COVID-19 emergency response assessment study: a prospective longitudinal survey of frontline doctors in the UK and Ireland: study protocol

Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with asthma: a co-produced mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVE

When COVID-19 was declared a pandemic there was concern that people living with asthma were at high-risk of poor outcomes. We aimed to explore the psychological impact of living with asthma in the United Kingdom during the pandemic.

METHODS AND MEASURES

Our mixed methods study, co-designed with patient and public involvement colleagues, included an online survey to detect anxiety/depression/post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and health beliefs; and qualitative interviews. We recruited 849 participants for the survey and interviewed 26 between May and June 2020. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The survey identified that 77% of respondents were experiencing symptoms of anxiety, 77% were experiencing symptoms of depression, and PTSD was of concern for 61%. Two-thirds of respondents felt the pandemic had changed how they managed their asthma (n = 568, 66.9%), and over half felt that they had not been given adequate health information about COVID-19 (n = 495, 58.3%). Qualitative interviews identified five themes (1) health communication, (2) interaction with healthcare, (3) COVID-19-related concerns, (4) impact on mental health, and (5) behaviour change.

CONCLUSION

Psychological distress was prevalent in people with asthma during the early stage of the pandemic. Understanding this may be useful to inform future healthcare/policy planning.

The prevalence of mental distress changes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a study on physicians in Turkey

BACKGROUND

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic may adversely affect the physicians' mental health differently.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the degree of changes in mental distress in physicians through two cross-sectional studies before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and explore factors associated with the change of mental distress status of participants between two-time periods.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, web-based survey collected demographic data and mental health measurements with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire from 416 and 522 physicians before and during COVID-19, respectively. Mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the factors associated with the change of mental distress status.

RESULTS

During the outbreak, a total of 319 of the 522 participants reported a clinically significant level of mental distress compared with 123 of 416 participants before COVID-19. Higher levels of mental distress were observed in all socio-demographic groups during COVID-19 compared with before, with more than two-fold higher prevalence of mental health deterioration in general.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests a significant deterioration in mental health status after the occurrence of COVID-19 compared with before. The mental health of physicians working in all medical specialty groups, especially those in internal and surgical specialties, may require special attention.

Mental Health of Healthcare Workers during COVID-19 Pandemic in Taiwan: The First Wave Outbreak Occurred 1 Year Later Than in Other Countries

We probed the psychological influence exerted on traumatic stress endured by healthcare workers (HCWs) and the coping behaviors adopted during the first wave of COVID-19 in Taiwan, which occurred one year later than in other countries. Clinical HCWs from two branches of a hospital network in Taichung, Taiwan, were recruited for this cross-sectional study. The participants were administered a questionnaire on sociodemographic and work-related characteristics, perceived influence exerted by COVID-19, coping behaviors in relation to COVID-19, and Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores. We obtained 769 valid questionnaires. A chi-square test, generalized linear modeling, and multivariate stepwise regression analyses were performed. Although the first wave of COVID-19 occurred one year later in Taiwan than in other countries, the traumatic stress experienced by Taiwanese HCWs was noted to be comparable to that of those in other countries. Factors for increased traumatic stress included caring for more patients with COVID-19, fair or poor self-rated mental health, higher perceived influence of COVID-19, vulnerable household income, and more negative coping behaviors. Positive coping behaviors such as exposure reduction and protection measures decreased traumatic stress. Accordingly, managers should strengthen protective measures, enhance COVID-19-related training, and provide psychological support and counseling for high-risk employees.

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.

The mental health of staff working on intensive care units over the COVID-19 winter surge of 2020 in England: a cross sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic generated a surge of critically ill patients greater than the capacity of the UK National Health Service (NHS). There have been multiple well-documented impacts associated with the national COVID-19 pandemic surge on ICU staff, including an increased prevalence of mental health disorders on a scale potentially sufficient to impair high-quality care delivery. We investigated the prevalence of five mental health outcomes; explored demographic and professional predictors of poor mental health outcomes; and describe the prevalence of functional impairment; and explore demographic and professional predictors of functional impairment in ICU staff over the 2020/2021 winter COVID-19 surge in England.

