Family medicine practitioners' stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey

Well-being of family physicians during COVID-19 pandemic in Slovenia

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, family physicians (FPs) served as the the initial point of contact for patients potentially infected with the virus, necessitating frequent updates to treatment protocols. However, practices also faced organizational challenges in providing care to other patients who also needed their medical attention. The pressure on FPs increased and affected their well-being. The international PRICOV-19 study, titled "Primary care in times of COVID-19 pandemic," investigated how FPs functioned during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article examines the correlation between various organizational and structural COVID-19-related variables and the well-being of FPs in Slovenia.

METHODS

Between October 2020 and January 2021, we conducted an online cross-sectional survey. The questionnaire was distributed to 1040 Slovenian FPs and 218 family medicine (FM) trainees. Part of the questionnaire assessed the cooperation and well-being of FPs. The Mayo Clinic Well-being Index was used for the assessment. FP's well-being was also assessed descriptively by asking open-ended questions about maintaining mental health during the pandemic. Potential factors associated with FPs' well-being were identified using a multivariate linear regression method.

RESULTS

The final sample comprised 191 participants (response rate 14.1%). The mean value ± standard deviation of the Mayo Well-being Index was 3.3 ± 2.6 points. The FPs with the poorest well-being had 5-15 years of work experience and worked in a practice where work could not be distributed in the absence of a co-worker without compromising the well-being of colleagues. Physical activity was identified as the most common method of maintaining mental health among FPs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study suggest that targeted interventions are needed to support FPs mid-career, increase resilience in practice, promote strong team dynamics, and prioritise physical activity in healthcare. Addressing these aspects can contribute to the well-being of individual FPs and the overall health of the healthcare workers.

Work & life stress experienced by professional workers during the pandemic: a gender-based analysis

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted work and home life exacerbating pre-existing stressors and introducing new ones. These impacts were notably gendered. In this paper, we explore the different work and home life related stressors of professional workers specifically as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic through the gender-based analysis of two pan Canadian surveys: The Canadian Community Health Survey (2019, 2020, 2021) and the Healthy Professional Worker Survey (2021). Analyses revealed high rates of work stress among professional workers compared to other workers and this was particularly notable for women. Work overload emerged as the most frequently selected source of work stress, followed by digital stress, poor work relations, and uncertainty. Similar trends were noted in life stress among professional workers, particularly women. Time pressure consistently stood out as the primary source of non-work stress, caring for children and physical and mental health conditions. These findings can help to develop more targeted and appropriate workplace mental health promotion initiatives that are applicable to professional workers taking gender more fully into consideration.

[Burnout, anxiety, insomnia and depressive symptoms among French outpatient physicians in the second wave of COVID-19: Comparison between general practitioners and specialists]

INTRODUCTION

The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a public health crisis worldwide. Concerns have been expressed about the rapid deterioration of mental health among primary care physicians among whom burnout already had a high prevalence prior to the pandemic. However, there is little data on private doctors during the pandemic. France experienced a second wave with a second lockdown. We aimed to assess and compare physicians' burnout, anxiety and depression symptoms and insomnia between general practitioners (GP) and all other private specialists during the second Covid-19 wave.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey of private practitioners registered on Doctolib® (n=32,655), the interface software most used by private practitioners for booking medical appointments in France. Doctors were invited by email to complete an online survey in November 2020. Inclusions were closed on 1st December. The 2nd lockdown lasted from 30th October to 15th December 2020. We used the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) to assess burnout syndrome. A mean score of>50 in at least one subscale defined burnout. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale assessed anxiety and depression symptoms. We used two cut-offs, 8 (>7) and 11 (>10), as both are validated in the ability to find cases. The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) measures sleep-related complaints among physicians (cut-off >7). To link variations in the psychological scales to the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the items asked explicitly whether participants considered that "the COVID-19 epidemic we are currently experiencing is a source of excess stress, psychological suffering or burnout". Approval for this study was obtained from the local institutional review board of the University of Paris-Saclay, France. The questionnaires were collected anonymously. Statistical significance was tested using the chi-square test and student's t-test to compare the prevalence between GPs and other specialities. Subsequently, logistic regression models were run for statistically significant associations.

