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

Case report: A rare case of Leclercia adecarboxylata bacteremia in an immunocompetent psychiatric patient: exploring the links between mental health and infectious diseases

This study aims to explore the pathogenic potential of Leclercia adecarboxylata as a rare pathogen in immunocompetent individuals and to analyze how mental health status may influence susceptibility to infection. We report a case of bacteremia in a 31-year-old immunocompetent female who developed L. adecarboxylata infection during an episode of severe depression. Although the patient exhibited self-harm tendencies, a thorough physical examination did not reveal any external wounds or signs of injury. This case demonstrates that, despite the absence of obvious external infection sources, invasive procedures, or visible trauma, L. adecarboxylata can induce severe bacteremia in immunocompetent individuals. The patient presented with high fever and systemic inflammatory response, with blood cultures confirming the presence of L. adecarboxylata, and chest imaging showing bilateral lower lobe inflammation. Following treatment with ceftriaxone, the patient's symptoms rapidly improved, and infection markers normalized. This study elucidates the potential mechanisms by which L. adecarboxylata can cause infection in immunocompetent individuals and examines the influence of mental health on infection susceptibility. It provides new insights into the complex relationship between mental illness and infection, highlighting the need for further investigation into how mental health may affect infection risk and its clinical management. In conjunction with existing research, this study discusses how psychological stress and behavioral patterns may increase infection risk and recommends future research to further explore the interplay between mental disorders and infectious diseases.

No Backstage: The Relentless Emotional Management of Acute Nursing Through the COVID-19 Pandemic

AIM(S)

To explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on nurse's well-being, experiences of delivering healthcare within acute settings and their emotional management.

DESIGN

Sequential mixed methods.

METHODS

February to July 2021 an online well-being survey was disseminated to nurses working in acute settings within one Scottish health board. In-depth interviews with a purposive sample of respondents were conducted. Survey data were analysed descriptively, and interview data using Framework analysis and emotional management as the theoretical framework.

RESULTS

Well-being was poor overall. Infection control measures impeded interactions, with loss of connection between patients, families and nurses. Emotional work was extended in caring for patients and families when visits were forbidden or restricted. Disconnect between colleagues was intensely felt. On COVID and non-COVID wards, nurses were caring for patients with a significantly reduced workforce and often outside their clinical speciality. Nurses masked their own anxieties, fears, moral distress and exhaustion on the ward. Communal 'backstage' spaces, were reduced to enable more infection-control space but reduced opportunity for collegial support. Formal psychological intervention required access after shift, and/or nurses feared they could not contain their emotions afterwards.

CONCLUSION

Working during the pandemic was emotionally and physically demanding for those in COVID a.nd non-COVID wards. Unintended consequences of infection control measures significantly extended nurses' emotional management, by caring for isolated patients and families but impeding opportunities to care for each other, compounding their emotions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION

There is a need to value emotional work in nursing to better support mental well-being.

IMPACT

We advance the nursing emotional management literature by addressing the gap of exploration in challenging conditions. The importance of emotional management on nurses' mental well-being has been overlooked but focusing on this in the next crisis could improve nurse's well-being.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

REPORTING METHOD

GRAMMS.

Self-care strategies used by disaster responders after the 2023 earthquake in Turkey and Syria: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Disaster responders are exposed to several physical and mental health risks. This study aimed to describe self-care strategies used by disaster responders after the earthquake in Syria and eastern Turkey in February 2023.

METHODS

A study specific web-based questionnaire survey was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data according to a convergent mixed methods approach. Data from 252 disaster responders responding to the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria were analyzed using both descriptive and analytical statistics and summative content analysis of free-text answers. Data were collected in March to July, 2023.

RESULTS

The most used self-care strategies included resting, social support from colleagues in the field, extra intake of food or drink, and intake of medicines. The recovery strategies varied due to previous disaster response experience, indicating that supportive self-care strategies can be developed or learned.

CONCLUSION

Given the extreme conditions and limited possibilities of external support, sufficient self-care is an essential competence among disaster responders. Self-care strategies can be both external processed such as intake of medicines, social support from others, and internal processes such as personal reflection. Providing oneself with self-care activities seems to be a skill developed with increasing experience supported by pre-deployment training. Therefore, to enhance resilience, self-care strategies should be encompassed in pre-disaster response training.

A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact in the global research production and has also increased research waste. Living evidence syntheses (LESs) seek to regularly update a body of evidence addressing a specific question. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the production and dissemination of LESs emerged as a cornerstone of the evidence infrastructure. This critical interpretive synthesis answers the questions: What constitutes an LES to support decision-making?; when should one be produced, updated, and discontinued?; and how should one be disseminated?

METHODS

Searches included the Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), Health Systems Evidence, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and Web of Science up to 23 April 2024 and included articles that provide any insights on addressing the compass questions on LESs. Articles were selected and appraised, and their insights extracted. An interpretive and iterative coding process was used to identify relevant thematic categories and create a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Among the 16,630 non-duplicate records identified, 208 publications proved eligible. Most were non-empirical articles, followed by actual LESs. Approximately one in three articles were published in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework addresses six thematic categories: (1) what is an LES; (2) what methodological approaches facilitate LESs production; (3) when to produce an LES; (4) when to update an LES; (5) how to make available the findings of an LES; and (6) when to discontinue LES updates.

