Health service and psychotropic medication use for mental health conditions among healthcare workers active during the Spain Covid-19 Pandemic - A prospective cohort study using web-based surveys

Little is known about healthcare workers' (HCW) use of healthcare services for mental disorders. This study presents data from a 16-month prospective cohort study of Spanish HCW (n = 4,809), recruited shortly after the COVID-19 pandemic onset, and assessed at four timepoints using web-based surveys. Use of health services among HCW with mental health conditions (i.e., those having a positive screen for mental disorders and/or suicidal thoughts and behaviours [STB]) was initially low (i.e., 18.2 %) but increased to 29.6 % at 16-month follow-up. Service use was positively associated with pre-pandemic mental health treatment (OR=1.99), a positive screen for major depressive disorder (OR=1.50), panic attacks (OR=1.74), suicidal thoughts and behaviours (OR=1.22), and experiencing severe role impairment (OR=1.33), and negatively associated with being female (OR = 0.69) and a higher daily number of work hours (OR=0.95). Around 30 % of HCW with mental health conditions used anxiolytics (benzodiazepines), especially medical doctors. Four out of ten HCW (39.0 %) with mental health conditions indicated a need for (additional) help, with most important barriers for service use being too ashamed, long waiting lists, and professional treatment not being available. Our findings delineate a clear mental health treatment gap among Spanish HCW.

Traumatic stress symptoms among Spanish healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective study

AIM

To investigate the occurrence of traumatic stress symptoms (TSS) among healthcare workers active during the COVID-19 pandemic and to obtain insight as to which pandemic-related stressful experiences are associated with onset and persistence of traumatic stress.

METHODS

This is a multicenter prospective cohort study. Spanish healthcare workers (N = 4,809) participated at an initial assessment (i.e., just after the first wave of the Spain COVID-19 pandemic) and at a 4-month follow-up assessment using web-based surveys. Logistic regression investigated associations of 19 pandemic-related stressful experiences across four domains (infection-related, work-related, health-related and financial) with TSS prevalence, incidence and persistence, including simulations of population attributable risk proportions (PARP).

RESULTS

Thirty-day TSS prevalence at T1 was 22.1%. Four-month incidence and persistence were 11.6% and 54.2%, respectively. Auxiliary nurses had highest rates of TSS prevalence (35.1%) and incidence (16.1%). All 19 pandemic-related stressful experiences under study were associated with TSS prevalence or incidence, especially experiences from the domains of health-related (PARP range 88.4-95.6%) and work-related stressful experiences (PARP range 76.8-86.5%). Nine stressful experiences were also associated with TSS persistence, of which having patient(s) in care who died from COVID-19 had the strongest association. This association remained significant after adjusting for co-occurring depression and anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

TSSs among Spanish healthcare workers active during the COVID-19 pandemic are common and associated with various pandemic-related stressful experiences. Future research should investigate if these stressful experiences represent truly traumatic experiences and carry risk for the development of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The evaluation of pelvic floor muscle strength in women with pelvic floor dysfunction: A reliability and correlation study

AIMS

The purposes of this study were: (i) to evaluate the reliability of vaginal palpation, vaginal manometry, vaginal dynamometry; and surface (transperineal) electromyography (sEMG), when evaluating pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength and/or activation; and (ii) to determine the associations among PFM strength measured using these assessments.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty women with pelvic floor disorders participated on one occasion, and 20 women returned for the same investigations by two different raters on 3 different days. At each session, PFM strength was assessed using palpation (both the modified Oxford Grading Scale and the Levator ani testing), manometry, and dynamometry; and PFM activation was assessed using sEMG.

RESULTS

The interrater reliability of manometry, dynamometry, and sEMG (both root-mean-square [RMS] and integral average) was high (Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient [CCC] = 0.95, 0.93, 0.91, 0.86, respectively), whereas the interrater reliability of both palpation grading scales was low (Cohen's Kappa [k] = 0.27-0.38). The intrarater reliability of manometry (CCC = 0.96), and dynamometry (CCC = 0.96) were high, whereas intrarater reliability of both palpation scales (k = 0.78 for both), and of sEMG (CCC = 0.79 vs 0.80 for RMS vs integral average) was moderate. The Bland-Altman plot showed good inter and intrarater agreement, with little random variability for all instruments. The correlations among palpation, manometry, and dynamometry were moderate (coefficient of determination [r² ] ranged from 0.52 to 0.75), however, transperineal sEMG amplitude was only weakly correlated with all measures of strength (r²  = 0.23-0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Manometry and dynamometry are more reliable tools than vaginal palpation for the assessment of PFM strength in women with pelvic floor disorders, especially when different raters are involved. The different PFM strength measures used clinically are moderately correlated; whereas, PFM activation recorded using transperineal sEMG is only weakly correlated with PFM strength. Results from perineal sEMG should not be interpreted in the context of reporting PFM strength.