Hospital clinicians' psychosocial well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal study.
Hospital clinicians
psychological health
psychosocial
workplace stress
Journal
Occupational medicine (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1471-8405
Titre abrégé: Occup Med (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9205857
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 04 2022
19 04 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
20
3
2022
medline:
21
4
2022
entrez:
19
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hospital clinicians report poor psychosocial well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Few studies have reported data at more than one time point. To compare psychosocial well-being among hospital clinicians at two different time points during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Participants included doctors, nurses, midwives and allied health clinicians at a multi-site, public health service in Melbourne, Australia. Data were collected via two cross-sectional, online surveys: May to June (wave 1; n = 638) and October to December 2020 (wave 2; n = 358). The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) assessed psychological well-being in the past week. Investigator-devised questions assessed COVID-19 concerns and perceived work impacts. General linear models were used to assess impact of wave on psychological distress. There were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. Both positive (e.g. learning experience) and negative (e.g. risk of getting COVID-19) impacts were reported. In both waves, staff were most concerned about health risks to family members. Wave 2 respondents were significantly more likely than wave 1 respondents to indicate concerns about colleagues having COVID-19, increased workloads, leave cancellation and increased conflict at work (all P < 0.001). Adjusting for sex, age, self-rated health and discipline group, depression, anxiety and stress scores were significantly higher for respondents in the second than the first wave (all P < 0.001). Psychological well-being of hospital clinicians was significantly worse during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic than the first. Sustained occupational and psychosocial support is recommended even when immediate COVID-19 concerns and impacts resolve.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Hospital clinicians report poor psychosocial well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Few studies have reported data at more than one time point.
AIMS
To compare psychosocial well-being among hospital clinicians at two different time points during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.
METHODS
Participants included doctors, nurses, midwives and allied health clinicians at a multi-site, public health service in Melbourne, Australia. Data were collected via two cross-sectional, online surveys: May to June (wave 1; n = 638) and October to December 2020 (wave 2; n = 358). The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) assessed psychological well-being in the past week. Investigator-devised questions assessed COVID-19 concerns and perceived work impacts. General linear models were used to assess impact of wave on psychological distress.
RESULTS
There were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. Both positive (e.g. learning experience) and negative (e.g. risk of getting COVID-19) impacts were reported. In both waves, staff were most concerned about health risks to family members. Wave 2 respondents were significantly more likely than wave 1 respondents to indicate concerns about colleagues having COVID-19, increased workloads, leave cancellation and increased conflict at work (all P < 0.001). Adjusting for sex, age, self-rated health and discipline group, depression, anxiety and stress scores were significantly higher for respondents in the second than the first wave (all P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Psychological well-being of hospital clinicians was significantly worse during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic than the first. Sustained occupational and psychosocial support is recommended even when immediate COVID-19 concerns and impacts resolve.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35304607
pii: 6550780
doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqac003
pmc: PMC9189476
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
215-224Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Psychosom Med. 2004 Nov-Dec;66(6):938-42
pubmed: 15564361
Br J Psychiatry. 2004 Aug;185:127-33
pubmed: 15286063
Behav Res Ther. 1995 Mar;33(3):335-43
pubmed: 7726811
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 15;15(12):e0244052
pubmed: 33320910
Aust Health Rev. 2021 Dec;45(6):656-666
pubmed: 34274032
J Occup Health. 2021 Jan;63(1):e12227
pubmed: 34021683
Aust Health Rev. 2021 Jun;45(3):297-305
pubmed: 33032681
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Nov;293:113441
pubmed: 32898840
Appl Psychol. 2021 Jan;70(1):120-149
pubmed: 33362329
Nursing. 2020 Dec 1;50(12):56-58
pubmed: 33497096
Eur J Emerg Med. 2005 Feb;12(1):13-8
pubmed: 15674079
Int J Emerg Med. 2020 Jul 20;13(1):40
pubmed: 32689925
J Affect Disord. 2020 Oct 1;275:48-57
pubmed: 32658823
CMAJ. 2004 Mar 2;170(5):793-8
pubmed: 14993174
J Psychosom Res. 2021 Feb;141:110343
pubmed: 33360329
Occup Med (Lond). 2004 May;54(3):190-6
pubmed: 15133143
Can J Psychiatry. 2021 Sep;66(9):807-814
pubmed: 34124958
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Apr;34:100806
pubmed: 33842872
Med Sci Monit. 2020 Apr 15;26:e923767
pubmed: 32294078
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jun;288:112955
pubmed: 32302815
Clin Med Res. 2016 Mar;14(1):7-14
pubmed: 26847480
J Occup Health. 2020 Jan;62(1):e12175
pubmed: 33131192