Psychological status of healthcare workers during the civil war and COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

Association between perceived discrimination and mental health outcomes among health workers during the initial COVID-19 outbreak

BACKGROUND

During the initial COVID-19 outbreak, health systems faced unprecedented organizational stress. Meanwhile, reports of episodes of discrimination and violence towards healthcare workers increased globally. This study explores the association between perceived discrimination and mental health outcomes in a large sample of healthcare workers in Spain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Healthcare workers from inpatient and outpatient facilities (N=2,053) filled an on-line questionnaire in May or June 2020. Mental health outcomes included depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]), psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire [GHQ-12]) and death thoughts (Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale [C-SSRS]). We also measured perceived discrimination and/or stigmatization due to being a healthcare worker since pandemic onset. Regression models adjusted for potential confounding sources (age, sex, history of a mental health diagnosis and type of job) were fitted.

RESULTS

Thirty percent of the respondents reported discrimination and/or stigmatization. Perceived discrimination was associated with higher depression (B=2.4, 95 percent CI: 1.8, 2.9) and psychological distress (B=1.1, 95 percent CI: 0.7, 1.4) scores, and with a 2-fold increase in risk of reporting death thoughts (OR=2.0, 95 percent CI: 1.4, 3.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Perceived discrimination is a modifiable driver of mental health problems among healthcare workers. Mass media, legislators, and healthcare institutions must put in place prevention and restoration strategies to limit discrimination towards healthcare workers and reduce its mental health impact.

Impact of the covid-19 pandemic on mental health and sexuality of female doctors

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 pandemic has changed people's lives around the world due to restrictive measures adopted by governments. The impact of this change on female sexuality needs to be further investigated, particularly between female doctors who are more at risk as they are directly involved with health care services.

METHODS

An online survey has been filled out by female doctors. The questionnaire evaluates sexual function, depression, anxiety, burnout, sociodemographic and professional data, and it was answered during the peak of COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. The main outcome is female doctors' sexual function during COVID-19 pandemic, which was evaluated by analyzing FSFI questionnaires. The secondary outcome is related to their mental health, assessed via depression, anxiety and burnout questionnaires.

RESULTS

A sample of 388 female doctors filled out the questionnaire. The median age was 34.0 (29.0, 43.0) years old. The total FSFI median score was 23.8 [18.9, 26.8] with desire domain median of 5.0 [3.0, 7.0]. In our sample, 231 (59.5%) women had depression and/or anxiety, out of these, 191 (82.7%) had depression and 192 (83.2%), anxiety. From these samples of doctors with depression and/or anxiety, 183 (79.2%) had sexual dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

This finding suggests that doctors are experiencing a high risk of sexual dysfunction and mental illness during the COVID-19 outbreak. A high index of depression and/or anxiety was shown in the studied population, with almost 80% of them reaching criteria for sexual dysfunction. Working in the frontline is related to worse mental health conditions. Depression and anxiety were found as potential mediators of burnout effect on sexual function.

Burnout and Turnover Intention in Critical Care Professionals During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan: A Cross-sectional Survey

Rationale: The prevalence of burnout among critical care professionals during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic varies in different countries. Objectives: To investigate the prevalence of burnout and turnover intention in Japanese critical care professionals in March 2021. Methods: This cross-sectional study used a web-based survey of Japanese critical care professionals working in 15 intensive care units in 15 prefectures. Burnout was measured using the Mini Z 2.0 Survey. Intention to leave (turnover intention) was assessed by survey. Resilience was measured using the Brief Resilience Scale (Japanese version). Demographics and personal and workplace characteristics were also collected. Results: Of 1,205 critical care professionals approached, 936 (77.6%) completed the survey. Among these, 24.3%, 20.6%, and 14.2% reported symptoms of burnout, depression, and anxiety, respectively. A total of 157 respondents (16.8%) reported turnover intention. On multivariate analysis, higher resilience scores (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-0.95; and OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.96) and perceived support from the hospital (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93; and OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.73) were associated with a lower odds of burnout and turnover intention, respectively. Conclusions: Approximately 24% and 17% of the Japanese critical care professionals surveyed had symptoms of burnout and turnover intention from critical care, respectively, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such professionals require organizational support to cultivate both individual and organizational resilience to reduce burnout and turnover intention.

The Mental Health Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Healthcare Workers in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: A Scoping Review

Objectives: This scoping review is to investigate the existing literature on the mental health of Healthcare workers, including stress or distress, anxiety, depression, burnout, insomnia, and fear or phobia within the different countries in the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We systematically searched to consolidate studies across EMR countries regarding the mental health morbidity studied, the scales, and the methodology used. The review focused on peer-reviewed academic literature published from March 2020 to November 2021. Results: One hundred sixty-seven articles were included in the review. Most publications came from lower-middle-income countries such as Iran, Pakistan, and Egypt. Most of the literature was specific to Stress/Distress (n = 94), followed by anxiety (n = 93), depression (n = 66), burnout (n = 27), insomnia (n = 20), and fear/phobia (n = 12). Conclusion: Fear, phobia, and insomnia have all been examined extensively worldwide, yet they were among the Eastern Mediterranean region's least explored outcomes. In addition, most underdeveloped countries have a low rate of publication.

Efeitos da pandemia e fatores associados à saúde mental de profissionais de saúde

Objetivo: identificar,na literatura científica, os efeitos da pandemia e fatores associados àsaúde mental de profissionais de saúde que atuam no enfrentamento da COVID-19. Método: revisão integrativa da literatura, através das bases de dados Web of Science, LILACS, Medline e CINAHL, realizada em novembro de 2020.A busca se deu de forma ampla, criteriosa e independente por dois pesquisadores; em casos de divergência, houve a participação de um terceiro pesquisador. Resultados: 12 artigos compuseram a amostra. Ansiedade, depressão e distúrbios do sono foram os efeitos na saúde mental mais prevalentes em profissionais de saúde durante a pandemia de COVID-19. O setor de trabalho, a falta de Equipamentos de Proteção Individual (EPIs) e o aumento da carga horária de trabalho foram os principais fatores desencadeantes desses efeitos. Considerações Finais: faz-se necessária a implantação de estratégias e intervenções eficazes que garantam um suporte psicológico a curto, médio e longo prazo para os profissionais de saúde.

