Stress, anxiety, depression and burnout in frontline healthcare workers during two peaks of COVID-19 pandemic in Russia

Differences in the depression and burnout networks between doctors and nurses: evidence from a network analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated a strong association between depression and job burnout among healthcare professionals, but the results have been inconsistent, and there is a lack of in-depth exploration of such a relationship among different healthcare professions. The present study aims to investigate the interrelationships between depression and burnout among Chinese healthcare professionals and whether there are differences in the networks of these symptoms between doctors and nurses.

METHODS

The Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey and the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire were employed to assess job burnout and depression among 3,684 healthcare professionals. The translation has been refined to ensure accuracy and academic suitability. Subsequently, network analysis was conducted on 2,244 participants with a higher level of job burnout to identify core symptoms and explore the associations between job burnout and depression.

RESULTS

The present study showed a network association between lack of interest and pleasure in things and being exhausted from work, excessive tiredness facing work, tendency to collapse at work, and lack of passion for work than before among healthcare professionals, as well as a notable difference in the network association between lack of interest and pleasure in things and lack of passion for work than before between nurses and doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

The depression-burnout network structures differ between doctors and nurses, highlighting the need for targeted intervention measures for both groups.

COVID-19, new challenges to human safety: a global review

In the context of sustainable human development, human safety has gradually shifted from traditional state and political conflict to social conflict and horizontal inequality, and the pandemic has exacerbated this variation risk. This narrative review includes literature from 40 countries on five continents since 2020, explored and tidy up the impacts of pandemics on human safety based on three perspectives: personal safety, family safety and social safety, refined the macroscopic concept of human safety. The comprehensibility of the global review conclusions is enhanced by combining it with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Finally, some novel and comparative results are included to broaden the understanding of the impact of the pandemic, and help policymaker better understand human safety changes from a new perspective.

Australian emergency nurses' experiences of working with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed a need to understand the challenges associated with wearing Personal protective Equipment (PPE). The aim in this study was to explore emergency nurses' experiences early in the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia and the impact of PPE use on their practice.

METHODS

An explorative descriptive qualitative study was conducted between January 2022 and April 2022. Eighteen emergency nurses and six leaders participated. Semi-structured interviews (n = 21) and one focus group were conducted. Interview transcripts were analysed using Braun and Clarke's framework.

RESULTS

Two major themes were identified. The first theme was: (1) The shifting ground of the COVID-19 pandemic response. Associated sub-themes were: i) What's the go with PPE today? ii) In the beginning we were scrambling for masks; iii) Emergency is the true frontline. The second theme was: (2) Physical and emotional impacts of emergency nursing work. Sub-themes were: (i) Facing the fear of exposure; (ii) By the end of the shift I am just absolutely spent; iii) Discomfort of wearing PPE impacts on compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare leaders need to secure PPE supply chains and evaluate the effectiveness and side-effects of different PPE designs to minimise occupational harms associated with prolonged PPE use.

Differential impact of COVID-19 on mental health and burnout

BACKGROUND

There may be differential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and burnout rates of healthcare professionals (HCPs) performing different roles.

AIMS

To examine mental health and burnout rates, and possible drivers for any disparities between professional roles.

METHODS

In this cohort study, online surveys were distributed to HCPs in July-September 2020 (baseline) and re-sent 4 months later (follow-up; December 2020) assessing for probable major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), insomnia, mental well-being and burnout (emotional exhaustion and depersonalization). Separate logistic regression models (at both phases) compared the risk of outcomes between roles: healthcare assistants (HCAs), nurses and midwives (nurses), allied health professionals (AHPs) and doctors (reference group). Separate linear regression models were also developed relating the change in scores to professional role.

RESULTS

At baseline (n = 1537), nurses had a 1.9-fold and 2.5-fold increased risk of MDD and insomnia, respectively. AHPs had a 1.7-fold and 1.4-fold increased risk of MDD and emotional exhaustion, respectively. At follow-up (n = 736), the disproportionate risk between doctors and others worsened: nurses and HCAs were at 3.7-fold and 3.6-fold increased risk of insomnia, respectively. Nurses also had a significantly increased risk of MDD, GAD, poor mental well-being and burnout. Nurses also had significantly worsened anxiety, mental well-being and burnout scores over time, relative to doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses and AHPs had excess risk of adverse mental health and burnout during the pandemic, and this difference worsened over time (in nurses especially). Our findings support adoption of targeted strategies accounting for different HCP roles.

The impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic on risk factors for suicide in healthcare workers: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States. Worldwide, over 700,000 people die by suicide each year. Healthcare workers are more vulnerable to suicide risk factors than the general population. The global COVID-19 pandemic presents additional workplace and health concerns that relate to suicide risk factors in healthcare workers. It is important to recognise suicide risk factors in healthcare workers and to implement strategies to reduce these risk factors.

OBJECTIVES

This study describes the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic on risk factors for suicide in healthcare workers and identifies evidence-based strategies and resources to reduce suicide risk factors in healthcare workers.

DESIGN

The authors conducted a thematic analysis and narrative review of the literature.

METHODS

Using health science databases, the authors searched the literature, selected and analyzed studies, identified themes, synthesised findings and created a narrative review. The STROBE checklist was used in this study.

RESULTS

Two themes were identified (1) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on work-related suicide risk factors in healthcare workers; (2) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health-related suicide risk factors in healthcare workers. The pandemic has affected suicide risk factors in healthcare workers. Many studies discussed evidence-based strategies and resources that can be used to reduce suicide risk factors.

CONCLUSION

The global COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted suicide risk factors in healthcare workers. It is time for individuals and healthcare delivery systems to implement suicide risk prevention strategies to protect healthcare workers now and in the future.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review increases awareness of the pandemic's impact on healthcare workers' risk factors for suicide and identifies evidence-based suicide risk prevention strategies and resources for healthcare workers.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Library services supported this research by generating search strategies and providing resources and tools.

Perceived stress and psychological disorders in healthcare professionals: a multiple chain mediating model of effort-reward imbalance and resilience

Background

Healthcare professionals have shown more psychological disorders such as anxiety and depression due to the nature of work, which can cause job burnout, decrease the quality of medical services, and even endanger medical safety. The aim of the study is to explore the serial multiple mediating role of effort- reward imbalance and resilience between perceived stress and psychological disorders among healthcare professionals.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in China from February to April 2023. A total of 2098 healthcare professionals at a tertiary general hospital was investigated by the following self-reported questionnaires: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), The Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI), Healthcare professionals Resilience Scale (MSRS).

Results

Anxiety and depression are interrelated (r = 0.362, p < 0.01), and they were positively related to perceived stress (r = 0.640/0.607, p < 0.01) and ERI (r = 0.422/0.383, p < 0.01), and negatively related to resilience (r = -0.343/-0.320, p < 0.01). After controlling demographic factors, the variance in anxiety and depression was explained by perceived stress was 37.7 and 35.0%. Bootstrap analyses examining the pathway of perceived stress-ERI-resilience-anxiety revealed significant direct effects [B = 0.560, 95%CI (0.528, 0.591)], as well as indirect effects mediated independently by ERI [B = 0.045, 95%CI (0.029, 0.060)], resilience [B = 0.031, 95%CI (0.017, 0.047)], or a combination of both [B = 0.004, 95%CI (0.002, 0.007)]. Similarly, in the path of perceived stress-ERI-resilience-anxiety-depression, significant direct effects were found [B = -0.310, 95%CI(0.265, 0.351)], along with indirect effects mediated individually by ERI [B = 0.033, 95%CI(0.013, 0.052)], resilience [B = 0.014, 95%CI (0.001, 0.028)], and anxiety [B = 0.218, 95%CI (0.190, 0.246)], or by both or three together (B = 0.032).

Conclusion

This study proved the hypothesis that ERI and resilience played a mediating role in perceived stress and psychological disorders, revealed the potential mechanism of anxiety in stress and depression, and proposed a solution for perceived stress to psychological distress, which can provide a basis for the intervention of healthcare professionals in the face of mental health crisis.

