Narrative medicine practices as a potential therapeutic tool used by expatriate Ebola caregivers:

Effectiveness of psychological first aid in infectious disease pandemics: An overview of systematic reviews

There is insufficient research on the usefulness of psychological interventions, such as psychological first aid (PFA), during outbreaks. We searched for and critically appraised systematic reviews that examined the effectiveness of PFA during infectious disease outbreaks, such as the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Systematic reviews that examined the efficacy of PFA in the severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Ebola virus disease, and COVID-19 outbreaks were searched through PubMed on February 19, 2021. The three included systematic reviews were critically appraised and assessed using AMSTAR-2. One review's overall confidence in its findings was evaluated as "high," which suggested that PFA training had a favorable effect on healthcare personnel. Furthermore, the review also demonstrated that PFA was commonly used during outbreaks and could be delivered through multiple methods, such as a phone or video call. Although it was anticipated that PFA would improve subjective well-being, reports showed no evidence of reduced depression or insomnia. Future studies should examine additional numbers of PFA recipients and conduct quasi-experimental studies to better understand the effectiveness of PFA. Evidence on its effectiveness in infectious disease outbreaks is still lacking, along with research and evaluation methods. Quasi-experimental studies, such as comparisons with other psychological interventions, are required to better understand the effectiveness of PFA.

Impact of, and mitigation measures for, burnout in frontline healthcare workers during disasters: A mixed-method systematic review

BACKGROUND

Burnout is a global concern for the healthcare community, especially following a disaster response. It is a major obstacle to providing safe and quality health care. Avoiding burnout is essential to ensuring adequate healthcare delivery and preventing psychological and physical health problems and errors among healthcare staff.

AIMS

This study aimed to determine the impact of burnout on healthcare staff working on the frontline in a disaster context, including pandemics, epidemics, natural disasters, and man-made disasters; and to identify interventions used to mitigate burnout among those healthcare professionals before, during, or after the disaster.

METHOD

A mixed methods systematic review was used and included a joint analysis and synthesis of data from qualitative and quantitative studies. The was guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Several databases were searched, for example, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies addressed the impact of burnout in relation to disasters and highlighted the association between burnout and the physical or mental well-being of healthcare workers, work performance, and workplace attitude and behavior. Fourteen studies focused on different burnout interventions including psychoeducational interventions, reflection and self-care activities, and administering a pharmacological product.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

Stakeholders should consider reducing risk of burnout among healthcare staff as an approach to improving quality and optimizing patient care. The evidence points to reflective and self-care interventions having a more positive effect on reducing burnout than other interventions. However, most of these interventions did not report on long-term effects. Further research needs to be undertaken to assess not only the feasibility and effectiveness but also the sustainability of interventions targeted to mitigate burnout in healthcare workers.

Understanding the value of art prompts in an online narrative medicine workshop: an exploratory-descriptive focus group study

Narrative medicine is an interdisciplinary field that complements and expands on conventional healthcare training by supporting narrative competence skills and creativity derived from the arts and humanities domains to address the needs of healthcare providers and receivers. With the COVID-19 pandemic having had a profound impact on the healthcare workforce with an already high burn-out rate, multimodal arts interventions may help address the holistic dimensions of well-being. While empirical evidence supports the use of arts-based interventions in promoting healthcare workers' well-being and personal growth, art prompts are underexplored and underused in narrative medicine. Moreover, protocols and frameworks adopted in extant research on this topic are inconsistent, resulting in replication and validation challenges. These issues have motivated this exploratory-descriptive study with 11 narrative medicine practitioners to examine the use of short art prompts in an online narrative medicine workshop.The art prompts leveraged art therapy's Expressive Therapies Continuum (ETC) model, which uses the inherent properties of art materials, media and methods to elicit specific levels of information processing and creative experiences. The study aimed to understand how art prompts differ from writing prompts and explore the value art prompts could add to narrative medicine if any. Qualitative analyses revealed that art prompts in narrative medicine increase positive feelings and promote creativity and insight. Specifically, art prompts allowed participants to use sensorimotor functions, enter a flow-like state, be challenged and inspired by novelty and uncertainty, and experience a sense of play and personal discovery.

