospital personnel and first reports have indicated that especially front-line health care personnel are psychologically challenged. A majority of the Finnish COVID-19 patients are cared for in the Helsinki University Hospital district. The psychological distress of the Helsinki University Hospital personnel has been followed via an electronic survey monthly since June 2020. We report six-month follow-up results of a prospective 18-month cohort study. Individual variation explained much more of the total variance in psychological distress (68.5%, 95% CI 65.2-71.9%) and negative changes in sleep (75.6%, 95% CI 72.2-79.2%) than the study survey wave (1.6%, CI 0.5-5.5%; and 0.3%, CI 0.1-1.2%). Regional COVID-19 incidence rates correlated with the personnel's psychological distress. In adjusted multilevel generalized linear multiple regression models, potentially traumatic COVID-19 pandemic-related events (OR 6.54, 95% CI 5.00-8.56) and front-line COVID-19 work (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.37-2.39) was associated with personnel psychological distress but age and gender was not. While vaccinations have been initiated, creating hope, continuous follow-up and psychosocial support is still needed for all hospital personnel.

An investigation of psychological responses to COVID-19 in Irish healthcare workers: longitudinal quantitative and nested qualitative study

COVID-19 is an unprecedent occurrence in modern times and individuals who work within healthcare settings, face a broad array of challenges in responding to this worldwide event. Key information on the psychosocial responses of such healthcare workers (HCWs) in the context of COVID-19 is limited and in particular there is a need for studies that utilise longitudinal methods, an overarching theoretical model, and use of a cohort of participants within a defined geographical area across acute and community settings. The work packages making up the current research project use quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the psychological sequelae for HCWs in the context of COVID-19 in geographically adjacent healthcare areas (South and Mid-West of Ireland) across four time points (induction, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year follow-up). The quantitative arm of the project (WP 1) utilises the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM-SR) and examines a number of key psychological factors pertinent to this model including perceptions about COVID-19 and infection more generally, coping, formal and informal support and a number of impact variables including mood, sleep quality, and perceptions of stigma. The qualitative study (WP 2) will address HCWs experiences of working during the pandemic, ascertain any additional areas of psychological functioning, environmental and workplace factors and resources that may be utilised by HCWs and that are not assessed by the quantitative study protocol, focusing particularly on those staff groups typically underrepresented in previous studies.

The Role of Perceived Organizational Support in Mental Health of Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Data support the link between the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and mental distress in healthcare workers (HCWs). Although previous studies have documented the association between organizational policies and employees' psychological and mental status, there is still scant evidence regarding the effect of perceived organizational support (POS) on mental distress in HCWs during the pandemic. Aims: The present study aimed to assess the association between POS and mental distress in HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The role of POS in stress, depressive and trauma symptoms in HCWs was investigated. Methods: This was an online cross-sectional study in 424 HCWs. Data were collected during the first wave of the pandemic, and included demographics, a 7-item questionnaire assessing POS, the "Patient Health Questionnaire" assessing depressive symptoms, the "Impact of Events Scale Revised," measuring post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and the "Perceived Stress Scale" assessing perceived stress. Results: The mean POS score was 3.33 [standard deviation:1.85; range 0-7]. Younger (p < 0.001), less experienced (p < 0.001), female (p = 0.002), and non-physician HCWs (p = 0.031) were more likely to report lower self-perceived organizational support than older, male, more experienced physicians. Self-perceived organizational support was significantly and negatively associated with and self-assessed intensity of stress, depressive and traumatic symptoms, after adjusting for putative confounders (p < 0.001). Discussion: Self-perceived organizational support was significantly associated with HCWs' self-assessed mental status during the pandemic. Organizational support and mental distress should be addressed simultaneously in HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic to increase resilience among them.

Long working hours and burnout in health care workers: Non-linear dose-response relationship and the effect mediated by sleeping hours-A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Burnout among health care workers is highly prevalent and has profound impact on quality of care. Hospital on-duty schedules lead to long working hours and short sleeping hours; both are common factors associated with burnout. We examined the dose-response relationship and the potential mediating role of sleeping hours on the association between working hours and burnout among health care workers.