The scar that takes time to heal: A systematic review of COVID-19-related stigma targets, antecedents, and outcomes

COVID-19, as a crucial public health crisis, has affected our lives in nearly every aspect. Besides its major health threats, COVID-19 brings severe secondary impacts, one of which is the rise of social stigma. Although numerous studies have examined the antecedents and outcomes of COVID-19-related stigma, we still lack a systematic understanding of who is being stigmatized during the COVID-19 pandemic, what exacerbates COVID-19-related stigma, and what impacts COVID-19-related stigma has on victims. Therefore, this review aims to provide a systematic overview of COVID-19-related stigma. With 93 papers conducted with 126,371 individuals in more than 150 countries and territories spanning five continents, we identify three targets that have received the most research: Chinese/Asian people, (suspected) patients and survivors, and healthcare workers. Furthermore, we find that for each stigma target, characteristics of the stigmatized, stigmatizer, and context contribute to COVID-19-related stigma and that this stigma negatively influences victims' health and non-health outcomes. We call for future research to provide a more integrative, balanced, and rigorous picture of COVID-19-related stigma via conducting research on neglected topics (e.g., contextual factors that contribute to stigma toward HCWs) and stigma interventions and using a longitudinal design. In practice, we urge governments and institutions (e.g., ministries of public health, hospitals) to pay close attention to stigma issues and to promote safe and inclusive societies.

The psychological impact, risk factors and coping strategies to COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers in the sub-Saharan Africa: a narrative review of existing literature

BACKGROUND

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the physical and mental health of the general population worldwide, with healthcare workers at particular risk. The pandemic's effect on healthcare workers' mental well-being has been characterized by depression, anxiety, work-related stress, sleep disturbances, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Hence, protecting the mental well-being of healthcare workers (HCWs) is a considerable priority. This review aimed to determine risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes and protective or coping measures to mitigate the harmful effects of the COVID-19 crisis among HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

We performed a literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Embase for relevant materials. We obtained all articles published between March 2020 and April 2022 relevant to the subject of review and met pre-defined eligibility criteria. We selected 23 articles for initial screening and included 12 in the final review.

RESULT

A total of 5,323 participants in twelve studies, predominantly from Ethiopia (eight studies), one from Uganda, Cameroon, Mali, and Togo, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Investigators found 16.3-71.9% of HCWs with depressive symptoms, 21.9-73.5% with anxiety symptoms, 15.5-63.7% experienced work-related stress symptoms, 12.4-77% experienced sleep disturbances, and 51.6-56.8% reported PTSD symptoms. Healthcare workers, working in emergency, intensive care units, pharmacies, and laboratories were at higher risk of adverse mental health impacts. HCWs had deep fear, anxious and stressed with the high transmission rate of the virus, high death rates, and lived in fear of infecting themselves and families. Other sources of fear and work-related stress were the lack of PPEs, availability of treatment and vaccines to protect themselves against the virus. HCWs faced stigma, abuse, financial problems, and lack of support from employers and communities.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD in HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic has been high. Several organizational, community, and work-related challenges and interventions were identified, including improvement of workplace infrastructures, adoption of correct and shared infection control measures, provision of PPEs, social support, and implementation of resilience training programs. Setting up permanent multidisciplinary mental health teams at regional and national levels to deal with mental health and providing psychological support to HCWs, supported with long-term surveillance, are recommended.

Global prevalence of stigmatization and violence against healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

During COVID-19, stigmatization and violence against and between professional healthcare workers worldwide are increasing. Understanding the prevalence of such stigmatization and violence is needed for gaining a complete picture of this issue. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to update estimates of the prevalence of stigmatization and violence against healthcare workers during the pandemic.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.

METHODS

This review followed PRISMA guidelines and encompassed these databases: PubMed, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Web of Science, MEDLINE Complete, OVID (UpToDate), and Embase (from databases inception to September 15, 2021). We included observational studies and evaluated the quality of the study using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Further, a random effects model was used to synthesis the pooled prevalence of stigmatization and violence in this study.

FINDINGS

We identified 14 studies involving 3452 doctors, 5738 nurses, and 2744 allied health workers that reported stigmatization and violence during the pandemic. The pooled prevalence was, for stigmatization, 43% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21% to 65%) and, for violence, 42% (95% CI: 30% to 54%).

CONCLUSIONS

Stigmatization and violence during the COVID-19 pandemic were found to have affected almost half the studied healthcare workers. Healthcare professionals are more prone to be stigmatized by the community and to face workplace violence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Health administrators and policymakers should anticipate and promptly address stigmatization and violence against and between healthcare workers, while controlling the spread of COVID-19. Health care systems should give serious attention to the mental health of all health providers.

Causes of Stress among Healthcare Professionals and Successful Hospital Management Approaches to Mitigate It during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic posed an immediate challenge to the management of hospitals in Germany and elsewhere. The risk of stress for front-line healthcare professionals forced occupational health and safety units to adopt a variety of protective measures, not all of which have been thoroughly validated. The main objective of the present analysis is to assess what the most important sources of stress were and which of the protective measures applied to counteract stress among healthcare staff had the greatest impact. A better understanding of these factors will improve hospital management and worker safety in a future health crisis situation and may also prove to be beneficial in non-crisis situations. For this purpose, in 2020, an exploratory, cross-sectional and quantitative study using a questionnaire created for this purpose was carried out on a total of 198 professionals-133 nurses and 65 physicians-at the Klinikum Mittelbaden Balg hospital in Baden-Baden, Germany, during the first wave of the pandemic. Statistical analyses showed that nurses suffer more stress than physicians and that stress is higher among professionals in critical care and emergency units than in units that are less exposed to infected patients. It was also found that measures such as salary incentives, encouragement of work in well-integrated teams, and perceived support from hospital management mitigate stress. These findings highlight the importance of support measures from management and superiors. Knowing the actual effectiveness of the measures applied by management and the factors mentioned above could help to protect healthcare professionals in the event of another pandemic or similar situations and may still be of value in dealing with the continuing COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on nurses mental health status in Iraq

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic is a major health crisis that has changed the life of millions globally. Coronaviruses are viruses' group that can contract animals and humans and the cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19. Nurses are the primary service providers in the health care; nurses who are in close contact with infectious patients need to get their mental health checked and supervised on a regular basis, particularly with regard to stress, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, so that they can provide optimal quality of life and healthy mental health to have good care for patients to assess the impact of the pandemic on mental health status for nurses in Iraq.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of sample study (1000) nurses in Iraq completed an online questionnaire between March and May 2021. Psychological impact was assessed using the depression anxiety stress scale (DASS21).

RESULTS

The study revealed impact COVID-19 on mental health status (anxiety stress) and no impact COVID-19 on mental health status (depression) for nurses was (P value = 0.040 and P value = 0.045, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The impact COVID-19 on mental health status for nurses. Protecting the nursing staff from chronic stress, anxiety, and depression, which constitutes a psychological burden on health during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, by clarifying the disease and how to prevent it, as well as providing the personal protective equipment to decrease stress, anxiety, and depression during the pandemic.

