Family medicine practitioners' stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey.
Adult
Attitude of Health Personnel
COVID-19
/ epidemiology
Communicable Disease Control
/ instrumentation
Cross-Sectional Studies
Diagnostic Self Evaluation
Disease Transmission, Infectious
/ prevention & control
Female
France
/ epidemiology
General Practitioners
/ psychology
Humans
Male
Occupational Exposure
/ adverse effects
Occupational Health
/ trends
Personal Protective Equipment
/ supply & distribution
SARS-CoV-2
Self Concept
Stress, Psychological
/ diagnosis
COVID-19
Cross-sectional survey
General practitioners
Pandemics
Stress
Journal
BMC family practice
ISSN: 1471-2296
Titre abrégé: BMC Fam Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967792
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 02 2021
14 02 2021
Historique:
received:
03
10
2020
accepted:
04
02
2021
entrez:
15
2
2021
pubmed:
16
2
2021
medline:
24
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the world in early 2020. In France, General Practitioners (GPs) were not involved in the care organization's decision-making process before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This omission could have generated stress for GPs. We aimed first to estimate the self-perception of stress as defined by the 10-item Perceived Stress Score (PSS-10), at the beginning of the pandemic in France, among GPs from the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, a french administrative area severely impacted by COVID-19. Second, we aimed to identify factors associated with a self-perceived stress (PSS-10 ≥ 27) among socio-demographic characteristics of GPs, their access to reliable information and to personal protective equipment during the pandemic, and their exposure to well established psychosocial risk at work. We conducted an online cross-sectional survey between 8th April and 10th May 2020. The self-perception of stress was evaluated using the PSS-10, so to see the proportion of "not stressed" (≤20), "borderline" (21 ≤ PSS-10 ≤ 26), and "stressed" (≥27) GPs. The agreement to 31 positive assertions related to possible sources of stress identified by the scientific study committee was measured using a 10-point numeric scale. In complete cases, factors associated with stress (PSS-10 ≥ 27) were investigated using logistic regression, adjusted on gender, age and practice location. A supplementary analysis of the verbatims was made. Overall, 898 individual answers were collected, of which 879 were complete. A total of 437 GPs (49%) were stressed (PSS-10 ≥ 27), and 283 GPs (32%) had a very high level of stress (PSS-10 ≥ 30). Self-perceived stress was associated with multiple components, and involved classic psychosocial risk factors such as emotional requirements. However, in this context of health crisis, the primary source of stress was the diversity and quantity of information from diverse sources (614 GPs (69%, OR = 2.21, 95%CI [1.40-3.50], p < 0.001). Analysis of verbatims revealed that GPs felt isolated in a hospital-based model. The first wave of the pandemic was a source of stress for GPs. The diversity and quantity of information received from the health authorities were among the main sources of stress.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the world in early 2020. In France, General Practitioners (GPs) were not involved in the care organization's decision-making process before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This omission could have generated stress for GPs. We aimed first to estimate the self-perception of stress as defined by the 10-item Perceived Stress Score (PSS-10), at the beginning of the pandemic in France, among GPs from the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, a french administrative area severely impacted by COVID-19. Second, we aimed to identify factors associated with a self-perceived stress (PSS-10 ≥ 27) among socio-demographic characteristics of GPs, their access to reliable information and to personal protective equipment during the pandemic, and their exposure to well established psychosocial risk at work.
METHODS
We conducted an online cross-sectional survey between 8th April and 10th May 2020. The self-perception of stress was evaluated using the PSS-10, so to see the proportion of "not stressed" (≤20), "borderline" (21 ≤ PSS-10 ≤ 26), and "stressed" (≥27) GPs. The agreement to 31 positive assertions related to possible sources of stress identified by the scientific study committee was measured using a 10-point numeric scale. In complete cases, factors associated with stress (PSS-10 ≥ 27) were investigated using logistic regression, adjusted on gender, age and practice location. A supplementary analysis of the verbatims was made.
RESULTS
Overall, 898 individual answers were collected, of which 879 were complete. A total of 437 GPs (49%) were stressed (PSS-10 ≥ 27), and 283 GPs (32%) had a very high level of stress (PSS-10 ≥ 30). Self-perceived stress was associated with multiple components, and involved classic psychosocial risk factors such as emotional requirements. However, in this context of health crisis, the primary source of stress was the diversity and quantity of information from diverse sources (614 GPs (69%, OR = 2.21, 95%CI [1.40-3.50], p < 0.001). Analysis of verbatims revealed that GPs felt isolated in a hospital-based model.
CONCLUSION
The first wave of the pandemic was a source of stress for GPs. The diversity and quantity of information received from the health authorities were among the main sources of stress.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33583410
doi: 10.1186/s12875-021-01382-3
pii: 10.1186/s12875-021-01382-3
pmc: PMC7882249
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
36Références
JAMA. 2020 Apr 7;323(13):1239-1242
pubmed: 32091533
N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 3;370(14):1335-42
pubmed: 24693893
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Jul 28;19(1):130
pubmed: 30055571
Med Mal Infect. 2018 Mar;48(2):95-102
pubmed: 29169817
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):e41
pubmed: 32212516
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015 Oct;9(5):547-53
pubmed: 25797363
JAMA. 2007 Feb 28;297(8):831-41
pubmed: 17327525
Lancet. 2015 Dec 19;386(10012):2535-8
pubmed: 26628327
Med J Aust. 2020 Aug;213(3):104-106.e1
pubmed: 32623740
PLoS One. 2008 May 28;3(5):e2269
pubmed: 18509538
Psychiatr Prax. 2020 May;47(4):190-197
pubmed: 32340048
Lancet. 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):912-920
pubmed: 32112714
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):825-832
pubmed: 32277759
Sante Publique. 2009 Jul-Aug;21(4):365-73
pubmed: 20101815
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007 Nov;26(11):819-23
pubmed: 17690927
J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385-96
pubmed: 6668417
Cad Saude Publica. 2020 Apr 30;36(4):e00054020
pubmed: 32374806
J Anxiety Disord. 2020 May;72:102232
pubmed: 32408047
Arch Iran Med. 2020 Apr 01;23(4):265-267
pubmed: 32271600
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jun;288:112954
pubmed: 32325383
BMC Public Health. 2007 Jun 06;7:97
pubmed: 17553153