An Acute Stress Scale for Health Care Professionals Caring for Patients With COVID-19: Validation Study

Development and initial psychometric evaluation of a COVID-related psychosocial experiences questionnaire for cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors are at elevated risk of psychological problems related to COVID-19, yet no published measure adequately assesses their psychosocial experiences during the pandemic.

PURPOSE

Describe the development and factor structure of a comprehensive, self-report measure (COVID-19 Practical and Psychosocial Experiences questionnaire [COVID-PPE]) assessing the pandemic's impact on US cancer survivors.

METHODS

The sample (n = 10,584) was divided into three groups to assess COVID-PPE factor structure by conducting: (1) initial calibration/exploratory analysis of the factor structure of 37 items (n = 5070), (2) confirmatory factor analysis of the best-fitting model (36 items after item removal; n = 5140), and (3) post-hoc confirmatory analysis with an additional six items not collected in the first two groups (42 items; n = 374).

RESULTS

The final COVID-PPE was divided into two sets of subscales, conceptualized as Risk Factors and Protective Factors. The five Risk Factors subscales were labeled Anxiety Symptoms, Depression Symptoms, Health Care Disruptions, Disruptions to Daily Activities and Social Interactions, and Financial Hardship. The four Protective Factors subscales were labeled Perceived Benefits, Provider Satisfaction, Perceived Stress Management Skills, and Social Support. Internal consistency was acceptable for seven subscales (αs = 0.726-0.895; ωs = 0.802-0.895) but poor or questionable for the remaining two subscales (αs = 0.599-0.681; ωs = 0.586-0.692).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first published self-report measure comprehensively capturing psychosocial impact-both positive and negative-of the pandemic on cancer survivors. Future work should evaluate predictive utility of COVID-PPE subscales, particularly as the pandemic evolves, which may inform recommendations for cancer survivors and facilitate identification of survivors most in need of intervention.

Factors Influencing the Acceptance and Adoption of Mobile Health Apps by Physicians During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the provision of and access to health care have been uniquely challenging, particularly during lockdowns or when dealing with COVID-19 cases. Health care professionals have had to provide patients with the necessary health care. However, delivering health care services while reducing face-to-face interaction puts an immense strain on health systems that are already overburdened. Against this backdrop, it is now more critical than ever to ensure the accessibility of health care services. Such access has been made increasingly available through mobile health (mHealth) apps. These apps have the potential to significantly improve health care outcomes and expectations and address some of the challenges confronting health care systems worldwide. Despite the advantages of mHealth, its acceptance and adoption remain low. Hence, health care organizations must consider the perceptions and opinions of physicians if the technology is to be successfully implemented.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to explore and synthesize the scientific literature on the factors influencing the acceptance and adoption of mHealth among physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A systematic review of the studies published between March 2020 and December 2022 was conducted using the MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and ProQuest databases. The database search yielded an initial sample of 455 potential publications for analysis, of which 9 (2%) met the inclusion criteria. The methodology of this review was based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses).

RESULTS

The factors influencing mHealth acceptance and adoption by physicians were divided into perceived barriers and perceived facilitators, which were further grouped into the following 3 major thematic categories: technological, individual, and organizational barriers and facilitators, respectively. The technological barriers were accessibility, technical issues, usefulness, and data management; individual barriers were perceived patient barriers, time and workload pressure, technical literacy, knowledge of mHealth, and peer support; and organizational barriers were financial factors, management support and engagement, data security, telemonitoring policy, and collaboration. The technological facilitators of uptake were technical factors, clinical usefulness, and data management; individual facilitators were patient-related care, intrinsic motivation, collaboration, and data sharing (individual); and organizational facilitators were workflow-related determinants, organizational financial support, recommendation of mHealth services, and evidence-based guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

This review summarized the evidence on the factors influencing mHealth acceptance and adoption by physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. The main findings highlighted the importance of addressing organizational readiness to support physicians with adequate resources, shifting the focus from technological to patient-centered factors, and the seamless integration of mHealth into routine practice during and beyond the pandemic.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022356125; https://tinyurl.com/2mmhn5yu.