Mental health problems and needs of frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: A qualitative analysis

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 hotspots worldwide have reported poor mental health outcomes since the pandemic's beginning. The virulence of the initial COVID-19 surge in Spain and the urgency for rapid evidence constrained early studies in their capacity to inform mental health programs accurately. Here, we used a qualitative research design to describe relevant mental health problems among frontline HCWs and explore their association with determinants and consequences and their implications for the design and implementation of mental health programs.

Materials and methods

Following the Programme Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DIME) protocol, we used a two-step qualitative research design to interview frontline HCWs, mental health experts, administrators, and service planners in Spain. We used Free List (FL) interviews to identify problems experienced by frontline HCWs and Key informant (KI) interviews to describe them and explore their determinants and consequences, as well as the strategies considered useful to overcome these problems. We used a thematic analysis approach to analyze the interview outputs and framed our results into a five-level social-ecological model (intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and public health).

Results

We recruited 75 FL and 22 KI interviewees, roughly balanced in age and gender. We detected 56 themes during the FL interviews and explored the following themes in the KI interviews: fear of infection, psychological distress, stress, moral distress, and interpersonal conflicts among coworkers. We found that interviewees reported perceived causes and consequences across problems at all levels (intrapersonal to public health). Although several mental health strategies were implemented (especially at an intrapersonal and interpersonal level), most mental health needs remained unmet, especially at the organizational, community, and public policy levels.

Conclusions

In keeping with available quantitative evidence, our findings show that mental health problems are still relevant for frontline HCWs 1 year after the COVID-19 pandemic and that many reported causes of these problems are modifiable. Based on this, we offer specific recommendations to design and implement mental health strategies and recommend using transdiagnostic, low-intensity, scalable psychological interventions contextually adapted and tailored for HCWs.

Anxiety and Stress Seem Temporary during the Pneumonia COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey on the Mental Health Status of Healthcare Workers

Objective

To evaluate the presence/severity of depression, anxiety, and stress among health care workers (HCWs) who work on the specially allocated COVID-19 ward (Group A) and HCWs on the other wards (Group B).

Methods

This questionnaire-based study was conducted from January 25 to February 28, 2021. The mental status was assessed using the Persian version of the 42-item Depression, Anxiety, and Stress score (DASS-42). Gathered data was analyzed using SPSS version 25. The independent T-test and Chi-square tests were used to compare quantitative and qualitative variables.

Results

Two-hundred and twenty two questionnaires were eligible for analysis. Group A consisted of 33 HCWs, and 189 (85.1%) individuals were working on the other wards. No statistically significant differences were seen regarding the Socio-demographic features except for the marital status (p=0.005). The depressions' mean score was comparable between group A and B (p=0.102). The mean scores of anxiety and stress were significantly lower in group A than group B (p=0.006), although the frequency of DASS-42 parameters did not differ between these two groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion

Contrary to our assumptions, this study showed that the DASS-42 parameters were not higher in HCWs working on the COVID-19 wards. This might be justified by developing coping mechanisms, being on the honeymoon phase of the disaster, compassion satisfaction, promising vaccine news, and working on the less impacted hospital.

The Attitude of Turkish Physicians Toward COVID-19 Vaccination and the Effects of Vaccination on Their Mental Health

Background

The study aims to investigate the willingness of physicians for the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, factors contributing to their attitude, and the effects of vaccination on their mental health. It is conducted online with physicians between February 17 and March 17, 2021, corresponding to a period of at least 1 month after the first dosage.

Methods

Sociodemographic and professional characteristics are investigated along with coronavirus disease 2019 experiences. The Fear of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Scale, Attitudes Toward the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine, The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Beck Hopelessness Scale are given to evaluate the effects on mental health.

Results

Among 578 participants, the total vaccination rate was 91.5% and the main reason for non-vaccination is being already infected by coronavirus disease 2019. Vaccination affected mental health positively in more than half of the participants (59.2% in the vaccinated group). Advanced age (odds ratio = 0.985, P < .05), positive attitude toward vaccination (odds ratio = 0.918, P < .001), and high fear of coronavirus disease 2019 (odds ratio = 0.937, P = .001) were among the predictors of being positively affected by the vaccination. Fear of coronavirus disease 2019 was positively correlated with hopelessness (r = .239, P < .001), depression (r = 0.387, P < .001), and anxiety (r = 0.531, P < .001). The negative thoughts about the vaccination were found to be correlated with hopelessness levels (r = -0.093, P < .05).

Conclusions

Physicians have positive attitudes toward vaccination and vaccination has positive effects on their mental health. As vaccination is a key point during the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, studies on vaccination and its effects on mental health gained importance. The role of physicians in this regard is inevitable.

Prevalence of Anxiety and Depression Among the General Population in Africa During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Medical and socio-economic uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic have had a substantial impact on mental health. This study aimed to systematically review the existing literature reporting the prevalence of anxiety and depression among the general populace in Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic and examine associated risk factors.

Methods

A systematic search of the following databases African Journal Online, CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from database inception until 30th September 2021. Studies reporting the prevalence of anxiety and/or depression among the general populace in African settings were considered for inclusion. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Meta-analyses on prevalence rates were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software.

Results

Seventy-eight primary studies (62,380 participants) were identified from 2,325 studies via electronic and manual searches. Pooled prevalence rates for anxiety (47%, 95% CI: 40-54%, I2 = 99.19%) and depression (48%, 95% CI: 39-57%, I2 = 99.45%) were reported across Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sex (female) and history of existing medical/chronic conditions were identified as major risk factors for anxiety and depression.

Conclusions

The evidence put forth in this synthesis demonstrates the substantial impact of the pandemic on the pervasiveness of these psychological symptoms among the general population. Governments and stakeholders across continental Africa should therefore prioritize the allocation of available resources to institute educational programs and other intervention strategies for preventing and ameliorating universal distress and promoting psychological wellbeing.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021228023, PROSPERO CRD42021228023.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care workers' anxiety levels: a meta-analysis

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has been declared a public health emergency of international concern, causing excessive anxiety among health care workers. Additionally, publication bias and low-quality publications have become widespread, which can result in the dissemination of unreliable information. A meta-analysis was performed for this study with the following two aims: (1) to examine the prevalence of anxiety among health care workers and determine whether it has increased owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) to investigate whether there has been an increase in publication bias.

Methods

All relevant studies published between 2015 and 2020 were searched in electronic databases (namely Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, PsyArXiv, and medRxiv). The heterogeneity of the studies was assessed using the I 2 statistic. The effect size (prevalence rate of anxiety) and 95% CI for each study were also calculated. We used moderator analysis to test for the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care workers' anxiety levels and to detect publication bias in COVID-19 studies. We assessed publication bias using funnel plots and Egger's regression.

