Psychological Distress Reported by Primary Care Physicians in China During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Mental health of primary health care physicians and nurses following prolonged infection control rules: a national survey in China

Introduction

This study examined the prevalence and correlates of probable mental health disorders, including psychological distress, somatization, depression, anxiety, phobic anxiety (PHO), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and insomnia among Chinese primary health care (PHC) physicians and nurses amid the post-pandemic period in 2022.

Method

Region-stratified sampling was conducted to recruit a national sample of 4,246 respondents from 31 July 2022 to 12 August 2022. A total of 692 primary healthcare institutions were identified in 30 provincial-level administrative regions of China. An online questionnaire was used for assessing probable mental health disorders using Symptoms Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), and sleeping problems using Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Data on demographics and work were also collected. Bivariate analysis and multiple logistic regression were conducted to identify significant correlates of probable mental health disorders.

Results

A total of 4,246 valid questionnaires were identified. Results showed that relative to the prevalence of probable mental health disorders among health care workers at the early stage of the pandemic in China, there was an overall decreased prevalence except for somatization, PHO, and OCD among the current PHC physicians and nurses. Multiple logistic regressions showed that significant risk factors of common probable mental health disorders, namely psychological distress, SOM, DEP, ANX, PHO, OCD, PTSD, and insomnia, were female gender, multimorbidity, history of psychiatric disorders, quarantine experience, never asking anyone for help, and overtime work.

Conclusion

Attention should be given to preexisting psychiatric and multimorbid conditions, social support, and work-related stressors. Regular assessment and psychological interventions are needed to enhance the mental health of PHC professionals even after public health crisis.

Factors associated with plans for early retirement among Ontario family physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Higher numbers of family physicians (FPs) stopped practicing or retired during the COVID-19 pandemic, worsening the family doctor shortage in Canada. Our study objective was to determine which factors were associated with FPs' plans to retire earlier during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We administered two cross-sectional online surveys to Ontario FPs asking whether they were "planning to retire earlier" as a result of the pandemic during the first and third COVID-19 pandemic waves (Apr-Jun 2020 and Mar-Jul 2021). We used logistic regression to determine which factors were associated with early retirement planning, adjusting for age.

RESULTS

The age-adjusted proportion of FP respondents planning to retire earlier was 8.2% (of 393) in the first-wave and 20.5% (of 454) in the third-wave. Planning for earlier retirement during the third-wave was associated with age over 50 years (50-59 years odds ratio (OR) 5.37 (95% confidence interval (CI):2.33-12.31), 60 years and above OR 4.18 (95% CI: 1.90-10.23)), having difficulty handling increased non-clinical responsibilities (OR 2.95 (95% CI: 1.79-4.94)), feeling unsupported to work virtually (OR 1.96 (95% CI: 1.19-3.23)) or in-person (OR 2.70 (95% CI: 1.67-4.55)), feeling unable to provide good care (OR 1.82 (95% CI: 1.10-3.03)), feeling work was not valued (OR 1.92 (95% CI: 1.15-3.23)), feeling frightened of dealing with COVID-19 (OR 2.01 (95% CI: 1.19-3.38)), caring for an elderly relative (OR 2.36 (95% CI: 1.69-3.97)), having difficulty obtaining personal protective equipment (OR 2.00 (95% CI: 1.16-3.43)) or difficulty implementing infection control practices in clinic (OR 2.10 (95% CI: 1.12-3.89)).

CONCLUSIONS

Over 20% of Ontario FP respondents were considering retiring earlier by the third-wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Supporting FPs in their clinical and non-clinical roles, such that they feel able to provide good care and that their work is valued, reducing non-clinical (e.g., administrative) responsibilities, dealing with pandemic-related fears, and supporting infection control practices and personal protective equipment acquisition in clinic, particularly in those aged 50 years or older may help increase family physician retention during future pandemics.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers under the "Ten New Guidelines" in Taizhou, China

Purpose

We explored the influence of the "Ten new guidelines" on healthcare workers' preparedness, work impact, personal life impact, concerns, and support in Taizhou, China.

