Potential strategies for supporting mental health and mitigating the risk of burnout among healthcare professionals: insights from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) experienced prolonged stressful conditions during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and the global situation (particularly in the United Kingdom) meant that they continue to sustain mental stress related to the subsequent cost-of-living and healthcare budgeting crises. The psychological toll on HCPs may lead to increased staff attrition, adversely impacting the quality of patient care and work security. To help mitigate this psychological impact, the current evidence is strongly supportive of healthcare providers consistently adopting programmes fostering improvement in coping and resilience, facilitating healthy lifestyle, and allocating some resources for therapeutic strategies (e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy-based strategies and other strategies specified to trauma-related issues) which can be delivered by trained professionals. We stress that some approaches are not a one-size-fits-all strategy, and we also highlight the need to encourage treatment-seeking among those who need it. These strategies are highly relevant to healthcare employers and policymakers to support all HCPs in settings marked by prolonged periods of stress. The investment in these strategies are expected not only to reduce staff attrition in the long-term, but are likely to add to the cost-effectiveness of overall healthcare budgetary allocation.

Ageing, the digital and everyday life during and since the Covid-19 pandemic.

Introduction: During and since the Covid-19 pandemic there has been an intensified integration of digital technologies into the everyday lives of older people. We do, however, know little about the ways in which older people incorporate digital technologies and communications into their daily lives and their own meanings, embodiment and experiences of the digital during and since the Covid-19 pandemic. Method: The aim of our research was to explore the use of digital devices during and since the Covid-19 pandemic and to identify facilitators and barriers to incorporating digital devices into everyday life. The research involved a series of online focus groups with people aged between 63 and 86 years living in the United Kingdom and were conducted in 2022. Each focus group lasted around 90 min and data was audio-recorded and transcribed. The data was analysed thematically. Results: From the analysis, three interconnecting whilst analytically distinct themes around the meaning and experiences of using digital devices in everyday life during and since the pandemic, are thematically presented as: (1) Incorporating the digital into everyday life; (2) Social and digital connectivity; and (3) Challenges and limitations of the digital in everyday life. Discussion: The research has provided insights into the way digital devices were used by older people during and since the Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, we highlight the increasing importance of digital connectivity and the ways in which older people actively engage (and resist) technologies of communication in their daily lives; and the significance of embodied co-presence and the immediacy of shared space and/or time is highlighted.

Factors influencing attitudes toward vaccine safety and vaccine effectiveness amongst UK healthcare professionals prior to and at the time of COVID-19 vaccine rollout: Insights from the CoPE-HCP cohort study.

Given the potential for nosocomial outbreaks, we must understand factors associated with negative vaccine attitudes amongst healthcare professionals (HCPs) before the rollout of a newly developed vaccine in a pandemic setting. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to study the impact of preexisting and prevailing mental health on United Kingdom HCPs' attitudes towards a newly developed COVID-19 vaccine. Two online surveys were distributed: first during vaccine development (July-September, 2020) and second during nationwide vaccine rollout (December 2020-March 2021). Mental health (PHQ-9 for depression; GAD-7 for anxiety) was assessed in both surveys. Negative attitude regarding vaccine safety and vaccine effectiveness was assessed at vaccine rollout. A series of logistic regression models were developed relating mental health (preexisting during vaccine development, ongoing and new-onset during rollout, and changes in symptom severity) to negative vaccine attitudes. In 634 HCPs, the presence of depression and/or anxiety during vaccine development was associated with elevated negative attitude towards vaccine safety (adj. OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.10-2.75], p = .02), but not vaccine effectiveness (1.13 [0.77-1.66], p = .53) at rollout. This was independent of other characteristics: age, ethnicity, professional role, and history of contracting COVID-19. Ongoing depression and/or anxiety (1.72 [1.10-2.69], p = .02) was associated with elevated negative attitude regarding vaccine effectiveness, but not vaccine safety. Worsened combined symptom scores over time were associated with elevated negative vaccine effectiveness attitudes (1.03 [1.00-1.05], p < .05), but not vaccine safety. Overall, adverse mental health can impact on HCPs' attitudes towards a newly developed vaccine. Further work is required to understand how this translates to vaccine uptake.