Results

A total of 122 studies with 118,025 participants met the inclusion criteria. Eighty-eight articles (75,066 participants) were related to COVID-19, 13 articles (9,222 participants) were unrelated to COVID-19 (i.e., articles related to other outbreaks, which were excluded), and 21 preprints (33,737 participants) were related to COVID-19. The pooled meta-analysis prevalence was 33.6% (95% CI [30.5-36.8]; 95% PI [6.5-76.3]). Moderator analysis revealed no significant differences between articles related to COVID-19 and those unrelated to COVID-19 (p = 0.824). Moreover, no significant differences were found between articles and preprints related to COVID-19 (p = 0.843). Significant heterogeneity was observed in each subgroup. An Egger's test revealed publication bias in both articles and preprints related to COVID-19 (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Determining whether the anxiety state of health care workers is altered by the COVID-19 pandemic is currently difficult. However, there is evidence that their anxiety levels may always be high, which suggests that more attention should be paid to their mental health. Furthermore, we found a substantial publication bias; however, the quality of the studies was relatively stable and reliable.

Potential Circumstances Associated With Moral Injury and Moral Distress in Healthcare Workers and Public Safety Personnel Across the Globe During COVID-19: A Scoping Review

Healthcare workers (HCWs) and public safety personnel (PSP) across the globe have continued to face ethically and morally challenging situations during the COVID-19 pandemic that increase their risk for the development of moral distress (MD) and moral injury (MI). To date, however, the global circumstances that confer risk for MD and MI in these cohorts have not been systematically explored, nor have the unique circumstances that may exist across countries been explored. Here, we sought to identify and compare, across the globe, potentially morally injurious or distressful events (PMIDEs) in HCWs and PSP during the COVID-19 pandemic. A scoping review was conducted to identify and synthesize global knowledge on PMIDEs in HCWs and select PSP. Six databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Global Health. A total of 1,412 articles were retrieved, of which 57 articles were included in this review. These articles collectively described the experiences of samples from 19 different countries, which were comprised almost exclusively of HCWs. Given the lack of PSP data, the following results should not be generalized to PSP populations without further research. Using qualitative content analysis, six themes describing circumstances associated with PMIDEs were identified: (1) Risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19; (2) Inability to work on the frontlines; (3) Provision of suboptimal care; (4) Care prioritization and resource allocation; (5) Perceived lack of support and unfair treatment by their organization; and (6) Stigma, discrimination, and abuse. HCWs described a range of emotions related to these PMIDEs, including anxiety, fear, guilt, shame, burnout, anger, and helplessness. Most PMIDE themes appeared to be shared globally, particularly the 'Risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19' and the 'Perceived lack of support and unfair treatment by their organization.' Articles included within the theme of 'Stigma, discrimination, and abuse' represented the smallest global distribution of all PMIDE themes. Overall, the present review provides insight into PMIDEs encountered by HCWs across the globe during COVID-19. Further research is required to differentiate the experience of PSP from HCWs, and to explore the impact of social and cultural factors on the experience of MD and MI.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of stigma in infectious diseases, including COVID-19: a call to action

Infectious diseases, including COVID-19, are crucial public health issues and may lead to considerable fear among the general public and stigmatization of, and discrimination against, specific populations. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of stigma in infectious disease epidemics. We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases since inception to June 08, 2021, and reported the prevalence of stigma towards people with infectious diseases including SARS, H1N1, MERS, Zika, Ebola, and COVID-19. A total of 50 eligible articles were included that contributed 51 estimates of prevalence in 92722 participants. The overall pooled prevalence of stigma across all populations was 34% [95% CI: 28-40%], including enacted stigma (36% [95% CI: 28-44%]) and perceived stigma (31% [95% CI: 22-40%]). The prevalence of stigma in patients, community population, and health care workers, was 38% [95% CI: 12- 65%], 36% [95% CI: 28-45%], and 30% [95% CI: 20-40%], respectively. The prevalence of stigma in participants from low- and middle-income countries was 37% [95% CI: 29-45%], which is higher than that from high-income countries (27% [95% CI: 18-36%]) though this difference was not statistically significant. A similar trend of prevalence of stigma was also observed in individuals with lower education (47% [95% CI: 23-71%]) compared to higher education level (33% [95% CI: 23-4%]). These findings indicate that stigma is a significant public health concern, and effective and comprehensive interventions are needed to counteract the damaging effects of the infodemics during infectious disease epidemics, including COVID-19, and reduce infectious disease-related stigma.

Psychological adverse effects of COVID-19 pandemic on health service providers: an online survey

Background

Results

Conclusions

Prevalence and determinant factors of mental health problems among healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic in southern Ethiopia: multicentre cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of depression, anxiety and stress and its determinant factors during COVID-19 pandemic among healthcare professionals in southern Ethiopia.

DESIGN

Multi-centre cross-sectional study.

SETTING AND STUDY PERIOD

Randomly selected public hospitals in Sidama, southern Ethiopia between 25 September 2020 and 25 October 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

387 healthcare professionals were randomly selected.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence and determinant factors of depression, anxiety and stress was assessed.

RESULT

Depression, anxiety and stress prevalence were shown to be 50.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 45.0% to 55.0%), 55.0% (95% CI 51.1% to 59.9%) and 38.5% (95% CI 33.6% to 43.2%), respectively. Being female (adjusted odd ratio (AOR) 3.71, 95% CI 2.31 to 5.97), married (AOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.86), living alone (AOR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.20), nurses (AOR 2.94, 95% CI 1.44 to 5.99) and working in inpatients (AOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93) were significantly associated with depressive symptoms. Moreover, older age groups (AOR 3.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 6.56), females (AOR 3.25, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.25), married (AOR 1.69, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.87) and nurses (AOR 3.32, 95% CI 1.63 to 6.78) were significantly associated with symptoms of anxiety. Stress symptoms were significantly high among females (AOR 2.47, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.97), married (AOR 2.77, 95% CI 1.60 to 4.78), living alone (AOR 2.01, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.52), nurses (AOR 2.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.92) and working in units other than emergency (inpatient (AOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.57) and other units (AOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95)).

CONCLUSION

The current study found that healthcare professionals have high levels of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms. Sex, age, marital status, type of profession, living status and working environment were significant factors for mental health problems in healthcare professionals during the pandemic. Healthcare professionals require mental health support at which monitoring and control can be performed during and after the pandemic.