Methods

A hospital-based self-administered online survey was conducted to investigate the levels of COVID-19 related experience among healthcare workers in December 2022. In total, 472 out of 2080 healthcare workers (22.7 % response rate) completed the questionnaires with valid responses. Stepwise linear regression was used to investigate the independence of factors associated with preparedness, work impact, personal life impact, concerns, and support.

Results

The results revealed that working position (p < 0.001), pressure (p = 0.005), and negative affect (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with preparedness. Working position (p = 0.015), number of children (p = 0.040), working years (p = 0.019), COVID-19 risk perception (p < 0.001), work overload (p < 0.001), and negative affect (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with work impact. In addition, COVID-19 risk perception (p < 0.001), work overload (p < 0.001), pressure (p = 0.002), history of COVID-19 infection (p = 0.008), and awareness of possible infectious time (p = 0.031) were significantly associated with personal life impact. COVID-19 risk perception (p < 0.001), negative affect (p < 0.001), and work overload (p = 0.020) were significantly associated with concerns. Sex (p = 0.020) and negative affect (p = 0.016) were significantly associated with support.

Conclusion

Negative affect was the most significant factor associated with COVID-19 related questions among healthcare workers under "Ten new guidelines" during COVID-19 pandemic.

Psychological distress in healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Healthcare workers serving during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been exposed to high work overload, which may have had an impact on their physical, mental, and social health. The aim of this study was to assess the risk factors associated with psychological distress among healthcare workers serving during the COVID-19 pandemic from January 2020 to December 2022.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted based on the 2020 PRISMA statement. Articles were searched in the Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases.

RESULTS

A total of 59 articles were included in this systematic review. It was observed that the prevalence of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic was high. Female sex, being a nurse, being young, living alone/being single, and having a chronic disease or psychiatric disorder history are the main risk factors at the personal level. Other occupational and pandemic-related factors such as having many years of work experience, the presence of COVID-19 symptoms and contact history, not enough sleep, having lower family support and limited social relationships, fear of infecting friends and family, having a reduced perception of protection by personal protective equipment, working on the frontline, and having longer service duration were found to be factors influencing the development of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

There are personal, interpersonal, and organizational risk factors that can lead to the occurrence of psychological distress among healthcare staff working during the COVID-19 pandemic.

General practitioner well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic presented new challenges for general practitioners' (GPs') mental health and well-being, with growing international evidence of its negative impact. While there has been a wide UK commentary on this topic, research evidence from a UK setting is lacking. This study sought to explore the lived experience of UK GPs during COVID-19, and the pandemic's impact on their psychological well-being.

DESIGN AND SETTING

In-depth qualitative interviews, conducted remotely by telephone or video call, with UK National Health Service GPs.

PARTICIPANTS

GPs were sampled purposively across three career stages (early career, established and late career or retired GPs) with variation in other key demographics. A comprehensive recruitment strategy used multiple channels. Data were analysed thematically using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 40 GPs; most described generally negative sentiment and many displayed signs of psychological distress and burnout. Causes of stress and anxiety related to personal risk, workload, practice changes, public perceptions and leadership, team working and wider collaboration and personal challenges. GPs described potential facilitators of their well-being, including sources of support and plans to reduce clinical hours or change career path, and some described the pandemic as offering a catalyst for positive change.

CONCLUSIONS

A range of factors detrimentally affected the well-being of GPs during the pandemic and we highlight the potential impact of this on workforce retention and quality of care. As the pandemic progresses and general practice faces continued challenges, urgent policy measures are now needed.