METHODS

English ICU staff were surveyed before, during, and after the winter 2020/2021 surge using a survey which comprised validated measures of mental health.

RESULTS

A total of 6080 surveys were completed, by ICU nurses (57.5%), doctors (27.9%), and other healthcare staff (14.5%). Reporting probable mental health disorders increased from 51% (before) to 64% (during), and then decreased to 46% (after). Younger, less experienced nursing staff were most likely to report probable mental health disorders. During and after the winter, >50% of participants met threshold criteria for functional impairment. Staff who reported probable post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, or depression were more likely to meet threshold criteria for functional impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

The winter of 2020/2021 was associated with an increase in poor mental health outcomes and functional impairment amongst ICU staff during a period of peak caseload. These effects are likely to impact on patient care outcomes and the longer-term resilience of the healthcare workforce.

The impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of the UK nursing and midwifery workforce during the first pandemic wave: A longitudinal survey study

BACKGROUND

The specific challenges experienced by the nursing and midwifery workforce in previous pandemics have exacerbated pre-existing professional and personal challenges, and triggered new issues. We aimed to determine the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the UK nursing and midwifery workforce and identify potential factors associated with signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.

METHODS

A United Kingdom national online survey was conducted at three time-points during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between April and August 2020 (T1 and T2 during initial wave; T3 at three-months following the first wave). All members of the UK registered and unregistered nursing and midwifery workforce were eligible to participate. The survey was promoted via social media and through organisational email and newsletters. The primary outcome was an Impact of Events Scale-Revised score indicative of a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis (defined using the cut-off score ≥33). Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to assess the association between explanatory variables and post-traumatic stress disorder.

RESULTS

We received 7840 eligible responses (T1- 2040; T2- 3638; T3- 2162). Overall, 91.6% participants were female, 77.2% were adult registered nurses, and 28.7% were redeployed during the pandemic. An Impact of Events Scale-Revised score ≥33 (probable post-traumatic stress disorder) was observed in 44.6%, 37.1%, and 29.3% participants at T1, T2, and T3 respectively. At all three time-points, both personal and workplace factors were associated with probable post-traumatic stress disorder, although some specific associations changed over the course of the pandemic. Increased age was associated with reduced probable post-traumatic stress disorder at T1 and T2 (e.g. 41-50 years at T1 odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.86), but not at T3. Similarly, redeployment with inadequate/ no training was associated with increased probable post-traumatic stress disorder at T1 and T2, but not at T3 (T1 OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.77; T3 OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.89-1.55). A lack of confidence in infection prevention and control training was associated with increased probable post-traumatic stress disorder at all three time-points (e.g. T1 OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11-1.97).

CONCLUSION

A negative psychological impact was evident 3-months following the first wave of the pandemic. Both personal and workplace are associated with adverse psychological effects linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings will inform how healthcare organisations should respond to staff wellbeing needs both during the current pandemic, and in planning for future pandemics.

The impact of the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic on stress resilience and mental health: A critical review across waves

The global public health crisis caused by COVID-19 has lasted longer than many of us would have hoped and expected. With its high uncertainty and limited control, the COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly asked a lot from all of us. One important central question is: how resilient have we proved in face of the unprecedented and prolonged coronavirus pandemic? There is a vast and rapidly growing literature that has examined the impact of the pandemic on mental health both on the shorter (2020) and longer (2021) term. This not only concerns pandemic-related effects on resilience in the general population, but also how the pandemic has challenged stress resilience and mental health outcomes across more specific vulnerable population groups: patients with a psychiatric disorder, COVID-19 diagnosed patients, health care workers, children and adolescents, pregnant women, and elderly people. It is challenging to keep up to date with, and interpret, this rapidly increasing scientific literature. In this review, we provide a critical overview on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted mental health and how human stress resilience has been shaped by the pandemic on the shorter and longer term. The vast literature is dominated by a wealth of data which are, however, not always of the highest quality and heavily depend on online and self-report surveys. Nevertheless, it appears that we have proven surprisingly resilient over time, with fast recovery from COVID-19 measures. Still, vulnerable groups such as adolescents and health care personnel that have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic do exist. Large interindividual differences exist, and for future pandemics there is a clear need to comprehensively and integratively assess resilience from the start to provide personalized help and interventions tailored to the specific needs for vulnerable groups.