Mental Health during the COVID-19 Crisis in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We aim to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence rates of mental health symptoms among major African populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. We include articles from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and medRxiv between 1 February 2020 and 6 February 2021, and pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses. We identify 28 studies and 32 independent samples from 12 African countries with a total of 15,071 participants. The pooled prevalence of anxiety was 37% in 27 studies, of depression was 45% in 24 studies, and of insomnia was 28% in 9 studies. The pooled prevalence rates of anxiety, depression, and insomnia in North Africa (44%, 55%, and 31%, respectively) are higher than those in Sub-Saharan Africa (31%, 30%, and 24%, respectively). We find (a) a scarcity of studies in several African countries with a high number of COVID-19 cases; (b) high heterogeneity among the studies; (c) the extent and pattern of prevalence of mental health symptoms in Africa is high and differs from elsewhere-more African adults suffer from depression rather than anxiety and insomnia during COVID 19 compared to adult populations in other countries/regions. Hence, our findings carry crucial implications and impact future research to enable evidence-based medicine in Africa.

Mental Health during the COVID-19 Crisis in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We aim to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence rates of mental health symptoms among major African populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. We include articles from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and medRxiv between 1 February 2020 and 6 February 2021, and pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses. We identify 28 studies and 32 independent samples from 12 African countries with a total of 15,071 participants. The pooled prevalence of anxiety was 37% in 27 studies, of depression was 45% in 24 studies, and of insomnia was 28% in 9 studies. The pooled prevalence rates of anxiety, depression, and insomnia in North Africa (44%, 55%, and 31%, respectively) are higher than those in Sub-Saharan Africa (31%, 30%, and 24%, respectively). We find (a) a scarcity of studies in several African countries with a high number of COVID-19 cases; (b) high heterogeneity among the studies; (c) the extent and pattern of prevalence of mental health symptoms in Africa is high and differs from elsewhere-more African adults suffer from depression rather than anxiety and insomnia during COVID 19 compared to adult populations in other countries/regions. Hence, our findings carry crucial implications and impact future research to enable evidence-based medicine in Africa.

Combination of Hua Shi Bai Du granule (Q-14) and standard care in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Hua Shi Bai Du Granule (Q-14) plus standard care compared with standard care alone in adults with coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

STUDY DESIGN

A single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, Wuhan, China, February 27 to March 27, 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 204 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were randomized into the treatment group and control group, consisting of 102 patients in each group.

INTERVENTIONS

In the treatment group, Q-14 was administered at 10 g (granules) twice daily for 14 days, plus standard care. In the control group, patients were provided standard care alone for 14 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was the conversion time for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral assay. Adverse events were analyzed in the safety population.

RESULTS

Among the 204 patients, 195 were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. A total of 149 patients (71 vs. 78 in the treatment and control groups, respectively) tested negative via the SARS-CoV-2 viral assay. There was no statistical significance in the conversion time between the treatment group and control group (Full analysis set: Median [interquartile range]: 10.00 [9.00-11.00] vs. 10.00 [9.00-11.00]; Mean rank: 67.92 vs. 81.44; P = 0.051). The recovery time for fever was shorter in the treatment group than in the control group. The disappearance rate of symptoms like cough, fatigue, and chest discomfort was significantly higher in the treatment group. In chest computed tomography (CT) examinations, the overall evaluation of chest CT examination after treatment compared with baseline showed that more patients improved in the treatment group. There were no significant differences in the other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The combination of Q-14 and standard care for COVID-19 was useful for the improvement of symptoms (such as fever, cough, fatigue, and chest discomfort), but did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion in the SARS-CoV-2 viral assay. No serious adverse events were observed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2000030288.

China's Successful Recruitment of Healthcare Professionals to the Worst-Hit City: A Lesson Learned

The outbreak of coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan has led Chinese health authorities to recruit healthcare providers from the least-affected areas to provide care to the infected patients in Wuhan. We took further steps to explain some plausible reasons for their experiences. We used interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to understand the subjective experiences, as well as the reasons for these experiences among the healthcare providers who had traveled from the least-affected parts of China to render aid during Wuhan’s COVID-19 outbreak. Using purposive and snowball sampling, healthcare professionals were recruited from three major hospitals in Jiangsu province. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from 1 September to 14 November 2020 in face-to-face contexts. Ten nurses and four doctors provided their informed consent for the study. The primary superordinate theme from the responses highlighted how social identity and individual needs were challenged by each individual’s professional ethics. COVID-19 not only presents significant risks to the health of nurses and medical doctors; it further challenges their emotional and psychosocial wellbeing. Care should be taken in allocating support and help, with the careful deployment of professional values and beliefs, so that any human resource as precious as medical doctors and nurses can be protected.

Prevalence of Depression among Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There is evidence of a high psychological toll from the COVID-19 pandemic in healthcare workers. This paper was aimed at conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting levels of depression among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 and estimating the pooled prevalence of depression. Methods: We searched for cross-sectional studies listed on PubMed from 1 December 2019 to 15 September 2020 that reported prevalence of depression in healthcare workers, nurses, medical doctors, and COVID-19 frontline professionals. The pooled proportions of depression were calculated with random effects models. Results: We identified 57 studies from seventeen countries. The pooled prevalence of depression in healthcare workers was 24% (95% CI: 20–28%), 25% for nurses (95% CI: 18–33%), 24% for medical doctors (95% CI: 16–31%), and 43% for frontline professionals (95% CI: 28–59%). Conclusions: The proportion of depression in nurses and medical doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic was similar to that found in the general population as previously reported in other meta-analyses conducted with smaller numbers of studies. Importantly, almost half of the frontline healthcare workers showed increased levels of depression. There is need for a comprehensive, international response to prevent and treat common mental health problems in healthcare workers.

COVID-19: Fear and Anxiety among Healthcare Workers in Saudi Arabia. A Cross-Sectional Study

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is an extremely contagious respiratory disease. It poses a serious threat to healthcare workers which may cause substantial degree of psychological distress. This study aimed to evaluate the level of fear and anxiety among healthcare workers. A cross sectional study was designed to collect data from healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia using an online questionnaire. A non-probability convenient sampling technique was used to collect the data from 1st August to 10th August 2020 with the exclusion of non-healthcare worker and general public. A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate the level of fear and anxiety. The data was analyzed by using Spss version 23 .The descriptive data were represented as frequencies and percentage. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was applied to control the confounding factors and assess the relationship between variables. Data analyzed 737 participants revealed that 10.7%, 73.5%, and 15.7% of HCWs had a mild, moderate, and severe degree of fear and anxiety respectively. The multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that gender and specialty of the participants were significantly associated with moderate and severe anxiety level. This study demonstrates that two-third of the healthcare workers had a moderate risk of fear and anxiety. However, females participants found to have elevated fear and anxiety level. Social distancing has a major impact on social well-being therefore its important to address social support through a policy. Further studies are needed to explore the mental health condition of healthcare workers in order to develop evidence based strategies.