Relationship Between Psychological Distress, Burnout and Work Engagement in Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review

Objective: The psychological distress that the COVID-19 pandemic has produced has generated negative effects on workers, and in one way or another this has affected their work engagement within companies. The aim of this research was to assess the relationship between psychological distress, burnout and work engagement in workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A systematic review was carried out following the PRISMA methodology, taking articles from the Scopus, Pubmed, and Web of Science databases from the beginning of the pandemic until November 2022. The methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools for non-randomised studies. Results: 24 articles were selected. All the articles found an association between psychological distress, burnout or other factors and work engagement. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on work engagement and a negative relationship with psychological distress and burnout, hence the importance of companies taking measures to minimise levels of psychological distress and burnout.

The presence of psychological distress in healthcare workers across different care settings in Windsor, Ontario, during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

Introduction

Few studies have examined psychological distress in healthcare workers (HCWs) across the care continuum. This study describes distress levels reported by HCWs across care settings and factors associated with distress.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of HCWs from Windsor, Ontario, was conducted between May 30th, 2020, and June 30th, 2020. The survey included the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), sociodemographic, frontline status, perceptions of training, protection, support, respect among teams, and professional and personal stressors. Univariate analyses were used to compare across settings and multivariate logistic regression assessed factors associated with distress.

Results

Four hundred and three HCWs from the hospital (49.4%), community health and social service (18.4%), first responder (14.7%), primary care (7.9%), home (6.0%), and long-term care (LTC; 4.0%) participated in the survey. Common concerns included fear of transmitting COVID-19 to family, safety on the job, and balancing personal care with work demands. LTC and home-care HCWs reported greater concern about workload and staffing levels, whereas community health workers were more anxious about their financial security. Overall, 228 (74.2%) HCWs who completed the K10 reported high distress, with greater rates among hospital and LTC HCWs. Distress was more likely in HCWs who identified as female, younger than 55, perceived lower respect among team, and experienced greater worry about physical and mental health and managing high workloads.

Conclusion

Results showed a high degree of distress experienced by HCWs across care settings and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on personal and work-related stress. Promoting self-care and supportive and collaborative healthcare teams are promising avenues for mitigating symptoms of distress.

Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care workers: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on the mental health of healthcare workers, yet studies in primary care workers are scarce.

AIM

To investigate the prevalence of and associated factors for psychological distress in primary care workers during the first COVID-19 outbreak.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a multicentre, cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted in primary healthcare workers in Spain, between May and September 2020.

METHOD

Healthcare workers were invited to complete a survey to evaluate sociodemographic and work-related characteristics, COVID-19 infection status, exposure to patients with COVID-19, and resilience (using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale), in addition to being screened for common mental disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks, and substance use disorder). Positive screening for any of these disorders was analysed globally using the term 'any current mental disorder'.

RESULTS

A total of 2928 primary care professionals participated in the survey. Of them, 43.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 41.9 to 45.4) tested positive for a current mental disorder. Female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.61, 95% CI = 1.25 to 2.06), having previous mental disorders (OR 2.58, 95% CI = 2.15 to 3.10), greater occupational exposure to patients with COVID-19 (OR 2.63, 95% CI = 1.98 to 3.51), having children or dependents (OR 1.35, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.76 and OR 1.59, 95% CI = 1.20 to 2.11, respectively), or having an administrative job (OR 2.24, 95% CI = 1.66 to 3.03) were associated with a higher risk of any current mental disorder. Personal resilience was shown to be a protective factor.

CONCLUSION

Almost half of primary care workers showed significant psychological distress. Strategies to support the mental health of primary care workers are necessary, including designing psychological support and resilience-building interventions based on risk factors identified.

GP wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Doctors' organisations in the UK have reported worrying levels of work-related stress and burnout in the GP workforce for some time, and the COVID-19 pandemic has presented clear new challenges.

AIM

To synthesise international evidence exploring the impact of COVID-19 on primary care doctors' mental health and wellbeing, and identify risk factors associated with their psychological wellbeing during this time.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Mixed-methods systematic review.