RESULTS

1992 physicians replied, a response rate of 12.8% of those who received the invitation email. Among them, 79.4% suffered from psychological distress (symptoms of anxiety or depression or burnout), of which 71.3% suffered from burnout, 26.7% from depressive symptoms, 58.9% from anxiety symptoms and 45.8% from insomnia. There was no difference in gender between GPs and specialists, but there was an age difference (P<0.001). GPs had a higher prevalence of burnout (OR=1.33 CI95 [1.09;1.63]) and took more psychotropic drugs (1.38 CI95 [1.05;1.81]). They were also more likely to perceive their stress as work-related (OR=1.50 CI95 [1.23;1.81]) or COVID-19-related (OR=1.43 CI95 [1.16;1.77]).

CONCLUSION

Our study is the first to assess the mental health of private practitioners in the second wave in association with COVID-19 stress. Firstly, GPs who provide primary care have a significantly higher burnout rate than other doctors. Secondly, COVID-19 stress is associated with more significant psychological distress. Thirdly, almost 80% of the private doctors surveyed suffer from psychological pain, and 71% suffer from burnout. This study has strengths and limitations. Firstly, this study assesses mental health and stress related to its COVID-19 association. Second, this is the largest population of private physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. The low response rate is the main limit of this study. The alarming rates of psychological distress among private doctors and, in particular, GPs should lead to intervention to help doctors reduce stress, burnout and other mental disorders. This study gives a picture of the situation during the second wave and the lock-in, and we need to be cautious with the next waves.

Questioning the "Ease" in disease: Was living with HIV a burden or boost during the first wave of Covid-19 in France? A qualitative study (COVIDHIV)

INTRODUCTION

Clinical research has focused on risk factors and treatment for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2), particularly in people with a comorbidity including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but little attention has been paid to the care pathway. This article aims to show how living with HIV may have been a biopsychosocial burden or boost in care pathways for Covid-19.

METHOD

People living with HIV (PLHIV) from 9 clinical centers were invited to participate in this qualitative study. The sampling was purposive with a maximum variation in their sociodemographic profiles. Semi-structured interviews were conducted until data saturation, then coded for thematic analysis, using an inductive general approach.

RESULTS

We interviewed 34 PLHIV of which 20 had SARS-COV-2 once. They were 24 males, 26 born in France; median age: 55. Twenty had a CD4 number above 500, and all were on antiretroviral therapy (ART). HIV appeared as a burden when Covid-19 symptoms reminded HIV seroconversion, fear of contamination, and triggered questions about ART effectiveness. HIV was not considered relevant when diagnosing Covid-19, caused fear of disclosure when participants sought SARS-COV-2 testing, and its care in hospitals was disrupted by the pandemic. ART-pill fatigue caused avoidance for Covid-19 treatment. As a boost, living with HIV led participants to observe symptoms, to get advice from healthcare professionals, and screening access through them. Some participants could accept the result of screening or a clinical diagnosis out of resilience. Some could consider ART or another drug prescribed by their HIV specialist help them to recover from Covid-19.

CONCLUSION

Living with HIV could function as a burden and/or a boost in the care pathways for Covid-19, according to patients' relationship to their HIV history, comorbidities and representation of ART. Covid-19 in PLHIV needs further qualitative study to gain a more comprehensive assessment of the pandemic's consequences on their lives and coping strategies.

A pre-post study of stressors and burnout affecting breast radiologists before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Rationale and objective

To compare burnout and stressors of breast radiologists prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and methods

Members of the Society of Breast Imaging were emailed an IRB-approved survey in January 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey included questions from the Maslach Burnout Inventory and specific stressors including work pace, work-life balance, care of dependents, and financial strain. Data were compared to previous surveys prior to the pandemic.

Results

The response rate was 25% (261/1061) for those who opened the email. Of the respondents, 74% (194/261) were female, 82% (214/261) were white, 73% (191/261) were full time, 71% (185/261) were fellowship trained, 41% (106/261) had more than 20 years of experience, and 30% (79/261) were in academic practice.Respondents in 2021 reported frequent levels of depersonalization (2.2) and emotional exhaustion (3.4) while reporting frequent levels of personal accomplishment (5.3), a protective factor. These values were nearly identical before the pandemic in 2020: (2.2, 3.5, 5.3, respectively, p = .9). Respondents rated practicing faster than they would like as the highest stressor; however, 5 of the 6 stressors improved after the pandemic onset (p < .05). Conversely, participants perceived these stresses had gotten slightly worse since the pandemic (p < .01). Almost 50% of respondents reported they were considering leaving their practice; the most common reason was work/life balance.

