Mental impact of Covid-19 among Spanish healthcare workers. A large longitudinal survey.

AIMS: Longitudinal data on the mental health impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic in healthcare workers is limited. We estimated prevalence, incidence and persistence of probable mental disorders in a cohort of Spanish healthcare workers (Covid-19 waves 1 and 2) -and identified associated risk factors. METHODS: 8996 healthcare workers evaluated on 5 May-7 September 2020 (baseline) were invited to a second web-based survey (October-December 2020). Major depressive disorder (PHQ-8 ≥ 10), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD-7 ≥ 10), panic attacks, post-traumatic stress disorder (PCL-5 ≥ 7), and alcohol use disorder (CAGE-AID ≥ 2) were assessed. Distal (pre-pandemic) and proximal (pandemic) risk factors were included. We estimated the incidence of probable mental disorders (among those without disorders at baseline) and persistence (among those with disorders at baseline). Logistic regression of individual-level [odds ratios (OR)] and population-level (population attributable risk proportions) associations were estimated, adjusting by all distal risk factors, health care centre and time of baseline interview. RESULTS: 4809 healthcare workers participated at four months follow-up (cooperation rate = 65.7%; mean = 120 days s.d. = 22 days from baseline assessment). Follow-up prevalence of any disorder was 41.5%, (v. 45.4% at baseline, p < 0.001); incidence, 19.7% (s.e. = 1.6) and persistence, 67.7% (s.e. = 2.3). Proximal factors showing significant bivariate-adjusted associations with incidence included: work-related factors [prioritising Covid-19 patients (OR = 1.62)], stress factors [personal health-related stress (OR = 1.61)], interpersonal stress (OR = 1.53) and financial factors [significant income loss (OR = 1.37)]. Risk factors associated with persistence were largely similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that the prevalence of probable mental disorders among Spanish healthcare workers during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic was similarly high to that after the first wave. This was in good part due to the persistence of mental disorders detected at the baseline, but with a relevant incidence of about 1 in 5 of HCWs without mental disorders during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Health-related factors, work-related factors and interpersonal stress are important risks of persistence of mental disorders and of incidence of mental disorders. Adequately addressing these factors might have prevented a considerable amount of mental health impact of the pandemic among this vulnerable population. Addressing health-related stress, work-related factors and interpersonal stress might reduce the prevalence of these disorders substantially. Study registration number: NCT04556565.

Four-month incidence of suicidal thoughts and behaviors among healthcare workers after the first wave of the Spain COVID-19 pandemic.

Healthcare workers (HCW) are at high risk for suicide, yet little is known about the onset of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB) in this important segment of the population in conjunction with the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a multicenter, prospective cohort study of Spanish HCW active during the COVID-9 pandemic. A total of n = 4809 HCW participated at baseline (May-September 2020; i.e., just after the first wave of the pandemic) and at a four-month follow-up assessment (October-December 2020) using web-based surveys. Logistic regression assessed the individual- and population-level associations of separate proximal (pandemic) risk factors with four-month STB incidence (i.e., 30-day STB among HCW negative for 30-day STB at baseline), each time adjusting for distal (pre-pandemic) factors. STB incidence was estimated at 4.2% (SE = 0.5; n = 1 suicide attempt). Adjusted for distal factors, proximal risk factors most strongly associated with STB incidence were various sources of interpersonal stress (scaled 0-4; odds ratio [OR] range = 1.23-1.57) followed by personal health-related stress and stress related to the health of loved ones (scaled 0-4; OR range 1.30-1.32), and the perceived lack of healthcare center preparedness (scaled 0-4; OR = 1.34). Population-attributable risk proportions for these proximal risk factors were in the range 45.3-57.6%. Other significant risk factors were financial stressors (OR range 1.26-1.81), isolation/quarantine due to COVID-19 (OR = 1.53) and having changed to a specific COVID-19 related work location (OR = 1.72). Among other interventions, our findings call for healthcare systems to implement adequate conflict communication and resolution strategies and to improve family-work balance embedded in organizational justice strategies.

[Identification of adverse events in hospitalised influenza patients]. / Identificación de eventos adversos en pacientes hospitalizados por gripe.

OBJECTIVE: To test the inter-observer agreement in identifying adverse events (AE) in patients hospitalized by flu and undergoing precautionary isolation measures. METHODS: Historical cohort study, 50 patients undergoing isolation measures due to flu, and 50 patients without any isolation measures. RESULTS: The AE incidence ranges from 10 to 26% depending on the observer (26% [95%CI: 17.4%-34.60%], 10% [95%CI: 4.12%-15.88%], and 23% [95%CI: 14.75%-31.25%]). It was always lower in the cohort undergoing the isolation measures. This difference is statistically significant when the accurate definition of a case is applied. The agreement as regards the screening was good (higher than 76%; Kappa index between 0.29 and 0.81). The agreement as regards the accurate identification of AE related to care was lower (from 50 to 93.3%, Kappa index from 0.20 to 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Before performing an epidemiological study on AE, interobserver concordance must be analyzed to improve the accuracy of the results and the validity of the study. Studies have different levels of reliability. Kappa index shows high levels for the screening guide, but not for the identification of AE. Without a good methodology the results achieved, and thus the decisions made from them, cannot be guaranteed. Researchers have to be sure of the method used, which should be as close as possible to the optimal achievable.