scholarly journals Prevalence and correlates of psychological distress amongst healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olamiji A. Badru ◽  
Kehinde O. Oloko ◽  
Abdulwasiu O. Hassan ◽  
Oyindamola B. Yusuf ◽  
Umar A. Abdur-Razaq ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
General Health Questionnaire ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Poor Knowledge ◽  
Reduced Risk

Background: Understanding the mental health needs of healthcare workers during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with a view of mitigating its impact on occupational functioning is vital.Aim: To determine the prevalence and correlates of psychological distress amongst healthcare workers.Setting: The study was carried out in Nigeria during COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: A cross-sectional quantitative study using a convenience sample was conducted amongst healthcare workers. The survey comprised of two Google formatted self-report questionnaires, a 12-item General Health Questionnaire and a questionnaire containing socio-demographic, work related and knowledge of COVID-19 variables. Questionnaires were distributed via closed professional WhatsApp platforms. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square test and logistic regression.Results: There were 313 respondents and prevalence of psychological distress was 47.0%. Females were almost twice as likely to have psychological distress as males (OR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.21–3.04, p = 0.006). Healthcare workers who had no contact with COVID-19 positive patients had an 87% reduced risk of psychological distress (OR = 0.13, 95%CI: 0.23–0.25, p = 0.018) compared with those who had contact with COVID-19 positive patients. Healthcare workers with poor knowledge of COVID-19 had a 44% reduced risk of psychological distress compared with those with good knowledge (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34–0.93, p = 0.025).Conclusion: Findings revealed that healthcare workers in Nigeria reported psychological distress during COVID-19 pandemic. Greater risk was amongst females and those who had contact with COVID-19 positive patients whilst poor knowledge was protective.

scholarly journals Risk perception and psychological state of healthcare workers in referral hospitals during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, Uganda

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Migisha ◽  
Alex Riolexus Ario ◽  
Benon Kwesiga ◽  
Lilian Bulage ◽  
Daniel Kadobera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Risk Perception ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
General Health Questionnaire ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Psychological State ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Referral Hospitals

Abstract Background Safeguarding the psychological well-being of healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial to ensuring sustainability and quality of healthcare services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, HCWs may be subject to excessive mental stress. We assessed the risk perception and immediate psychological state of HCWs early in the pandemic in referral hospitals involved in the management of COVID-19 patients in Uganda. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey in five referral hospitals from April 20–May 22, 2020. During this time, we distributed paper-based, self-administered questionnaires to all consenting HCWs on day shifts. The questionnaire included questions on socio-demographics, occupational behaviors, potential perceived risks, and psychological distress. We assessed risk perception towards COVID-19 using 27 concern statements with a four-point Likert scale. We defined psychological distress as a total score > 12 from the 12-item Goldberg’s General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). We used modified Poisson regression to identify factors associated with psychological distress. Results Among 335 HCWs who received questionnaires, 328 (98%) responded. Respondents’ mean age was 36 (range 18–59) years; 172 (52%) were male. The median duration of professional experience was eight (range 1–35) years; 208 (63%) worked more than 40 h per week; 116 (35%) were nurses, 52 (14%) doctors, 30 (9%) clinical officers, and 86 (26%) support staff. One hundred and forty-four (44%) had a GHQ-12 score > 12. The most common concerns reported included fear of infection at the workplace (81%), stigma from colleagues (79%), lack of workplace support (63%), and inadequate availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) (56%). In multivariable analysis, moderate (adjusted prevalence ratio, [aPR] = 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2–4.0) and high (aPR = 3.8, 95% CI 2.0–7.0) risk perception towards COVID-19 (compared with low-risk perception) were associated with psychological distress. Conclusions Forty-four percent of HCWs surveyed in hospitals treating COVID-19 patients during the early COVID-19 epidemic in Uganda reported psychological distress related to fear of infection, stigma, and inadequate PPE. Higher perceived personal risk towards COVID-19 was associated with increased psychological distress. To optimize patient care during the pandemic and future outbreaks, workplace management may consider identifying and addressing HCW concerns, ensuring sufficient PPE and training, and reducing infection-associated stigma.