Prevalence of suicidal ideation and correlated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis of 113 studies from 31 countries

The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of suicidal ideation and correlated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Web of Science (WOS) and PubMed were searched according to a pre-set strategy. A total of 132 studies were identified, 104 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of suicidal ideation was approximately 14.7% (95%CI: 12.5%, 16.8%, P < 0.01) in the general population, approximately 22.4% (95%CI: 17.1%, 27.8%, P < 0.01）in adolescents, approximately 21.0% (95%CI: 12.8%, 29.2%, P < 0.01) in psychiatric patients, approximately 20.6% (95%CI: 18.7%, 22.5%, P < 0.01）in university students, approximately 18.9% (95%CI: 8.3%, 29.5%, P < 0.01) in younger adults, approximately 10.6% (95%CI: 1.0%, 20.2%, P = 0.031) in COVID-19 patients and approximately 7.4% (95%CI: 4.3%, 10.5%, P < 0.01) in healthcare workers. The prevalence in North America was approximately 16.0% (95%CI: 13.6%-18.4%, P < 0.001), approximately 14.5% in Asia (95%CI: 9.5%-19.4%, P < 0.001), approximately 10.5% in Europe (95%CI: 8.5%-12.4%, P < 0.001), and approximately 20.5% in South America (95%CI: 19.5%-21.5%, P < 0.001). The following were risk factors which might be correlated with suicidal ideation: severe anxiety symptoms, mild to moderate depression, a strong feeling of loneliness/social isolation, poor sleep quality, having COVID-19-related experience, having quarantine or lockdown experience, being female, being single or divorced, having financial problems and having a history of suicidal ideation/attempt. This article reports the prevalence of suicidal ideation and discussing potential risk factors during the pandemic among general population and vulnerable groups. Early detection and follow-up were necessary for the noteworthy population.

Factors Associated with Burnout in Medical Staff: A Look Back at the Role of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Despite the significant consequences for medical practice and public health, burnout in healthcare workers remains underestimated. Pandemic periods have increased the reactivity to stress by favoring some changes whose influence are still felt.

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify opportune factors during pandemic periods that predispose medical personnel to burnout and the differences between medical staff which worked with COVID-19 patients and those who did not work with COVID-19 patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a prospective study on 199 subjects, medical staff and auxiliary staff from national health units, COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, who answered questions using the Google Forms platform about the level of stress related to the workplace and the changes produced there. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28).

RESULTS

The limited equipment and disinfectant solutions from the lack of medical resources category, the fear of contracting or transmitting the infection from the fears in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic category and the lack of personal and system-level experience in combating the infection due to the lack of information on and experience with COVID-19 were the most predisposing factors for burnout. No significant differences were recorded between those on the front line and the other healthcare representatives.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study identify the stressors generated in the pandemic context with prognostic value in the development of burnout among medical personnel. At the same time, our data draw attention to the cynicism or false-optimism stage of burnout, which can mask a real decline.

Family support, anger and aggression in health workers during the first wave of the pandemic

Introduction

Anger is considered as one of the basic human emotions, constituting the affective component of aggression. In the first year of the pandemic, the intense pressure on healthcare workers resulted in the deterioration of their psychosocial problems.

Objective

The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between family support, anger, and aggression.

Methods

The present study included physicians and nurses who completed an online survey of Dimensions of Anger Reactions-5 (DAR-5), a Brief Aggression Questionnaire (BAQ) and a Family Support Scale (FSS). Before completing the questionnaires, participants were asked to state their gender, years of work, age, and profession.

Results

Fifty-three men and 190 women participated in the study. Almost one-third of the participants had a positive score on the DAR-5 scale. Male participants displayed lower DAR-5 scores compared to women. Female participants displayed lower FSS scores compared to men, but higher scores when compared with earlier measures. Regression showed that 15.2% of the variance in BAQ scores can be explained by DAR-5 scores, with an additional 3.8% explained by FSS scores, while an additional 2.3% is explained by years of working experience. Mediation analysis highlighted the role of family support as a negative mediator in the DAR-5 and BAQ relationship.

Conclusion

During the first year of the pandemic, there was an increase in the sense of family support among female health workers. One-third of the participants displayed increased anger scores. Family support acts as a mediator by preventing anger derailing into aggression. In healthcare worker support programs, it seems necessary to entail a specific section on anger management.