CONCLUSION

LESs can play a critical role in reducing research waste and ensuring alignment with advisory and decision-making processes. This critical interpretive synthesis provides relevant insights on how to better organize the global evidence architecture to support their production.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration: CRD42021241875.

Prevalence of COVID-19 fear and its association with quality of life and network structure among Chinese mental health professionals after ending China's dynamic zero-COVID policy: a national survey

Background

China recorded a massive COVID-19 pandemic wave after ending its Dynamic Zero-COVID Policy on January 8, 2023. As a result, mental health professionals (MHPs) experienced negative mental health consequences, including an increased level of fear related to COVID-19. This study aimed to explore the prevalence and correlates of COVID-19 fear among MHPs following the end of the Policy, and its association with quality of life (QoL) from a network analysis perspective.

Methods

A cross-sectional national study was conducted across China. The correlates of COVID-19 fear were examined using both univariate and multivariate analyses. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to determine the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and QoL. Central symptoms were identified using network analysis through the "Expected Influence" of the network model while specific symptoms directly correlated with QoL were identified through the "flow function."

Results

A total of 10,647 Chinese MHPs were included. The overall prevalence of COVID-19 fear (FCV-19S total score ≥ 16) was 60.8% (95% CI = 59.9-61.8%). The binary logistic regression analysis found that MHPs with fear of COVID-19 were more likely to be married (OR = 1.198; p < 0.001) and having COVID-19 infection (OR = 1.235; p = 0.005) and quarantine experience (OR = 1.189; p < 0.001). Having better economic status (good vs. poor: OR = 0.479; p < 0.001; fair vs. poor: OR = 0.646; p < 0.001) and health status (good vs. poor: OR = 0.410; p < 0.001; fair vs. poor: OR = 0.617; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 fear. The ANCOVA showed that MHPs with fear of COVID-19 had lower QoL [F = 228.0, p < 0.001]. "Palpitation when thinking about COVID-19" was the most central symptom in the COVID-19 fear network model, while "Uncomfortable thinking about COVID-19" had the strongest negative association with QoL (average edge weight = -0.048).

Conclusion

This study found a high prevalence of COVID-19 fear among Chinese MHPs following the end of China's Dynamic Zero-COVID Policy. Developing effective prevention and intervention measures that target the central symptoms as well as symptoms correlated with QoL in our network structure would be important to address COVID-19 fear and improve QoL.

Wellbeing and mental health outcomes amongst hospital healthcare workers during COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Global healthcare systems have been particularly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are widely reported to have experienced increased levels of baseline psychological distress relative to the general population, and the COVID-19 pandemic may have had an additive effect. However, previous studies are typically restricted to physicians and nurses with limited data available on hospital HCWs. We aimed to conduct a cross-sectional, psychological evaluation of Irish HCWs during COVID-19.

METHODS

HCWs across five adult acute level-4 Dublin-based hospitals completed an online survey of wellbeing and COVID-19 experience.

RESULTS

There were 1898 HCWs who commenced the survey representing 10% of the total employee base. The sample comprised nurses (33%), doctors (21%), Health and Social Care Professionals (HSCPs) (24%) and 'Other' disciplines (22%), and 81% identified as female. Clinical levels of depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms were endorsed by 31%, 34% and 28% of respondents, respectively. Professional grouping effects included: nurses reporting significantly greater levels of COVID-19 exposure, infection, COVID-fear, moral injury, and post-traumatic distress; HSCPs were significantly less likely to report mood dysfunction. In terms of gender, males were significantly less likely to report negative pandemic experiences, low resilience, and significantly more likely to endorse 'minimal' depression, anxiety, and traumatic distress. Logistic regression modelling revealed mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms) were associated with increased frontline exposure, fewer career years' experience, elevated pre-pandemic stress, and female gender.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the largest evaluation of psychological wellbeing amongst HCWs in acute hospitals in the Dublin region. Our findings have implications for healthcare workforce wellbeing and future service delivery.

Mental health and resilience in the Irish defense forces during the COVID-19 global pandemic

The Irish Defense Forces (DF) responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and national public health crisis by deploying personnel to aid domestic civil authorities in medical and care settings, contact tracing, logistics, and operations. Current research on COVID-19 reveals increased psychological distress among frontline workers and the general public. Resilience has previously been associated with lower levels of psychological distress. This study sets out to test these associations, and to examine mental health differences between DF personnel deployed in Ireland on pandemic-related duties (DIPD) and non-DIPD. Participants were 231 DF members who completed the: Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-10, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Perceived Coronavirus Threat Questionnaire, Brief Trauma Questionnaire, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-5, and Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test. Independent t-tests revealed no differences between DIPD and non-DIPD on measures of psychological distress or on self-rated mental health prior to COVID-19 (PC19) and during COVID-19 (DC19). Results of multiple hierarchical regression analyses revealed that depression predicted lower levels of resilience, while multiple traumatic events predicted higher levels of resilience. The total adjusted variance explained by the model was 25%. Clinical and policy implications for improving access to psychological support within the DF and military populations are discussed.

Leadership Development Strategies in Interprofessional Healthcare Collaboration: A Rapid Review

Background

Contemporary healthcare practitioners require leadership skills for a variety of professional roles related to improved patient/client outcomes, heightened personal and professional development, as well as strengthened interprofessional collaboration and teamwork.