scholarly journals Protecting the front line: a cross-sectional survey analysis of the occupational factors contributing to healthcare workers’ infection and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e042752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsion Firew ◽  
Ellen D Sano ◽  
Jonathan W Lee ◽  
Stefan Flores ◽  
Kendrick Lang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Anxiety Symptoms ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Burn Out ◽  
The Usa

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with significant occupational stressors and challenges for front-line healthcare workers (HCWs), including COVID-19 exposure risk. Our study sought to assess factors contributing to HCW infection and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA.DesignWe conducted a cross sectional survey of HCWs (physicians, nurses, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), non-clinical staff) during May 2020. Participants completed a 42-item survey assessing disease transmission risk (clinical role, work environment, availability of personal protective equipment) and mental health (anxiety, depression and burn-out).SettingThe questionnaire was disseminated over various social media platforms. 3083 respondents from 48 states, the District of Columbia and US territories accessed the survey.ParticipantsUsing a convenience sample of HCWs who worked during the pandemic, 3083 respondents accessed the survey and 2040 participants completed at least 80% of the survey.Primary outcomePrevalence of self-reported COVID-19 infection, in addition to burn-out, depression and anxiety symptoms.ResultsParticipants were largely from the Northeast and Southern USA, with attending physicians (31.12%), nurses (26.80%), EMTs (13.04%) with emergency medicine department (38.30%) being the most common department and specialty represented. Twenty-nine per cent of respondents met the criteria for being a probable case due to reported COVID-19 symptoms or a positive test. HCWs in the emergency department (31.64%) were more likely to contract COVID-19 compared with HCWs in the ICU (23.17%) and inpatient settings (25.53%). HCWs that contracted COVID-19 also reported higher levels of depressive symptoms (mean diff.=0.31; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.47), anxiety symptoms (mean diff.=0.34; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52) and burn-out (mean diff.=0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.71).ConclusionHCWs have experienced significant physical and psychological risk while working during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings highlight the urgent need for increased support for provider physical and mental health well-being.

Mothers’ Perceptions of the Influence of a Breastfeeding Support Group in Achieving Their Breastfeeding Goals

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-83
Author(s):  
JoAnne Silbert-Flagg ◽  
Deborah Busch ◽  
Joycelyne Absolu Bataille
Keyword(s):  
Support Groups ◽  
Support Group ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Breastfeeding Support ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Peer Support Group ◽  
Extended Duration ◽  
Duration Of Breastfeeding

ObjectiveThe study aims were to identify maternal perceptions about the influence of a hospital-based breastfeeding peer support group in addressing breastfeeding concerns, assisting them to achieve their breastfeeding goals, and providing additional benefits.MethodsA descriptive, cross-sectional, online survey was conducted with a convenience sample of women who attended a hospital's breastfeeding support group. Participants reported their breastfeeding concerns and breastfeeding goals prior to and after their attendance at the breastfeeding support group. Changes in reported breastfeeding concerns and breastfeeding goals were analyzed with chi-square statistics.ResultsAfter participating in the support group session, survey participants (N = 100) expressed less concern about latching (81%–66%), mother's milk production (77%–62%), breastfeeding while apart from infant (75%–65%), and all other reported breastfeeding concerns. Overall, participants reported the support group successfully addressed their concerns (92%, n = 89), provided adequate time for responses to their questions (87%, n = 87), and assisted them to achieve their breastfeeding goals (91%, n = 88). Over 90% of participants planned to exclusively breastfeed through 6 months.ConclusionHospital-based breastfeeding support groups can successfully address mothers’ key breastfeeding concerns and support extended duration of breastfeeding.