The Psychological Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: The COVID-19 epidemic has generated great stress throughout healthcare workers (HCWs). The situation of HCWs should be fully and timely understood. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health care workers.

Method: We searched the original literatures published from 1 Nov 2019 to 20 Sep 2020 in electronic databases of PUBMED, EMBASE and WEB OF SCIENCE. Forty-seven studies were included in the meta-analysis with a combined total of 81,277 participants.

Results: The pooled prevalence of anxiety is 37% (95% CI 0.31–0.42, I² = 99.9%) from 44 studies. Depression is estimated in 39 studies, and the pooled prevalence of depression is 36% (95% CI 0.31–0.41, I² = 99.6%). There are 10 studies reported the prevalence of insomnia, and the overall prevalence of insomnia is 32% (95% CI 0.23–0.42, I² = 99.5%). The subgroup analysis showed a higher incidence of anxiety and depression among women and the frontline HCWs compared to men and non-frontline HCWs respectively.

Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused heavy psychological impact among healthcare professionals especially women and frontline workers. Timely psychological counseling and intervention ought to be implemented for HCWs in order to alleviate their anxiety and improve their general mental health.

Associations between the working experiences at frontline of COVID-19 pandemic and mental health of Korean public health doctors

BACKGROUND

Demographic, work environmental, and psychosocial features are associated with mental health of healthcare professionals at pandemic frontline. The current study aimed to find predictors of mental health for public health doctors from working experiences at frontline of COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

With first-come and first-served manner, 350 public health doctors with experiences of work at COVID-19 frontline participated online survey on August 2020. Mental health was defined using the total scores of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, the Perceived Stress Scale, and the Stanford Presenteeism Scale-6. Multivariate logistic regression models of mental health with lowest Akaike Information Criterion were determined among all combinations of working environments, perceived threats and satisfaction at frontline, and demographics that were significant (P < 0.05) in the univariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Perceived distress, lowered self-efficacy at work, anxiety, and depressive mood were reported by 45.7, 34.6, 11.4, and 15.1% of respondents, respectively. Predictors of poor mental health found in the multivariate logistic regression analyses were environmental (insufficient personal protective equipment, workplace of screening center, prolonged workhours) and psychosocial (fear of infection and death, social stigma and rejection) aspects of working experiences at frontline. Satisfaction of monetary compensation and proactive coping (acceptance and willingness to volunteer at frontline) were predictive of better mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

Sufficient supply of personal protective equipment and training on infection prevention at frontline, proper workhours and satisfactory monetary compensation, and psychological supports are required for better mental health of public health doctors at frontline of COVID-19 pandemic.

Anxiety and associated factors among Ethiopian health professionals at early stage of COVID-19 pandemic in Ethiopia

Introduction

In late 2019, a new coronavirus disease known as COVID-19 (novel coronavirus disease 2019) was identified. As there is no any drug to treat this pandemic, the healthcare professionals are disproportionately at higher risk. The mental health outcome is expected to be high. Anxiety is expected to have a significant impact on health professionals, especially among those who work without adequate resources for self-protection.

Objectives

The objectives of this research was to assess self-reported anxiety symptoms and associated factors among Ethiopian healthcare professionals in the early stages of the pandemic.

Methods

We have conducted an online cross-sectional study to collect information from healthcare professionals in Ethiopia during the early stage of the outbreak from April 7, 2020 to May 19, 2020. GAD-7 was used for measurement of anxiety. We have used a cut of point of 10 and above to report anxiety symptoms. We have used Google Forms for online data collection and SPSS-22 for analysis. To determine associated factors for anxiety, a binary logistic regression model was used. Variables with p-value < 0.2 during the bivariable binary logistic regression were exported for further analysis in the multivariable binary logistic regression. Finally, variables with p-value <0.05 were considered as significantly associated with the outcomes.

Results

Three hundred and eighty-eight healthcare professionals filled the online questionnaire; Majority (71.1%) were males. Significant number of respondents (78.9%) reported lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) at the work place. The prevalence of anxiety was 26.8%.

Being female (AOR: 1.88; 95% C.I:1.11, 3.19), visiting/treating 30–150 patients per day (AOR: 3.44; 95% C.I:1.51, 7.84), those employed at private healthcare institutions (AOR: 2.40; 95% C.I:1.17, 4.90), who do not believe that COVID-19 is preventable (AOR: 2.04; 95% C.I:1.04, 4.03) and those who reported lack of PPE (AOR: 1.98; 95% C.I:1.04, 3.79) were more likely to be anxious.

Conclusions

The anxiety prevalence among healthcare professionals in Ethiopia during early stage of COVID-19 pandemic was high. This study shows that lack of preventive equipment, being female, contact with many patients, low self-efficacy and working in private health facilities were risk factors for anxiety. Anxiety prevention among health professionals during COVID-19 pandemic requires a holistic approach including provision of sufficient PPE, improving self-efficacy and addressing problems both at public and private institutions and focusing more on female health professionals.

Stigmatization from Work-Related COVID-19 Exposure: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Stigmatization from work-related COVID-19 exposure has not been investigated in detail yet. Therefore, we systematically searched three databases: Medline, Embase, and PsychInfo (until October 2020), and performed a grey literature search (until February 2021). We identified 46 suitable articles from 24 quantitative and 11 qualitative studies, 6 systematic reviews, 3 study protocols and 1 intervention. The assessment of stigmatization varied widely, ranging from a single-item question to a 22-item questionnaire. Studies mostly considered perceived self-stigma (27 of 35 original studies) in healthcare workers (HCWs) or hospital-related jobs (29 of 35). All articles reported on stigmatization as a result of work-related COVID-19 exposure. However, most quantitative studies were characterized by convenience sampling (17 of 24), and all studies-also those with an adequate sampling design-were considered of low methodological quality. Therefore, it is not possible to determine prevalence of stigmatization in defined occupational groups. Nevertheless, the work-related stigmatization of occupational groups with or without suspected contact to COVID-19 is a relevant problem and increases the risk for depression (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74; 95% confidence interval CI 1.29-2.36) and anxiety (OR = 1.75; 95% CI 1.29-2.37). For promoting workers' health, anti-stigma strategies and support should be implemented in the workplace.

Knowledge, attitude, and acceptance of healthcare workers and the public regarding the COVID-19 vaccine: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

This study determined the knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding COVID-19 and assessed the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers and the general population.

