Mental health and well-being of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: contrasting guidelines with experiences in practice.
COVID-19
healthcare workers
qualitative research
rapid review
well-being
Journal
BJPsych open
ISSN: 2056-4724
Titre abrégé: BJPsych Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101667931
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Dec 2020
10 Dec 2020
Historique:
entrez:
10
12
2020
pubmed:
11
12
2020
medline:
11
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Substantial evidence has highlighted the importance of considering the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and several organisations have issued guidelines with recommendations. However, the definition of well-being and the evidence base behind such guidelines remain unclear. The aims of the study are to assess the applicability of well-being guidelines in practice, identify unaddressed healthcare workers' needs and provide recommendations for supporting front-line staff during the current and future pandemics. This paper discusses the findings of a qualitative study based on interviews with front-line healthcare workers in the UK (n = 33), and examines them in relation to a rapid review of well-being guidelines developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 14). The guidelines placed greater emphasis on individual mental health and psychological support, whereas healthcare workers placed greater emphasis on structural conditions at work, responsibilities outside the hospital and the invaluable support of the community. The well-being support interventions proposed in the guidelines did not always respond to the lived experiences of staff, as some reported not being able to participate in these interventions because of understaffing, exhaustion or clashing schedules. Healthcare workers expressed well-being needs that aligned with socio-ecological conceptualisations of well-being related to quality of life. This approach to well-being has been highlighted in literature on support of healthcare workers in previous health emergencies, but it has not been monitored during this pandemic. Well-being guidelines should explore the needs of healthcare workers, and contextual characteristics affecting the implementation of recommendations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Substantial evidence has highlighted the importance of considering the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and several organisations have issued guidelines with recommendations. However, the definition of well-being and the evidence base behind such guidelines remain unclear.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
The aims of the study are to assess the applicability of well-being guidelines in practice, identify unaddressed healthcare workers' needs and provide recommendations for supporting front-line staff during the current and future pandemics.
METHOD
METHODS
This paper discusses the findings of a qualitative study based on interviews with front-line healthcare workers in the UK (n = 33), and examines them in relation to a rapid review of well-being guidelines developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 14).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The guidelines placed greater emphasis on individual mental health and psychological support, whereas healthcare workers placed greater emphasis on structural conditions at work, responsibilities outside the hospital and the invaluable support of the community. The well-being support interventions proposed in the guidelines did not always respond to the lived experiences of staff, as some reported not being able to participate in these interventions because of understaffing, exhaustion or clashing schedules.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Healthcare workers expressed well-being needs that aligned with socio-ecological conceptualisations of well-being related to quality of life. This approach to well-being has been highlighted in literature on support of healthcare workers in previous health emergencies, but it has not been monitored during this pandemic. Well-being guidelines should explore the needs of healthcare workers, and contextual characteristics affecting the implementation of recommendations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33298229
doi: 10.1192/bjo.2020.148
pii: S2056472420001489
pmc: PMC7844154
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e15Subventions
Organisme : Marie Curie
ID : MCCC-FCH-18-U
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Marie Curie
ID : MCCC-FCO-11-U
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Dec;7(12):1009-1011
pubmed: 32891218
Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Jul;38(7):1530-1531
pubmed: 32336584
Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 20;38(3):192-195
pubmed: 32131151
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Jun;8(6):1781-1790.e3
pubmed: 32259628
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;184:141-7
pubmed: 23400146
Qual Health Res. 2020 Dec;30(14):2192-2204
pubmed: 32865149
BMJ. 2020 Mar 26;368:m1211
pubmed: 32217624
Soc Sci Med. 2008 Jul;67(2):218-27
pubmed: 18450348
J Ment Health. 2011 Aug;20(4):336-46
pubmed: 21770782
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 4;12(12):e0188418
pubmed: 29200422
BMJ. 2020 May 5;369:m1642
pubmed: 32371466
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
JAMA. 2020 Apr 21;323(15):1439-1440
pubmed: 32163102
J Soc Work Disabil Rehabil. 2011;10(1):49-65
pubmed: 21360400
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jan 17;166(2):128-132
pubmed: 27893062
Health Promot Pract. 2009 Oct;10(4):505-16
pubmed: 19809004
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020 Jul;258(7):1427-1436
pubmed: 32314034
Women Birth. 2020 Apr 8;:
pubmed: 32276778
Lancet HIV. 2020 May;7(5):e309-e311
pubmed: 32298644
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 2;3(3):e203976
pubmed: 32202646
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Dec;75(12):2425-30
pubmed: 23089615
CMAJ. 2004 Mar 2;170(5):793-8
pubmed: 14993174
Bull World Health Organ. 2005 Jan;83(1):71-5; discussion 75-6
pubmed: 15682252
Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr;7(4):e15-e16
pubmed: 32085839