Mental health of clinical staff working in high-risk epidemic and pandemic health emergencies a rapid review of the evidence and living meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about the potential mental health impact on frontline clinical staff. However, given that poor mental health is common in acute medical staff, we aimed to estimate the additional burden of work involving high exposure to infected patients.

METHODS

We report a rapid review, meta-analysis, and living meta-analysis of studies using validated measures from outbreaks of COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1 influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).

RESULTS

A random effects meta-analysis found that high-exposure work is not associated with an increased prevalence of above cut-off scoring (anxiety: RR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.87-1.93, Total N = 12,473; PTSD symptoms: RR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.75-1.78, Total N = 6604; depression: RR = 1.50, 95% CI 0.57-3.95, Total N = 12,224). For continuous scoring, high-exposure work was associated with only a small additional burden of acute mental health problems compared to low-exposure work (anxiety: SMD = 0.16, 95% CI 0.02-0.31, Total N = 6493; PTSD symptoms: SMD = 0.20, 95% CI 0.01-0.40, Total N = 5122; depression: SMD = 0.13, 95% CI -0.04-0.31, Total N = 4022). There was no evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Although epidemic and pandemic response work may add only a small additional burden, improving mental health through service management and provision of mental health services should be a priority given that baseline rates of poor mental health are already very high. As new studies emerge, they are being added to a living meta-analysis where all analysis code and data have been made freely available: https://osf.io/zs7ne/ .

The Mental Health of Frontline Health Care Providers During Pandemics: A Rapid Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

This rapid review addresses two key questions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic: What are the anticipated mental health sequelae for frontline health workers? and What are best practices during health emergencies to address the mental health needs of these workers?

METHODS

This review synthesized the literature on the mental health sequelae for health workers during major pandemics and epidemics that occurred in the 21st century (severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome, Ebola virus disease, and swine flu) and interventions used to address related mental health sequelae. PubMed, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched with terms related to these epidemics/pandemics.

RESULTS

Of 3,876 articles retrieved, 94 were included in this review. Across these studies, most health workers exhibited some adverse psychological experiences during outbreaks, with stress and anxiety being most common. Psychological distress decreased over time. Some studies reported insomnia, burnout, and posttraumatic stress for a subset of individuals up to 3 years after the disease outbreak. Few interventions have been implemented to address providers' mental health needs, and these strategies have not been evaluated systematically.

CONCLUSIONS

Systems-level interventions may alleviate distress for most providers without the need for specialized mental health intervention. Psychotherapeutic support and referral to specialty care should be available to health workers with severe and intense adverse psychological outcomes during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence-based interventions are urgently needed to better serve health workers both during and following epidemics/pandemics.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Narrative Training as a Method to Promote Nursing Empathy Within a Pediatric Rehabilitation Setting

PURPOSE

Empathy is deemed essential to nursing, yet interventions that promote and sustain empathy in practicing nurses within healthcare organizations are limited. We tested the feasibility and perceived impact of an arts-based narrative training intervention involving pediatric rehabilitation nurses for the purpose of promoting nursing empathy.

DESIGN AND METHODS

One-group qualitative repeated-measures design at an urban Canadian pediatric rehabilitation hospital. Eight nurse participants attended six 90-minute weekly group narrative training sessions and two in-depth interviews pre- and post-intervention.

RESULTS

The intervention positively impacted participants in three primary domains: Empathy for Patients and Families, Empathy Within Nursing Team, and Empathy for the Self. Major findings included: increased value placed on patients' and families' backstory, identification of "moral empathic distress" (MED), enhanced sense of collaborative nursing community, and renewal of professional purpose.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first of its kind conducted in the pediatric rehabilitation nursing context. Results indicate that arts-based narrative training enhances nursing empathy and contributes to a supportive nursing culture.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In addition to enhancing empathy in clinical domains, nurses who participated in narrative training reported improved team collaboration, self-care practices, and renewed professional purpose. The results from the intervention are encouraging and future research needs to explore its utility in other settings with larger and more diverse sample.