Objective/Aim

The aim of this study is to systematically catalogue literature on leadership in healthcare practice and education to highlight the leadership characteristics and skills required by healthcare practitioners for collaborative interprofessional service delivery and the leadership development strategies found to be effective.

Methods/Design

A rapid review was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) diagram shows that the 11 databases, yielded 465 records. A total of 147 records were removed during the initial screening phase. The remaining 318 records were uploaded onto Rayyan, an online collaborative review platform. Following abstract level screening, a further 236 records were removed with 82 records meeting the eligibility criteria at full text level, of which 42 were included in the data extraction. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal.

Results

Results showed variability in methodologies used, representing various healthcare disciplines with a range in population size (n = 6 to n = 537). Almost half of the results reported on new programs, with interprofessional collaboration and teamwork being the most frequently mentioned strategies. The training content, strategies used as well as the length of training varied. There were five outcomes which showed positive change, namely skills, knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and satisfaction.

Conclusion

This rapid review provided an evidence-base, highlighted by qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research, which presents distinct opportunities for curriculum development by focusing on both content and the methods needed for leadership programs. Anchoring this evidence-base within a systematic search of the extant literature provides increased precision for curriculum development.

Experiences of health professionals in EU institutions during the Covid crisis

We performed a quantitative and a qualitative study, addressing the experiences of health services of 16 European Union institutions during the Covid-19 pandemic. Among the 165 eligible subjects, 114 (69%) participated in the survey. The biggest problem reported was limitation of social contacts (53%). At work, the biggest problems were workload (50%) and shortage of staff (37%). The majority were positive about teamwork. Teleworking was seen positively by 81%. Most participants felt better prepared for future situations by their recent experience (94%). Participants underlined the importance of strengthening the collaboration with the local health systems (80%), as well as with medical services and internal services within their own institution (75%). The qualitative analysis also reported participants' fear of becoming infected, and of their family members getting sick. Similarly reported were the sense of isolation and anxiety, the excessive workload and work complexity, shortage of staff, and the benefits of teleworking. Study findings highlight: i) the need to strengthen mental health support to health personnel, not only during crisis situations; ii) the need for sufficient health workers, with swift recruitment strategies in times of crisis; iii) the importance of clear protocols to ensure no shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE); iv) the importance of teleworking, which represents an opportunity for major reorganisation of work within EU medical services; v) the need to strengthen collaboration with local health systems and the medical services of EU institutions.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Psychosocial Risks among Quebec Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Social Media Analysis

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) were at high risk of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and to work-related psychosocial risks, such as high psychological demands, low social support at work and low recognition. Because these factors are known to be detrimental to health, their detection and mitigation was essential to protect the healthcare workforce during the pandemic, when this study was initiated. Therefore, using Facebook monitoring, this study aims to identify the psychosocial risk factors to which HCWs in Quebec, Canada reported being exposed at work during the first and second pandemic waves. In this study, HCWs mainly refer to nurses, respiratory therapists, beneficiary attendants and technicians (doctors, managers and heads of healthcare establishments were deemed to be less likely to have expressed work-related concerns on the social media platforms explored). A qualitative exploratory research based on passive analysis of Facebook pages from three different unions was conducted. For each Facebook page, automatic data extraction was followed by and completed through manual extraction. Posts and comments were submitted to undergo thematic content analysis allowing main coded themes to emerge based on known theoretical frameworks of the psychosocial work environment. In total, 3796 Facebook posts and comments were analyzed. HCWs reported a variety of psychosocial work exposures, the most recurrent of which were high workload (including high emotional demands), lack of recognition and perceived injustice, followed by low workplace social support and work-life conflicts. Social media monitoring was a useful approach for documenting the psychosocial work environment during the COVID-19 crisis and could be a useful means of identifying potential targets for preventive interventions in future sanitary crises or in a context of major reforms or restructuring.

Mental health outcomes in health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: an umbrella review

As we head into the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increasing need to consider the long-term mental health outcomes of health care workers (HCWs) who have experienced overwhelming work pressure, economic and social deprivation, burnout, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This scoping umbrella review summarizes the mental health outcomes of published evidence syntheses on HCWs worldwide. We analyzed 39 evidence syntheses representing the findings from 1297 primary studies. We found several persistent fears and concerns (job-related fears, fear of stigmatization, worries about the pandemic, and infection-related fears) that shaped HCW experiences in delivering health care. We also describe several risk factors (job-related, social factors, poor physical and mental health, and inadequate coping strategies) and protective factors (individual and external factors). This is the first scoping umbrella review comprehensively documenting the various risk and protective factors that HCWs have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. HCWs continue to fear the risk that they may infect their family and friends since they regularly interact with COVID-19 patients. This places HCWs in a precarious situation requiring them to balance risk to their family and friends and potential social deprivation from isolation.

What alleviates depression among medical workers in emergency risk events? The function of subjective social status

Medical workers often face serious family-work conflicts and are prone to depressive symptoms. The present study aimed at investigating associations between family-work conflict and depression in emergencies, and at exploring psychological processes involved in this association. A total of 1347 participants were recruited to complete questionnaires. Results showed that the positive effect of family-work conflict on depression was mediated by the basic psychological needs satisfaction, and subjective social status moderated this relationship as a buffer. For individuals with high levels of subjective social status, the direct and indirect effects of family-work conflict on depression were weaker. This study identified the mediating and moderating mechanisms of family-work conflict and depression. The implications of these findings in both theoretical and practical terms will be discussed.

