Correlations of resilience with coping strategies, and the underlying factors in the nurses working in COVID-19 hospitals

Emotions, coping and psychological flexibility in earthquake survivors: a cross-sectional study

Earthquakes may play a role in the development of several psychological distresses or psychopathologies. Nevertheless, protective factors such as positive emotions, psychological flexibility, and coping mechanisms may be helpful for earthquake survivors in coping. On the other hand, the role of both positive and negative emotions of earthquake survivors in psychological flexibility and coping remains elusive. Accordingly, this study aimed to examine the relationship between emotions, coping, and psychological flexibility levels of earthquake survivors considering positive and negative emotions together. A total of 330 adult participants of the cross-sectional study completed the Participant Information Form, Perceived Ability to Cope with Trauma (PACT), Psychological Flexibility (PF), and Positive-Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) scales. Participants were aged between 20 and 68 years (Mean ± SD = 42.42 + 12.88). It was determined that as the PACT levels increased, the PF and negative emotion levels increased yet positive emotion levels decreased. As the PF levels increased, the negative emotion levels increased yet the positive emotion levels decreased (p < 0.01). According to the established model, it was concluded that the PACT was related to positive-negative emotion levels and values, being in the moment, and dissociation sub-dimensions of PF were unrelated to contextual self and acceptance (p > 0.05). In conclusion, positive-negative emotions and PF were found to have a mediating role in the coping of earthquake survivors. Mental health professionals may contribute to increasing PACT in earthquake survivors through interventions aimed at maintaining positive emotions, recognizing negative emotions, and increasing PF.

Comparison of infection severity of vaccinated and unvaccinated health workers with Corona Virus: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Hospital staff members are most susceptible to the COVID-19 illness, which is currently prevented through vaccination. Hospital staff members also refuse vaccinations, albeit the underlying causes have not been identified. The study aimed to compare the severity of the symptoms of the disease on the body for health workers who took the coronavirus vaccine and those who did not take the vaccine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cohort study aimed to estimate the of infection severity of vaccinated and unvaccinated health workers with Corona Virus in Mosul Hospital, Iraq. Data were obtained from the General Mosul Hospital, Nineveh, Iraq. The first of the three components of this questionnaire outlined the demographic characteristics. Second part: First group of unvaccinated Health care workers included those who had not received the COVID-19 immunization or had only gotten one dose of the vaccine; the second group included those who had received their first dose of Corona vaccine and the third group included those who had received two doses of Corona Vaccine. HCWs who got corona vaccine were included in the three-dose final group.

RESULTS

The study's findings indicate that as compared to the corona vaccination, the vaccinated experienced less severe infection symptoms and fewer dosage stays. The high share of healthcare workers among the 20- to 30-year-olds who received vaccinations accounts for the gender gap between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

CONCLUSION

This study concluded that the results of the corona vaccine are not consistent among the various groups of HCWs. The acceptability of vaccinations is practically unanimous among nurses, but less so among doctors and other healthcare professionals.

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the infection prevention and control field: Findings from focus groups conducted with association for professionals in infection control & epidemiology (APIC) members in fall 2021

INTRODUCTION

Emergence of the Delta variant in 2021 changed the pandemic landscape and led to healthcare surges across the US, despite availability of COVID-19 vaccine. Anecdotal information indicated that the infection prevention and control (IPC) field was changing, but formal assessment was needed.

METHODS

Focus groups (6) were conducted with APIC members in November and December, 2021 to elicit infection preventionists' (IP) opinions changes to the IPC field due to the pandemic. Focus groups were audio recorded via Zoom and transcribed. Content analysis was used to identify major themes.

RESULTS

Ninety IPs participated. IPs described multiple changes to the IPC field during the pandemic, including being more involved in policy development, the challenge of transitioning back to routine IPC while still responding to COVID-19, increased need for IPs across practice settings, difficulties in recruiting and retaining IPs, presenteeism in healthcare, and extensive burnout. Participants suggested approaches to improve IPs' wellbeing.

CONCLUSIONS

The ongoing pandemic has brought significant changes to the IPC field, including a shortage of IPs just as the field is expanding rapidly. The continued overwhelming workload and stress due to the pandemic has resulted in burnout among IPs and the need for initiatives to improve their wellbeing.