scholarly journals Reducing Objectification Could Tackle Stigma in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From China

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youli Chen ◽  
Jiahui Jin ◽  
Xiangyang Zhang ◽  
Qi Zhang ◽  
Weizhen Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Social Motives ◽  
Complex Issue ◽  
Categorization Theory ◽  
Related Stigma

Stigmatization associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is expected to be a complex issue and to extend into the later phases of the pandemic, which impairs social cohesion and relevant individuals' well-being. Identifying contributing factors and learning their roles in the stigmatization process may help tackle the problem. This study quantitatively assessed the severity of stigmatization against three different groups of people: people from major COVID-19 outbreak sites, those who had been quarantined, and healthcare workers; explored the factors associated with stigmatization within the frameworks of self-categorization theory and core social motives; and proposed solutions to resolve stigma. The cross-sectional online survey was carried out between April 21 and May 7, 2020, using a convenience sample, which yielded 1,388 valid responses. Employing data analysis methods like multivariate linear regression and moderation analysis, this study yields some main findings: (1) those from major COVID-19 outbreak sites received the highest level of stigma; (2) factors most closely associated with stigmatization, in descending order, are objectification and epidemic proximity in an autonomic aspect and fear of contracting COVID-19 in a controllable aspect; and (3) superordinate categorization is a buffering moderator in objectification–stigmatization relationship. These findings are important for further understanding COVID-19-related stigma, and they can be utilized to develop strategies to fight against relevant discrimination and bias. Specifically, reinforcing superordinate categorization by cultivating common in-group identity, such as volunteering and donating for containment of the pandemic, could reduce objectification and, thus, alleviate stigma.

Comparison of the psychological health of students at the higher institutes of nursing and health techniques: A Moroccan multicentre study

2021 ◽  
pp. 002076402110621
Author(s):  
Ali Ikrou ◽  
Sam Gnanapragasam ◽  
Redouane Abouqal ◽  
Jihane Belayachi
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Academic Success ◽  
Nursing Students ◽  
Psychological Health ◽  
General Health Questionnaire ◽  
Female Gender ◽  
Sociodemographic Factors ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Convenience Sample

Background: Mental health is essential to students’ academic success as well as their ability to participate fully and meaningfully throughout all aspects of their lives and throughout their lifespan. Aims: This study aims to determine the psychological health status of Moroccan nursing and technique health students. In doing so, it also seeks to compare differences based on sociodemographic factors. Method: A multicenter cross-sectional study with a convenience sample was conducted with 2,054 participants in the academic year of 2018/2019. A set of socio-demographic information were collected, and The General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) was used. Results: The mean GHQ-12 score was 4.33 ± 2.61, and 58.7% respondents scored 4 and above in the GHQ-12 scores and thus were considered to be in psychological distress. Students’ psychological distress was associated with female gender (60.4% for female compared to 52.4% for men, p = .003); living in parental residence (61.6% compared to 54.7% living away parental residence; p = .02 ), the second and the third training level year respectively (64.6%; 59.2%) compared to first-year (55.2%, p = .001), and midwifery and nursing students (61.6%; 60.3%) as compared to technique health students (43.6%, p = .001). Conclusions: It appears that a substantial number of students have psychological distress and this is likely to have negative effects on students’ educational attainment and wider wellbeing.

scholarly journals Quick Identification of the Risk of Psychosis: The Italian Version of the Prodromal Questionnaire-Brief

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Preti ◽  
Andrea Raballo ◽  
Georgios D. Kotzalidis ◽  
Rosanna Scanu ◽  
Tamara Muratore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
General Health Questionnaire ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Italian Version ◽  
Prodromal Phase ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Schizotypal Personality ◽  
Convergent And Divergent Validity

