Stress and psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the healthcare staff at the fever clinic of a tertiary general hospital in Beijing: a cross-sectional study

Risk factors for healthcare professionals' mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

The aim of the present study was to map the available evidence on the mental health risk factors of frontline health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a systematic review that followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. The search was independently carried out by four researchers, following the selection criteria in the electronic databases: PubMed Central, Ovid Technologies, GALE Academic Onefile, Science Citation Index Expanded. The data processing used Zotero software, responsible for creating and importing items according to the criteria established by the research. A total of 18,733 articles were found, of which 2,722 were excluded by the Zotero software because they were in duplicate, and another 366 were manually excluded. After applying the selection criteria, 43 articles entered the final analysis of this review. It is recommended that new scientific research be carried out, especially focusing on the analysis of health workers' mental health, aiming at providing the basis to create and implement public mental health programs and policies for workers.

Interventions to support the mental health and well-being of front-line healthcare workers in hospitals during pandemics: an evidence review and synthesis

OBJECTIVE

Pandemics negatively impact healthcare workers' (HCW's) mental health and well-being causing additional feelings of anxiety, depression, moral distress and post-traumatic stress. A comprehensive review and evidence synthesis of HCW's mental health and well-being interventions through pandemics reporting mental health outcomes was conducted addressing two questions: (1) What mental health support interventions have been reported in recent pandemics, and have they been effective in improving the mental health and well-being of HCWs? (2) Have any mobile apps been designed and implemented to support HCWs' mental health and well-being during pandemics?

DESIGN

A narrative evidence synthesis was conducted using Cochrane criteria for synthesising and presenting findings when systematic review and pooling data for statistical analysis are not suitable due to the heterogeneity of the studies.

DATA SOURCES

Evidence summary resources, bibliographic databases, grey literature sources, clinical trial registries and protocol registries were searched.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Subject heading terms and keywords covering three key concepts were searched: SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (or similar infectious diseases) epidemics, health workforce and mental health support interventions. Searches were limited to English-language items published from 1 January 2000 to 14 June 2022. No publication-type limit was used.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors determined eligibility and extracted data from identified manuscripts. Data was synthesised into tables and refined by coauthors.

RESULTS

2694 studies were identified and 27 papers were included. Interventions were directed at individuals and/or organisations and most were COVID-19 focused. Interventions had some positive impacts on HCW's mental health and well-being, but variable study quality, low sample sizes and lack of control conditions were limitations. Two mobile apps were identified with mixed outcomes.

CONCLUSION

HCW interventions were rapidly designed and implemented with few comprehensively described or evaluated. Tailored interventions that respond to HCWs' needs using experience co-design for mental health and well-being are required with process and outcome evaluation.

Workplace factors can predict the stress levels of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: First interim results of a multicenter follow-up study

Background

Research is lacking on the long-term influence of workplace factors on the mental health of health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We distributed two online surveys to health care workers between May and October 2020 (T1) and between February and April 2021 (T2). Perceived stress, coronavirus-related risks, and workplace factors were measured via self-report questionnaires at both time points. We conducted hierarchical linear regression to investigate the predictive factors for high stress.

Results

A total of 2,110 participants from seven countries and 4,240 participants from nine countries were enrolled at T1 and T2, respectively. Among them, 612 participated in both surveys. We called this cohort T1 + T2. High stress was reported in 53.8 and 61.6% of participants at T1 and T2, respectively. In cohort T1 + T2, compared with the baseline, the level of stress rose significantly (6.0 ± 2.9 vs. 6.4 ± 3.1), as did health/safety in the workplace (3.9 ± 0.8 vs. 4.2 ± 0.7). Unfortunately, we did not detect any significant difference concerning support in the workplace. Among all factors at baseline, being older than 35 [β (95% CI) = -0.92 (-1.45, -0.40)], support [-0.80 (-1.29, -0.32)], and health/safety in the workplace [-0.33 (-0.65, -0.01)] were independent protective factors, while a positive history of mental disorders [0.81 (0.26, 1.37)] and rejection in private life [0.86 (0.48, 1.25)] were risk factors for high stress at T2.