Mental Health of Healthcare Professionals: Two Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Portugal

The COVID-19 pandemic increased psychosocial risk factors among healthcare professionals (HCPs). Objective: To characterize Portuguese HCPs mental health (MH), estimate anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and burnout symptoms, and identify risk/protective factors. A cross-sectional online survey and a longitudinal assessment were conducted in 2020 (T0) and 2021 (T1). Sociodemographic and occupational variables, COVID-19-related experiences and protective behavior data were collected from a non-probabilistic sample of HCPs in Portugal. Symptoms of anxiety, depression, PTSD, burnout and resilience were assessed using the Portuguese versions of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5), the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure (MBSM) and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10), respectively. Risk and protective factors were identified through simple and multiple logistic regression models. Overall, 2027 participants answered the survey in T0 and 1843 in T1. The percentage of moderate-to-severe symptoms decreased from T0 to T1; however, a considerable proportion of HCPs reported symptoms of distress in both years. Being a woman, working in a COVID-19-treatment frontline position and work-life balance increased the odds of distress. High resilience, good social/family support, and hobbies/lifestyle maintenance were found to be protective factors. Globally, our results show that performing as a HCP during the pandemic may result in long-term effects on MH.

Burnout and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among medical staff two years after the COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan, China: Social support and resilience as mediators

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the relationship between burnout and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is limited. We aimed to evaluate the association between burnout and PTSD symptoms among medical staff two years after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Wuhan, China, and explore the mediating roles of social support and psychological resilience.

METHODS

A multicenter survey was conducted online from January to March 2022 among healthcare professionals from six general hospitals. Hierarchical linear regression was used to detect the predictors of PTSD symptoms. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyze the pathways from burnout to PTSD symptoms.

RESULTS

Hierarchical linear regression showed that burnout, social support, and psychological resilience were significant predictors of PTSD symptoms among medical staff. In the SEM, the standardized total effect of burnout on PTSD symptoms was 0.336(bias-corrected 95 % confidence interval [0.303, 0.367], P < 0.001). Social support and psychological resilience partially mediated the relationship between burnout and PTSD symptoms (indirect effects accounted for 22.3 % of the total effect).

LIMITATIONS

Owing to the cross-sectional design, only clues to causal explanations can be provided.

CONCLUSIONS

Burnout has significant direct and indirect effects on PTSD symptoms. Furthermore, social support and psychological resilience might be effective ways to reduce the impact of burnout on PTSD symptoms in medical staff after a major public health outbreak.

Associations between psychosocial stressors at work and moral injury in frontline healthcare workers and leaders facing the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec, Canada: A cross-sectional study

Healthcare workers (HCWs) on the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic exhibit a high prevalence of depression and psychological distress. Moral injury (MI) can lead to such mental health problems. MI occurs when perpetrating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations. Since the start of the pandemic, psychosocial stressors at work (PSWs) might have been exacerbated, which might in turn have led to an increased risk of MI in HCWs. However, research into the associations between PSWs and MI is lacking. Considering these stressors are frequent and most of them are modifiable occupational risk factors, they may constitute promising prevention targets. This study aims to evaluate the associations between a set of PSWs and MI in HCWs during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec, Canada. Furthermore, our study aims to explore potential differences between urban and non-urban regions. The sample of this study consisted of 572 HCWs and leaders from the Quebec province. Prevalence ratios (PR) of MI and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were modelled using robust Poisson regressions. Several covariates were considered, including age, sex, gender, socio-economic indicators, and lifestyle factors. Results indicated HCWs exposed to PSWs were 2.22-5.58 times more likely to experience MI. Low ethical culture had the strongest association (PR: 5.58, 95% CI: 1.34-23.27), followed by low reward (PR: 4.43, 95% CI: 2.14-9.16) and high emotional demands (PR: 4.32, 95% CI: 1.89-9.88). Identifying predictors of MI could contribute to the reduction of mental health problems and the implementation of targeted interventions in urban and non-urban areas.

Let Us Take It into Our Own Hands: Patient Experience during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new health situations for patients and health professionals alike and, with them, opportunities to study these new patient experiences, gain insights into changed healthcare practices, and propose potential new healthcare solutions. The aim of our study was to explore how people coped with their health issues during the pandemic. We utilized a consensual qualitative analysis. The convenience sample that was gathered online through social media comprised 1683 participants with a mean age of 31.02 years (SD = 11.99). The 50 participants from the convenience sample who scored the highest on subscales of the COPE inventory were selected for in-depth interviews. In-depth interviews with 27 participants from the convenience sample who reported a health issue were analyzed. The final sample in our study therefore comprised 17 women (63%) and 10 men (37%) with a mean age of 28.35 years (SD = 9.31). The results showed that behavioral coping with health problems was mentioned across all participants' accounts. However, participants facing a health issue during the COVID-19 pandemic mostly relied on their own self-help instead of on healthcare services. They utilized healthcare services only when absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the participants had two main sources of resilience: themselves and other people.

