Psychological distress and moral injury to oncologists and their patients during COVID-19 pandemic

The experiences of families of children with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative exploration

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic posed new challenges to physical and psychological well-being. Families with pediatric cancer patients were particularly vulnerable due to changes like children staying at home, hospital policy shifts, and caring for an immunocompromised child. Limited research exists on COVID-19's effects on these families. This study aimed to assess the pandemic's impact and identify psychosocial support gaps.

METHODS

Participants (N = 256) were parents of children with cancer recruited via Facebook in partnership with Momcology®, a community-based organization for pediatric cancer, between February and May 2021. Qualitative analyses used open-ended responses about the pandemic's impact on the family.

RESULTS

Analysis revealed 6 themes, with positive and negative sentiments: family changes (n = 169; 61% negative), social isolation (n = 154; 100% negative), emotional impact (n = 143; 89% negative), school changes (n = 126; 80% negative), health-care changes (n = 111; 96% negative), and physical health (n = 49; 73% negative). Family changes overarched all themes and included financial strains, at-home schooling, and family bonding. Parents highlighted social isolation and the emotional impact of pandemic-related changes. School changes forced parents to balance remote-work and childcare. Health-care changes limited resources and visitation. Parents reported their children were less active and slept less but had fewer illnesses.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Many common pandemic challenges were exacerbated by the stress of caring for a child with cancer. Parents struggled most with loss of social support and feelings of isolation. Careful consideration should be given to providing resources for parents of children with cancer and their families.

Moral Distress and Moral Injury in Military Healthcare Clinicians: A Scoping Review

Introduction

Healthcare clinicians are often at risk of psychological distress due to the nature of their occupation. Military healthcare providers are at risk for additional psychological suffering related to unique moral and ethical situations encountered in military service. This scoping review identifies key characteristics of moral distress and moral injury and how these concepts relate to the military healthcare clinician who is both a care provider and service member.

Methods

A scoping review of moral distress and moral injury literature as relates to the military healthcare clinician was conducted on the basis of the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework. Databases searched included CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycInfo, 2 U.S. Defense Department sources, conference papers index, and dissertation abstracts. Reference lists of all identified reports and articles were searched for additional studies.

Results

A total of 573 articles, published between the years 2009 and 2021, were retrieved to include a portion of the COVID-19 pandemic period. One hundred articles met the inclusion criteria for the final full-text review and analysis.

Discussion

This scoping review identified moral distress and moral injury literature to examine similarities, differences, and overlaps in the defining characteristics of the concepts and the associated implications for patients, healthcare clinicians, and organizations. This review included the unfolding influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on moral experiences in health care and the blurring of those lines between civilian and military healthcare clinicians. Future directions of moral injury and moral distress research, practice, and care are discussed.

Moral Injury and its Correlates among Iranian Nurses in the Second Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with various health-related issues among nurses, including mental health problems such as moral injury. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between moral injury, general health, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and type of hospital among Iranian nurses working in different clinical settings during the COVID-19 outbreak. This cross-sectional study employed convenience sampling to recruit 334 nurses working in various clinical settings, including teaching and referral hospitals, in Kerman, Southeastern Iran from October 2021 to February 2022. The study used three measures, including the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and The Moral Injury Symptom Scale-Healthcare Professionals version (MISS-HP). Data analysis was conducted using SPSS25. The results indicated that moral injury was highly prevalent among Iranian nurses, with 47% of the participants reporting experiencing it. A total, 26.9% of the participants reported experiencing mental health disorders and 57.2% of the participants reported experiencing this disorder. Significant correlations were found between moral injury, general health, and PTSD. Specifically, moral injury levels were higher among female nurses with a history of mental disorders and those designated to treat all kinds of cases, compared to other participants. The results suggest that Iranian nurses are at a high risk of experiencing moral injury during the COVID-19 pandemic. Policymakers and health authorities should establish related health educational programs, provide counseling services to promote general health, and pay particular attention to moral injury and PTSD. Additionally, nurse educators should integrate materials related to moral injury into the nursing curriculum.

Healthcare staff mental health trajectories during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the COVID-19 Staff Wellbeing Survey

BACKGROUND

Cross-sectional studies have shown that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the mental health of healthcare staff. However, it is less well understood how working over the long term in successive COVID-19 waves affects staff well-being.

AIMS

To identify subpopulations within the health and social care staff workforce with differentiated trajectories of mental health symptoms during phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

The COVID-19 Staff Wellbeing Survey assessed health and social care staff well-being within an area of the UK at four time points, separated by 3-month intervals, spanning November 2020 to August 2021.

RESULTS

Growth mixture models were performed on the depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder longitudinal data. Two class solutions provided the best fit for all models. The vast majority of the workforce were best represented by the low-symptom class trajectory, where by symptoms were consistently below the clinical cut-off for moderate-to-severe symptoms. A sizable minority (13-16%) were categorised as being in the high-symptom class, a group who had symptom levels in the moderate-to-severe range throughout the peaks and troughs of the pandemic. In the depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder models, the high-symptom class perceived communication from their organisation to be less effective than the low-symptom class.