Social support for overcoming fear of contagion at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cross-sectional study in Latin America

Background

The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare professionals has been widely studied, along with different strategies to minimize it. However, professionals' assessment of the social support received and the factors that mitigated their fear of contagion have not been described. This study aimed to assess healthcare professionals' satisfaction with the social support and information received and their efforts to self-isolate to avoid infecting loved ones in Chile, Colombia, and Ecuador.

Methods

A cross-sectional online survey, conducted from July to September 2020 in three Latin American countries, elicited healthcare professionals' satisfaction with social support from colleagues, their community, the media, and scientific societies; as well as the information received about the evolution of the pandemic and measures to avoid contagion. The EASE scale was used to measure acute stress.

Results

Survey responses were received from 700 professionals. The response rate per country exceeded the estimated sample size except in the case of Colombia, which was 81.4%. In general, peer support was highly valued, though satisfaction was lower in high-risk units (p < 0.001). Those who directly assisted COVID-19 patients perceived the least community support (p = 0.023). Professionals from high-risk units (p = 0.013) and those who experienced greater acute stress (p = 0.05) assigned the lowest rating to the information offered by the centre on the pandemic. Men perceived more support from colleagues and better information from the centre than women (p < 0.05). Just 10.7% of professionals changed their residence during the pandemic, but those who worked in high-risk areas self-isolated more frequently (p = 0.026).

Conclusion

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals in Chile, Colombia, and Ecuador greatly valued the support received from their peers. Being infected with COVID-19, working in high-risk areas, experiencing higher self-reported acute stress, and having an infected co-worker were predictors for self-isolation to protect their relatives. These results point to the appropriateness of putting in place institutional resources based on peer support and specific communication strategies and action protocols to build resilience and responsiveness to future health crises.

Coping Strategies Used by Health Care Workers in Ecuador During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study to Enhance Resilience and Develop Training Tools

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has generated immense health care pressure, forcing critical decisions to be made in a socially alarmed environment. Adverse conditions have led to acute stress reactions, affective pathologies, and psychosomatic reactions among health personnel, which have been exacerbated by the successive waves of the pandemic. The recovery of the entire health system and its professionals has been hindered, making it essential to increase their resilience.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to achieve 2 primary objectives. First, it sought to identify coping strategies, both individual and organizational, used by health care workers in Ecuador to navigate the acute stress during the early waves of the pandemic. Second, it aimed to develop training materials to enhance team leaders' capabilities in effectively managing high-stress situations.

METHODS

The study used qualitative research techniques to collect information on institutional and personal coping strategies, as well as consensus-building techniques to develop a multimedia psychological tool that reinforces the resilience of professionals and teams in facing future crises.

RESULTS

The findings from the actions taken by health care workers in Ecuador were categorized into 4 types of coping strategies based on Lazarus' theories on coping strategies. As a result of this study, a new audiovisual tool was created, comprising a series of podcasts, designed to disseminate these strategies globally within the Spanish-speaking world. The tool features testimonials from health care professionals in Ecuador, narrating their experiences under the pressures of providing care during the pandemic, with a particular emphasis on the coping strategies used.

CONCLUSIONS

Ensuring the preparedness of health professionals for potential future outbreaks is imperative to maintain quality and patient safety. Interventions such as this one offer valuable insights and generate new tools for health professionals, serving as a case study approach to train leaders and improve the resilience capacity and skills of their teams.