METHOD

Six bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, and MedRxiv were searched on 19 November 2020 and 3 June 2021 to identify studies of GP psychological wellbeing during the pandemic. Reference checking was also conducted. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of studies using standardised tools. Heterogeneity in outcomes, setting, and design prohibited statistical pooling; studies were combined using a convergent integrated thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies were included. Multiple sources of stress were identified including changed working practices; risk, exposure, and inadequate personal protective equipment (PPE); information overload; pandemic preparedness; and cohesion across sectors. Studies demonstrated an impact on psychological wellbeing, with some GPs experiencing stress, burnout, anxiety, depression, fear of COVID-19, lower job satisfaction, and physical symptoms. Studies reported gender and age differences: women GPs had poorer psychological outcomes across all domains, and older GPs reported greater stress and burnout. Use of outcome measures and reporting practice varied greatly.

CONCLUSION

This review of international evidence demonstrates that the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected GPs' wellbeing around the world. Further research could explore gender and age differences, identifying interventions targeted to these groups.

Complementary and integrative medicine intervention in front-line COVID-19 clinicians

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of a multidisciplinary complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) intervention on physical and emotional concerns among front-line COVID-19 healthcare providers (HCPs).

METHODS

A multimodality CIM treatment intervention was provided by integrative practitioners to HCPs in three isolated COVID-19 departments. HCPs' two main concerns were scored (from 0 to 6) before and following the CIM intervention using the Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing questionnaire. Postintervention narratives identified reflective narratives specifying emotional and/or spiritual keywords.

RESULTS

Of 181 HCPs undergoing at least one CIM treatment, 119 (65.7%) completed post-treatment questionnaires. While HCPs listing baseline emotional-related concerns benefited from the CIM intervention, those who did not express emotional or spiritual concerns improved even more significantly following the first session, for both leading concerns (p=0.038) and emotional-related concerns (p=0.023). Nevertheless, it was shown that following subsequent treatments HCPs who expressed emotional and spiritual concerns improved more significantly than those who did not for emotional-related concerns (p=0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

A CIM intervention for front-line HCPs working in isolated COVID-19 departments can significantly impact emotional-related concerns, more so after the first treatment and among HCPs not using emotional-spiritual keywords in post-treatment narratives. Referral of HCPs to CIM programmes for improved well-being should avoid referral bias to those not expressing emotional/spiritual concerns.

Mental health disorders among post graduate residents in Kenya during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

Healthcare workers, including residents, are prone to various mental health disorders especially given the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Residents, particularly, are already under undue stress due to their respective training program demands.

Methods

This cross-sectional, online survey-based study from August to November 2020 collected demographic and mental health measurements from all residents at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi. The questionnaire investigated demographic variables, information regarding direct care of COVID-19 patients, prior history of mental health and mental health outcomes using the Patient Health Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, Insomnia Severity Index, Impact of Event Scale–Revised Questionnaire and Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index Questionnaire.

Results

A total of 100 residents completed the survey (participation rate 77.5%). Participants were about equal in gender (women [53%]), with a median age of 31.28 years, and majority were single (66.7%). A total of 66 participants (66%) were directly engaged in COVID-19 care. Depression: 64.3%, anxiety: 51.5%, insomnia: 40.5%, distress: 35.4%, and burnout: 51.0% were reported in all participants. Statistical significance was found in median depression, professional fulfillment and interpersonal disengagement when comparing frontline resident directly involved in care of COVID-19 patient versus second line residents.

Conclusion

Residents directly involved with caring for COVID-19 patients had statistically higher incidences of depression and interpersonal disengagement and lower professional fulfillment compared to second line residents. Keeping in mind the limited resources in sub-Saharan Africa, urgent and geographically specific strategies are needed to help combat mental health disorders in this specific population.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients and psycho-oncology providers: Perspectives, observations, and experiences of the American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS) membership

OBJECTIVE

To understand: (1) psycho-oncology providersX2019; perspectives on and observations of the psychological responses of their cancer patients during the pandemic, and (2) psycho-oncology providersX2019; own experiences delivering care.