CONCLUSIONS

This research identified a group of health service staff who reported persistently high mental health symptoms during the pandemic. This group of staff may well have particular needs in terms of the provision of well-being support services.

The psychological stress response of COVID-19 to medical staff and prevention: A large sample study from China

Objectives

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, medical staff in China were more likely to suffer from psychological problems. By investigating the actual state of psychological stress response of medical staff during the COVID-19 outbreak, the study discussed and analyzed the influencing factors of different psychological states in order to prevent the occurrence of serious adverse emotional events in medical staff.

Methods

In the Xiangyang Central Hospital, 1,466 medical staff members have adopted the Psychological Questionnaire for Emergencies Events of Public Health (PQEEPH), which includes questions about depression, neurasthenia, fear, obsessive anxiety, and hypochondriac disorders. The questionnaire also asks about gender, age, education level, health, department, position, and whether personnel exposure history correlation analysis has been confirmed.

Results

The survey revealed that 55% had depression, 26.7% had neurasthenia, 95% had fear, 47.9% had obsessive anxiety, and 69.3% had hypochondria. The effects of depression and hypochondriac emotional stress were significantly greater in female workers than in male workers (p < 0.05). Those with higher educational levels had a stronger emotional stress response. Medical professionals with or without contact histories, those who were suspected or confirmed, as well as those in various positions and departments, all demonstrated significant differences in their stress emotions (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Emotional stress affected medical professionals, especially doctors and nurses, who were on the front lines of clinical work in the face of significant public health emergencies. Therefore, to reduce the stress burden and enhance mental health on medical staff, hospitals were suggested to improve their emergency management practices. In addition, the sensitization knowledge training and psychological counseling for front-line clinical staff should be strengthened.

Fear of COVID-19, stress and depression: A meta-analytic test of the mediating role of anxiety

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected the lives of millions of individuals physiologically, behaviorally, socially, and/or psychologically. Moreover, there is now much empirical evidence that mental health problems have increased during the pandemic period and these problems have various consequences. The changes in the mood states of individuals due to the pandemic underpins the rationale of the present study. The aim of the study was to identify the cross-sectional associations between fear of COVID-19, stress, anxiety, and depression by using two stage-meta-analytic structural equation modeling (TS-MASEM).

DESIGN

This is a meta-analytic structural equation modelling study.

METHOD

A systematic literature review initially identified 4840 studies. As a result of applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 25 studies comprising 28 samples (reporting 120 effect sizes) were eligible for inclusion in the current TS-MASEM (N = 16,452).

RESULTS

The results showed significant associations between fear of COVID-19, stress, anxiety, and depression. Additionally, the mediation role of anxiety in the association between depression and fear of COVID-19 and stress was explored.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the results did not allow for causal inferences regarding depression, they provide insight into the possible consequences of fear of COVID-19 and comorbid problems for clinicians and researchers.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry

Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting “Decisional Uncertainty” provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for “Decisional Conflicts” included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals.

Differences in Stakeholders' Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Care and Decision-Making

Background: Pandemics are related to changes in clinical management. Factors that are associated with individual perceptions of related risks and decision-making processes focused on prevention and vaccination, but perceptions of other healthcare consequences are less investigated. Different perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians on consequences regarding clinical management, decisional criteria, and burden were compared. Study Design: Cross-sectional OnCoVID questionnaire studies. Methods: Data that involved 1231 patients, physicians, and nurses from 11 German institutions that were actively involved in clinical treatment or decision-making in oncology or psychiatry were collected. Multivariate statistical approaches were used to analyze the stakeholder comparisons. Results: A total of 29.2% of professionals reported extensive changes in workload. Professionals in psychiatry returned severe impact of pandemic on all major aspects of their clinical care, but less changes were reported in oncology (p < 0.001). Both patient groups reported much lower recognition of treatment modifications and consequences for their own care. Decisional and pandemic burden was intensively attributed from professionals towards patients, but less in the opposite direction. Conclusions: All of the groups share concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare management and clinical processes, but to very different extent. The perception of changes is dissociated in projection towards other stakeholders. Specific awareness should avoid the dissociated impact perception between patients and professionals potentially resulting in impaired shared decision-making.

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients, their carers and oncology health professionals: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Cancer patients, carers and oncology health professionals have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in many ways, but their experiences and psychosocial responses to the pandemic are still being explored. This study aimed to document the experience of Australians living with cancer, family carers, and Oncology health professionals (HPs) when COVID-19 first emerged.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, participants (cancer patients currently receiving treatment, family carers and HPs) completed a semi-structured interview exploring their experiences of COVID-19 and the impact it had on cancer care. Participants also completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (patients) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (carers and HPs) to assess emotional morbidity. Thematic analysis was undertaken on qualitative data.