Background:Diagnosing people during the prodromal phase of an incipient psychosis can improve the chance of better outcome. In busy clinical settings, the ideal tool is a brief, easy-to-complete self-report questionnaire.Objective:To test the psychometric properties of the Italian version of one of the most used screening tools for the identification of the risk of psychosis, the Prodromal Questionnaire-Brief (PQ-B).Methods:Cross-sectional design. A convenience sample of college students was enrolledviasnowball procedure (n=243; men: 45%). After understanding and signing the consent form, the participants received a booklet containing the following questionnaires: the 21-item Prodromal Questionnaire-Brief (PQ-B); the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), and the 74-item Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to assess the capacity of the PQ-B to identify individuals at risk of psychosis as independently defined based on the combination of GHQ-12 and SPQ thresholds.Results:The Italian version of the PQ-B revealed good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and adequate convergent and divergent validity. The Youden method retrieved a cut-off = 7 for the PQ-B frequency score and a cut-off = 22 for the PQ-B distress score. Both PQ-B scores had a perfect (99%) negative predictive value.Conclusion:The PQ-B is a promising screening tool in two-stage protocols. The major advantage of the PQ-B is to exclude cases that are unlikely to be at risk of psychosis.

scholarly journals A gender comparison of the psychological distress of medical students in Nigeria during the Coronavirus pandemic: A cross-sectional survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oluwaseun Mercy Idowu ◽  
OyinOluwa Gloria Adaramola ◽  
Boluwatife Samson Aderounmu ◽  
Ifeoluwa Delight Olugbamigbe ◽  
Olaoluwa Ezekiel Dada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Gender Differences ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
General Health Questionnaire ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional

AbstractBackgroundThe Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic as a large scale stressor could have negative distress on the mental health on medical students. Since gender differences in mental health may exist between males and females, it would prove interesting to see if a large scale stressor such as the pandemic will cause variances in the psychological distress between both genders.This study assessed and compared the psychological distress of COVID-19 among male and female medical students in medical schools in South-Western NigeriaMaterials and methodsA cross-sectional online survey using was carried out among 1010 medical students from three largest universities in south western Nigeria during the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondents were purposively selected, data was obtained on participants demographic and psychological distress was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire 12 (GHQ-12). Data was analyzed using the SPSS version 21 statistical software, chi square was used to assess gender differences, multivariate regression analysis assessed the predictors of psychological distress among both gendersand p values less than 0.05 were considered significant.ResultsFemale medical students are at a higher risk of psychological distress compared to their male counterparts (p<0.005). Females were almost twice at risk of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic than males (OR=1.534, 95% p=0.003). Females with a positive history of mental illness were five times more at risk of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to females with no previous mental health history (OR=5.102, p=0.002)ConclusionFemales were at higher risk of psychological distress compared to male students. Gender specific interventions addressing psychological distress among medical students are recommended.

scholarly journals Psychological Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic and Related Variables: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Sample of Workers in a Spanish Tertiary Hospital

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 3608
Author(s):  
Mónica Leira-Sanmartín ◽  
Agustín Madoz-Gúrpide ◽  
Enriqueta Ochoa-Mangado ◽  
Ángela Ibáñez
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
General Health Questionnaire ◽  
Psychological Impact ◽  
Female Gender ◽  
Tertiary Hospital ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Frontline Workers ◽  
Assessment And Treatment

Introduction: We intend to objectify the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the workers of a tertiary hospital. Methods: All the workers were invited to an online survey. In total, 657 workers were recruited, including 536 healthcare workers (HCWs) and 121 non-healthcare workers (nHCWs). General Health Questionnaire-12 items (GHQ-12) was used as a screening tool. Sociodemographic data, working environmental conditions, and health behaviors were also analyzed. Results: inadequate sleep, poor nutritional and social interaction habits, misuse of psychotropics, female gender, COVID-19 clinical diagnosis, and losing a relative by COVID-19 were variables associated with higher probability of GHQ-12 positive screening. Significant differences between “frontline workers” and the rest were not found, nor was higher the probability of psychological distress in healthcare workers compared to non-healthcare workers. After 3 months from the peak of the pandemic, 63.6% of participants screening positive in GHQ-12 reported remaining “the same or worse.” Limitations: Causal inferences cannot be established. Retrieval and selection biases must be considered as the survey was not conducted during the peak of the outbreak. Conclusions: psychological impact of COVID-19 has been broad, heavy, and persistent in our institution. Proper assessment and treatment must be offered to all hospital workers.