The prevalence of probable mental health disorders among hospital healthcare workers during COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to be documented worldwide with systematic reviews playing a pivotal role. Here we present updated findings from our systematic review and meta-analysis on the mental health impacts among hospital healthcare workers during COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase and Web Of Science Core Collection between 1st January 2000 to 17th February 2022 for studies using validated methods and reporting on the prevalence of diagnosed or probable mental health disorders in hospital healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. A meta-analysis of proportions and odds ratio was performed using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was investigated using test of subgroup differences and 95 % prediction intervals.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 401 studies, representing 458,754 participants across 58 countries. Pooled prevalence of depression was 28.5 % (95 % CI: 26.3-30.7), anxiety was 28.7 % (95 % CI: 26.5-31.0), PTSD was 25.5 % (95 % CI: 22.5-28.5), alcohol and substance use disorder was 25.3 % (95 % CI: 13.3-39.6) and insomnia was 24.4 % (95 % CI: 19.4-29.9). Prevalence rates were stratified by physicians, nurses, allied health, support staff and healthcare students, which varied considerably. There were significantly higher odds of probable mental health disorders in women, those working in high-risk units and those providing direct care.

LIMITATIONS

Majority of studies used self-report measures which reflected probable mental health disorders rather than actual diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated findings have enhanced our understanding of at-risk groups working in hospitals. Targeted support and research towards these differences in mental health risks are recommended to mitigate any long-term consequences.

Examining the burnout levels of healthcare employees and related factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The high prevalence, severe contagious nature, and associated morbidity and mortality rates of COVID-19 increased the demand for healthcare and social care services worldwide. No doubt, the COVID-19 pandemic affected frontline healthcare employees the most.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to examine the burnout levels of healthcare employees and related factors during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey.

METHODS

The descriptive, cross-sectional study was completed with 478 healthcare professionals. The study's sampling included all healthcare professionals who were actively working in Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic and agreed to participate in the study. The study data were collected through the internet (online) between 10.05.2021 and 10.08.2021. The Healthcare Staff Information Form and Maslach Burnout Inventory were used to collect the study data.

RESULTS

Emotional burnout (p < 0.001) and desensitization (p = 0.007) scores were higher in those who lived separately from people they normally lived with. Emotional burnout and desensitization scores of the nurses were significantly higher than those of doctors and other healthcare professionals (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

It was determined that healthcare professionals in Turkey experienced moderate levels of burnout in terms of emotional burnout and desensitization, and high levels of burnout in terms of personal achievement. It is recommended to improve working conditions, monitor employees in high-risk units more closely, and provide psychological support to prevent or reduce the burnout of healthcare employees during the pandemic period.

Anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and related factors among Chinese population during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

The sudden outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has deep and wide negative mental impacts on the public, and studies on the impact of COVID-19 on social and mental well-being are necessary. This study aimed to evaluate mental distress, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and its related risk factors in Chinese adults in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study used a large-scale cross-sectional design. A total of 2067 adult participants completed the online survey via REDcap from 1st to 15th of March 2020 during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Anxiety, depression, PTSD, and related risk factors, including self-efficacy, coping style, and social support, were measured using valid and reliable instruments. The data were analyzed using multiple linear regression. We found that 201 (9.7%) participants reported moderate-to-severe anxiety, 669 (33.8%) reported depression, and 368 (17.8%) reported symptoms of PTSD. Self-efficacy, coping style, and social support significantly affected anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms. Participants' sociodemographic characteristics, COVID-19 pandemic-related factors, low self-efficacy, low social support, and negative coping were predictors of mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study will help healthcare professionals carry out early predictions and identification of high-risk groups and provide appropriate interventions to target groups during public health emergencies that plague the world.

Suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review

Background

COVID-19 has caused a series of economic, social, personal, and occupational consequences that may affect the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs), with the consequent risk of developing suicidal ideation and behaviors.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to identify the main risk factors that may predispose HCWs to suicidal ideation and suicide attempts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A systematic review of studies published between January 2020 and August 2022 was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines in the following electronic databases: Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Methodological quality was assessed using the critical appraisal tools for non-randomized studies of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The followed protocol is listed in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with code CRD42022340732.

Results

A total of 34 studies were included in this review. There are a number of underlying factors such as higher rates of depression, anxiety, pre-pandemic lifetime mental disorders or previous lifetime suicide attempt, living alone, having problems with alcohol and/or other drugs, etc. that favor the emergence of suicidal tendencies and ideation in times of COVID-19. Similarly, the pandemic may have precipitated a series of factors such as economic concerns, assessing one's working conditions as poor, having family members or friends infected, changes in services or functions, and feeling discriminated against or stigmatized by society. Other factors such as age, sex, or type of healthcare worker show differences between studies.

