Healthcare practitioners' construction of occupational risk during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: In the pandemic's first year, frontline healthcare practitioners (HCPs) experienced a disproportionate burden of COVID-19's negative effects, including infection, death, trauma and burnout. Qualitative research is needed to understand practitioners' experiences to address the unique challenges they face. To this end, this article investigates occupational factors identified by practitioners as relevant to their risk perceptions. By positioning HCPs as a distinctive risk group in the hierarchical space of risk group prioritization, this analysis extends thinking about such classifications within medicine. METHODS: Remote interviews were conducted between 2020 and 2022 with 45 U.S. practitioners, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician associates, registered nurses and technicians. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo to analyze how practitioners understood their occupational risk. RESULTS: Participants' risk perceptions focused on three concerns. First, working within spatial concentrations of COVID-19 required adapting procedures and reimagining their bodies as potentially hazardous. Second, the limitations of protective measures elevated concerns about healthcare work, and were perceived as pitting practitioners' health against patient care and administrative needs. Third, managing the many uncertainties about COVID-19 meant HCPs risked both its known and unknown effects. CONCLUSION: This study examines frontline practitioners' perceptions of occupational risk during the pandemic. It argues two tensions underlie practitioners' risk perceptions. First, like other essential workers, HCPs constituted a unique risk group that distinguished them from other vulnerable populations - due to risks arising from occupational rather than biomedical factors. Second, unlike other essential workers, practitioners were directly exposed to infectious patients that posed risks to their health. These elements each highlight a perceived gap between practitioners' and administrators' risk perceptions that facilitated HCP cynicism about guidelines. Future research may fruitfully investigate if these themes persist outside the U.S. and across healthcare systems.

The experience of secondary traumatic stress among community violence interventionists in Chicago.

Community violence intervention strategies are rising in prominence as promising alternatives to traditional criminal justice responses to gun violence. Although such approaches may offer policy advantages and yield societal benefits, the costs to the practitioners of this work-owing to the intimate proximity to violence required by the job-have generally been overlooked. Using a first of its kind survey of nearly the entire population of community-based violence interventionists in Chicago, Illinois (United States), this study assesses the extent to which violence intervention workers experience Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS). Responses to a series of 17 items on a Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale revealed alarmingly high levels of STS among violence interventionists: 94% of workers reported at least one STS indicator in the past 7 days and a full 50% reported experiencing 9 out of the 17 STS items. Our analysis further showed that the STS responses of interventionists were impacted by on-the-job traumatic experiences, particularly the death of a client. These results offer an important first systematic analysis of the trauma and mental health risks associated with community violence intervention practice and suggest that policymakers and practitioners should monitor and address worker risk of traumatic stress within this important public health profession.

Framing Sympathy-Worthiness: Informal Support and the Use of Disclosure Myths.

Research on sexual violence has shown that social support sources can have both positive and negative outcomes for victims' health. Yet few studies examine how informal supporters construct meaning from initial disclosure experiences to produce these outcomes. Using a social constructionist framework, I analyze 30 in-depth interviews with friends, family members, and partners who received disclosures of sexual violence. I examine how confidants construct meaning from initial disclosures to negotiate and construct victims' "sympathy-worthiness". Disclosure recipients express several facilitators and obstacles to constructing victims as sympathetic that draw on notions about their social proximity to victims, expectations of assault based on gender and sexuality, disclosure temporality, trauma visibility, and victims' post-disclosure "recovery-work." I argue these positionings contribute to, and draw upon, "disclosure myths" that frame confidants' differential interpretations of victims' narratives, resulting in both the provision and denial of support.