Improved lifestyle is associated with improved depression, anxiety and well-being over time in UK healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from the CoPE-HCP cohort study.

Background: One potential modifiable factor to improve the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs) during the pandemic is lifestyle. Aims: This study aimed to assess whether an improved lifestyle during the pandemic is associated with improved mental health symptoms and mental well-being in HCPs over time. Methods: This was a cohort study involving an online survey distributed at two separate time points during the pandemic (baseline (July-September 2020) and follow-up (December 2020-March 2021)) to HCPs working in primary or secondary care in the UK. Both surveys assessed for major depressive disorder (MDD) (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7)), mental well-being (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Score (SWEMWBS)) and self-reported lifestyle change (compared with the start of the pandemic) on multiple domains. Cumulative scores were calculated to estimate overall lifestyle change compared with that before the pandemic (at both baseline and follow-up). At each time point, separate logistic regression models were constructed to relate the lifestyle change score with the presence of MDD, GAD and low mental well-being. Linear regression models were also developed relating the change in lifestyle scores from baseline to follow-up to changes in PHQ-9, GAD-7 and SWEMWBS scores. Results: 613 HCPs completed both baseline assessment and follow-up assessment. Consistent significant cross-sectional associations between increased lifestyle change scores and a reduced risk of MDD, GAD and low mental well-being were observed at both baseline and follow-up. Over the study period, a whole unit increase in the change in novel scores (ie, improved overall lifestyle) over 4 months was inversely associated with changes in PHQ-9 (adjusted coefficient: -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.73 to -0.30, p<0.001) and GAD-7 scores (adjusted coefficient: -0.32, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.10, p=0.004) and positively associated with the change in SWEMWBS scores (adjusted coefficient: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.55, p<0.001). Conclusions: Improved lifestyle over time is associated with improved mental health and mental well-being in HCPs during the pandemic. Improving lifestyle could be a recommended intervention for HCPs to help mitigate the mental health impact during the current and future pandemics. Trial registration number: NCT04433260.

Longitudinal comparisons of mental health, burnout and well-being in patient-facing, non-patient-facing healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the CoPE-HCP study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic may disproportionately affect the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs), especially patient-facing HCPs. AIMS: To longitudinally examine mental health in HCPs versus non-HCPs, and patient-facing HCPs versus non-patient-facing HCPs. METHOD: Online surveys were distributed to a cohort at three phases (baseline, July to September 2020; phase 2, 6 weeks post-baseline; phase 3, 4 months post-baseline). Each survey contained validated assessments for depression, anxiety, insomnia, burnout and well-being. For each outcome, we conducted mixed-effects logistic regression models (adjusted for a priori confounders) comparing the risk in different groups at each phase. RESULTS: A total of 1574 HCPs and 147 non-HCPs completed the baseline survey. Although there were generally higher rates of various probable mental health issues among HCPs versus non-HCPs at each phase, there was no significant difference, except that HCPs had 2.5-fold increased risk of burnout at phase 2 (emotional exhaustion: odds ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.15-5.46, P = 0.021), which increased at phase 3 (emotional exhaustion: odds ratio 3.32, 95% CI 1.40-7.87, P = 0.006; depersonalisation: odds ratio 3.29, 95% CI 1.12-9.71, P = 0.031). At baseline, patient-facing HCPs (versus non-patient-facing HCPs) had a five-fold increased risk of depersonalisation (odds ratio 5.02, 95% CI 1.65-15.26, P = 0.004), with no significant difference in the risk for other outcomes. The difference in depersonalisation reduced over time, but patient-facing HCPs still had a 2.7-fold increased risk of emotional exhaustion (odds ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.28-5.85, P = 0.009) by phase 3. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic had a huge impact on the mental health and well-being of both HCPs and non-HCPs, but there is disproportionately higher burnout among HCPs, particularly patient-facing HCPs.

Early and Mid-Term Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Physical, Behavioral and Mental Health of Healthcare Professionals: The CoPE-HCP Study Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented strain to healthcare systems worldwide and posed unique challenges to the healthcare professionals (HCPs) and the general public. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health, behavioral, and physical wellbeing of HCPs in the early and mid-term periods of the pandemic in comparison to non-HCPs. Thus, facilitating and guiding optimum planning and delivery of support to HCPs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An observational cross-sectional survey and cohort study aiming to enroll over 1050 participants (minimum, 800 HCPs and 250 controls). Study questionnaires will be completed at baseline and after 6-weeks and 4-months. Recruitment initiated July 2020. The study was designed in London, United Kingdom, but open to participants worldwide. Baseline: Questionnaires comprising of validated self-administered screening tools for depression, anxiety, sleep-related issues, wellbeing, and burnout. The questionnaires also explore changes in behavior and physical wellbeing of the participants. In addition, associations of these mental health and behavioral factors with work-related factors and support will be explored. Six-weeks and 4-months follow-up: Follow-up questionnaires will assess change in symptoms of anxiety and depression, sleep disorders, use of alcohol and other substances, behavioral or interpersonal relationship changes. Physical wellbeing will be assessed through the presence of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection and absence from work. We will also evaluate the impact of variable provision of personal protection equipment (supply and training), extended working hours, and concern for the wellbeing of family members, anxiety levels, and evidence of burnout. STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The study has 80% power to detect a 10% difference of combined depression and/or anxiety symptoms between the groups using two-sided type 1 error at 0.05 at baseline. Assuming that only 50% of these HCPs agree to be a part of a cohort survey, we will have 80% power to detect around 12% difference in the two groups in reported physical symptoms (20% vs. 32.3%), or prevalence of depression and/or anxiety at the end of the study. ETHICS: The study was approved by the Cambridge East, Research Ethics Committee (20/EE/0166). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04433260.

Healthcare Workers Bioresource: Study outline and baseline characteristics of a prospective healthcare worker cohort to study immune protection and pathogenesis in COVID-19.

Background: Most biomedical research has focused on sampling COVID-19 patients presenting to hospital with advanced disease, with less focus on the asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic. We established a bioresource with serial sampling of health care workers (HCWs) designed to obtain samples before and during mainly mild disease, with follow-up sampling to evaluate the quality and duration of immune memory. Methods: We conducted a prospective study on HCWs from three hospital sites in London, initially at a single centre (recruited just prior to first peak community transmission in London), but then extended to multiple sites 3 weeks later (recruitment still ongoing, target n=1,000). Asymptomatic participants attending work complete a health questionnaire, and provide a nasal swab (for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR tests) and blood samples (mononuclear cells, serum, plasma, RNA and DNA are biobanked) at 16 weekly study visits, and at 6 and 12 months. Results: Preliminary baseline results for the first 731 HCWs (400 single-centre, 331 multicentre extension) are presented. Mean age was 38±11 years; 67% are female, 31% nurses, 20% doctors, and 19% work in intensive care units. COVID-19-associated risk factors were: 37% black, Asian or minority ethnicities; 18% smokers; 13% obesity; 11% asthma; 7% hypertension and 2% diabetes mellitus. At baseline, 41% reported symptoms in the preceding 2 weeks. Preliminary test results from the initial cohort (n=400) are available: PCR at baseline for SARS-CoV-2 was positive in 28 of 396 (7.1%, 95% CI 4.9-10.0%) and 15 of 385 (3.9%, 2.4-6.3%) had circulating IgG antibodies. Conclusions: This COVID-19 bioresource established just before the peak of infections in the UK will provide longitudinal assessments of incident infection and immune responses in HCWs through the natural time course of disease and convalescence. The samples and data from this bioresource are available to academic collaborators by application  https://covid-consortium.com/application-for-samples/.