Conclusion

Organizations should ensure the adoption of strategies and programmes for early detection of suicides as well as increased attention to the mental health of professions with a high workload.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022340732.

Influence of Psychological Factors on Vaccination Acceptance among Health Care Workers in Slovenia in Three Different Phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among healthcare workers (HCWs) is very important to control the pandemic and to ensure the safety of HCWs and patients. As psychological factors may affect the decision to be vaccinated, the aim of this study was to investigate the influence of psychological factors on vaccination acceptance in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional study using a web-based survey was conducted among HCWs in Slovenia at the beginning of the pandemic (N = 851), one month later (N = 86), and one year later (N = 145) when vaccines were already available. The results showed that the influence of psychological factors (anxiety, psychological burden, perceived infectability, and germ aversion) was specific for each survey period. At the beginning of the pandemic, vaccination intention was positively associated with anxiety. In the third survey period, anxiety was not exposed as a predictive factor for vaccination intention. However, comparison of vaccination status among groups with different levels of anxiety revealed an interesting distinction within those in favour of vaccination; in the group with minimal levels of anxiety, there was a relatively high share of respondents that were already vaccinated, whereas in the group with severe anxiety, most individuals intended to be vaccinated but hesitated to take action.

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

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.

Health care workers' mental health in the face of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers are leading the way in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to the high levels of psychological stress, this group is more likely to experience psychological issues. These psychological problems in healthcare providers include depression, anxiety, insomnia, stress and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to find out how common these problems were in the face of COVID-19.

METHODS

On 20 February 2022, systematic searches were conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, Science Direct, Web of Science and ProQuest databases. Two authors selected articles based on search keywords. As a last step, articles about the prevalence of psychological problems among healthcare workers in the face of COVID-19 were looked at and analysed for five different outcomes.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 18,609 articles. After reviewing the titles, abstracts and full texts of the articles, 44 were chosen for the final analysis and 29 were subjected to a meta-analysis. Insomnia, anxiety, depression, PTSD and stress are among the psychological issues faced by healthcare workers. Furthermore, the highest pooled prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD and stress was 36% (95% confidence interval (CI) 24-50%), 47% (95% CI 22-74%), 49% (95% CI 28-70%), 37% (95% CI 19-59%) and 27% (95% CI 6-69%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, insomnia was found to be the most common mental health problem, followed by anxiety, PTSD, depression and stress in healthcare workers in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Generally, the pooled prevalence of these mental health problems was higher among physicians, nurses and older staff in the subgroup analysis. As a result, health policymakers and managers of the health care system should think about effective interventions to promote mental health, paying particular attention to these two groups.Key pointsStudies conducted in China reported more mental problems than in other countries.Health policymakers and health system managers should hold training programs to promote healthcare workers' mental health with a particular focus on more vulnerable groups.The prevalence of PTSD, stress, anxiety, depression and insomnia were higher among physicians, nurses and older staff.Health systems at both national and local levels have to take older physicians, nurses and healthcare providers into consideration while designing interventions.

Modeling Suicidality Risks and Understanding the Phenomenon of Suicidality Under the Loupe of Pandemic Context: National Findings of the COMET-G Study in the Russian Population

BACKGROUND

Suicidality is a complex clinical phenomenon reflecting vulnerability to suicidal behavior which can be explained via the biopsychosocial paradigm and in relationship with a variety of country-specific factors. Data on suicides within the Russian population are inconsistent (from 11.7 up to 25.1 per 100.000), whereas the population's suicidality risks have not been investigated in detail. Suicidality estimates during the multifactorial influence of the COVID-19 pandemic could serve as a basis to learn more about this mental health indicator.

METHODS

The current study is a part of the COMET-G international project (40 countries, n=55.589), which represents an analysis of data collected from Russia's general population (n=7714, 33±12 y.o., 61% female) to estimate suicidality using the Risk Assessment Suicidality Scale (RASS) and its relationships with socio-demographic, clinical, and life-habit characteristics during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation of the statistical data (descriptive statistics, ANOVA, LASSO linear regression, significant at α=0.05) was undertaken using TIBCO Statistica.