METHODS

A web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted using convenience sampling in Libya from December 1 to 18, 2020 among the general population and healthcare workers. Data on demographic characteristics, COVID-19 vaccination-related concerns, knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding COVID-19, and knowledge, attitudes, and acceptance regarding the COVID-19 vaccine were collected using a self-administered survey. A binomial logistic regression was performed with 70% efficacy to determine the association between acceptance of the vaccine and study variables.

RESULTS

Valid and complete responses were collected from 15,087 participants. Of these, 6227 (41.3%) were male and 8860 (58.7%) were female, with a mean (SD) age of 30.6 ± 9.8 years. Moreover, 485 (3.2%) participants were infected with COVID-19 at the time of the study, while 2000 (13.3%) had been previously infected. Overall, 2452 (16.3%) participants agreed, and 3127 (20.7%) strongly agreed, with "having concerns about serious vaccine-related complications." Mask-wearing adherence was reported by 10,268 (68.1%) of the participants. Most participants (14,050, 93.1%) believed that the vaccine should be provided for free, while 7272 (48.2%) were willing to buy it. Regarding vaccine acceptance and efficacy, 12,006 (79.6%) reported their willingness to take the vaccine with an efficacy of 90% or more, 9143 (60.6%) with an efficacy of 70% or more, and only 6212 (41.2%) with an efficacy of 50%. The binomial logistic regression revealed that vaccine acceptance was not associated with belonging to the medical field versus the general population. Acceptance was statistically associated with younger age groups, especially 31-40 (OR = 1.3 [1.09, 1.55]) and 41-50 years (OR = 1.29, [1.09, 1.54]). However, having a family member or friend infected with COVID-19 was positively associated with the likelihood of vaccine acceptance (OR = 1.09 [1.02, 1.18]), while having a friend or family member who died due to COVID-19 was negatively associated with it (OR = 0.89 [0.84, 0.97]).

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine is an essential determinant of vaccine uptake and the likelihood of controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Developing strategies to decrease public hesitation and increase trust is vital for implementing vaccination programs.

Mental Health Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers in North West Ethiopia: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus has affected nearly every aspect of our lives. Most importantly the health-care workers (HCWs) are under insurmountable psychological pressures which lead them to various mental health problems, such as anxiety, stress, and depression.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess mental health adverse effects of COVID-19 pandemic on health-care workers in North West Ethiopia 2020.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted. A simple random sampling technique was applied and 419 participants completed the questionnaire. Mental health adverse effects were measured using the depression, anxiety and stress scale (DASS-21). Data were entered into Epi data version 4.4.2 then exported to SPSS version 24 for analysis. Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate binary logistic regressions with odds ratios and 95% confidence interval were employed. The level of significance of association was determined at a p-value < 0.05.

RESULTS

Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress in this study was 58.2%, 64.7%, and 63.7%, respectively Those who had a medical illness, and mental illness, contact with confirmed COVID-19 pts, and poor social support showed a statistically significant association with depression. Female sex, participants who had families with chronic illness, had contact with confirmed COVID-19 case and poor social support had statistically significant association with anxiety, whereas participants who had families with chronic illness had contact with confirmed COVID-19 cases, and those participants who had poor social support were predictors of stress during COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The magnitudes of mental health problems were higher and the concerned body should emphasize the continuous assessment of the mental health of health-care workers during this pandemic.

Prevalence of anxiety in health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid systematic review (on published articles in Medline) with meta-analysis

During the COVID-19, healthcare workers are exposed to a higher risk of mental health problems, especially anxiety symptoms. The current work aims at contributing to an update of anxiety prevalence in this population by conducting a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline and Pubmed were searched for studies on the prevalence of anxiety in health care workers published from December 1, 2019 to September 15, 2020. In total, 71 studies were included in this study. The pooled prevalence of anxiety in healthcare workers was 25% (95% CI: 21%-29%), 27% in nurses (95% CI: 20%-34%), 17% in medical doctors (95% CI: 12%-22%) and 43% in frontline healthcare workers (95% CI: 25%-62%). Our results suggest that healthcare workers are experiencing significant levels of anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially those on the frontline and nurses. However, international longitudinal studies are needed to fully understand the impact of the pandemic on healthcare workers' mental health, especially those working at the frontline.

Factors Associated With Psychological Distress in Health-Care Workers During an Infectious Disease Outbreak: A Rapid Systematic Review of the Evidence

Objective: Health-care workers (HCW) are at risk for psychological distress during an infectious disease outbreak, such as the coronavirus pandemic, due to the demands of dealing with a public health emergency. This rapid systematic review examined the factors associated with psychological distress among HCW during an outbreak. Method: We systematically reviewed literature on the factors associated with psychological distress (demographic characteristics, occupational, social, psychological, and infection-related factors) in HCW during an outbreak (COVID-19, SARS, MERS, H1N1, H7N9, and Ebola). Four electronic databases were searched (2000 to 15 November 2020) for relevant peer-reviewed research according to a pre-registered protocol. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify fixed, modifiable, and infection-related factors linked to distress and psychiatric morbidity. Results: From the 4,621 records identified, 138 with data from 143,246 HCW in 139 studies were included. All but two studies were cross-sectional. The majority of the studies were conducted during COVID-19 (k = 107, N = 34,334) and SARS (k = 21, N = 18,096). Consistent evidence indicated that being female, a nurse, experiencing stigma, maladaptive coping, having contact or risk of contact with infected patients, and experiencing quarantine, were risk factors for psychological distress among HCW. Personal and organizational social support, perceiving control, positive work attitudes, sufficient information about the outbreak and proper protection, training, and resources, were associated with less psychological distress. Conclusions: This review highlights the key factors to the identify HCW who are most at risk for psychological distress during an outbreak and modifying factors to reduce distress and improve resilience. Recommendations are that HCW at risk for increased distress receive early interventions and ongoing monitoring because there is evidence that HCW distress can persist for up to 3 years after an outbreak. Further research needs to track the associations of risk and resilience factors with distress over time and the extent to which certain factors are inter-related and contribute to sustained or transient distress.

Anxiety amongst physicians during COVID-19: cross-sectional study in Pakistan

BACKGROUND

Ensuring safety and wellbeing of healthcare providers is crucial, particularly during times of a pandemic. In this study, we aim to identify the determinants of anxiety in physicians on duty in coronavirus wards or quarantine centers.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative survey with an additional qualitative item. Five constructs of workload, exhaustion, family strain, feeling of protection, and anxiety were measured using items from two validated tools. Modifications were made for regional relevance. Factor analysis was performed showing satisfactory Cronbach alpha results. Overall, 103 physicians completed the questionnaire.