METHODS

We collected data on the burnout status, using the Mandarin version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (subscales measure work-related and personal burnouts), working hours, sleeping hours, and relevant measures for 2081 health care personnel who underwent a routine health examination in a medical center in Taiwan during 2016-2017. Four subgroups were compared: physicians (n = 369), nurses (n = 973), technicians (n = 391), and administrators (n = 348).

RESULTS

Average weekly working hours are associated with burnout scores in a non-linear dose-response manner. Compared with a work week of 40 hours, the odds ratio of work-related burnout doubled when hours exceeded 60, tripled when hours exceeded 74, and quadrupled when hours exceeded 84. Physicians' burnout is less susceptible to incremental increases in working hours, compared to the situations in other health care workers. The proportions eliminated by reducing sleeping hours were 25%-73% for physicians and 7%-29% for nurses respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that working hours are associated with burnout, and the association was partially mediated by sleeping hours.

The Influences of COVID-19 on Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study

Background: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has attracted global attention. During the lockdown period of COVID-19, follow-up of many patients with chronic disease had been interrupted, which brought severe challenges to better management of their disease. This study aimed at exploring the change of illness, daily life, and psychological responses during the COVID-19 pandemic among chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. Methods: A total of 612 patients were enrolled in this study; 282 patients were categorized into the CKD stage 1-2 group and 330 patients were categorized into the CKD stage 3-5 group. Among two groups, 168 (27.5%) and 177 (28.9%) patients were female with a median age of 42 and 45, respectively. The study was conducted by collecting the questionnaires in five nephrology centers. The questionnaire consisted of assessment of anxiety by using the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and the influences of COVID-19, which included basic demographic data, the influences of COVID-19 on illness and daily life, as well as the patients' psychological responses during the epidemic. Results: A total of 612 patients were included and divided into two groups according to eGFR. Ninety-six patients (34%) in the CKD stage 1-2 group and 141 patients (42.7%) in the CKD stage 3-5 group had reduced their follow-up frequency (p = 0.031). More patients with CKD stages 1-2 consulted online (25.9%), p = 0.005. Besides, patients in the CKD stage 3-5 group tended to be more anxious about follow-up (p = 0.002), fearful of being infected with COVID-19 (p = 0.009), and more likely to feel symptoms getting worse (p = 0.006). The standard scores of SAS were 48.58 ± 7.082 and 51.19 ± 5.944 in the CKD stage 1-2 group and the CKD stage 3-5 group, respectively (p < 0.001). There were significant differences in the severity of anxiety (p = 0.004). Conclusion: COVID-19 had a greater impact on patients with CKD stages 3-5 than those with stages 1-2 in terms of illness, daily life, and psychological disorder. Patients with CKD stages 3-5 were more anxious during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Anxiety among front-line health-care workers supporting patients with COVID-19: A global survey

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore anxiety status across a broad range of HCWs supporting patients with COVID-19 in different global regions.

METHOD

This was an international online survey in which participation was on voluntary basis and data were submitted via Google Drive, across a two-week period starting from March 18, 2020. The Beck Anxiety Inventory was used to quantify the level of anxiety.

RESULTS

1416 HCWs (70.8% medical doctors, 26.2% nurses) responded to the survey from 75 countries. The distribution of anxiety levels was: normal/minimal (n = 503, 35.5%), low (n = 390, 27.5%); moderate (n = 287, 20.3%), and severe (n = 236, 16.7%). According to multiple generalized linear model, female gender (p = 0.001), occupation (ie, being a nurse dealing directly with patients with COVID-19 [p = 0.017]), being younger (p = 0.001), reporting inadequate knowledge on COVID-19 (p = 0.005), having insufficient personal protective equipment (p = 0.001) and poor access to hand sanitizers or liquid soaps (p = 0.008), coexisting chronic disorders (p = 0.001) and existing mental health problems (p = 0.001), and higher income of countries where HCWs lived (p = 0.048) were significantly associated with increased anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Front-line HCWs, regardless of the levels of COVID-19 transmission in their country, are anxious when they do not feel protected. Our findings suggest that anxiety could be mitigated ensuring sufficient levels of protective personal equipment alongside greater education and information.