"It's Been Ugly": A Large-Scale Qualitative Study into the Difficulties Frontline Doctors Faced across Two Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic

This study aimed to gain an uncensored insight into the most difficult aspects of working as a frontline doctor across successive COVID-19 pandemic waves. Data collected by the parent study (CERA) was analysed using conventional content analysis. Participants comprised frontline doctors who worked in emergency, anaesthetic, and intensive care medicine in the UK and Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 1379). All seniority levels were represented, 42.8% of the sample were male, and 69.2% were white. Four themes were identified with nine respective categories (in parentheses): (1) I'm not a COVID hero, I'm COVID cannon fodder (exposed and unprotected, "a kick in the teeth"); (2) the relentlessness and pervasiveness of COVID ("no respite", "shifting sands"); (3) the ugly truths of the frontline ("inhumane" care, complex team dynamics); (4) an overwhelmed system exacerbated by COVID (overstretched and under-resourced, constant changes and uncertainty, the added hinderance of infection control measures). Findings reflect the multifaceted challenges faced after successive pandemic waves; basic wellbeing needs continue to be neglected and the emotional impact is further pronounced. Steps are necessary to mitigate the repeated trauma exposure of frontline doctors as COVID-19 becomes endemic and health services attempt to recover with inevitable long-term sequelae.

The COVID-19 Clinician Cohort (CoCCo) Study: Empirically Grounded Recommendations for Forward-Facing Psychological Care of Frontline Doctors

This study aimed to develop empirically grounded recommendations and a coherent model of psychological care derived from the experiences and psychological care needs of COVID-19 frontline doctors, using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. Participants were UK frontline doctors specialising in Emergency Medicine, Anaesthetics, or Intensive Care (n = 31) purposively sampled for maximum variation on gender, specialty, ethnicity, and trauma-related distress; most worked in ICU during the pandemic (71%). Four themes were derived: (1) 'coping strategies', participants used many, including exercise, mindfulness, and "wait until it gets really bad"; (2) 'sources of support', participants valued embedded psychological support, digital services, and informal conversations with colleagues or family, though there was little opportunity; (3) 'organisational influences on wellbeing', participants reported a love-hate relationship for concepts like 'wellbeing', seen as important but insulting when basic workplace needs were unmet; (4) 'improving engagement with support', analysis suggests we must reduce physical and psychological barriers to access and encourage leaders to model psychologically supportive behaviours. Doctors' frontline COVID-19 working experiences shine a 'spotlight' on pre-existing problems such as lack of physical resources and access to psychological care. Empirically grounded recommendations and a model of incremental psychological care are presented for use in clinical services.

Experiences of renal healthcare practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-methods approach

BACKGROUND

Globally, renal healthcare practitioners provide intensive and protracted support to a highly complex multi-morbid patient population however knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 on these practitioners is extremely limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the experiences of COVID-19 with renal healthcare practitioners during the first global lockdown between June 2020 and September 2020.

METHODS

A multi-methods approach was carried out including a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. This was a multinational study of renal healthcare practitioners from 29 countries. Quantitative: A self-designed survey on COVID-19 experiences and standardised questionnaires (General Health Questionnaire-12; Maslach Burnout Inventory). Descriptive statistics were generated for numerical data. Qualitative: Online semi-structured interviews were conducted. Data was subjected to thematic analysis. Renal healthcare practitioners (n = 251) completed an online survey. Thirteen renal healthcare practitioners took part in semi-structured interviews (12 nurses and 1 dietician).