Acute Stress in Health Workers in Colombia 2017-2021: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objectives: Analyze the presence of acute stress response after adverse events in human talent in Colombian health institutions from 2017 to 2021. Methods: Cross-sectional study of prevalence, carried out on 838 members of the human talent in health (professionals, technicians, technologists, and auxiliaries) of Colombian health institutions in the study period with the application of the EASE instrument. Univariate analysis using descriptive statistical techniques, chi-square and Student's t-test, and bivariate analysis with a Poisson regression model using the institucional SPSS v. 26. Results: The prevalence of adverse events in the last 5 years was 33.8%, presenting levels of acute stress qualifying as Medium-high emotional overload at 21.91%, while extreme acute stress was at 3.53%. The prevalence of risk for presenting acute stress after being involved in an adverse event was PR: 1.30 (CI: 1.24-1.36). Conclusion: Acute stress in human talent after adverse events is limiting health and care capacity and must be efficiently addressed by health institutions. Psychosocial risk is linked within the framework of the patient safety program and the institutional occupational health and safety management systems.

Development and Initial Psychometric Validation of the COVID-19 Pandemic Burden Index for Healthcare Workers

BACKGROUND

The burden of COVID-19 on healthcare workers (HCWs) is reported to be increasing, yet the psychometric scales now in use evaluate only single aspects; few measure the pandemic-specific burden on HCWs comprehensively.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a scale to quantify the physical, mental, and socioeconomic burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCWs.

DESIGN

Scale development and cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Consenting HCWs aged ≥20.

MAIN MEASURES

Development of an item-list based on literature reviews and HCW panel input, evaluation of content validity and item selection using the Delphi method, psychometric testing conducted on HCWs, validity assessment by factor analyses and hypothesis verification, internal consistency evaluation by Cronbach's alpha, test-retest analysis, and interpretability assessment.

KEY RESULTS

Through the Delphi process, a 29-item pilot scale was generated. In psychometric testing, data from 863 HCWs contributed to the development of the final version of this scale, called Pandemic Burden Index twenty for HCWs (PBI-20), a 20-item scale to measure six domains: fatigue, fear of infection, inadequacy as a medical professional, mental health concerns, prejudice or discrimination, and anxiety about one's livelihood and daily life. Factor analysis showed each factor corresponded to the six domains of this scale. Hypothesis verification showed the PBI-20 total score to be moderately to highly correlated with the Short Form 36 vitality score and mental health score and with intention of turnover. The PBI-20 had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.92). Test-retest analysis showed the intraclass correlation coefficient to be 0.70 and the minimal important change to be -7.0.

CONCLUSIONS

The psychometrically sound questionnaire we developed to measure pandemic-specific burdens for HCWs provides an understanding of comprehensive burdens on HCWs and may serve to evaluate interventions to reduce the burdens.

Contributing factors for acute stress in healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Ecuador

This study analyzed the frequency and intensity of acute stress among health professionals caring for COVID-19 patients in four Latin American Spanish-speaking countries during the outbreak. A cross-sectional study involved a non-probability sample of healthcare professionals in four Latin American countries. Participants from each country were invited using a platform and mobile application designed for this study. Hospital and primary care workers from different services caring for COVID-19 patients were included. The EASE Scale (SARS-CoV-2 Emotional Overload Scale, in Spanish named Escala Auto-aplicada de Sobrecarga Emocional) was a previously validated measure of acute stress. EASE scores were described overall by age, sex, work area, and experience of being ill with COVID-19. Using the Mann–Whitney U test, the EASE scores were compared according to the most critical moments of the pandemic. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to investigate associations between these factors and the outcome ‘acute stress’. Finally, the Kruskal–Wallis was used to compare EASE scores and the experience of being ill. A total of 1372 professionals responded to all the items in the EASE scale: 375 (27.3%) Argentines, 365 (26.6%) Colombians, 345 (25.1%) Chileans, 209 (15.2%) Ecuadorians, and 78 (5.7%) from other countries. 27% of providers suffered middle-higher acute stress due to the outbreak. Worse results were observed in moments of peak incidence of cases (14.3 ± 5.3 vs. 6.9 ± 1.7, p < 0.05). Higher scores were found in professionals in COVID-19 critical care (13 ± 1.2) than those in non-COVID-19 areas (10.7 ± 1.9) (p = 0.03). Distress was higher among professionals who were COVID-19 patients (11.7 ± 1) or had doubts about their potential infection (12 ± 1.2) compared to those not infected (9.5 ± 0.7) (p = 0.001). Around one-third of the professionals experienced acute stress, increasing in intensity as the incidence of COVID-19 increased and as they became infected or in doubt whether they were infected. EASE scale could be a valuable asset for monitoring acute stress levels among health professionals in Latin America.