Psychological impact, coping behaviors, and traumatic stress among healthcare workers during COVID-19 in Taiwan: An early stage experience

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the psychological impact on, coping behaviors of, and traumatic stress experienced by healthcare workers during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic and formulated effective support strategies that can be implemented by hospitals and government policymakers to help healthcare staff overcome the pandemic.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study recruited clinical healthcare workers at a regional hospital in Nantou County, Taiwan. The questionnaire collected personal characteristics, data on the impact and coping behaviors of the pandemic, and Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R). A total of 354 valid questionnaires were collected. The statistical methods employed were univariate and multivariate stepwise regression, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Perceived impact and coping behaviors were found to be moderate in degree, and traumatic stress was lower than that in other countries. However, our data identified the following subgroups that require special attention: those with young age, those living with minor children, nurses, those with self-rated poor mental health, and those with insufficient COVID-19-related training.

CONCLUSION

Managers should pay particular attention to helping healthcare workers in high-risk groups, strengthen COVID-19 training, provide adequate protective equipment and shelter, and offer psychological counseling.

Fear of COVID-19 Impact on Professional Quality of Life among Mental Health Workers

Several studies have examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers' mental health, but only a few have investigated its detrimental effect on the mental well-being of mental health workers (MHWs).

BACKGROUND

The current study aimed to explore the effect of the fear of COVID-19 (FCV-19) on professional quality of life dimensions, namely compassion satisfaction (CS), burnout (BO), and secondary traumatic stress (STS) in MHWs above and beyond sociodemographic and professional factors.

METHODS

Hierarchical linear regression models were employed to examine the relationship of extreme FCV-19 with CS, BO, and STS in MHWs (n = 224), after considering sociodemographic variables as potential confounding factors. Extreme FCV-19 was operationalized as a binary variable with a cut-off score of ≥16.5 considered as extreme fear.

RESULTS

We found that extreme FCV-19 in MHWs is linked with increased compassion fatigue (BO and STS), and this relationship is exacerbated by younger age in regard to BO and by female gender concerning STS. CS remains unaffected by severe FCV-19, and it is higher in older participants.

CONCLUSION

Organizational support is required to protect MHWs' mental well-being and ensure the quality of care they provide during prolonged crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Measures that intensify a sense of safety, protection, and control against COVID-19 infections in mental health services should be included in the recommendations that may reduce BO and STS among MHWs.

Are Organizational Interventions Effective in Protecting Healthcare Worker Mental Health during Epidemics/Pandemics? A Systematic Literature Review

It is unclear how to effectively protect healthcare workers' mental health during infectious disease epidemics. Targeting the occupational determinants of stress may hold more promise than individual stress management, which has received more focus. Through a systematic review of the 2000-2021 English- and French-language scientific literature, we evaluated the effectiveness of organizational and psychosocial work environment interventions to protect healthcare workers' mental health in an epidemic/pandemic context. Evidence from medium- and high-quality studies was synthesized using GRADE. Among 1604 unique search results, 41 studies were deemed relevant, yielding 34 low-quality and seven medium-quality studies. The latter reported on promising multi-component prevention programs that combined staffing adjustments, work shift arrangements, enhanced infection prevention and control, recognition of workers' efforts, psychological and/or logistic support during lockdowns (e.g., accommodation). Our confidence in the effectiveness of reviewed interventions is low to very low, however, owing to methodological limitations. We highlight gaps in the reporting of intervention process and context elements and discuss theory and implementation failure as possible explanations for results. We conclude by urging authors of future studies to include and document detailed risk assessments of the work environment, involve workers in solution design and implementation and consider how this process can be adapted during an emergency.

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Purpose

The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed.

Results

Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode.

Conclusion

Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

Psychological Distress of Healthcare Workers in Québec (Canada) During the Second and the Third Pandemic Waves

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to measure the prevalence of psychological distress among Quebec healthcare workers (HCWs) during the second and third pandemic waves and to assess the effect of psychosocial risk factors (PSRs) on work-related psychological distress among severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected (cases) and non-infected (controls) HCWs.

METHODS

A self-administered survey was used to measure validated indicators of psychological distress (K6 scale) and PSR (questions based on Karasek and Siegrist models, value conflicts, and work-life balance). Adjusted robust Poisson models were used to estimate prevalence ratios.

RESULTS

Four thousand sixty eight cases and 4152 controls completed the survey. Prevalence of high work-related psychological distress was 42%; it was associated with PSRs (mainly work-life balance, value conflicts, and high psychological demands) but not with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

CONCLUSION

Primary prevention measures targeting PSRs are needed to reduce mental health risks of HCWs.

Nursing home workers’ mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in France

Objectives

The present study sought to examine mental health problems among nursing home workers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, to investigate COVID-19–related fears, and to identify prepandemic factors associated with current mental health issues.

Design

A cross-sectional, online survey was used.

Setting and Participants

All employees among 6 nursing homes in southwestern France (N = 455) were solicited between November, 2020 and June, 2021.

Methods

The survey instrument was developed within the World Mental Health consortium to screen for COVID-related fears, probable generalized anxiety, panic attacks, depression, posttraumatic stress and substance use disorders in the past 30 days.

Results

The survey was completed by 127 workers (89.0% female, mean age = 43.42 years, SD = 11.29), yielding a 28.5% response rate. Overall, 48.03% reported experiencing fear of infecting others at least most of the time. One in 8 (14.96%) indicated that close others feared being infected by them. One-third of the sample (34.65%) met criteria for at least 1 probable current mental disorder. Panic attacks (22.05%) were the most frequently reported mental health problem, followed by depression (16.54%). In multivariate analyses, the only factor associated with having a current probable mental disorder was the presence of any prepandemic mental health problem (adjusted odds ratio 4.76, 95% CI 2.08-10.89). Type of employment contract, full-time status, and medical vs nonmedical staff status were not significantly associated with mental health status.

