Capturing the experiences of UK healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A structural topic modelling analysis of 7,412 free-text survey responses.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
17
02
2022
accepted:
21
09
2022
entrez:
7
10
2022
pubmed:
8
10
2022
medline:
12
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Healthcare workers (HCWs) have provided vital services during the COVID-19 pandemic, but existing research consists of quantitative surveys (lacking in depth or context) or qualitative interviews (with limited generalisability). Structural Topic Modelling (STM) of large-scale free-text survey data offers a way of capturing the perspectives of a wide range of HCWs in their own words about their experiences of the pandemic. In an online survey distributed to all staff at 18 geographically dispersed NHS Trusts, we asked respondents, "Is there anything else you think we should know about your experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic?". We used STM on 7,412 responses to identify topics, and thematic analysis on the resultant topics and text excerpts. We identified 33 topics, grouped into two domains, each containing four themes. Our findings emphasise: the deleterious effect of increased workloads, lack of PPE, inconsistent advice/guidance, and lack of autonomy; differing experiences of home working as negative/positive; and the benefits of supportive leadership and peers in ameliorating challenges. Themes varied by demographics and time: discussion of home working decreasing over time, while discussion of workplace challenges increased. Discussion of mental health was lowest between September-November 2020, between the first and second waves of COVID-19 in the UK. Our findings represent the most salient experiences of HCWs through the pandemic. STM enabled statistical examination of how the qualitative themes raised differed according to participant characteristics. This relatively underutilised methodology in healthcare research can provide more nuanced, yet generalisable, evidence than that available via surveys or small interview studies, and should be used in future research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Healthcare workers (HCWs) have provided vital services during the COVID-19 pandemic, but existing research consists of quantitative surveys (lacking in depth or context) or qualitative interviews (with limited generalisability). Structural Topic Modelling (STM) of large-scale free-text survey data offers a way of capturing the perspectives of a wide range of HCWs in their own words about their experiences of the pandemic.
METHODS
In an online survey distributed to all staff at 18 geographically dispersed NHS Trusts, we asked respondents, "Is there anything else you think we should know about your experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic?". We used STM on 7,412 responses to identify topics, and thematic analysis on the resultant topics and text excerpts.
RESULTS
We identified 33 topics, grouped into two domains, each containing four themes. Our findings emphasise: the deleterious effect of increased workloads, lack of PPE, inconsistent advice/guidance, and lack of autonomy; differing experiences of home working as negative/positive; and the benefits of supportive leadership and peers in ameliorating challenges. Themes varied by demographics and time: discussion of home working decreasing over time, while discussion of workplace challenges increased. Discussion of mental health was lowest between September-November 2020, between the first and second waves of COVID-19 in the UK.
DISCUSSION
Our findings represent the most salient experiences of HCWs through the pandemic. STM enabled statistical examination of how the qualitative themes raised differed according to participant characteristics. This relatively underutilised methodology in healthcare research can provide more nuanced, yet generalisable, evidence than that available via surveys or small interview studies, and should be used in future research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36206241
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275720
pii: PONE-D-22-04894
pmc: PMC9543686
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0275720Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 203380/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/V034405/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
MH, RR, and SW are senior NIHR Investigators. SW has received speaker fees from Swiss Re for two webinars on the epidemiological impact of COVID 19 pandemic on mental health. RR reports grants from DHSC/UKRI/ESRC COVID-19 Rapid Response Call, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together rapid response call, grants from UCL (Wellcome Trust) rapid response call, during the conduct of the study; & grants from NIHR outside the submitted work. MH reports grants from DHSC/UKRI/ESRC COVID-19 Rapid Response Call, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together rapid response call, grants from UCL Partners rapid response call, during the conduct of the study; grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative and EFPIA, RADAR-CNS consortium, grants from MRC, grants from NIHR, outside the submitted work. SS reports grants from UKRI/ESRC/DHSC, grants from UCL, grants from UKRI/MRC/DHSC, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together Fund, and an NIHR Advanced Fellowship [ref: NIHR 300592] during the conduct of the study. NG reports a potential COI with NHSEI, during the conduct of the study; and I am the managing director of March on Stress Ltd which has provided training for a number of NHS organisations although I am not clear if the company has delivered training to any of the participating trusts or not as I do not get directly involved in commissioning specific pieces of work. DL is funded by the NIHR ARC North Thames. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. Other authors report no competing interests. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
BMJ Open. 2020 Dec 16;10(12):e043949
pubmed: 33328264
BMC Psychol. 2021 Dec 15;9(1):194
pubmed: 34911570
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Mar 6;19(1):46
pubmed: 30841848
Occup Med (Lond). 2020 Jun 20;70(4):278-281
pubmed: 32449770
Br J Psychiatry. 2022 Jan 19;:1-8
pubmed: 35042571
BMJ Open. 2021 Feb 8;11(2):e047353
pubmed: 33558364
Br Med Bull. 2019 Mar 1;129(1):25-34
pubmed: 30544131
BJPsych Open. 2020 Dec 29;7(1):e24
pubmed: 33371927
BJPsych Open. 2020 Dec 10;7(1):e15
pubmed: 33298229
BMC Res Notes. 2021 Jul 26;14(1):286
pubmed: 34311785
Occup Environ Med. 2021 Nov;78(11):801-808
pubmed: 34183447
Public Health. 2022 May;206:94-101
pubmed: 35489796
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021 Jul;126:252-264
pubmed: 33774085
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 2;8(2):e021273
pubmed: 29420234
Occup Med (Lond). 2021 Jun 16;71(3):127-130
pubmed: 33724432
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 14;17(4):e0264134
pubmed: 35421112
Br J Psychiatry. 1999 Feb;174:95-100
pubmed: 10211161
BJPsych Open. 2021 Mar 23;7(2):e70
pubmed: 33752774
BMJ Open. 2021 Jun 30;11(6):e051687
pubmed: 34193505
BJPsych Open. 2021 Apr 29;7(3):e88
pubmed: 33910674
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2021 Jan;56(1):25-37
pubmed: 32857218
J Interprof Care. 2020 Sep-Oct;34(5):655-661
pubmed: 32674701
BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 20;11(1):e046199
pubmed: 33472794
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Sep 6;21(1):923
pubmed: 34488733