Are We Coping Well with COVID-19?: A Study on Its Psycho-Social Impact on Front-line Healthcare Workers

BACKGROUND

Global pandemics have a profound psycho-social impact on health systems and their impact on healthcare workers is under-reported.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional survey with 13 Likert-scale responses and some additional polar questions pertaining to dressing habits and learning in a university hospital in the midwest United States. Descriptive and analytical statistics were performed.

RESULTS

The 370 respondents (66.1% response rate, age 38.5±11.6 years; 64.9% female), included 102 supervising providers [96 (25.9%) physicians, 6 (1.6%) mid-level], 64 (17.3%) residents/fellows, 73 (19.7% nurses, 45 (12.2%) respiratory therapists, 31 (8.4%) therapy services and others: 12 (3.2%) case-managers, 4 (1.1%) dietitians, 39 (10.5%) unclassified]. Overall, 200 (54.1%) had increased anxiety, 115 (31.1%) felt overwhelmed, 159 (42.9%) had fear of death, and 281 (75.9%) changed dressing habits. Females were more anxious (70.7% vs. 56%, X² (1, N=292)=5.953, p=0.015), overwhelmed (45.6% vs. 27.3%, X² (1, N=273)=8.67, p=0.003) and suffered sleep disturbances (52% vs. 39%, X² (1, N=312)=4.91, p=0.027). Administration was supportive; 243 (84.1%, N=289), 276 (74.5%) knew another co-worker with COVID-19, and only 93 (25.1%) felt healthcare employment was less favorable. Residents and fellows reported a negative impact on their training despite feeling supported by their program.

CONCLUSION

Despite belief of a supportive administration, over half of healthcare workers and learners reported increased anxiety, and nearly a third felt overwhelmed during this current pandemic.

Interventions to support the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic: a mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Evidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the mental well-being of health and social care professionals. Symptoms of mental health problems commonly include depression, anxiety, stress, and additional cognitive and social problems; these can impact on function in the workplace. The mental health and resilience (ability to cope with the negative effects of stress) of frontline health and social care professionals ('frontline workers' in this review) could be supported during disease epidemics by workplace interventions, interventions to support basic daily needs, psychological support interventions, pharmacological interventions, or a combination of any or all of these.

OBJECTIVES

Objective 1: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Objective 2: to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic.