ClinicalTrials: NCT04486404.

Sources of psychological distress among primary care physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave in Spain: a cross-sectional study

Background:

The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting people worldwide. In Spain, the first wave was especially severe.

Objectives:

This study aimed to identify sources and levels of distress among Spanish primary care physicians (PCPs) during the first wave of the pandemic (April 2020).

Methods:

A cross-sectional study was conducted using a survey that included sociodemographic data, a description of working conditions related to distress [such as gaps in training in protective measures, cleaning, and hygiene procedures in work setting, unavailability of personal protective equipments (PPEs) and COVID-19 RT-PCR test, and lack of staff due to be infected] and a validated scale, the ‘Self-applied Acute Stress Scale’ (EASE). The survey was answered by a non-probability sampling of PCPs working in family healthcare centres from different regions of Spain. Analysis of variance and multivariate linear regression analysis were performed.

Results:

In all, out of 518 PCP participants, 123 (23.7%) obtained high psychological distress scores. Only half of them had received information about the appropriate use of PPE. PCP characteristics associated with higher levels of distress include female gender [1.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54, 2.84]; lack of training in protective measures (1.96; 95% CI 0.94, 2.99); unavailable COVID-19 RT-PCR for health care workers after quarantine or COVID-19 treatment (−0.77 (−1.52, −0.02). Reinforcing disinfection of the work environment (P < 0.05), availability of PPEs (P < 0.05), and no healthcare professional was infected (P < 0.05) were related to the lowest distress score.

Conclusions:

A better understanding of the sources of distress among PCPs could prevent its effect on future outbreaks.

Risk Factors of Psychological Responses of Chinese University Students During the COVID-19 Outbreak: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey Study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a highly contagious and highly pathogenic disease caused by a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, and it has become a pandemic. As a vulnerable population, university students are at high risk during the epidemic, as they have high mobility and often overlook the severity of the disease because they receive incomplete information about the epidemic. In addition to the risk of death from infection, the epidemic has placed substantial psychological pressure on the public. In this respect, university students are more prone to psychological problems induced by the epidemic compared to the general population because for most students, university life is their first time outside the structure of the family, and their mental development is still immature. Internal and external expectations and academic stress lead to excessive pressure on students, and unhealthy lifestyles also deteriorate their mental health. The outbreak of COVID-19 was a significant social event, and it could potentially have a great impact on the life and the mental health of university students. Therefore, it is of importance to investigate university students' mental health status during the outbreak of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

The principal objective of this study was to investigate the influencing factors of the psychological responses of Chinese university students during the COVID-19 outbreak.

METHODS

This study used data from a survey conducted in China between February 21 and 24, 2020, and the data set contains demographic information and psychological measures including the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, the Self-Rating Depression Scale, and the compulsive behaviors portion of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale. A total of 2284 questionnaires were returned, and 2270 of them were valid and were used for analysis. The Mann-Whitney U test for two independent samples and binary logistic regression models were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Our study surveyed 563 medical students and 1707 nonmedical students. Among them, 251/2270 students (11.06%) had mental health issues. The results showed that contact history of similar infectious disease (odds ratio [OR] 3.363, P=.02), past medical history (OR 3.282, P<.001), and compulsive behaviors (OR 3.525, P<.001) contributed to the risk of mental health issues. Older students (OR 0.928, P=.02), regular daily life during the epidemic outbreak (OR 0.410, P<.001), exercise during the epidemic outbreak (OR 0.456, P<.001), and concern related to COVID-19 (OR 0.638, P=.002) were protective factors for mental health issues.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the study results, mental health issues have seriously affected university students, and our results are beneficial for identifying groups of university students who are at risk for possible mental health issues so that universities and families can prevent or intervene in the development of potential mental health issues at the early stage of their development.