Conclusion

Burnout in breast radiologists remains frequent but unchanged during the COVID-19 pandemic. While participants perceived that some stressors were worse during the pandemic, there was slight improvement in most stressors between the pre-pandemic and pandemic cohorts.

The role of primary care during the pandemic: shared experiences from providers in five European countries

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated wide-ranging adaptations to the organisation of health systems, and primary care is no exception. This article aims to collate insights on the role of primary care during the pandemic. The gained knowledge helps to increase pandemic preparedness and resilience.

METHODS

The role of primary care during the pandemic in five European countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy) was investigated using a qualitative approach, namely case study, based on document analysis and semi-structured interviews. In total, 31 interviews were conducted with primary care providers between June and August 2022. The five country case studies were subjected to an overarching analysis focusing on successful strategies as well as gaps and failures regarding pandemic management in primary care.

RESULTS

Primary care providers identified disruptions to service delivery as a major challenge emerging from the pandemic which led to a widespread adoption of telehealth. Despite the rapid increase in telehealth usage and efforts of primary care providers to organise face-to-face care delivery in a safe way, some patient groups were particularly affected by disruptions in service delivery. Moreover, primary care providers perceived a substantial propagation of misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines among the population, which also threatened patient-physician relationships. At the same time, primary care providers faced an increased workload, had to work with insufficient personal protective equipment and were provided incongruous guidelines from public authorities. There was a consensus among primary care providers that they were mostly sidelined by public health policy in the context of pandemic management. Primary care providers tackled these problems through a diverse set of measures including home visits, implementing infection control measures, refurbishing used masks, holding internal meetings and relying on their own experiences as well as information shared by colleagues.

CONCLUSION

Primary care providers were neither well prepared nor the focus of initial policy making. However, they implemented creative solutions to the problems they faced and applying the learnings from the pandemic could help in increasing the resilience of primary care. Attributes of an integrated health system with a strong primary care component proved beneficial in addressing immediate effects of the pandemic.

Stress experiences of healthcare assistants in family practice at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study

Background

At the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, healthcare assistants in general practices were confronted with numerous new challenges. The aim of the study was to investigate the stress factors of healthcare assistants in March/April 2020 as well as in the further course of the pandemic in 2020.

Methods

From August to December 2020, 6,300 randomly selected healthcare assistants in four German states were invited to participate in the study. We performed a mixed methods design using semi-structured telephone interviews and a cross-sectional survey with quantitative and open questions. The feeling of psychological burden was assessed on a 6-point likert-scale. We defined stress factors and categorized them in patient, non-patient and organizational stress factors. The results of the three data sets were compared within a triangulation protocol.

Results

One thousand two hundred seventy-four surveys were analyzed and 28 interviews with 34 healthcare assistants were conducted. Of the participants, 29.5% reported experiences of a very high or high feeling of psychological burden in March/April 2020. Worries about the patients' health and an uncertainty around the new disease were among the patient-related stress factors. Non-patient-related stress factors were problems with the compatibility of work and family, and the fear of infecting relatives with COVID-19. Organizational efforts and dissatisfaction with governmental pandemic management were reported as organizational stress factors. Support from the employer and team cohesion were considered as important resources.

Discussion

It is necessary to reduce stress among healthcare assistants by improving their working conditions and to strengthen their resilience to ensure primary healthcare delivery in future health crises.

General practitioner well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic presented new challenges for general practitioners' (GPs') mental health and well-being, with growing international evidence of its negative impact. While there has been a wide UK commentary on this topic, research evidence from a UK setting is lacking. This study sought to explore the lived experience of UK GPs during COVID-19, and the pandemic's impact on their psychological well-being.

DESIGN AND SETTING

In-depth qualitative interviews, conducted remotely by telephone or video call, with UK National Health Service GPs.

PARTICIPANTS

GPs were sampled purposively across three career stages (early career, established and late career or retired GPs) with variation in other key demographics. A comprehensive recruitment strategy used multiple channels. Data were analysed thematically using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 40 GPs; most described generally negative sentiment and many displayed signs of psychological distress and burnout. Causes of stress and anxiety related to personal risk, workload, practice changes, public perceptions and leadership, team working and wider collaboration and personal challenges. GPs described potential facilitators of their well-being, including sources of support and plans to reduce clinical hours or change career path, and some described the pandemic as offering a catalyst for positive change.