RESULTS

According to the RASS, at least 20.68%, and up to 29.15%, of the general population in Russia demonstrated increased risk of suicidality during the pandemic. Modelling these risks pointed to the key vulnerabilities related to mental and behavioral disorders, such as (i) current severe depression and a history of mental disorders, (ii) bipolar disorder, (iii) use of illicit drugs surprisingly outranking the alcohol misuse, and psychiatric compounds (hypnotics), highlighting sleep quality deterioration, (iv) a history of suicide attempts and self-harm - though not self-reported changes in depression - in response were predictors of the risk of suicidality, which can be explained by the phenomenon of "learned suicidality", a habitual behavioral suicidality pattern completion accumulated over the background. Such (v) socio-demographic indicators as younger age (disregarding the gender factor), a marital status of single, having no children, living with fewer people in the household, a recent increase in family conflicts, increased need for emotional support, decreased need for communication, and not believing in precautionary measures against COVID-19, contributed to the increase of suicidality risk in the context of the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study revealed new suicide risk factors that should be taken into account in suicidality risk assessments for the Russian population and in the implementation of suicide prevention programs in the region.

Factors Associated With Psychological Outcomes Among Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Health Care Workers Against COVID-19 Infection in Bangladesh

Background

Vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) is recommended during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce the risk of infection for themselves and their patients, as well as to encourage their patients to get immunized. The present study aimed to investigate the psychological outcomes and associated factors among vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs against COVID-19 infection in Bangladesh.

Methods

From March to August 2021, an online nationwide survey was conducted with a total of 2,038 Bangladeshi HCWs. The frequency of symptoms of general health problems, depression, anxiety, stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, insomnia, and loneliness was assessed using the Bangla versions of the GHQ-12, PHQ-2, GAD-2, PSS-4, PC-PTSD-5, ISI, and UCLA-LS scales, respectively.

Results

Compared with unvaccinated HCWs (n = 1,058), vaccinated HCWs (n = 980) had a statistically significant lower prevalence of general health problems (16.7 vs. 59.1%), depression (15.6 vs. 31.9%), post-traumatic stress disorder (22.3 vs. 30.8%), insomnia (23.8 vs. 64.9%), and loneliness symptoms (13.9 vs. 21.8%). Among vaccinated HCWs, females were significantly associated with a higher risk of symptoms of general health problems (AOR, 2.71; 95% CI, 0.97-7.60), anxiety (AOR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.14-4.13), and loneliness (AOR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.11-5.73). Except for anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, participants living in urban areas had a significantly lower risk of all psychological outcomes (e.g., depression: AOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.27-0.67; stress: AOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.88). Respondents who were married were significantly less likely to experience symptoms of general health problems (AOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02-0.39), depression (AOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.22-0.82), insomnia (AOR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.20-1.03), and loneliness (AOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.92). Participants who worked as doctors were significantly less chance of experiencing symptoms of general health problems (AOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.37), depression (AOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.87), and anxiety (AOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.78). On the other hand, unvaccinated HCWs who were 18-29 years old and had <5 years of work experience were significantly associated with a higher risk of all psychological outcomes except anxiety and insomnia symptoms (e.g., depression among 18-29 years old: AOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.27-2.60; stress among those with <5 years of work experience: AOR, 2.37; 95% CI, 0.93-6.07). Participants who worked as nurses were significantly more likely to suffer from depression (AOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.84-2.46), anxiety (AOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.24-1.73), and stress (AOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.89) symptoms. Except for anxiety and stress symptoms, respondents who worked as frontline workers and provided direct care to infected patients were the significantly higher chance of experiencing all psychological outcomes (e.g., depression among who worked as frontline workers: AOR, 2.41; 95% CI, 0.23-3.73; insomnia among those who provide direct care to infected patients: AOR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.34-3.06). Participants who were infected with COVID-19 had a significantly less chance of experiencing symptoms of general health problems (AOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.22), depression (AOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.92), and anxiety (AOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87).

Conclusions

To control the infection and improve psychological outcomes, this study suggests emphasizing the vaccinated to unvaccinated HCWs as soon as possible. They also required special attention, health-related education, and psychological support.

Marital Status and Gender Differences as Key Determinants of COVID-19 Impact on Wellbeing, Job Satisfaction and Resilience in Health Care Workers and Staff Working in Academia in the UK During the First Wave of the Pandemic

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global public health crisis that continues to exert immense pressure on healthcare and related professional staff and services. The impact on staff wellbeing is likely to be influenced by a combination of modifiable and non-modifiable factors.

