Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Out-of-Hospital Health Professionals: A Living Systematic Review

Impact of the COVID-19-pandemic and perception of self-efficacy on the mental health of out-of-hospital emergency healthcare professionals by modality of care

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the perception of self-efficacy on the health professionals of the Spanish out-of-hospital emergency services.

DESIGN

Observational, cross-sectional and descriptive with a survey methodology of 1710 participants from Spain (1 February-30 April, 2021).

METHODS

The mental health of healthcare workers was assesed in terms of stress, anxiety and depression, as well as their self-efficacy. Linear and logistic regression models were fitted to predict these variables. A moderation analysis was conducted to determine the effect of self-efficacy on mental health.

RESULTS

The means of the sample for stress, anxiety, depression and self-efficacy were 20.60, 15.74, 13.07 and 70.87, respectively. In the regression models, being a woman was the most significant factor for severe mental health impairment. Female gender was also a relevant factor for self-efficacy. Self-efficacy had a direct effect on the mental health for working in patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare workers showed moderate stress, severe anxiety, mild depression and good self-efficacy. Direct patient care was associated with more stress and severe anxiety. Age, female gender, job changes and job adjustment were associated with levels of stress, anxiety and depression. Self-efficacy is a determining factor of mental health in the direct care modality.

IMPLICATIONS

The mental health of healthcare workers has been of great importance in the aftermath of the pandemic, but out-of-hospital emergency workers have been neglected in research. The levels of stress, anxiety and depression during the pandemic justify the creation of prevention and early diagnosis programmes, as they are essential in a health disaster. Surprisingly, their high level of perceived self-efficacy directly impact on the mental health of patient helthcare workers, so improving it will reduce the psychological risk.

REPORTING METHOD

We have followed the STROBE guidelines. It has been partially funded by the Asistencia Sanitanitaria Interprovincial de Seguros - ASISA Foundation (Spain). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: 'No patient or public involvement'.

Experiences of Spanish out-of-hospital emergency workers with high levels of depression during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic had a major psychological impact on health care workers (HCWs). This study was embedded in a larger quantitative study on the mental health care of out-of-hospital HCWs in Spain. To better understand this, a qualitative study was conducted to explore the experiences, coping strategies, and influencing factors of out-of-hospital HCWs who scored high (> 25 points) on the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21) in a previous quantitative mental health study.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted using six in-depth interviews with individuals who scored high on the depression scale and agreed to be contacted by email between May and June 2021, using the phenomenological approach. The data were analysed using Brawn and Clare's method.

RESULTS

The main results findings related to four themes. The emotional impact of assuming a professional role with high self-demands and responsibilities; Factors influencing the development of negative emotions such as the cruelty of the pandemic, the helplessness in relation to health management and policy, the changing role of the professional and the relationship with society; Personal protection through coping strategies to manage negative emotions such as support from colleagues and family; Good practices for the future looking for different management strategies that can influence individuals and their personal, professional, and social relationships.

CONCLUSION

The strong impact of the circumstances experienced points to the need to develop psychological support programmes that can protect people's mental health from depression during a crisis and improve the relationship between workers and their managers.

Exploring Disparities in Self-Reported Mental Health Symptoms Across Professional Categories in Spain's Emergency Medical Services: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze stress, anxiety, depression, and self-efficacy levels among Spanish out-of-hospital emergency medical professionals from February 1, 2021, to April 30, 2021.

METHODS

A nationwide survey was completed by 1666 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) workers. The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) were used. Data analysis used chi-squared, análisis of variance (ANOVA), and logistic regressions.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 833 (50%) men, with an average age of 44.3 ± 9.9 y (range: 19-67 y). Occupational distribution included 453 (27.2%) physicians, 474 (28.4%) nurses, and 739 (44.4%) emergency medical technicians (EMTs). EMTs exhibited higher odds of severe or extremely severe depression compared with physicians (odds ratio [OR]: 1.569; 95% confidenceinterval [95% CI]: 1.213-2.030) and nurses (OR: 1.561; 95% CI: 1.211-2.012). EMTs also displayed higher probabilities of severe or extremely severe anxiety compared with nurses (OR: 1.944; 95% CI: 1.529-2.701). Furthermore, EMTs demonstrated elevated probabilities of severe or extremely severe stress compared with physicians (OR: 1.387; 95% CI: 1.088-1.770). However, no significant differences were found in self-efficacy, with a median value of 73 [20].