CONCLUSIONS

A range of factors detrimentally affected the well-being of GPs during the pandemic and we highlight the potential impact of this on workforce retention and quality of care. As the pandemic progresses and general practice faces continued challenges, urgent policy measures are now needed.

COVID-19 Continues to Burden General Practitioners: Impact on Workload, Provision of Care, and Intention to Leave

General practitioners (GPs), already in a profession with a high workload, have been at the frontline of providing COVID-19-related healthcare in addition to routine care. Our study examined the impact of pandemic-related consultations and changes in practice organization on GPs' current workload and provision of healthcare in summer 2021 (May 2021-July 2021) and early 2022 (January 2022-February 2022). In total, 143 German GPs participated in an online survey in the summer of 2021. Of these, 51 GPs participated in the follow-up survey in 2022. Most GPs perceived an increase in consultation frequency, consultation times, and workload since the pandemic outbreak. Increased consultation times were related to the reduced provision of medical care to other patients with chronic diseases. More SARS-CoV-2 vaccination consultations were associated with reduced home visits, acute consultation times, and cancer screenings. A quarter of GPs considered leaving their job. Pandemic-related bureaucracy, restricted access to therapy and rehabilitation services specialized on COVID-19, unreliable vaccine deliveries, mandatory telematics-infrastructure implementation, and frequent changes in official regulations were the main reasons reported for dissatisfaction. Our results provide insights into how the pandemic continues to burden GPs' work routines and how better working conditions in times of high demand could be achieved in future pandemics.

General practitioner care in nursing homes during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: a retrospective survey among nursing home managers

BACKGROUND

Though evidence on the detrimental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in nursing homes is vast, research focusing on general practitioners' (GP) care during the pandemic in nursing homes is still scarce.

METHODS

A retrospective online survey among 1,010 nursing home managers in Germany was conducted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between November 2020 and February 2021. Associations between perceived deficits in GP care (routine and acute visits) and both general and COVID-19-related characteristics of nursing homes were analysed using multiple logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The majority of nursing home managers reported no deficits in GP care (routine visits, 84.3%; acute visits, 92.9%). Logistic regression analyses revealed that deficits in GP care (routine visits) were significantly associated with visiting restrictions for GPs and nursing home size. Small nursing homes (1-50 residents) were significantly more likely to report deficits in GP care (routine visits) compared to medium (51-100 residents) and large nursing homes (> 100 residents). Further, deficits in GP care (acute visits) were significantly associated with dementia as a focus of care and the burden of insufficient testing for SARS-CoV-2 among residents. Moreover, visiting restrictions for GPs were significantly associated with dementia as the focus of care and the COVID-19 incidence at the federal state level. Finally, COVID-19 cases in nursing homes were significantly associated with size of nursing homes, COVID-19-incidence on the federal state level and the burden of insufficient testing capacities for SARS-CoV-2 among residents.

CONCLUSION

We found structural factors associated with GP care deficits during the pandemic. New concepts for GP care should be implemented in pandemic preparedness plans to ensure high quality, consistent, and reliable GP care as well as effective infection prevention measures in nursing homes.

Multinational primary health care experiences from the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

To learn from primary health care experts' experiences from the COVID-19 pandemic across countries.

METHODS

We applied qualitative thematic analysis to open-text responses from a multinational rapid response survey of primary health care experts assessing response to the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

Respondents' comments focused on three main areas of primary health care response directly influenced by the pandemic: 1) impact on the primary care workforce, including task-shifting responsibilities outside clinician specialty and changes in scope of work, financial strains on practices, and the daily uncertainties and stress of a constantly evolving situation; 2) impact on patient care delivery, both essential care for COVID-19 cases and the non-essential care that was neglected or postponed; 3) and the shift to using new technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary health care experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic across the globe were similar in their levels of workforce stress, rapid technologic adaptation, and need to pivot delivery strategies, often at the expense of routine care.