Conclusions and Implications

The study reveals that one-third of nursing home workers in the sample report current probable mental disorders, and these were largely associated with prepandemic mental health status. Screening for common mental health problems and facilitating access to appropriate care should be prioritized in nursing homes.

Effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in mitigating adverse mental health outcomes among disaster-exposed health care workers: A systematic review

Health care workers worldwide are at an increased risk of a range of adverse mental health outcomes, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), following the unprecedented demand placed upon them during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychosocial interventions offered to mitigate these risks should be based on the best available evidence; however, limited information regarding the comparative effectiveness of interventions is available. We undertook a systematic review of psychosocial interventions delivered to health care workers before, during, and after disasters. Eight databases were searched, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Our primary outcomes were changes in symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and sleep. We calculated effect sizes, where unreported, and reliable change indices to appraise intervention effectiveness. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182774). In total, 12,198 papers were screened, 14 of which were included in the present review. Interventions based on evidence-based protocols, including individual and group-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for PTSD, anxiety, and depression were found to lead to reliable changes in PTSD and anxiety symptoms. Single-session debriefing and psychological first aid workshops showed limited efficacy. There is limited evidence on psychosocial interventions for health care workers faced with disasters, with the strongest evidence base for CBT-based approaches. Future research should include controlled evaluations of interventions and aim to target identified risk factors.

Financial Factors and Psychological Distress during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many factors have simultaneously affected people’s psychological distress (PD). The most commonly studied types of factors have been those relating to health risks involving SARS-CoV-2 infection and sociodemographic factors. However, financial changes at both the national and global levels and these changes’ influences on people’s personal finances constitute another group of factors with the potential to cause symptoms of anxiety and depression. A correlation study of 1135 working adults in Poland was conducted to analyze the roles of a wide range of financial variables in explaining the extent of people’s PD during the pandemic. Three groups of financial factors predicted PD over and above sociodemographic variables and COVID-19 health-related factors: a person’s objective financial situation, their subjective financial situation, and their individual financial disposition, the last of these being the most important. The present study adds to the current state of knowledge by showing that financial variables explain a significant portion of variance in PD over and above sociodemographic and COVID-19 health-related factors. Moreover, the study also identified individual financial variables that were capable of predicting people’s psychological distress during the pandemic.

Uncertainty and Fears Around Sustainability: A Qualitative Exploration of the Emotional Reactions of Dental Practitioners and Dental Care Professionals During COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Recent cross-sectional surveys have shown the detrimental impact of COVID-19 on the health and well-being of dental practitioners and dental care professionals. This qualitative study complements the growing quantitative evidence base with an in-depth exploration of the lived experiences of those working in primary care dental teams in Scotland.

METHODS

Focus groups were carried out with primary care dental team members and trainees between July and October 2020. Olsen's tripartite framework of health service sustainability was operationalised to explore how participants experienced uncertainty and their attempts to sustain dental services.

RESULTS

Analysis revealed significant concerns surrounding the sustainability of dental services and dental training programmes as a consequence of the emergency level response to the pandemic. Restrictions on dentistry were seen to be severely impeding desirable clinical outcomes, particularly for the most vulnerable groups. Participants experienced being unable to deliver high quality care to their patients as both confusing and distressing. The capability of the dental health care system to meet a growing backlog of dental need and manage this effectively in a pandemic era was called in to serious question. Ongoing uncertainties were affecting how participants were thinking about their professional futures, with stress about income and employment, along with heightened experiences of professional isolation during the pandemic, resulting in some looking at possibilities for retraining or even considering leaving their profession altogether.

DISCUSSION

The impact of the pandemic has produced considerable uncertainty regarding the sustainability of dental services in the medium to longer term. It has also served to expose the uncertainties practitioners grapple with routinely as they attempt to sustain their NHS dental service delivery.

CONCLUSION

This study brings in to sharp focus the diversity of challenges, confusions and uncertainties experienced by dental practitioners and dental care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for suitable and ongoing measures to be put in place to support their mental well-being.

Predictors of nurses' reporting for work at the time of epidemics and natural disasters; solutions for hospital surge capacity

PURPOSE

To identify the predictors of nurses' presence at hospitals at the time of three types of disasters.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study was performed using a researcher-generated questionnaire.

METHODS

This study was performed on 350 nurses of five public hospitals. Data was collected using a questionnaire in which the respondents were asked about their decisions on reporting for work in the event of three scenarios: epidemic of an unknown contagious respiratory disease, earthquake, and flood. Multiple logistic regression was used to analyze the data.

FINDINGS

The four predictors of nurses reporting for work include receiving trainings on disasters, and concerns on the non-compensation for providing services following the disaster, concerns about family safety and workplace safety.

CONCLUSION

Although slightly different factors affect the willingness of participants to report for work in each scenario, they can be put in two main categories; namely as personal and impersonal. Devising a family disaster plan and providing educational programs on self-care are two main strategies to increase the chances of presence at work following disasters.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The presence of more nurses in the hospital at the time of disasters can significantly improve the quality of care, and clinical outcomes of patients and disaster victims.

Psychological crisis and emergency intervention for frontline critical care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

AIM

To explore the main feelings and coping strategies among frontline critical care workers during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate the level of satisfaction after a psychological crisis and emergency intervention.