Conclusion

To relieve the high stress of health care workers, organizational-level approaches should be implemented, especially measures designed to enhance support, health/safety in the workplace, and to reduce the rejection of the public.

Post-traumatic stress in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has increased healthcare worker (HCW) susceptibility to mental illness. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the prevalence and possible factors associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms among HCW during the COVID-19 pandemic. We searched PubMed, SCOPUS and EMBASE databases up to May 4th, 2022. We performed random effects meta-analysis and moderator analyses for the prevalence of PTSD-relevant symptoms and severe PTSD symptoms. We identified 1276 studies, reviewed 209 full-text articles, and included 119 studies (117,143 participants) with a total of 121 data points in our final analysis. 34 studies (24,541 participants) reported prevalence of severe PTSD symptoms. Approximately 25.2% of participants were physicians, 42.8% nurses, 12.4% allied health professionals, 8.9% auxiliary health professionals, and 10.8% "other". The pooled prevalence of PTSD symptoms among HCWs was 34% (95% CI, 0.30-0.39, I² >90%), and 14% for severe PTSD (95% CI, 0.11 - 0.17, I² >90%). The introduction of COVID vaccines was associated with a sharp decline in the prevalence of PTSD, and new virus variants were associated with small increases in PTSD rates. It is important that policies work towards allocating adequate resources towards protecting the well-being of healthcare workers to minimize adverse consequences of PTSD.

"Did You Bring It Home with You?" A Qualitative Investigation of the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Victorian Frontline Healthcare Workers and Their Families

Concerns regarding the physical and mental health impacts of frontline healthcare roles during the COVID-19 pandemic have been well documented, but the impacts on family functioning remain unclear. This study provides a unique contribution to the literature by considering the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline healthcare workers and their families. Thirty-nine frontline healthcare workers from Victoria, Australia, who were parents to at least one child under 18 were interviewed. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Five superordinate and 14 subordinate themes were identified. Themes included more family time during lockdowns, but at a cost; changes in family responsibilities and routines; managing increased demands; healthcare workers hypervigilance and fear of bringing COVID-19 home to their family members; ways in which families worked to “get through it”. While efforts have been made by many healthcare organisations to support their workers during this challenging time, the changes in family functioning observed by participants suggest that more could be done for this vulnerable cohort, particularly with respect to family support.

COVID-19 Pandemic Support Programs for Healthcare Workers and Implications for Occupational Mental Health: A Narrative Review

This narrative review aims to summarize initiatives developed during the COVID-19 pandemic to support healthcare workers' emotional well-being within the context of a pre-existing framework of occupational mental health guidelines. This occupational mental health framework integrates principles from multiple disciplines to optimize prevention and management of mental health issues among employees. We conducted an online search on Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for studies that reported on design or execution of medical institution-based interventions, aiming to support healthcare worker mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inclusion criteria was intentionally broad in order to incorporate as many types of interventions at varying stages of development or evaluation. We included 31 studies in our review that reported on newly designed psychological support interventions for healthcare workers (HCW) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that most programs commonly supported HCW mental health through offering one or more of the following initiatives: expanded basic need resources/services, additional workplace training programs that bolstered professional preparedness while also indirectly boosting HCW emotional health, and/or expanded psychological support programs, such as peer support programs, psychoeducational or counseling services. Most programs, however, did not consider methods to ensure program longevity or sustainability. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the acuity of HCW mental health issues and is likely to leave long lasting mental health strains among HCW. This pandemic is a critical point in time to catalyze much needed progress in reducing stigma and expanding HCW mental health care access.