CONCLUSIONS

Out-of-hospital EMS workers experienced mental health challenges, showing varying levels of depression, stress, and anxiety across different occupational groups. EMTs were particularly affected.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A hidden pandemic? An umbrella review of global evidence on mental health in the time of COVID-19

Background

The mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic remain a public health concern. High quality synthesis of extensive global literature is needed to quantify this impact and identify factors associated with adverse outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a rigorous umbrella review with meta-review and present (a) pooled prevalence of probable depression, anxiety, stress, psychological distress, and post-traumatic stress, (b) standardised mean difference in probable depression and anxiety pre-versus-during the pandemic period, and (c) comprehensive narrative synthesis of factors associated with poorer outcomes. Databases searched included Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE dated to March 2022. Eligibility criteria included systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, published post-November 2019, reporting data in English on mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Findings

Three hundred and thirty-eight systematic reviews were included, 158 of which incorporated meta-analyses. Meta-review prevalence of anxiety symptoms ranged from 24.4% (95%CI: 18–31%, I2: 99.98%) for general populations to 41.1% (95%CI: 23–61%, I2: 99.65%) in vulnerable populations. Prevalence of depressive symptoms ranged from 22.9% (95%CI: 17–30%, I2: 99.99%) for general populations to 32.5% (95%CI: 17–52%, I2: 99.35) in vulnerable populations. Prevalence of stress, psychological distress and PTSD/PTSS symptoms were 39.1% (95%CI: 34–44%; I2: 99.91%), 44.2% (95%CI: 32–58%; I2: 99.95%), and 18.8% (95%CI: 15–23%; I2: 99.87%), respectively. Meta-review comparing pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 prevalence of probable depression and probable anxiety revealed standard mean differences of 0.20 (95%CI = 0.07–0.33) and 0.29 (95%CI = 0.12–0.45), respectively.

Conclusion

This is the first meta-review to synthesise the longitudinal mental health impacts of the pandemic. Findings show that probable depression and anxiety were significantly higher than pre-COVID-19, and provide some evidence that that adolescents, pregnant and postpartum people, and those hospitalised with COVID-19 experienced heightened adverse mental health. Policymakers can modify future pandemic responses accordingly to mitigate the impact of such measures on public mental health.

Influence of Previous Mental State on Psychological Outcomes of Spanish Out-of-Hospital Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic

This study aimed to describe factors relating to the psychological distress of healthcare workers (HCWs) in Spanish out-of-hospital emergency medical services (EMS), according to the previous or non-use of psychotropic drugs or psychotherapy. A multicentre, cross-sectional descriptive study was designed. The study population were all physicians, nurses, and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) working in any Spanish out-of-hospital EMS between February and April 2021. The main outcomes were the levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and self-efficacy, assessed by DASS-21 and G-SES. Differences in levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and self-efficacy, according to sex, age, previous use of psychotropic drug or psychotherapy, work experience, professional category, type of work, and modification of working conditions were measured using the Student's t-test for independent samples, one-way ANOVA, Pearson's correlation, or 2-factor analysis of covariance. A total of 1636 HCWs were included, of whom one in three had severe mental disorders because of the pandemic. The interaction of the previous or non-use of psychotropic drugs or psychotherapy with the rest of the factors considered did not modify the levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and self-efficacy. However, HCWs with a history of psychotropic drug or psychotherapy use had a more intense negative emotional response and lower self-efficacy, regardless of their sex, professional category, type of work, or change in the working conditions. These HCWs are considered particularly vulnerable to the development or recurrence of new disorders or other comorbidities; therefore, the implementation of monitoring and follow-up strategies should be a priority.

Comparison of the burnout among medical residents before and during the pandemic

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the level of burnout syndrome in medical residents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify potential risk factors.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted on medical residents from three different university hospitals in Turkey in March 2021, one year after the pandemic hit Turkey. Burnout is measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory which assesses three dimensions of it: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Collected data were combined and compared with data from a previous study which was held in the same hospitals in December 2019, three months before the pandemic.

RESULTS

412 medical residents from three universities participated. The mean age was 27.8 ± 2.4 and half of them were female. Compared to pre-pandemic levels, no significant differences in emotional exhaustion (pre:19.0 ± 7.6 post:18.8 ± 7.8), depersonalization (pre:7.3 ± 4.3 post:7.2 ± 4.4), and personal accomplishment (pre:20.8 ± 5.1 post:21.1 ± 5) scores were observed one year after pandemic. Adjusting for confounders, multiple linear regression models indicated that who are female, are in surgical specialty, have vulnerable cohabitant, and have more night shifts faces higher emotional exhaustion. Depersonalisation is higher among who spent more years in residency, have more night shifts, or COVID-19 outpatient duty. Females and those who have vulnerable cohabitant has lower levels of Personal Achievement.

CONCLUSION

This study does not support the hypothesis that pandemic increases the burnout levels. Yet it identifies a couple of pandemic related factors that are associated with burnout and confirming the association of several previously known factors.

