Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection among COVID-19 Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Healthcare Personnel, First Responders, and other Essential and Frontline Workers--- Eight U.S. Locations, January--September 2021

Background. We sought to evaluate the impact of changes in estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness on the incidence of laboratory-confirmed infection among frontline workers at high risk for SARS-CoV-2. Methods. We analyzed data from a prospective frontline worker cohort to estimate the incidence of COVID-19 by month as well as the association of COVID-19 vaccination, occupation, demographics, physical distancing and mask use with infection risk. Participants completed baseline and quarterly surveys, and each week self-collected mid-turbinate nasal swabs and reported symptoms. Results. Among 1,018 unvaccinated and 3,531 fully vaccinated workers, the monthly incidence of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in January 2021 was 13.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.4-17.4), declining to 0.5 (95% CI -0.4-1.4) per 1000 person-weeks in June. By September 2021, when the Delta variant predominated, incidence had once again risen to 13.6 (95% CI 7.8-19.4) per 1000 person-weeks. In contrast, there was no reportable incidence among fully vaccinated participants at the end of January 2021, and incidence remained low until September 2021 when it rose modestly to 4.1 (95% CI 1.9-3.8) per 1000. Below average facemask use was associated with a higher risk of infection for unvaccinated participants during exposure to persons who may have COVID-19, and vaccinated participants during hours in the community. Conclusions. COVID-19 vaccination was significantly associated with a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection despite Delta variant predominance. Our data demonstrate the added protective benefit of facemask use among both unvaccinated and vaccinated frontline workers.

Suicide ideation in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction Many Canadians report decreased mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, and concerns have been raised about possible increases in suicide. This study investigates the pandemic’s potential impact on adults’ suicide ideation. Methods We compared self-reported suicide ideation in 2020 versus 2019 by analyzing data from the Survey on COVID-19 and Mental Health (11 September to 4 December 2020) and the 2019 Canadian Community Health Survey. Logistic regression was conducted to determine which populations were at higher risk of suicide ideation during the pandemic. Results The percentage of adults reporting suicide ideation since the pandemic began (2.44%) was not significantly different from the percentage reporting suicide ideation in the past 12 months in 2019 (2.73%). Significant differences in the prevalence of recent suicide ideation in 2020 versus 2019 also tended to be absent in the numerous sociodemographic groups we examined. Risk factors of reporting suicide ideation during the pandemic included being under 65 years, Canadian-born or a frontline worker; reporting pandemic-related income/job loss or loneliness/isolation; experiencing a lifetime highly stressful/traumatic event; and having lower household income and educational attainment. Conclusion Evidence of changes in suicide ideation due to the pandemic were generally not observed in this research. Continued surveillance of suicide and risk/protective factors is needed to inform suicide prevention efforts.

Bonding through the mask

The appearance of healthcare professionals and their interaction with patients has always been the scaffolding of the relationship between the caregiver and patient. The Covid-19 pandemic has challenged this with its need for masking and distancing. The duty bound frontline worker in the midst of the personal crisis brought about by this pandemic has undergone hitherto unknown experiences described here.

Fear of COVID-19 and COVID-19 Stress and Association with Sociodemographic and Psychological Process Factors in Cases under Surveillance in a Frontline Worker Population in Borneo

COVID-19 stress and fear of COVID-19 is an increasingly researched construct in the general population. However, its prevalence and association with sociodemographic factors and psychological process variables has not been explored in frontline workers under surveillance in a Bornean population. This study was a cross-sectional study using a sociodemographic questionnaire incorporating two specific epidemiological risk variables, namely specific questions about COVID-19 surveillance status (persons under investigation (PUI), persons under surveillance (PUS), and positive cases) and the nature of frontline worker status. Furthermore, five other instruments were used, with three measuring psychopathology (namely depression, anxiety and stress, fear of COVID-19, and stress due to COVID-19) and two psychological process variables (namely psychological flexibility and mindfulness). Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests were performed to assess if there were significant differences in psychopathology and psychological process variables between sociodemographic and epidemiological risk variables. Hierarchical multiple regression was further performed, with depression, anxiety, and stress as dependent variables. There were significant differences in the fear of COVID-19 between positive cases, PUI, and PUS. The fear of COVID-19 scores were higher in positive cases compared to in PUS and PUI groups. Upon hierarchical multiple regression, mindfulness and psychological flexibility were significant predictors of depression, anxiety, and stress after controlling for sociodemographic and epidemiological risk factors. This study demonstrates that exposure to COVID-19 as persons under investigation or surveillance significantly increases the fear of COVID-19, and brief psychological interventions that can positively influence mindfulness and psychological flexibility should be prioritized for these at-risk groups to prevent undue psychological morbidity in the long run.