Breastfeeding Without Nursing: “If Only I’d Known More about Exclusively Pumping before Giving Birth”

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona M. Jardine
Keyword(s):  
Human Milk ◽  
Infant Feeding ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
Descriptive Statistics ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Affective Outcomes ◽  
Related Information

Background: Human milk is understood to be the optimal nutrition for infants, yet many women struggle to nurse. Although exclusively pumping human milk can provide a solution, women may be unaware of this possibility and, thus, experience unnecessary frustration. Research aim: This study aimed to (a) determine the proportion of respondents who had heard of exclusive pumping prenatally; (b) describe sources that respondents turned to and/or received breastfeeding-related information from prenatally; (c) explore the ways in which respondents learned prenatally about exclusive pumping; (d) describe how useful respondents found various information sources when learning about exclusive pumping; and (e) describe the differences between respondents who first heard the term exclusive pumping prenatally versus postpartum. Methods: A cross-sectional, self-report, mixed-methods survey was administered online to a convenience sample of current and/or past exclusive pumpers ( N = 1,215). Descriptive statistics were produced (Research aims 1–4), and chi-square tests (Research aims 1, 2, and 5) and a Mann–Whitney U test (Research aim 5) were conducted, to identify trends and compare respondents. Results: Seventy-one percent ( n = 864) of respondents had not heard of exclusive pumping until after giving birth. Respondents reported that very few prenatal breastfeeding information sources mentioned or explained exclusive pumping. Women who had heard about exclusive pumping prior to giving birth ( n = 291, 24%) reported feeling more knowledgeable about how to exclusively pump and less frustrated, insecure, depressed, rejected, embarrassed, envious, burdened, guilty, and disappointed while exclusively pumping. Conclusion: For postpartum knowledge and affective outcomes to improve, prenatal infant feeding information and education must include information about exclusive pumping.

scholarly journals Psychological distress and its associated factors in health workers during COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal: An online survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-152
Author(s):  
Nirmala Shrestha ◽  
Nisha Gurung ◽  
Sanju Banstola ◽  
Saurabh Kishor Sah ◽  
Sharad Koirala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Associated Factors ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Health Workers ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Psychological Distress Scale ◽  
Distress Scale

Introduction: Psychological distress among healthcare workers amidst COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a serious health problem. Understanding its magnitude is crucial to guide policies and interventions to improve their psychological wellbeing. This study assessed the psychological distress and its associated factors among health care workers in Nepal during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was carried out among 427 health workers currently working in Nepal from April 25 to June 10, 2020. Psychological distress was measured using “The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale” (K10). Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics were computed at a 5% level of significance. Ethical approval was taken from Nepal Health Research Council. Results: A total of 427 healthcare workers participated in the study. Out of the total participants, 50.4% were males. Nearly half of the participants were medical doctors (48%) followed by nurses (22.2%), health assistants (12.2%) and 61% were non-government employees. The healthcare workers who experienced symptoms of psychological distress were 28.9%. Out of 123 respondents who had symptoms of psychological distress, 19% had mild, 7.3% had moderate and 2.6% had severe psychological distress. Female healthcare workers were more likely to have psychological distress than males [AOR: 1.75, CI: 1.05-2.92]. Conclusions: Psychological distress in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic is a matter of serious health concern. This issue demands urgent comprehensive intervention embracing the provision of a supportive environment and protective equipment, screening psychological outcomes and psychological counseling especially targeting female healthcare workers.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document