RESULTS

32 patients, 16 carers and 29 HPs participated. Qualitative analysis yielded three shared themes: fear and death anxiety, isolation, and uncertainty. For HPs, uncertainty incorporated the potential for moral distress and work-stress. Patients and carers scoring high on anxiety/depression measures were more likely to have advanced disease, expressed greater death anxiety, talked about taking more extreme precautionary measures, and felt more impacted by isolation.

CONCLUSION

Cancer and COVID-19 can have compounding psychological impacts on all those receiving or giving care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Screening for distress in patients, and burnout in HPs, is recommended. Increased compassionate access and provision of creative alternatives to face-to-face support are warrented.

Oncology Healthcare Professionals’ Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The paper begins by reviewing the literature on oncology healthcare professionals’ (HCP) mental health. We summarize and present the current data on HCP mental health in order to understand the baseline state of oncology HCPs’ mental health status prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. At each juncture, we will discuss the implications of these mental health variables on the personal lives of HCPs, the healthcare system, and patient care. We follow by reviewing the literature on these parameters during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to better understand the impact of COVID-19 on the overall mental health of HCPs working in oncology. By reviewing and summarizing the data before and after the start of the pandemic, we will get a fuller picture of the pre-existing stressors facing oncology HCPs and the added burden caused by pandemic-related stresses. The second part of this review paper will discuss the implications for the oncology workforce and offer recommendations based on the research literature in order to improve the lives of HCPs, and in the process, improve patient care.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Patient Perspective

(1) Background: Uncertainty is typical for a pandemic or similar healthcare crisis. This affects patients with resulting decisional conflicts and disturbed shared decision making during their treatment occurring to a very different extent. Sociodemographic factors and the individual perception of pandemic-related problems likely determine this decisional dilemma for patients and can characterize vulnerable groups with special susceptibility for decisional problems and related consequences. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional data from the OnCoVID questionnaire study were used involving 540 patients from 11 participating institutions covering all major regions in Germany. Participants were actively involved in clinical treatment in oncology or psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, perception of consequences for patients) and very basic demographic data (age, gender, stage of treatment and educational background). Decision uncertainties and distress were operationalized using equidistant five-point scales. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and various multivariate approaches. (3) Results: A total of 11.5% of all patients described intensive uncertainty in their clinical decisions that was significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. Younger and female patients and those of higher educational status and treatment stage had the highest values for these stressors (p < 0.001). Only 15.3% of the patients (14.9% oncology, 16.2% psychiatry; p = 0.021) considered the additional risk of COVID-19 infections as very important for their disease-related decisions. Regression analysis identified determinants for patients at risk of a decisional dilemma, including information availability, educational level, age group and requirement of treatment decision making. (4) Conclusions: In patients, the COVID-19 pandemic induced specific decisional uncertainty and distress accompanied by intensified stress and psychological disturbances. Determinants of specific vulnerability were related to female sex, younger age, education level, disease stages and perception of pandemic-related treatment modifications, whereas availability of sufficient pandemic-related information prevented these problems. The most important decisional criteria for patients under these conditions were expected side effects/complications and treatment responses.

Digital Interventions to Reduce Distress Among Health Care Providers at the Frontline: Protocol for a Feasibility Trial

Background

Stress, anxiety, distress, and depression are high among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and they have reported acting in ways that are contrary to their moral values and professional commitments that degrade their integrity. This creates moral distress and injury due to constraints they have encountered, such as limited resources.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to develop and show the feasibility of digital platforms (a virtual reality and a mobile platform) to understand the causes and ultimately reduce the moral distress of health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This will be a prospective, single cohort, pre- and posttest study examining the effect of a brief informative video describing moral distress on perceptual, psychological, and physiological indicators of stress and decision-making during a scenario known to potentially elicit moral distress. To accomplish this, we have developed a virtual reality simulation that will be used before and after the digital intervention for monitoring short-term impacts. The simulation involves an intensive care unit setting during the COVID-19 pandemic, and participants will be placed in morally challenging situations. The participants will be engaged in an educational intervention at the individual, team, and organizational levels. During each test, data will be collected for (1) physiological measures of stress and after each test, data will be collected regarding (2) thoughts, feelings and behaviors during a morally challenging situation, and (3) perceptual estimates of psychological stress. In addition, participants will continue to be monitored for moral distress and other psychological stresses for 8 weeks through our Digital intervention/intelligence Group mobile platform. Finally, a comparison will be conducted using machine learning and biostatistical techniques to analyze the short- and long-term impacts of the virtual reality intervention.

Results

The study was funded in November 2020 and received research ethics board approval in March 2021. The study is ongoing.

Conclusions

This project is a proof-of-concept integration to demonstrate viability over 6 months and guide future studies to develop these state-of-the-art technologies to help frontline health care workers work in complex moral contexts. In addition, the project will develop innovations that can be used for future pandemics and in other contexts prone to producing moral distress and injury. This project aims to demonstrate the feasibility of using digital platforms to understand the continuum of moral distress that can lead to moral injury. Demonstration of feasibility will lead to future studies to examine the efficacy of digital platforms to reduce moral distress.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05001542; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05001542

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/32240