Narrative review of the COVID-19, healthcare and healthcarers thematic series

This review covers the thematic series of 22 papers selected from among manuscripts published by BJPsych Open concerning coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and healthcare. We report nine papers that cover concepts and epidemiology relating to the public and patients. We review 11 papers about the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare services and their staff in 15 countries. Two papers consider the psychosocial impact on staff working in mental health services in the UK. Most papers report cross-sectional analyses of data collected from convenience samples by self-reported surveys conducted at single times. They have limitations of generalisability, do not enable conclusions about diagnosis or causality, and many are likely to have attendant bias and noise. BJPsych Open published these papers to meet requirements for early indications of the mental health impact of COVID-19 on the public and on healthcare staff. They claim high prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress. We contrast these findings with selected reports of studies with different methodologies published elsewhere. We emphasise the need for longitudinal clinical studies with refined sampling and methodological rigour. We identify several longitudinal research programmes; two in this series. We advocate tuning advice offered about caring for the public and healthcare staff to the realities of their circumstances and their perceptions of need in the context of findings from further longitudinal studies. We draw attention to the importance of the social, relationship and environmental circumstances of the public and healthcare staff in order to understand their distress and their risks of developing mental health disorders.

Post-Traumatic Growth in Professionals Caring for People with Intellectual Disabilities during COVID-19: A Psychological Intervention

BACKGROUND

Health professionals present a greater vulnerability to the effects of COVID-19 on their mental health, especially those who work with vulnerable groups such as those who suffer from intellectual disability (ID). The objective of the present research was to develop and verify the effectiveness of a psychological intervention for professionals in the field of ID to improve their mental health during this health crisis.

METHODS

A total of 32 professionals participated. The variables measured were: post-traumatic growth, mental health, burnout, coping strategies, resilience, life satisfaction, optimism, and cognitive and affective empathy.

RESULTS

The results revealed statistically significant differences in the post-traumatic growth variable. In the rest of the variables (mental health, burnout, coping strategies, resilience, vital satisfaction, optimism, and empathy), no significant differences between groups were found.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in the levels of post-traumatic growth was observed in the intervention group after a brief online psychological intervention. However, given the small sample size, these results should be taken with caution. Institutions should foster and promote interventions aimed at reducing the high emotional impact produced by COVID-19 in professionals that care for people diagnosed with ID.

The effectiveness of motivational messages to intensive care unit nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

To examine the effect of motivational messages on optimism, hopelessness, and life satisfaction of intensive care nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Study Design

This is a multicenter, randomized controlled, open-label study.

Research Methodology/Design

The study was conducted with a total of 87 nurses working in the COVID-19 intensive care units of three hospitals in Istanbul. Motivational messages were sent via SMS to the participants in the motivational group (n=41) for 21 days. The data were obtained using a Personal Information Form, the Life Orientation Test, Beck Hopelessness Scale, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale.

Results

The nurses’ mean age in the motivational and control groups was 28.4±7.6 and 26.9±3.7 years, respectively. Before the messages, no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of life orientation (p=0.059), hopelessness (p=0.214), and satisfaction with life (p=0.898) scores. After the messages, life orientation (p=0.042) and life satisfaction (p=0.040) scores were significantly higher in the motivational group compared with the control group, and the hopelessness score was significantly lower (p=0.005).

Conclusion

According to our study, motivational messages sent to intensive care nurses during the pandemic increased their level of optimism and life satisfaction and decreased their level of hopelessness.

Trial registration: blinded for review

Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics-6 for Medical Students: Psychometric Properties of the Anxiety Measure for the COVID-19 Pandemic

The aim of this study was to explore the psychometric properties and validity of Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics-6 items (SAVE-6) among medical students who are at high risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. A total of 212 medical students participated in the online anonymous survey that used SAVE-6, Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 items (GAD-7), and Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). We observed that the single-factor structure model of the SAVE-6 scale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.756) and a good convergent validity with GAD-7 (rho = 0.320, p < 0.001), CAS (rho = 0.229, p < 0.001), and WSAS (rho = 0.278, p < 0.001). The appropriate cut-off score of the SAVE-6 scale was determined as 15 points in accordance with at least a mild degree of generalized anxiety (GAD-7 score of 5) among medical students. In conclusion, the SAVE-6 scale can be applied to medical students as a reliable and valid rating scale to assess anxiety response to the present viral pandemic.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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