SEARCH METHODS

On 28 May 2020 we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus databases and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing. We also searched ongoing trials registers and Google Scholar. We ran all searches from the year 2002 onwards, with no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies in which participants were health and social care professionals working at the front line during infectious disease outbreaks, categorised as epidemics or pandemics by WHO, from 2002 onwards. For objective 1 we included quantitative evidence from randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies, which investigated the effect of any intervention to support mental health or resilience, compared to no intervention, standard care, placebo or attention control intervention, or other active interventions. For objective 2 we included qualitative evidence from studies that described barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions. Outcomes critical to this review were general mental health and resilience. Additional outcomes included psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress; burnout; other mental health disorders; workplace staffing; and adverse events arising from interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently applied selection criteria to abstracts and full papers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. One review author systematically extracted data, cross-checked by a second review author. For objective 1, we assessed risk of bias of studies of effectiveness using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For objective 2, we assessed methodological limitations using either the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) qualitative study tool, for qualitative studies, or WEIRD (Ways of Evaluating Important and Relevant Data) tool, for descriptive studies. We planned meta-analyses of pairwise comparisons for outcomes if direct evidence were available. Two review authors extracted evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to implementation, organised these around the domains of the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in each finding. We planned to produce an overarching synthesis, bringing quantitative and qualitative findings together.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies that reported implementation of an intervention aimed at supporting the resilience or mental health of frontline workers during disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): 2; Ebola: 9; Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): 1; COVID-19: 4). Interventions studied included workplace interventions, such as training, structure and communication (6 studies); psychological support interventions, such as counselling and psychology services (8 studies); and multifaceted interventions (2 studies). Objective 1: a mixed-methods study that incorporated a cluster-randomised trial, investigating the effect of a work-based intervention, provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of training frontline healthcare workers to deliver psychological first aid on a measure of burnout. Objective 2: we included all 16 studies in our qualitative evidence synthesis; we classified seven as qualitative and nine as descriptive studies. We identified 17 key findings from multiple barriers and facilitators reported in studies. We did not have high confidence in any of the findings; we had moderate confidence in six findings and low to very low confidence in 11 findings. We are moderately confident that the following two factors were barriers to intervention implementation: frontline workers, or the organisations in which they worked, not being fully aware of what they needed to support their mental well-being; and a lack of equipment, staff time or skills needed for an intervention. We are moderately confident that the following three factors were facilitators of intervention implementation: interventions that could be adapted for local needs; having effective communication, both formally and socially; and having positive, safe and supportive learning environments for frontline workers. We are moderately confident that the knowledge or beliefs, or both, that people have about an intervention can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementation of the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of both quantitative and qualitative evidence from studies carried out during or after disease epidemics and pandemics that can inform the selection of interventions that are beneficial to the resilience and mental health of frontline workers. Alternative sources of evidence (e.g. from other healthcare crises, and general evidence about interventions that support mental well-being) could therefore be used to inform decision making. When selecting interventions aimed at supporting frontline workers' mental health, organisational, social, personal, and psychological factors may all be important. Research to determine the effectiveness of interventions is a high priority. The COVID-19 pandemic provides unique opportunities for robust evaluation of interventions. Future studies must be developed with appropriately rigorous planning, including development, peer review and transparent reporting of research protocols, following guidance and standards for best practice, and with appropriate length of follow-up. Factors that may act as barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions should be considered during the planning of future research and when selecting interventions to deliver within local settings.

Basic and clinical studies of endorphins

Background

Countries and health systems have had to make challenging resource allocation and capacity-building decisions to promote proper patient care and ensure health and care workers’ safety and well-being, so that they can effectively address the present COVID-19 pandemic as well as upcoming public health problems and natural catastrophes. As innovations are already in place and updated evidence is published daily, more information is required to inform the development and implementation of policies and interventions to improve health and care workforce capacity to address the COVID-19 pandemic response.

Objective

The objective of this protocol review is to identify countries’ range of experiences with policies and management interventions that can improve health and care workers’ capacity to address the COVID-19 pandemic response and synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of the interventions.

Methods

We will conduct a living systematic review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies and gray literature (technical and political documents) published in English, French, Hindi, Portuguese, Italian, and Spanish between January 1, 2000, and March 1, 2022. The databases to be searched are MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, SCOPUS, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature. In addition, the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 Research Database and the websites of international organizations (International Labour Organization, Economic Co-operation and Development, and The Health System Response Monitor) will be searched for unpublished studies and gray literature. Data will be extracted from the selected documents using an electronic form adapted from the Joanna Briggs Institute quantitative and qualitative tools for data extraction. A convergent integrated approach to synthesis and integration will be used. The risk of bias will be assessed with Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools, and the certainty of the evidence in the presented outcomes will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

Results

The database and gray literature search retrieved 3378 documents. Data are being analyzed by 2 independent reviewers. The study is expected to be published by the end of 2023 in a peer-reviewed journal.

Conclusions

This review will allow us to identify and describe the policies and strategies implemented by countries and their effectiveness, as well as identify gaps in the evidence.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42022327041; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=327041

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/50306