BACKGROUND

The health crisis brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed critical care workers to an intense physical and emotional burden. Scientific research recommends psychological crisis and emergency interventions during the acute phase to help cope with the situation and prevent emotional side effects.

DESIGN

A multicentre descriptive study with mixed qualitative and quantitative data was developed.

METHODS

Healthcare and non-healthcare critical care workers from 16 hospitals were included. Psychological crisis assistance was given (for individuals and groups), both face-to-face and online, with 18 psychologists for two months. Content analysis from the psychologists' session reports after each intervention was performed (COREQ). Satisfaction with the intervention was assessed with an 'ad hoc' 21-item online survey.

RESULTS

A total of 553 interventions were carried out (361 individually and 192 in groups). Four themes were identified: 1-Imbalance between occupational demands and resources; 2-Acute stress responses; 3-Personal and professional consequences; and 4-Protection factors. The main protection factor identified was group cohesion and perceived social support. The mean general satisfaction with the intervention was high and 96.2% (n=252) of the participants would recommend it in future.

CONCLUSIONS

A psychological crisis and emergency intervention helped critical care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic to verbalise and integrate the situation, providing strategies to cope with the experience with a high level of satisfaction from the participants assisted.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, support groups guided by psychologists fostered reflection on aspects related to work, interaction with patients and relatives and social support from workmates that help them for coping with stress, share emotions and experiences and feel understood.

Mental health among healthcare workers and other vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic and other coronavirus outbreaks: A rapid systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Although most countries and healthcare systems worldwide have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, some groups of the population may be more vulnerable to detrimental effects of the pandemic on mental health than others. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise evidence currently available from systematic reviews on the impact of COVID-19 and other coronavirus outbreaks on mental health for groups of the population thought to be at increased risk of detrimental mental health impacts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of reviews on adults and children residing in a country affected by a coronavirus outbreak and belonging to a group considered to be at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities. Data were collected on symptoms or diagnoses of any mental health condition, quality of life, suicide or attempted suicide. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the online PROSPERO database prior to commencing the review (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=194264).

RESULTS

We included 25 systematic reviews. Most reviews included primary studies of hospital workers from multiple countries. Reviews reported variable estimates for the burden of symptoms of mental health problems among acute healthcare workers, COVID-19 patients with physical comorbidities, and children and adolescents. No evaluations of interventions were identified. Risk- and protective factors, mostly for healthcare workers, showed the importance of personal factors, the work environment, and social networks for mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

This review of reviews based on primary studies conducted in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic shows a lack of evidence on mental health interventions and mental health impacts on vulnerable groups in the population.

Association Between Perceived Stress and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Among Medical Staff During the COVID-19 Epidemic in Wuhan City

Objective: The study aimed to examine the relationship between perceived stress and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among frontline medical staff during the lockdown in Wuhan city, China, due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Methods: The study was conducted in August 2020, which included 516 medical staff between 21 to 65 years. The PTSD Checklist-Civilian, Perceived Stress Scale, Insomnia Severity Index, and Compassion Fatigue Short Scale were used.

Results: The results indicated that 10.5% of the medical staff experienced PTSD symptoms, and insomnia severity mediated the effect of perceived stress on PTSD. In addition, compassion fatigue moderated the association between perceived stress and PTSD.

Conclusion: The study elucidated the mechanisms underlying the association between perceived stress and PTSD. Moreover, it emphasized the importance of long-term monitoring of the mental health status of frontline medical staff who supported Wuhan. The results can serve as reference for relevant medical and health departments to formulate active interventions and preventive measures against PTSD for unsung heroes who put their lives on the line during difficult times.

Mindfulness practice for protecting mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic

Emerging evidence shows that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is negatively affecting mental health around the globe. Interventions to alleviate the psychological impact of the pandemic are urgently needed. Whether mindfulness practice may protect against the harmful emotional effects of a pandemic crisis remains hitherto unknown. We investigated the influence of mindfulness training on mental health during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. We hypothesized that mindfulness practitioners might manifest less pandemic-related distress, depression, anxiety, and stress than non-practitioners and that more frequent practice would be associated with an improvement in mental health during the pandemic. Therefore, we assessed pandemic-related distress and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress, as well as the frequency of meditation practice at the peak of new infections (Feb 4-5; N = 673) and three weeks later (Feb 29-30; N = 521) in mindfulness practitioners via online questionnaires. Self-reported symptoms were also collected from non-practitioners at peak time only (N = 1550). We found lower scores of pandemic-related distress in mindfulness practitioners compared to non-practitioners. In general, older participants showed fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety. In younger practitioners, pandemic-related distress decreased from peak to follow-up. Importantly, increased mindfulness training during the preceding two weeks was associated with lower scores of depression and anxiety at both assessments. Likewise, practice frequency predicted individual improvement in scores of depression, anxiety, and stress at follow-up. Our results indicate that mindfulness meditation might be a viable low-cost intervention to mitigate the psychological impact of the COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics.

A qualitative study of experiences of NHS mental healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The Covid-19 pandemic has imposed extraordinary strains on healthcare workers. But, in contrast with acute settings, relatively little attention has been given to those who work in mental health settings. We aimed to characterise the experiences of those working in English NHS secondary mental health services during the first wave of the pandemic.