Challenges and experiences of general practitioners during the course of the Covid-19 pandemic: a northern Italian observational study-cross-sectional analysis and comparison of a two-time survey in primary care

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) have been among the frontline workers since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. Reflecting and analyzing the ongoing pandemic response of general practice provides essential information and serves as a precondition for outlining future health policy strategies.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of the pandemic on GPs' daily work and well-being and to describe needs for improvement in primary care highlighted by the pandemic.

METHODS

A 2-time cross-sectional online survey involving GPs in a northern Italian region was conducted in September 2020 and March/April 2021.

RESULTS

Eighty-four GPs (29.6% of invited GPs) participated in the first survey, and 41 GPs (14.4%) in the second survey. Most GPs experienced a notable workload increase which was tendentially higher during the advanced stages of the pandemic. A notable increase between the first and the second survey was noted regarding the frequency of Covid-related patient contacts and phone calls. Communication with health authorities and hospitals was rated as improvable. Psychological distress among GPs tended to increase over time; female GPs were more affected in the first survey. Most practices introduced major changes in their workflow, mainly appointment-based visits and separating Covid-19-suspected patients. Availability of protective equipment considerably increased over time. In the second survey, the GPs felt more prepared to self-protection and outpatient treatment of Covid-affected patients.

CONCLUSION

The work of GPs has been substantially impacted by the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Efforts should be undertaken to efficiently strengthen primary care which plays an important role in pandemic events.

Changes of working conditions and job-related challenges due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic for medical assistants in general practices in Germany: a qualitative study

Background

In Germany, general practices are usually contacted first by patients with health complaints, including symptoms characteristic of SARS-CoV-2. Within general practices, medical assistants (MAs) are the first contact person for patients and perform various tasks in close physical patient contact. Working conditions of MAs have been characterized as challenging, e.g., due to low salaries, a high workload, time pressure and frequent interruptions. The potential changes of working conditions and job-related challenges experienced by MAs due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have not been fully explored. We aimed to address this knowledge gap among MAs working in general practices in Germany.

Methods

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted between March and April 2021 with 24 MAs. Medical assistants of legal age, who worked in general practices in Germany, and who were continuously employed and without change of employer in 2020 were eligible for participation. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and content-analyzed using MAXQDA, using deductive and inductive coding.

Results

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic posed great challenges for MAs, including a dramatic increase in workload, changes in occupational tasks, increased hygiene measures, rearrangements of work organization, childcare issues, and structural and personnel challenges within their practice. Participants described both improved but also worsened collaboration with their employers and colleagues due to the pandemic. Many MAs complained about issues regarding SARS-CoV-2-related billing processes and an increase in unpleasant patient behavior, including disregard of practice rules or frequent verbal insults. Many also did not feel adequately appreciated by politics, media, or society for their efforts during the pandemic. Positive changes were perceived to be the expansion of digital communication channels and a growing social cohesiveness of practice teams.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic posed great challenges for MAs. The pandemic seems to have worsened MAs’ working conditions, which had been described as challenging already prior to the pandemic. In order to improve job satisfaction and to prevent loss of healthcare personnel, measures must be taken to improve working conditions of MAs in general practices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01880-y.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry

Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting “Decisional Uncertainty” provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for “Decisional Conflicts” included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals.

Safety Culture and the Positive Association of Being a Primary Care Training Practice during COVID-19: The Results of the Multi-Country European PRICOV-19 Study

The day-to-day work of primary care (PC) was substantially changed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Teaching practices needed to adapt both clinical work and teaching in a way that enabled the teaching process to continue, while maintaining safe and high-quality care. Our study aims to investigate the effect of being a training practice on a number of different outcomes related to the safety culture of PC practices. PRICOV-19 is a multi-country cross-sectional study that researches how PC practices were organized in 38 countries during the pandemic. Data was collected from November 2020 to December 2021. We categorized practices into training and non-training and selected outcomes relating to safety culture: safe practice management, community outreach, professional well-being and adherence to protocols. Mixed-effects regression models were built to analyze the effect of being a training practice for each of the outcomes, while controlling for relevant confounders. Of the participating practices, 2886 (56%) were non-training practices and 2272 (44%) were training practices. Being a training practice was significantly associated with a lower risk for adverse mental health events (OR: 0.83; CI: 0.70-0.99), a higher number of safety measures related to patient flow (Beta: 0.17; CI: 0.07-0.28), a higher number of safety incidents reported (RR: 1.12; CI: 1.06-1.19) and more protected time for meetings (Beta: 0.08; CI: 0.01-0.15). No significant associations were found for outreach initiatives, availability of triage information, use of a phone protocol or infection prevention measures and equipment availability. Training practices were found to have a stronger safety culture than non-training practices. These results have important policy implications, since involving more PC practices in education may be an effective way to improve quality and safety in general practice.