RESULTS

The majority of participants surveyed were female (86.9 %; n = 218), nurses (86.9 %; n = 218) with an average 21.5 (SD = 11.1) years' experience since professional qualification, and 16.3 years (SD = 9.3) working in renal healthcare. Survey responses indicated a level of preparedness, training and satisfactory personal protective equipment during the pandemic however approximately 40.3 % experienced fear about attending work, and 49.8 % experienced mental health distress. The highest prevalence of burnout was emotional exhaustion (35.9 %). Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis highlighting the holistic complexities in managing renal healthcare, a neglected specialist workforce, and the need for appropriate support at work during a pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Results have highlighted the psychological impact, in terms of emotional exhaustion and mental health distress in our sample of renal healthcare practitioners. As the pandemic has continued, it is important to consider the long-term impact on an already stretched workforce including the risk of developing mental health disorders. Future research and interventions are required to understand and improve the provision of psychological support for specialist medical and nursing personnel.

Psychological distress and trauma in doctors providing frontline care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom and Ireland: a prospective longitudinal survey cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctors is a significant concern. Due to the emergence of multiple pandemic waves, longitudinal data on the impact of COVID-19 are vital to ensure an adequate psychological care response. The primary aim was to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma in frontline doctors during the acceleration, peak and deceleration of the COVID-19 first wave. Personal and professional factors associated with psychological distress are also reported.

DESIGN

A prospective online three-part longitudinal survey.

SETTING

Acute hospitals in the UK and Ireland.

PARTICIPANTS

Frontline doctors working in emergency medicine, anaesthetics and intensive care medicine during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Psychological distress and trauma measured using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the Impact of Events-Revised.

RESULTS

The initial acceleration survey distributed across networks generated a sample of 5440 doctors. Peak and deceleration response rates from the original sample were 71.6% (n=3896) and 56.6% (n=3079), respectively. Prevalence of psychological distress was 44.7% (n=1334) during the acceleration, 36.9% (n=1098) at peak and 31.5% (n=918) at the deceleration phase. The prevalence of trauma was 23.7% (n=647) at peak and 17.7% (n=484) at deceleration. The prevalence of probable post-traumatic stress disorder was 12.6% (n=343) at peak and 10.1% (n=276) at deceleration. Worry of family infection due to clinical work was the factor most strongly associated with both distress (R2=0.06) and trauma (R2=0.10).

CONCLUSION

Findings reflect a pattern of elevated distress at acceleration and peak, with some natural recovery. It is essential that policymakers seek to prevent future adverse effects through (a) provision of vital equipment to mitigate physical and psychological harm, (b) increased awareness and recognition of signs of psychological distress and (c) the development of clear pathways to effective psychological care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10666798.

Psychological distress during the acceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey of doctors practising in emergency medicine, anaesthesia and intensive care medicine in the UK and Ireland

OBJECTIVE

To quantify psychological distress experienced by emergency, anaesthetic and intensive care doctors during the acceleration phase of COVID-19 in the UK and Ireland.

METHODS

Initial cross-sectional electronic survey distributed during acceleration phase of the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in the UK and Ireland (UK: 18 March 2020-26 March 2020 and Ireland: 25 March 2020-2 April 2020). Surveys were distributed via established specialty research networks, within a three-part longitudinal study. Participants were doctors working in emergency, anaesthetic and intensive medicine during the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in acute hospitals across the UK and Ireland. Primary outcome measures were the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Additional questions examined personal and professional characteristics, experiences of COVID-19 to date, risk to self and others and self-reported perceptions of health and well-being.

RESULTS

5440 responses were obtained, 54.3% (n=2955) from emergency medicine and 36.9% (n=2005) from anaesthetics. All levels of doctor seniority were represented. For the primary outcome of GHQ-12 score, 44.2% (n=2405) of respondents scored >3, meeting the criteria for psychological distress. 57.3% (n=3045) had never previously provided clinical care during an infectious disease outbreak but over half of respondents felt somewhat prepared (48.6%, n=2653) or very prepared (7.6%, n=416) to provide clinical care to patients with COVID-19. However, 81.1% (n=4414) either agreed (31.1%, n=2709) or strongly agreed (31.1%, n=1705) that their personal health was at risk due to their clinical role.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that during the acceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of frontline doctors working in acute care reported psychological distress as measured by the GHQ-12. Findings from this study should inform strategies to optimise preparedness and explore modifiable factors associated with increased psychological distress in the short and long term.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10666798.