METHODS

The design was a qualitative interview-based study. We conducted semi-structured, remote (telephone or online) interviews with 35 members of staff from NHS secondary (inpatient and community) mental health services in England. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Participants reported wide-ranging changes in the organisation of secondary mental health care and the nature of work in response to the pandemic, including pausing of all services deemed to be "non-essential", deployment of staff across services to new and unfamiliar roles, and moves to remote working. The quality of participants' working life was impaired by increasing levels of daily challenge associated with trying to provide care in trying and constrained circumstances, the problems of forging new ways of working remotely, and constraints on ability to access informal support. Participants were confronted with difficult dilemmas relating to clinical decision-making, prioritisation of care, and compromises in ability to perform the therapeutic function of their roles. Other dilemmas centred on trying to balance the risks of controlling infection with the need for human contact. Many reported features of moral injury linked to their perceived failures in providing the quality or level of care that they felt service users needed. They sometimes sought to compensate for deficits in care through increased advocacy, taking on additional tasks, or making exceptions, but this led to further personal strain. Many experienced feelings of grief, helplessness, isolation, distress, and burnout. These problems were compounded by sometimes poor communication about service changes and by staff feeling that they could not take time off because of the potential impact on others. Some reported feeling poorly supported by organisations.

CONCLUSIONS

Mental health workers faced multiple adversities during the pandemic that were highly consequential for their wellbeing. These findings can help in identifying targets for support.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and well-being of UK healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant psychological impact on healthcare workers (HCWs).

AIMS

There is an urgent need to understand the risk and protective factors associated with poor mental well-being of UK HCWs working during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

Shortly after the April 2020 UK COVID-19 peak 2773 HCWs completed a survey containing measures of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and stress, as well as questions around potential predictors such as roles, COVID-19 risk perception and workplace-related factors. Respondents were classified as high or low symptomatic on each scale and logistic regression revealed factors associated with severe psychiatric symptoms. Change in well-being from pre- to during COVID-19 was also quantified.

RESULTS

Nearlya third of HCWs reported moderate to severe levels of anxiety and depression, and the number reporting very high symptoms was more than quadruple that pre-COVID-19. Several controllable factors were associated with the most severe level of psychiatric symptoms: insufficient personal protective equipment availability, workplace preparation, training and communication, and higher workload. Being female, 'front line', previous psychiatric diagnoses, traumatic events, and being an allied HCW or manager were also significantly associated with severe psychiatric symptoms. Sharing stress, resilience and ethical support for treatment decisions were significantly associated with low psychiatric symptoms. Front-line workers showed greater worsening of mental health compared with non-front-line HCWs.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor mental well-being was prevalent during the COVID-19 response, however, controllable factors associated with severe psychiatric symptoms are available to be targeted to reduce the detrimental impact of COVID-19 and other pandemics on HCW mental health.

Anxiety, stress and depression levels among nurses of educational hospitals in Iran: Time of performing nursing care for suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Following the global emergency of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), health-care workers, especially nurses were encountered with an increasing workload. Therefore, due to the importance of this issue, the present study aimed to examine stress, anxiety, and depression levels among nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in four educational hospitals affiliated to Kerman University of Medical Sciences in 2020. The standard Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 questionnaire was applied to assess the levels of stress, anxiety, and depression in nurse personnel with a census method (n = 403). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and analytic statistics such as Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and multiple linear regression tests through the version 20, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA, Software at the level of P < 0.05.

RESULTS

The results of the study showed that the mean scores of depressions (9.18 ± 4.45), stress (9.62 ± 4.94), and anxiety (10.32 ± 4.85) in nurses were at moderate level. A significant relationship was observed between stressed, anxious, and depressed participants in the gender, marital status, level of education, and working hours per month. No statistically significant relationship was found between other demographic variables including age, work experience, and employment status with anxiety, depression, and stress categories.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study can increase the awareness of health system managers, especially hospitals, about the level of stress, anxiety, and depression and can help in order to provide psychological support programs for improving the mental health of nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Mental Health of Female Physicians and Nurses in Oman during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objectives

We sought to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on female doctors and nurses’ mental health in Oman.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of 402 female doctors and nurses recruited from several health facilities in Oman. We used the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), the WHO-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5), and the Sleep Quality Scale to determine the prevalence rates of anxiety, stress, well-being, and sleep quality.

Results

A total of 231 (57.5%) Omanis and 171 (42.5%) non-Omanis participated in this study. Of the total 402 participants, 28.4% were physicians and 71.6% were nurses. One in four (27.9%) participants reported caring for COVID-19 patients. One in four (27.9%) had moderate to severe anxiety. A higher proportion of Omanis (32.0%) had moderate to severe anxiety than non-Omanis (22.2%). Six in 10 (60.7%) scored at or above the mean on the PSS-10. Doctors and nurses who cared for COVID-19 patients reported higher levels of stress than those who did not. Almost half (45.3%) of the participants scored 50% or less on the well-being scale. A higher proportion of Omanis and those who cared for COVID-19 cases scored ≤ 50. Four in 10 (39.3%) had poor sleep quality; this was particularly prevalent among Omanis. A multiple regression analysis revealed that anxiety, stress, and well-being were significant predictors of poor sleep quality.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic is having a significant effect on the mental health of health care workers in Oman. In this study, nurses, Omanis, and frontline health care workers were the most impacted by the global health crisis. Urgent psychological, social, and administrative interventions and support should be implemented to mitigate mental health risks in these groups.

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.