Psychological impact of repeated epidemic exposure on healthcare workers: findings from an online survey of a healthcare workforce exposed to both SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

To measure the psychological well-being of healthcare workers (HCWs) during this COVID-19 pandemic and examine the experiences of the subgroup of participants who were also HCWs during the 2003 SARS epidemic.

DESIGN

Anonymous online survey adapted from a similar study conducted during the SARS epidemic, disseminated from July 2020 to August 2020.

SETTING

Nine healthcare institutions across Singapore ranging from primary care, community care, tertiary care and specialised referral centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Employees working in the participating healthcare institutions.

RESULTS

Of 3828 survey returns, 3616 had at least one completed item on the questionnaire. Majority were female (74.7%), nurses (51.7%), foreign-born (53.2%) and not working in the tertiary care setting (52.1%). The median score on the Impact of Events Scale (IES) was 15 (IQR 23) and 28.2% of the sample scored in the moderate/severe range. 22.7% of the participants were also HCWs during SARS and more than half of them felt safer and better equipped in the current pandemic. 25.2% of SARS HCWs and 25.9% of non-SARS HCWs had moderate/severe IES scores (p=0.904). After adjusting for age, marital status, parity and length of work experience, racial minority groups and living apart from family were independent predictors of high IES regardless of prior SARS epidemic experience. Daily exposure to confirmed or suspect COVID-19 cases increased the odds of high IES for non-SARS HCWs only.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Overall, while 28% of HCWs in our study suffered from significant trauma-related psychological symptoms regardless of prior experience with the SARS epidemic, those with prior experience reported feeling safer and better equipped, finding the workload easier to manage, as well as having more confidence in their healthcare leaders. We recommend for more trauma-informed support strategies for our HCWs especially those from racial minority groups, who are foreign-born and isolated from their families.

Perceived Stress, Stigma, Traumatic Stress Levels and Coping Responses amongst Residents in Training across Multiple Specialties during COVID-19 Pandemic-A Longitudinal Study

This study aimed to explore changes in psychological responses (perceived stress, traumatic stress, stigma, coping) over time in residents, as well as their predictors. The level of perceived stress, traumatic stress, stigma, and coping responses were assessed using the Perceived Stress Scale, Impact of Event-Revised, Healthcare Workers Stigma Scale, and Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory, respectively. We collected responses from 274 residents at baseline and 221 residents at 3 months follow-up (timepoint 2) from the National Healthcare Group (NHG) residency programs in Singapore. All residents reported lower perceived stress and lower perceived stigma compared to baseline. Use of avoidance coping was associated with all three psychological responses (perceived stress, traumatic stress, and stigma) across the two timepoints. Compared to baseline, specific factors associated with perceived stress and traumatic stress at timepoint 2 were living alone, less problem solving, and seeking social support. Residency programs should encourage active coping strategies (e.g., seeking social support, positive thinking, problem solving) among residents, and proactively identify residents who may be at higher risk of psychological sequelae due to circumstances that contribute to isolation.

Equivalency of the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) queries about thoughts of death and self-harm, but not suicidality. Although it is sometimes used to assess suicide risk, most positive responses are not associated with suicidality. The PHQ-8, which omits Item 9, is thus increasingly used in research. We assessed equivalency of total score correlations and the diagnostic accuracy to detect major depression of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9.

METHODS

We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis. We fit bivariate random-effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

16 742 participants (2097 major depression cases) from 54 studies were included. The correlation between PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 scores was 0.996 (95% confidence interval 0.996 to 0.996). The standard cutoff score of 10 for the PHQ-9 maximized sensitivity + specificity for the PHQ-8 among studies that used a semi-structured diagnostic interview reference standard (N = 27). At cutoff 10, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive by 0.02 (-0.06 to 0.00) and more specific by 0.01 (0.00 to 0.01) among those studies (N = 27), with similar results for studies that used other types of interviews (N = 27). For all 54 primary studies combined, across all cutoffs, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive than the PHQ-9 by 0.00 to 0.05 (0.03 at cutoff 10), and specificity was within 0.01 for all cutoffs (0.00 to 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 total scores were similar. Sensitivity may be minimally reduced with the PHQ-8, but specificity is similar.

Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores do not accurately estimate depression prevalence: individual participant data meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Depression symptom questionnaires are not for diagnostic classification. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores ≥10 are nonetheless often used to estimate depression prevalence. We compared PHQ-9 ≥10 prevalence to Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (SCID) major depression prevalence and assessed whether an alternative PHQ-9 cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Individual participant data meta-analysis of datasets comparing PHQ-9 scores to SCID major depression status.

RESULTS

A total of 9,242 participants (1,389 SCID major depression cases) from 44 primary studies were included. Pooled PHQ-9 ≥10 prevalence was 24.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.8%, 28.9%); pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 12.1% (95% CI: 9.6%, 15.2%); and pooled difference was 11.9% (95% CI: 9.3%, 14.6%). The mean study-level PHQ-9 ≥10 to SCID-based prevalence ratio was 2.5 times. PHQ-9 ≥14 and the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm provided prevalence closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but study-level prevalence differed from SCID-based prevalence by an average absolute difference of 4.8% for PHQ-9 ≥14 (95% prediction interval: -13.6%, 14.5%) and 5.6% for the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm (95% prediction interval: -16.4%, 15.0%).

CONCLUSION

PHQ-9 ≥10 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. There is too much heterogeneity to correct statistically in individual studies.

The Accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Algorithm for Screening to Detect Major Depression: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Screening for major depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) can be done using a cutoff or the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm. Many primary studies publish results for only one approach, and previous meta-analyses of the algorithm approach included only a subset of primary studies that collected data and could have published results.

OBJECTIVE

To use an individual participant data meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of two PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithms for detecting major depression and compare accuracy between the algorithms and the standard PHQ-9 cutoff score of ≥10.

METHODS

Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Web of Science (January 1, 2000, to February 7, 2015). Eligible studies that classified current major depression status using a validated diagnostic interview.

RESULTS

Data were included for 54 of 72 identified eligible studies (n participants = 16,688, n cases = 2,091). Among studies that used a semi-structured interview, pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.49, 0.64) and 0.95 (0.94, 0.97) for the original algorithm and 0.61 (0.54, 0.68) and 0.95 (0.93, 0.96) for a modified algorithm. Algorithm sensitivity was 0.22-0.24 lower compared to fully structured interviews and 0.06-0.07 lower compared to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Specificity was similar across reference standards. For PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥10 compared to semi-structured interviews, sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.88 (0.82-0.92) and 0.86 (0.82-0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

The cutoff score approach appears to be a better option than a PHQ-9 algorithm for detecting major depression.

Probability of major depression diagnostic classification using semi-structured versus fully structured diagnostic interviews

BACKGROUND

Different diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification.AimsTo evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics.

METHOD

Data collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit.

RESULTS

A total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15-3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98-10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7-15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56-1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

The MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.Declaration of interestDrs Jetté and Patten declare that they received a grant, outside the submitted work, from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which was jointly funded by the Institute and Pfizer. Pfizer was the original sponsor of the development of the PHQ-9, which is now in the public domain. Dr Chan is a steering committee member or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr Hegerl declares that within the past 3 years, he was an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Servier and Otsuka Pharma; a consultant for Bayer Pharma; and a speaker for Medice Arzneimittel, Novartis, and Roche Pharma, all outside the submitted work. Dr Inagaki declares that he has received grants from Novartis Pharma, lecture fees from Pfizer, Mochida, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Meiji Seika and Takeda, and royalties from Nippon Hyoron Sha, Nanzando, Seiwa Shoten, Igaku-shoin and Technomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Yamada reports personal fees from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., MSD K.K., Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Seishin Shobo, Seiwa Shoten Co., Ltd., Igaku-shoin Ltd., Chugai Igakusha and Sentan Igakusha, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.