Health-related factors of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic among non-health workers in Spain.
COVID-19
Mental health
Non-health workers
Pandemic
Psychological distress
Public health
Quarantine
Workers
Journal
Safety science
ISSN: 0925-7535
Titre abrégé: Saf Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9114980
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
05
08
2020
accepted:
07
09
2020
entrez:
21
9
2020
pubmed:
22
9
2020
medline:
22
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Non-health workers engaged in essential activities during the pandemic are less researched on the effects of COVID-19 than health workers. to study the differences between those who work away from home and those who do so from home, when the effects of fear of contagion cross with those of confinement, about the psychological distress during the COVID-19 in Spain. Observational descriptive cross-sectional study The study was carried out receiving 1089 questionnaires from non-health workers that were working away from home and doing so from their homes. The questionnaire included sociodemographic and occupational data, physical symptoms, self-perceived health, use of preventive measures and possible contacts, and the Goldberg GHQ-12. 71.6% of non-health female workers and 52.4% of non-health male workers had psychological distress, with differences among those working away from home and those working from home. The level of psychological distress among non-health workers is predicted by 66.5% through the variables: being a woman, 43 years old or younger, having a home with no outdoor spaces, poor perception of health, number of symptoms, and having been in contact with contaminated people or material. Among workers who work away from home, being self-employed is another predictive variable of distress More than the half of the sample showed inadequate management of the psychological distress. There are modifiable factors which provide necessary elements to support a positive attitude of the workers, such as: knowledge of hygiene, transmission of the virus, protective measures, and social distancing measures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Non-health workers engaged in essential activities during the pandemic are less researched on the effects of COVID-19 than health workers.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
to study the differences between those who work away from home and those who do so from home, when the effects of fear of contagion cross with those of confinement, about the psychological distress during the COVID-19 in Spain.
DESIGN
METHODS
Observational descriptive cross-sectional study
DATA SOURCES
METHODS
The study was carried out receiving 1089 questionnaires from non-health workers that were working away from home and doing so from their homes. The questionnaire included sociodemographic and occupational data, physical symptoms, self-perceived health, use of preventive measures and possible contacts, and the Goldberg GHQ-12.
RESULTS
RESULTS
71.6% of non-health female workers and 52.4% of non-health male workers had psychological distress, with differences among those working away from home and those working from home. The level of psychological distress among non-health workers is predicted by 66.5% through the variables: being a woman, 43 years old or younger, having a home with no outdoor spaces, poor perception of health, number of symptoms, and having been in contact with contaminated people or material. Among workers who work away from home, being self-employed is another predictive variable of distress
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
More than the half of the sample showed inadequate management of the psychological distress. There are modifiable factors which provide necessary elements to support a positive attitude of the workers, such as: knowledge of hygiene, transmission of the virus, protective measures, and social distancing measures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32952305
doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104996
pii: S0925-7535(20)30393-3
pmc: PMC7489927
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
104996Informations de copyright
© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Références
JAMA. 2020 Apr 7;323(13):1239-1242
pubmed: 32091533
Comput Human Behav. 2020 Sep;110:106380
pubmed: 32292239
Int J Occup Environ Health. 2015;21(4):328-32
pubmed: 26743788
Occup Med (Lond). 2020 Jul 17;70(5):300-305
pubmed: 32476022
J Couns Psychol. 2011 Jul;58(3):410-23
pubmed: 21574694
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):858-860
pubmed: 32166318
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jun;288:112958
pubmed: 32283450
Int J Epidemiol. 2001 Apr;30(2):326-33
pubmed: 11369738
Psychol Trauma. 2020 Jul;12(5):550-552
pubmed: 32538657
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 06;17(5):
pubmed: 32155789
Lancet. 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):912-920
pubmed: 32112714
Can J Psychiatry. 2009 May;54(5):302-11
pubmed: 19497162
Psychiatr Serv. 2020 Jul 1;71(7):749-752
pubmed: 32460683
Arch Prev Riesgos Labor. 2020 Apr 15;23(2):154-158
pubmed: 32320540
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jun 02;17(11):
pubmed: 32498401
Occup Med (Lond). 2020 Jun 20;70(4):278-281
pubmed: 32449770
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020 May 1;46(3):229-230
pubmed: 32356896
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1684-1685
pubmed: 32187461
Psychol Med. 1997 Jan;27(1):191-7
pubmed: 9122299
J Bus Res. 2020 Aug;116:193-198
pubmed: 32501305
Int J Health Serv. 2016;46(2):208-40
pubmed: 27076651
Occup Med (Lond). 2020 Jul 17;70(5):359-363
pubmed: 32406513
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Aug;54(16):949-959
pubmed: 32475821
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Jul;5(7):
pubmed: 32527733
Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2020 Jul 23;94:
pubmed: 32699204
Psychol Trauma. 2020 Aug;12(S1):S243-S244
pubmed: 32538661
Occup Environ Med. 2020 May;77(5):281-282
pubmed: 32238444
J Anxiety Disord. 2020 Apr;71:102211
pubmed: 32179380
Can J Psychiatry. 2007 Apr;52(4):233-40
pubmed: 17500304
Elife. 2020 Jun 15;9:
pubmed: 32538780
AIDS Behav. 2020 Jul;24(7):1977-1979
pubmed: 32399798
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Mar;8(3):e13
pubmed: 32061333