RESULTS

T-test results revealed significant associations between gender and anxiety. Structural equation modeling identified that high workload contributed to greater exhaustion (β = 0.41, R² = 0.17, p < 0.001) and greater family strain (β = 0.47, R² = 0.22, p < 0.001). Exhaustion (β = 0.17, p < 0.005), family strain (β = 0.34, p < 0.001), and feelings of protection (β = - 0.30, p < 0.001) significantly explained anxiety (R² = 0.28). Qualitative findings further identified specific needs of physicians with regard to protective equipment, compensation, quarantine management, resource allocation, security and public support, governance improvement, and health sector development.

CONCLUSIONS

It is imperative to improve governmental and social support for physicians and other healthcare providers during the corona pandemic. Immediate attention is needed to reduce anxiety, workload, and family strain in frontline practitioners treating coronavirus patients, and to improve their (perceptions of) protection. This is a precondition for patient safety.

Factors Associated With Burnout, Post-traumatic Stress and Anxio-Depressive Symptoms in Healthcare Workers 3 Months Into the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Observational Study

Objective: This study examined how best to identify modifiable protective and risk factors for burnout in healthcare workers in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Individual, occupational, organizational and social factors were investigated. The study also assessed the impact of these factors on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression. Methods: Healthcare workers in the Quebec (Canada) healthcare system were recruited between May 21 to June 5, 2020. Participants answered an electronic survey 3 months after the COVID-19 epidemic outbreak began in Canada. Using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, PTSD Checklist for DSM-5, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, we studied the prevalence of burnout, PTSD, anxiety and depression in this cohort. Multivariable logistic or linear regression models including resilience, social and organizational support, workload and access to mental health help, simulation techniques and protective personal equipment (PPE) as well as perception of PPE security were conducted for each outcome. Results: In mid-June 2020, 467 participants completed the survey. We found that half (51.8%) of the respondents experienced burnout characterized by emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization at least once a week. In total, 158 healthcare workers (35.6%) displayed severe symptoms of at least one of the mental health disorders (24.3% PTSD, 23.3% anxiety, 10.6% depression). Resilience (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: [0.55-0.87]; p = 0.002) and perceived organizational support (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: [0.61-0.93]; p = 0.009) were significantly associated with burnout and other outcomes. Social support satisfaction, perception of PPE security, work type and environment, mental health antecedents and reassignment were associated with PTSD and/or anxiety and/or depression, but not burnout. Conclusion: Future studies should address primarily resilience and perceived organizational support to promote mental health and prevent burnout, PTSD, anxiety and depression.

Violence against doctors in Iraq during the time of COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed patterns in reported violence against doctors working in 11 Baghdad hospitals providing care for patients with COVID-19 and explored characteristics of hospital violence and its impact on health workers.

METHODS

Questionnaires were completed by 505 hospital doctors (38.6% male, 64.4% female) working in 11 Baghdad hospitals. No personal or identifying information was obtained.

FINDINGS

Of 505 doctors, 446 (87.3%) had experienced hospital violence in the previous 6 months. Doctors reported that patients were responsible for 95 (21.3%) instances of violence, patient family or relatives for 322 (72.4%), police or military personnel for 19 (4.3%), and other sources for 9 (2%). The proportion of violent events reported did not differ between male and female doctors, although characteristics varied. There were 415 of the 505 doctors who reported that violence had increased since the beginning of the pandemic, and many felt the situation would only get worse. COVID-19 has heightened tensions in an already violent health workplace, further increasing risks to patients and health providers.

INTERPRETATION

During the COVID-19 epidemic in Iraq an already violent hospital environment in Baghdad has only worsened. The physical and emotional toll on health workers is high which further threatens patient care and hospital productivity. While more security measures can be taken, reducing health workplace violence requires other measures such as improved communication, and addressing issues of patient care.

Residents’ Training in COVID-19 Pandemic Times: An Integrated Survey of Educational Process, Institutional Support, Anxiety and Depression by the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS)

In late December of 2019, the outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was first reported in the city of Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in China, and was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Globally, as of 8 July 2020, there have been 11,669,259 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 539,906 deaths. In Saudi Arabia, the confirmed cases have already reached 223,327, with 161,096 patients confirmed to have recovered, and 2100 deaths. This study aims to determine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the training programs of the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS) and assess trainees’ mental health status (i.e., anxiety and depression). Trainee evaluations on training programs were also sought in order to obtain insights for strategic planning necessary for curricular modifications or improvements to address the clinical learning needs of trainees during this pandemic. The main contribution of our work is an investigation of the incidence of depression and anxiety regarding COVID-19 within the community of residents and fellows. Furthermore, we elaborate on key responsive actions towards the enhancement of the mental health of trainees. Last but not least, we propose the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS) Model for Residents’ Mental Health Enhancement during the COVID-19 Pandemic, which consists of five integrative value layers for medical education and training, namely: the knowledge creation process and innovation; technological capabilities for personalized medicine and patient-centric healthcare with a social impact; innovative applications of technology-enhanced learning and web-based active learning approaches for medical training and education; residents’ wellbeing and the impact of COVID-19 in strategic layers. In our future work, we intend to enhance the proposed framework with studies on trainee satisfaction and the efficiency of different technology-enhanced learning platforms for medical education.

Burnout Syndrome Among Hospital Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Civil War: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: We aimed to determine the prevalence of burnout among hospital healthcare workers in Libya during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and civil war. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from April 18 to May 2, 2020 among Libyan healthcare workers. Data on participant characteristics were collected with a specifically designed questionnaire. Burnout was assessed with the abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory (aMBI) comprising three subscales: emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal accomplishment (PA), with each sub-scale score range from 0 to 18. For EE and DP, scores of 10 to 18 were regarded as "moderate to severe burnout." PA was scored inversely, where a score ≤ 10 indicated severe burnout. Results: The study yielded a sample size of 532 participants. Of these, 357 (67.1%) reported emotional exhaustion (EE Score ≥ 10), 252 (47.4%) reported depersonalization (DP score ≥ 10), and 121 (22.7%) reported a lower sense of personal accomplishment (PA score ≤ 10). Verbal abuse was experienced by 304 participants (57.1%) and physical abuse in 93 (17.5). Gender was associated with high emotional exhaustion and high depersonalization. Being 35 years or older was associated with high depersonalization. Professional specialty was significantly associated with high emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Fear of COVID-19 infection was associated with high emotional exhaustion and high depersonalization. Conclusion: The rising prevalence of mental disorders and inadequate availability of health services facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic and civil war demonstrated the need for healthcare policies to address the well-being of healthcare workers to decrease the risk of loss, suicide, and medical negligence.