METHODS

In this concurrent mixed methods study, a survey was distributed to psychosocial providers who were members of the American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS). Survey respondents were invited to participate in a one-on-one audio-recorded interview via phone or secure ZoomX00AE;.

RESULTS

76 self-identified psycho-oncology providers responded to the survey and 11 participated in a one-on-one interview. Approximately half reported that patients responded in unique ways to COVID-19 stress relative to other populations. Three themes emerged from qualitative analyses: (1) unique burden on patients, (2) cancer patientsX2019; pandemic response and its relationship to their cancer experience, and (3) unexpected positive changes. Providers emphasized that the cancer experience may have prepared patients for the existential distress of the pandemic and described patientsX2019; resiliency. Two themes emerged regarding delivery of care: (1) new professional and personal challenges and (2) provider resiliency.

CONCLUSIONS

Although providers observed that the pandemic placed new burdens on patients, they emphasized that the cancer experience may have prepared patients for the existential distress of the pandemic and described patientsX2019; resiliency. To overcome challenges, psycho-oncology providers used innovative strategies to support patients and foster their own mental health. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Psychological Reactions of Hospital Workers to a Pandemic: A Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and SARS in 2003

Epidemic viral infections, including the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and SARS-CoV-2 in 2019, have brought tremendous loss to people across the nations. The aim of this study was to compare the psychological impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 2020 and the SARS pandemic in 2003 on hospital workers. Hospital workers at a medical center in Southern Taiwan (n = 1816) were invited to complete questionnaires (SARS-CoV-2 Exposure Experience, the Impact of Event Scale, the Chinese Health Questionnaire, and the Distress Thermometer). The current data were compared to the data collected from hospital workers (n = 1257) at the same medical center during the SARS pandemic in 2003. We found the psychological impact on hospital workers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was significantly lower than that during the previous SARS period. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic period, hospital workers with SARS experience were more accepting of the risk, felt a greater responsibility to take care of the SARS-CoV-2 patients, and were more likely to perceive the danger of becoming infected. The associated factors of psychiatric morbidity in hospital workers with SARS experience were being female, the degree of intrusion severity, and severity of psychological distress. Proper management strategies and lessons learned from the SARS experience might have led to low psychiatric morbidity during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Biopsychosocial Processes of Health and Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ABSTRACT

The biopsychosocial model provides a useful perspective for understanding the development and characteristics of the COVID-19 pandemic and its anticipated long-term consequences for society as well as individuals. This article provides a biopsychosocial perspective on the COVID pandemic and an editorial comment on the articles in this Special Issue of Psychosomatic Medicine. Based on analysis of the PubMed database, it is shown that the attention to psychological and social factors is 74% higher in COVID-19-related articles compared to all other health-related scientific articles published during the same time-period (between 1/1/2020 and 4/18/2021). Specifically, 18.6% of the ≈123,500 articles addressing COVID-19-related topics also included psychological or social factors in their content vs. 10.7% of articles that did not address COVID-19. The biopsychosocial model is relevant to understanding the interrelationships among risk factors and the multidimensional clinical and psychosocial COVID-19 outcomes. Clinical outcomes directly related to COVID-19 range from severe but rare events (mortality and intensive care treatment) to less severe common outcomes such as positive screening tests for COVID-19 with or without symptoms. In addition, psychosocial outcomes range in severity from frequently observed reduced psychological wellbeing to less common clinical mood and anxiety disorders and, in rare cases, suicidality. The COVID-19 pandemic is characterized by an unusually strong and short-term link between social factors and biological aspects of the disease, without mediating psychological factors. After a review of the articles presented in this Special Issue, this editorial concludes with suggestions for biopsychosocial models in research on COVID-19 and other large-scale health threats.