Influencing factors on the psychosomatic health of medical staff since the normalized stage of COVID-19 in mainland China.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there were under-recognized and unaddressed psychosomatic health problems among medical staff. The purpose of this study was to investigate their psychosomatic status. METHODS: An online questionnaire was performed to the medical staff of major hospitals in Jinan in January 2023. In total, 1244 valid questionnaires were collected, and their psychosomatic status was assessed by the Psychosomatic Symptom Scale (PSSS) and Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10). Finally, we analyzed the influencing factors for their psychosomatic status. RESULTS: The psychological health of the medical staff was poor, and the level of stress perception was intense, accompanied by obvious psychosomatic symptoms. Regression analysis indicated that age, gender, frontline involvement, work experience, marriage, presence of disease history and COVID-19 infection history were risk factors for psychosomatic symptoms, while education, frontline involvement and presence of disease history were risk factors for stress feeling. CONCLUSION: Medical staff often showed obvious psychosomatic symptoms and intense stress. Psychological health education and intervention should be given in order to improve their working quality.

Family experiences reported by healthcare worker parents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Parents, who were working as essential frontline healthcare workers experienced unique stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic including disruption of regular routines, long lapses away from family, extreme work stress and subsequent difficulty in compartmentalizing work-related concerns when at home. The purpose of this study was to assess COVID-19 exposure and impact of frontline healthcare workers who are parents. DESIGN & METHODS: This study quantitatively assessed the COVID-19 exposure and impact and qualitatively explored perceptions of parents of children 9 to 17 years of age, who were also frontline healthcare workers. RESULTS: Participants (N = 79) using the COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Survey (CEFIS) reported exposure mean scores of 10.03 (SD = 2.63); and impact scores mean scores of 3.18 (SD = 0.46). Thematic analysis identified four themes, each with 2 subthemes: 1) family stressors increased (e.g., concerns about health and safety, losses of lifestyle patterns); 2) changes in children's health and well-being (e.g., isolation from family and friends, mental health problems); 3) virtual school difficulties (e.g., parent and student challenges, home school option); 4) skill building opportunities (e.g., enhanced emotional connections, increased family activities). CONCLUSION: The CHAMPS Family Health Study suggests that families of essential workers are especially vulnerable to the effect of COVID-19, as are those families of essential workers who include child/ren with special health care needs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Preparation for future emergencies requires strategies to mitigate consequences and promote well-being. These results highlight the need for supportive approaches to decrease the negative consequences of stress and to augment skills for family connection and cooperation.

Moral distress among acute mental health nurses: A systematic review.

Moral distress has been identified as an occupational hazard for clinicians caring for vulnerable populations. The aim of this systematic review was (i) to summarize the literature reporting on prevalence of, and factors related to, moral distress among nurses within acute mental health settings, and (ii) to examine the efficacy of interventions designed to address moral distress among nurses within this clinical setting. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in October 2022 utilizing Nursing & Allied Health, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and PubMed databases to identify eligible studies published in English from January 2000 to October 2022. Ten studies met inclusion criteria. Four quantitative studies assessed moral distress among nurses in acute mental health settings and examined relationships between moral distress and other psychological and work-related variables. Six qualitative studies explored the phenomenon of moral distress as experienced by nurses working in acute mental health settings. The quantitative studies assessed moral distress using the Moral Distress Scale for Psychiatric Nurses (MDS-P) or the Work-Related Moral Stress Questionnaire. These studies identified relationships between moral distress and emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, cynicism, poorer job satisfaction, less sense of coherence, poorer moral climate, and less experience of moral support. Qualitative studies revealed factors associated with moral distress, including lack of action, poor conduct by colleagues, time pressures, professional, policy and legal implications, aggression, and patient safety. No interventions targeting moral distress among nurses in acute mental health settings were identified. Overall, this review identified that moral distress is prevalent among nurses working in acute mental health settings and is associated with poorer outcomes for nurses, patients, and organizations. Research is urgently needed to develop and test evidence-based interventions to address moral distress among mental health nurses and to evaluate individual and system-level intervention effects on nurses, clinical care, and patient outcomes.

The prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: Stress, anxiety, and depression are some of the most important research and practice challenges for psychologists, psychiatrists, and behavioral scientists. Due to the importance of issue and the lack of general statistics on these disorders among the Hospital staff treating the COVID-19 patients, this study aims to systematically review and determine the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In this research work, the systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression approaches are used to approximate the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. The keywords of prevalence, anxiety, stress, depression, psychopathy, mental illness, mental disorder, doctor, physician, nurse, hospital staff, 2019-nCoV, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and Coronaviruses were used for searching the SID, MagIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases. The search process was conducted in December 2019 to June 2020. In order to amalgamate and analyze the reported results within the collected studies, the random effects model is used. The heterogeneity of the studies is assessed using the I2 index. Lastly, the data analysis is performed within the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. RESULTS: Of the 29 studies with a total sample size of 22,380, 21 papers have reported the prevalence of depression, 23 have reported the prevalence of anxiety, and 9 studies have reported the prevalence of stress. The prevalence of depression is 24.3% (18% CI 18.2-31.6%), the prevalence of anxiety is 25.8% (95% CI 20.5-31.9%), and the prevalence of stress is 45% (95% CI 24.3-67.5%) among the hospitals' Hospital staff caring for the COVID-19 patients. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, with increasing the sample size, the prevalence of depression and anxiety decreased, and this was statistically significant (P < 0.05), however, the prevalence of stress increased with increasing the sample size, yet this was not statistically significant (P = 0.829). CONCLUSION: The results of this study clearly demonstrate that the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients is high. Therefore, the health policy-makers should take measures to control and prevent mental disorders in the Hospital staff.