Prevalence of perceived stress and coping strategies among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 outbreak at Bangkok metropolitan, Thailand

Background

Healthcare workers (HCW), who are crucial workforce, have experienced stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. They have been learning to fight against and support patients as much as possible. Thus, this study aims to account for the psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreaks on the healthcare workers of medical school hospitals in terms of their perceived stress and coping styles.

Method

This cross-sectional study was conducted from June to August, 2021. 517 HCWs self-administered the online survey. Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) in Thai-version was used to examine the perceived stress symptoms. Brief-COPE score was used to determine the coping strategies. Independent sample t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multivariable regression analysis were utilized. The level of significance was set at p-value < 0.05.

Result

The prevalence of perceived stress among the HCWs was 41.97%. Coping strategies were used to deal with stress during the outbreak for problem-solving (Mean ± SD = 0.25 ± 0.60) and positive attitude (Mean ± SD = 2.85 ± 0.62). Significant difference was observed in the use of coping strategies among those who differ in marital status (F2, 514 = 7.234, p-value = 0.001), having children (t515 = -4.175, p-value < 0.001), and days off (t515 = -1.992, p-value = 0.047). Multivariable regression analysis reported who those perceived stress symptoms using social support more than those normal stress (AOR 1.54, 95% CI 1.070–2.236, p-value = 0.02). The perceived stress symptoms group used the avoidance strategy 2.03 times more than the other group (AOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.406–2.934, p-value < 0.001). Interestingly, the participants who perceived stress symptoms applied a positive attitude strategy lesser than those who experienced normal stress (57.5%) (AOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.307–0.590, p-value < 0.001).

Conclusion

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental distress remains. The findings of this study suggest further study to assess the HCWs’ stress after the pandemic. HCWs should consider merging each of the coping strategies to balance work and lifestyle in pandemic situations.

Psychological distress among outpatient physicians in private practice linked to COVID-19 and related mental health during the second lockdown

BACKGROUND

Outpatient physicians in private practice, as inpatient physicians, are on the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mental-health consequences of the pandemic on hospital staff have been published, but the psychological distress among outpatient physicians in private practice due to COVID-19 has never been specifically assessed.

METHODS

A French national online cross-sectional survey assessed declared psychological distress among outpatient physicians in private practice linked to COVID-19, sociodemographic and work conditions, mental health (Copenhagen Burn-out Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Insomnia severity Index), consequences on alcohol, tobacco, and illegal substance misuse, and sick leave during the 2nd COVID-19 wave.

FINDINGS

Among the 1,992 physicians who answered the survey, 1,529 (76.8%) declared psychological distress linked to COVID-19. Outpatient physicians who declared psychological distress linked to COVID-19 had higher rates of insomnia (OR = 1.4; CI95 [1.1-1.7], p = 0.003), burnout (OR = 2.7; CI95 [2.1; 3.2], p < 0.001), anxiety and depressive symptoms (OR = 2.4; CI95 [1.9-3.0], p < 0.001 and OR = 1.7; CI95 [1.3-2.3], p < 0.001) as compared to physicians who did not. They also had higher psychotropic drug use in the last twelve months, or increased alcohol or tobacco consumption due to work-related stress and were more frequently general practitioners.

INTERPRETATION

The feeling of being in psychological distress due to COVID-19 is highly frequent among outpatient physicians in private practice and is associated with mental health impairment. There is a need to assess specific interventions dedicated to outpatient physicians working in private practice.

Mild Cognitive Disorder in Post-COVID-19 Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 67,000 Primary Care Post-COVID Patients

Background:

Little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on mild cognitive disorder.

Objective:

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate whether COVID-19 diagnosis is associated with subsequent mild cognitive disorder (MCD) compared to acute upper respiratory infections (AURI).