Objectives

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the self-reported wellbeing, resilience, and job satisfaction of National Health Service (NHS) and university staff working in the field of healthcare and medical research.

Methods

We conducted a cross sectional survey of NHS and UK university staff throughout the COVID-19 pandemic between May-November 2020. The anonymous and voluntary survey was disseminated through social media platforms, and via e-mail to members of professional and medical bodies. The data was analyzed using descriptive and regression (R) statistics.

Results

The enjoyment of work and satisfaction outside of work was significantly negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic for all of staff groups independent of other variables. Furthermore, married women reporting significantly lower wellbeing than married men (P = 0.028). Additionally, the wellbeing of single females was significantly lower than both married women and men (P = 0.017 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Gender differences were also found in satisfaction outside of work, with women reporting higher satisfaction than men before the COVID-19 pandemic (P = 0.0002).

Conclusion

Our study confirms that the enjoyment of work and general satisfaction of staff members has been significantly affected by the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interestingly, being married appears to be a protective factor for wellbeing and resilience but the effect may be reversed for life satisfaction outside work. Our survey highlights the critical need for further research to examine gender differences using a wider range of methods.

A systematic review and meta analysis on burnout in physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic: A hidden healthcare crisis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to explore overall prevalence of burnout among physicians during early and late COVID-19 pandemic and geographical differences in burnout.

METHODS

This review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42022327959). A comprehensive search of several databases, including Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and Scopus, spanning from December 2019 to May 2022 was conducted. Eligible studies included physicians or medical professionals including physicians that worked directly or indirectly with COVID-19 patients, whilst reporting burnout outcomes using a validated scale. Literature that did not include physicians or did not occur in a hospital setting were excluded. Literature including medical students were also excluded.

RESULTS

Forty-five observational studies were included, all of which were cross-sectional studies. The pooled estimate of overall prevalence of burnout was 54.60% (95% CI: 46.7, 62.2). Mean emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment was found to be 22.06% (95% CI: 18.19, 25.94), 8.72 (95% CI: 6.48, 10.95) and 31.18 (95% CI: 27.33, 35.03) respectively. Frontline workers displayed higher rates of burnout than second-line healthcare workers (HCW) (OR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.37). Studies from the early pandemic period reported burnout prevalence of 60.7% (95% CI: 48.2, 72) compared to a prevalence of 49.3% (95% CI: 37.7, 60.9) from the late pandemic period. Geographically, burnout was highest amongst Middle East and North Africa (MENA) studies (66.6%, 95% CI: 54.7, 78.5), followed by Europe (48.8%, 95% CI: 40.3, 57.3) and then South America (42%, 95% CI: -0.4, 84.4). Lastly, burnout prevalence overall (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.67) emotional exhaustion (MD = -0.36, 95% CI: -4.64, 3.91), depersonalization (MD = -0.31, 95% CI: -1.80, 1.18), and personal accomplishment (MD = 0.55, 95% CI: -0.73, 1.83) were found comparable between physicians and nurses.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 has had significant consequences on HCW burnout. Further research is needed to examine early signs of burnout and to develop effective coping strategies.

Knowledge, attitude, practices and perceived job stress among physical therapists in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study

AIM

The objective of this study was to assess the level of knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) and perceived job stress among physical therapists (PTs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study design was adopted; 300 PTs working within the KSA were randomly selected, and the KAP questionnaire was distributed through email using a Google form during the first quarter of 2022. The questionnaire consisted of demographic information, KAP, and perceived stress level at the job. Data analysis was carried out using SPSS 20.0.

RESULTS

Most PTs are knowledgeable about the management of COVID-19 patients, where their overall correct response to the items of the knowledge-related questionnaire was 87%. Most PTs had positive attitudes toward successful control of COVID-19 (83%) and took necessary precautions, such as frequent handwashing (97.2%) and adherence to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) guidelines (91.5%) during practice. The overall job stress level of the PTs was 'Moderate' (76.5%). This study showed a significant association between the level of job stress experienced by the PTs and selected demographic variables.

CONCLUSION

PTs have adequate knowledge, exhibit a positive attitude and adhere to CDC guidelines while managing patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most PTs are prone to moderate job stress while managing patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, and appropriate strategies must be devised to alleviate their job stress and improve their efficiency.