Uneven distribution of stressful working conditions among Japanese nurses: a secondary analysis of nurses with and without children.

Supportive measures for employees raising children may have increased workloads on other nurses, causing psychological stress. This study aimed to clarify the differences in working conditions and psychological status among female Japanese nurses based on child-rearing attributes. We used data from 1,600 female nurses at 10 Japanese hospitals collected by the study of the Work Environment for Hospital Nurses in Japan conducted in 2016. The variables included work conditions (number of night shifts per month, daily overtime, number of paid holidays per year, and social support received), psychological status (sense of coherence, emotional exhaustion, and work engagement), and sociodemographic characteristics. An analysis of covariance was performed on the differences between the three groups (without children, with preschool-age children, and with children of other ages groups). The group without children had a relatively higher workload (p<0.01) and lower social support (p<0.01 and p<0.05). Additionally, they had higher emotional exhaustion and lower work engagement (p<0.01). This study confirmed the uneven distribution of work environment by work-life balance measures.

Association between organizational justice and serious psychological distress among hospital nursing staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study.

AIM: Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the association between organizational justice and psychological distress among hospital nursing staff is underexplored. Thus, this cross-sectional study, conducted in Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan, examined the relationship between organizational justice and serious psychological distress (SPD) among hospital nursing staff during COVID-19. METHODS: The study surveyed 783 hospital nursing staff using the Organizational Justice Questionnaire and Effort-Reward Imbalance Questionnaire. The Kessler K6 scale was used to measure SPD. Sociodemographic and occupational characteristics were controlled for as potential confounders. RESULTS: The prevalence of SPD was 14.4%, with a mean K6 score of 6.5. Moderate procedural justice (odds ratio [OR] = 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14-4.94, p = .021) and low distributive justice (effort-reward imbalance) (OR = 3.66, 95% CI = 2.01-6.67, p < .001) were associated with SPD, even after adjustment for confounders. Interactional justice showed significance only in the crude model. Effort-reward imbalance had the strongest association with SPD. CONCLUSIONS: The findings showed that moderate procedural justice and low distributive justice were associated with SPD, highlighting the need for organizational interventions to address these factors. Imbalances in effort/reward had the greatest impact, highlighting the critical role of distributive justice in mental health. Thus, in the context of a pandemic, extreme procedural justice is not necessarily associated with mental health, and efforts to ensure distributive justice are critical to improving the mental health of hospital nursing staff. Moreover, organizational stressors should be addressed during disruptive conditions such as infectious disease outbreaks.

Association Between Physical Activity and Mental Health in Health Professionals in the Context of the Pandemic: A Study in Southern Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to verify the association between physical activity (PA) and mental health among health professionals in southern Brazil. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study with 101 workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mental health and PA were assessed using the questionnaires. The association of PA with stress was tested by linear regression, and anxiety and depressive symptoms by Poisson regression. RESULTS: The stress was inversely associated with individuals who performed some PA (ß: -3.53;95% CI: -6.63;-0.44) and who met the PA recommendations (active) (ß: -6.84;95% CI: -12.44;-1.24). Workers who performed some PA (PR: 0.76;95% CI: 0.67;0.86) and were active (PR: 0.75;95% CI: 0.60;0.93) were less likely to have severe symptoms of anxiety. For depression, workers who performed some PA (PR: 0.81;95% CI: 0.71;0.92) and were active (PR: 0.69;95% CI: 0.54;0.88), the probability was also smaller. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of PA was inversely associated with symptoms of stress, depression, and anxiety.

Effects of the Brief Simha Kriya Breathing Practice for Health Care Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers (HCWs) experienced increased anxiety, depression, loneliness, and other mental health issues. HCWs need additional resources to cope with the mental health impact of their work. Yoga techniques could be helpful strategies to manage different stressors during times of uncertainty. Methods: This prospective, single-arm, trial examined the effects of a brief pranayama yoga practice on the wellbeing of HCWs during the height of COVID-19. HCWs were recruited through announcements and institutional websites at a large major cancer center in the southern United States. A short, prerecorded, 5-min breathwork video intervention called "Simha Kriya" was provided to participants, and they were encouraged to practice one to two times daily for 4 weeks. Participants completed self-report instruments at baseline and weeks 1 and 4, including: (1) Perceived Stress Scale (PSS); (2) Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS); and (3) a questionnaire assessing the experience of COVID-19 among HCWs that had five subscales. HCWs also conducted a measure of breath holding time. Paired sample t-tests and mixed-effects analysis of variance models examined changes over time. Results: One hundred participants consented to the study, with 88 female, 60 white, 39 worked remotely, and 27 were clinical staff. Sixty-nine participants provided data at week 1 and 56 at week 4. Participants' adherence to the breathing exercises between weeks 1 and 4 was similar, with a mean of six times per week. At week 4, there were significant decreases in the COVID-19 Distress score (p < 0.0001) and COVID-19 Disruption (p = 0.013), yet no changes in the PSS. There were also significant increases in COVID-19 Stress Management (p = 0.0001) and BRCS scores (p = 0.012), but no changes in Perceived Benefits of COVID-19 and no changes in breath holding time. Discussion: Brief yoga-based breathing practices helped reduce pandemic-specific stress, improved resilience, and stress management skills in HCWs. Trial Registration Number: NCT04482647.