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study used data from the Disease Analyzer database (IQVIA) and included 67,046 patients with first-time symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 diagnoses in 1,172 general practices in Germany between March 2020 and September 2021. Diagnoses were based on ICD-10 codes. Patients diagnosed with AURI were matched to 67,046 patients with COVID-19 using propensity scores based on sex, age, index month, and comorbidities. The index date was the diagnosis date for either COVID-19 or AURI. Associations between the COVID-19 and MCD were studied using conditional Poisson regression models.

Results:

The incidence of MCD was 7.6 cases per 1,000 person-years in the COVID-19 group and 5.1 cases per 1,000 person-years in the AURI group (IRR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.22–1.82). The incidence rate ratio decreased strongly with increasing age from 10.08 (95% CI = 4.00–24.42) in the age group≤50 to 1.03 (95% CI = 0.81–1.31) in the age group > 70. In addition, the association between COVID-19 and MCD was significant in women (IRR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.34–2.16) but not in men (IRR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.75–1.56).

Conclusion

The incidence of MCD was low but significantly higher in COVID-19 than in AURI patients, especially among younger patients. If a cognitive disorder is suspected, referral to a specialist is recommended.

General practitioner wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic review

Background: Doctors’ organisations in the UK have reported worrying levels of work-related stress and burnout in the general practitioner (GP) workforce for some time, and the COVID-19 pandemic has presented clear new challenges. Aims: To synthesise international evidence exploring the impact of COVID-19 on primary care doctors’ mental health and wellbeing and identify risk factors associated with their psychological wellbeing during this time. Design and setting: Mixed-methods systematic review. Method: We searched six bibliographic databases, Google Scholar and MedRxiv and conducted reference checking to identify studies of GP psychological wellbeing during the pandemic. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of studies using standardised tools. Heterogeneity in outcomes, setting and design prohibited statistical pooling; we combined the studies using a convergent integrated thematic synthesis. Results: Thirty-one studies were included. Multiple sources of stress were identified, including changed working practices, risk, exposure and inadequate PPE, information overload, pandemic preparedness and cohesion across sectors. Studies demonstrated an impact on psychological wellbeing, with some GPs experiencing stress, burnout, anxiety, depression, fear of COVID, lower job satisfaction and physical symptoms. Studies described gender and age differences: women report poorer psychological outcomes across all domains and older GPs reported greater stress and burnout. Use of outcome measures and reporting practice varied greatly. Conclusion: Our review of international evidence demonstrates that the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected GPs’ wellbeing around the world. Further research could explore gender and age differences, identifying interventions targeted to these groups.

How did general practices organize care during the COVID-19 pandemic: the protocol of the cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study in 38 countries

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) play a crucial role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic as the first point of contact for possibly infected patients and are responsible for short and long-term follow-up care of the majority of COVID-19 patients. Nonetheless, they experience many barriers to fulfilling this role. The PRICOV-19 study investigates how GP practices in 38 countries are organized during the COVID-19 pandemic to guarantee safe, effective, patient-centered, and equitable care. Also, the shift in roles and tasks and the wellbeing of staff members is researched. Finally, PRICOV-19 aims to study the association with practice- and health care system characteristics. It is expected that both characteristics of the GP practice and health care system features are associated with how GP practices can cope with these challenges. This paper describes the protocol of the study.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional design, data are collected through an online questionnaire sent to GP practices in 37 European countries and Israel. The questionnaire is developed in multiple phases, including a pilot study in Belgium. The final version includes 53 items divided into six sections: patient flow (including appointments, triage, and management for routine care); infection prevention; information processing; communication; collaboration and self-care; and practice and participant characteristics. In the countries where data collection is already finished, between 13 and 636 GP practices per country participated in the study. Questionnaire data are linked with OECD and HSMR data regarding national policy responses to the pandemic and analyzed using multilevel models considering the system- and practice-level.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, the PRICOV-19 study is the largest and most comprehensive study that examines how GP practices function during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its results can significantly contribute to better preparedness of primary health care systems across Europe for future major outbreaks of infectious diseases.