Development and psychometric testing of the FLW-MSC scale for measuring frontline worker multisectoral collaboration in rural India

ObjectivesMultisectoral collaboration (MSC) is widely recognised as a critical aspect of policies, programmes and interventions addressing complex public health issues, yet it is undertheorised and difficult to measure. Limited understanding of the intermediate steps linking MSC formation to intended health outcomes leaves a substantial knowledge gap about the types of strategies that may be most effective in making such collaborations successful. This paper, which reports the quantitative strand of a broader mixed-methods study, takes a step toward filling in this ‘missing middle’ of MSC evaluation by developing and testing the FLW-MSC scale, an instrument to assess collaboration among the frontline workers of one of India’s largest and most widely known MSCs: the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme.DesignThis study involved development, field-testing and psychometric testing of an 18-item, Likert-type frontline worker collaboration scale, including internal consistency, construct validity and criterion validity.SettingVillage-level primary healthcare in rural Uttar Pradesh, India.Participants281 anganwadi workers, 266 accredited social health activists and 124 auxiliary nurse midwives selected based on random sampling of anganwadi catchment areas from 346 gram panchayats (GPs), including 173 intervention GPs and 173 pair-matched control GPs from a parent evaluation study.ResultsResults support the scale’s internal consistency (ordinal α=0.92–0.95), construct validity (reasonable exploratory factor analysis model fit for five of the six dyadic relationships Tucker-Lewis Index=0.84–0.88; Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation=0.09–0.11), and criterion validity (regression of collaboration score on an information-sharing indicator β=3.528; p=0.006).ConclusionsThe scale may be useful for ICDS managers to detect and address poor collaboration as the Indian government redoubles its efforts to strengthen and monitor MSC, or ‘convergence’, with important implications for the critical priority of child development. Further, the FLW-MSC scale may be adapted for measuring frontline worker collaboration across sectors in many other scenarios and low/middle-income country contexts.

Mental Health Outcomes Amongst Health Care Workers During COVID 19 Pandemic in Saudi Arabia

Objectives: The study aimed to assess the mental health outcomes and associated factors among health care workers during COVID 19 in Saudi Arabia.Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of health care workers from tertiary care and ministry of health Centers across the Central, Eastern, and Western regions of Saudi Arabia. There were 1,130 participants in the survey, and we collected demographic and mental health measurements from the participants.Primary Outcomes and Measures: The magnitude of symptoms of depression, anxiety, and insomnia was measured using the original version of 9-item patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), the 7-item generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7), and 7-item insomnia severity index (ISI). We use the multiple logistic regression analysis to identify the associated risk factors of individual outcomes.Results: The scores on the PHQ-9 showed that the largest proportion of health care workers (76.93%) experienced only normal to mild depression (50.83 and 26.1%, respectively). The scores on the GAD-7 showed that the largest proportion of health care workers (78.88%) experienced minimal to mild anxiety (50.41 and 28.47%, respectively). The scores on the ISI showed that the largest proportion of health care workers (85.83%) experienced absence to subthreshold insomnia (57.08 and 28.75%, respectively). The risk factors for depression in health care workers were Saudi, living with family, working from an isolated room at home and frontline worker. For anxiety, being female was risk factor and for insomnia, being frontline worker was risk factor.Conclusion: It was observed that the symptoms of depression, anxiety, and insomnia were reported in a lower proportion of health care workers in our study. The participants who were female, frontline workers, Saudi, living with family, and working from home in isolated rooms were predisposed to developing psychological disorders.

The psychological wellbeing of frontline workers in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic: First and second wave findings from the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study

Background: Extant research relating to the psychological impact of infectious respiratory disease epidemics/pandemics suggests that frontline workers are particularly vulnerable.Methods: The current study used data from the first two waves of the United Kingdom (UK) survey of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study to compare frontline workers with the rest of the UK population on prevalence estimates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD during the first week of ‘lockdown’ (Wave 1) and one month later (Wave 2).Results: Compared to the rest of the population, frontline workers generally, and individual frontline worker groups, had significantly higher prevalence estimates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD during both wave 1 and wave 2. While prevalence estimates of depression significantly increased among Local & National Government Workers from Wave 1 (15.4%) to Wave 2 (38.5%), no significant improvement or deterioration in mental health status was recorded for any other frontline worker group. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis showed that, beyond other risk factors, food workers were nearly twice as likely as others to screen positive for anxiety, while all frontline worker groups, other than transport workers, were significantly more likely to screen positive for PTSD (Odds Ratios ranged from 1.74 – 3.43). Finally, while frontline workers, generally, were significantly more likely than the general public to have received mental health advice during the pandemic (26.9% versus 20.3% respectively), this was largely reflective of health and social care workers (37.9%).Conclusions: These findings offer timely and valuable information on the psychological health status of UK’s frontline workforce during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and may aid in preparations for their future psychological and mental health support.