Prevention and Epidemiological, Clinical, and Economic Issues of COVID-19: Far More Than a Respiratory Disease

The Journal of Clinical Medicine has published many papers on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and it is now clear that this is not simply a respiratory disease [...].

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress among first responders for medical emergencies during COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

The impact of COVID-19 on social support perception and stress of prehospital care providers

Background

This study seeks to explore the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on the social support perception and acute stress disorder of prehospital care providers (PCPs) in the province of Denizli.

Methods

This descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted between December 25, 2020 and January 25, 2021. Out of 510 ambulatory care staff constituting the study population, there were 287 PCPs (%56.2), including 13 physicians, 89 paramedics, 134 emergency medical technicians, and 51 individuals from other occupational groups (nurse, driver, cleaning staff, medical secretary) based at emergency health services. The data collection tools employed in the study include an introductory information form, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), and National Stressful Events Survey Acute Stress Disorder Short Scale (NSESSS), which was organized as an online questionnaire.

Results

We analyzed the data from 287 PCPs that completed the form and scales. The mean score of the NSESSS was calculated as 1.53 ± 0.79. The PCPs who experienced health problems (1.85 ± 0.69), suffered from mental problems and received psychotherapy and medication (2.57 ± 0.57), encountered COVID-19 patients (1.58 ± 0.8), provided care for COVID-19 patients (1.59 ± 0.79), and took polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests (1.68 ± 0.78) had higher acute stress symptom levels. The total mean score of MSPSS was calculated as 66.28 ± 17.22. Total MSPSS scores of the participants varied significantly in terms of age, marital status, taking a COVID-19 test, suffering from mental problems, status of encountering a COVID-19 patient, and workplace satisfaction (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The findings are suggestive of high perceptions of multidimensional social support and low acute stress symptom levels of the PCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Emergency Medical Services Prehospital Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US: A Brief Literature Review

This study aimed to analyze prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the US through a brief systematic review of available literature in context with international prehospital counterparts. An exploration of the NCBI repository was performed using a search string of relevant keywords which returned n=5128 results; articles that met the inclusion criteria (n=77) were reviewed and analyzed in accordance with PRISMA and PROSPERO recommendations. Methodical quality was assessed using critical appraisal tools, and the Egger’s test was used for risk of bias reduction upon linear regression analysis of a funnel plot. Sources of heterogeneity as defined by P < 0.10 or I^2 > 50% were interrogated. Findings were considered within ten domains: structural/systemic; clinical outcomes; clinical assessment; treatment; special populations; dispatch/activation; education; mental health; perspectives/experiences; and transport. Findings suggest, EMS clinicians have likely made significant and unmeasured contributions to care during the pandemic via nontraditional roles, ie, COVID-19 testing and vaccine deployment. EMS plays a critical role in counteracting the COVID-19 pandemic in addition to the worsening opioid epidemic, both of which disproportionately impact patients of color. As such, being uniquely influential on clinical outcomes, these providers may benefit from standardized education on care and access disparities such as racial identity. Access to distance learning continuing education opportunities may increase rates of provider recertification. Additionally, there is a high prevalence of vaccine hesitancy among surveyed nationally registered EMS providers. Continued rigorous investigation on the impact of COVID-19 on EMS systems and personnel is warranted to ensure informed preparation for future pandemic and infectious disease responses.

Influence of the Cumulative Incidence of COVID-19 Cases on the Mental Health of the Spanish Out-of-Hospital Professionals

This study aimed to analyze the psychological affectation of health professionals (HPs) of Spanish Emergency Medical Services (EMSs) according to the cumulative incidence (CI) of COVID-19 cases in the regions in which they worked. A cross-sectional descriptive study was designed, including all HPs working in any EMS of the Spanish geography between 1 February 2021 and 30 April 2021. Their level of stress, anxiety and depression (DASS-21) and the perception of self-efficacy (G-SES) were the study’s main results. A 2-factor analysis of covariance was used to determine if the CI regions of COVID-19 cases determined the psychological impact on each of the studied variables. A total of 1710 HPs were included. A third presented psychological impairment classified as severe. The interaction of CI regions with the studied variables did not influence their levels of stress, anxiety, depression or self-efficacy. Women, younger HPs or those with less EMS work experience, emergency medical technicians (EMT), workers who had to modify their working conditions or those who lived with minors or dependents suffered a greater impact from the COVID-19 pandemic in certain regions. These HPs have shown high levels of stress, anxiety, depression and medium levels of self-efficacy, with similar data in the different geographical areas. Psychological support is essential to mitigate their suffering and teach them to react to adverse events.