Occupational Health of Frontline Healthcare Workers in the United Arab Emirates during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Snapshot of Summer 2020

The study aim was to understand the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the levels of anxiety, depression, and burnout of healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This study was an online-based, cross-sectional survey during July and August 2020. Participants were eligible from the entire country, and 1290 agreed to participate. The majority of HCWs were females aged 30-39 years old, working as nurses, and 80% considered PPE to be available. Twelve percent of respondents tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Half of HCWs considered themselves physically tired (52.2%), reported musculoskeletal pain or discomfort (54.2%), and perceived moderate-to-high levels of burnout on at least one of three burnout domains (52.8%). A quarter of HCWs reported anxiety (26.3%) or depression (28.1%). HCWs reporting not having musculoskeletal pain, having performed physical activity, and higher scores of available PPE reported lower scores of anxiety, depression, and burnout. UAE HCWs experienced more access to PPE and less anxiety, depression, and burnout compared with HCWs in other countries. Study findings can be used by healthcare organizations and policymakers to ensure adequate measures are implemented to maximize the health and wellbeing of HCWs during the current COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Changes in general practitioners' attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination after first interim results: a longitudinal approach in France

We assessed whether the a priori acceptance by French general practitioners (GPs) of COVID-19 vaccines changed after the announcements about them in November 2020. In all, between two surveys in October-November and in November-December 2020, acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines increased among 16.9% of GPs and decreased among 23.0%. Among those with high acceptance in October-November (52.5%), 11.6% became hesitant-reluctant in November-December; in those with initial hesitancy-reluctance (24.6%), 15.2% showed high acceptance. Deteriorating acceptance was significantly associated with GPs' distrust in the Ministry of Health and a priori concerns about the safety of vaccines developed during an epidemic; the reverse was found for improving acceptance. In addition, better acceptance was more likely among GPs who perceived the medical severity of COVID-19 to be high and was less common among women. During a severe pandemic, GPs' trust in health institutions and perception of safety issues remain important predictors of their attitudes toward new vaccines. Vigilance is needed regarding health professionals' reactions to events that may cast doubt on the safety or efficacy of certain COVID-19 vaccines. Personalized approaches should be considered and tested to address their concerns as the situation and knowledge evolve.

Perception of stress by different categories of medical personnel during the first wave of the COVID‑19 pandemic in Russia

Relevance. In the context of the pandemic, the current psychological state and the likely delayed deterioration of the mental health of medical personnel, regardless of their professional duties, are of concern. Taking into account the stressful circumstances in which the pandemic has placed all medical workers, assessing the level of perceived stress, as well as identifying risk factors and factors that mitigate stress, is an urgent task, the solution of which will contribute to the effective organization of psychological support for medical personnel.

Methods. The study used a shortened version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS10) as the main methodology – a tool designed to study a person's attitude to stressful situations and determine the degree to which life is assessed as stressful and uncontrolled (Cohen et al., 1988). The methodology is widely used by the scientific community, including during the pandemic, and the original English version of the PSS has been translated into many languages and adapted in different countries. The study was conducted through an online survey.

Respondents. The study, conducted in the period from May 9 to June 26, 2020, when there was a steady increase in SARS-CoV 2 virus infections in Russia, involved 1,287 employees of medical institutions in various subjects of the federation (1,079 women and 208 men) aged 19 to 80 years. The sample of the study is represented by doctors, middle and junior medical staff, heads of medical departments and institutions, as well as volunteers.

Results. A high average overall index of perceived stress among employees of medical institutions was revealed. The highest level of stress is observed in the youngest age group (from 19 to 30 years), and with age, the level of stress decreases. There were no differences in the level of stress between male and female health workers in any of the considered stress indicators. Protective factors against increased stress are the presence of children and living with family members or relatives, while the presence of a spouse / partner does not affect the overall indicator of perceived stress. From different categories of medical workers, the index of perceived stress is higher in managers and doctors compared to middle and junior medical personnel. There were no significant differences in the level of stress between the staff working and not working in the "red zone". Differences in the level of stress of medical workers depending on the current situation (the number of infected and dead) in the region of residence were revealed: the level of stress is higher for those specialists who are forced to work in stressful conditions due to the complex epidemiological situation. The relationship between different beliefs about COVID19 and the level of stress is shown: the level of stress is higher in those who take its danger more seriously. In terms of the sources of stress, the most likely predictors are anxiety about exposure to COVID19 at work and the likelihood of infecting loved ones, fear of catching it yourself and getting sick, inability to meet the usual personal needs and economic instability.

Conclusions. Practical interventions, the provision of psychological support and the development of actions to reduce stress for staff during a pandemic, should take into account the role of factors in increasing stress among staff working in specific conditions and focus on the prevailing beliefs and stressors in specific categories of medical factors.