Perceived workplace support and mental health, well-being and burnout among health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relationship between workplace support and mental health and burnout among health care professionals (HCPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this cohort study, we sought to evaluate the association between perceived level of (and changes to) workplace support and mental health and burnout among HCPs, and to identify what constitutes perceived effective workplace support. METHODS: Online surveys at baseline (July-September 2020) and follow-up 4 months later assessed the presence of generalized anxiety disorder (using the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale [GAD-7]), clinical insomnia, major depressive disorder (using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire), burnout (emotional exhaustion and depersonalization) and mental well-being (using the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Score). Both surveys assessed self-reported level of workplace support (single-item Likert scale). For baseline and follow-up, independently, we developed separate logistic regression models to evaluate the association of the level of workplace support (tricohotomized as unsupported, neither supported nor unsupported and supported) with mental health and burnout. We also developed linear regression models to evaluate the association between the change in perceived level of workplace support and the change in mental health scores from baseline and follow-up. We used thematic analyses on free-text entries of the baseline survey to evaluate what constitutes effective support. RESULTS: At baseline (n = 1422) and follow-up (n = 681), HCPs who felt supported had reduced risk of anxiety, depression, clinical insomnia, emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, compared with those who felt unsupported. Among those who responded to both surveys (n = 681), improved perceived level of workplace support over time was associated with significantly improved scores on measures of anxiety (adjusted ß -0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.25 to -0.01), depression (adjusted ß -0.17, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.04) and mental well-being (adjusted ß 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.29), independent of baseline level of support. We identified 5 themes constituting effective workplace support, namely concern or understanding for welfare, information, tangible qualities of the workplace, leadership and peer support. INTERPRETATION: We found a significant association between perceived level of (and changes in) workplace support and mental health and burnout of HCPs, and identified potential themes that constitute perceived workplace support. Collectively, these findings can inform changes in guidance and national policies to improve mental health and burnout among HCPs. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04433260.

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.

Exposure Worry: The Psychological Impact of Perceived Ionizing Radiation Exposure in British Nuclear Test Veterans.

Potential psychological issues faced by British nuclear test veterans have been under-researched. This study assessed the prevalence of clinically relevant anxiety in British nuclear test veterans and aimed to explore experiences of worry and the broader psychological impact of the British nuclear weapons testing programme. The Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (Short-Form) was completed by 89 British nuclear test veterans (33.7% met the criteria for clinically relevant anxiety). Nineteen veterans then participated in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis of the data generated three themes. The first theme highlighted how worry was relevant only in a few cases (four) generally regarding their grandchildren's health, but the guilt in those who perceive responsibility for family health conditions also appeared to be a pertinent issue. The second theme highlighted the anger towards authorities resulting from perceived negligence and deception. The third theme highlighted the relevance of how certain life events across the life course influence the potential psychological impact. This study suggests that guilt must be considered in (potentially) exposed individuals whose family members experience health conditions, which may exacerbate distress. It also suggests the importance that authorities ensure transparency when dealing with any radiological exposure scenario to reduce the potential for anger.

The psychological consequences of (perceived) ionizing radiation exposure: a review on its role in radiation-induced cognitive dysfunction.

PURPOSE: Exposure to ionizing radiation following environmental contamination (e.g., the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents), radiotherapy and diagnostics, occupational roles and space travel has been identified as a possible risk-factor for cognitive dysfunction. The deleterious effects of high doses (≥1.0 Gy) on cognitive functioning are fairly well-understood, while the consequences of low (≤0.1 Gy) and moderate doses (0.1-1.0 Gy) have been receiving more research interest over the past decade. In addition to any impact of actual exposure on cognitive functioning, the persistent psychological stress arising from perceived exposure, particularly following nuclear accidents, may itself impact cognitive functioning. In this review we offer a novel interdisciplinary stance on the cognitive impact of radiation exposure, considering psychological and epidemiological observations of different exposure scenarios such as atomic bombings, nuclear accidents, occupational and medical exposures while accounting for differences in dose, rate of exposure and exposure type. The purpose is to address the question that perceived radiation exposure - even where the actual absorbed dose is 0.0 Gy above background dose - can result in psychological stress, which could in turn lead to cognitive dysfunction. In addition, we highlight the interplay between the mechanisms of perceived exposure (i.e., stress) and actual exposure (i.e., radiation-induced cellular damage), in the generation of radiation-induced cognitive dysfunction. In all, we offer a comprehensive and objective review addressing the potential for cognitive defects in the context of low- and moderate-dose IR exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Overall the evidence shows prenatal exposure to low and moderate doses to be detrimental to brain development and subsequent cognitive functioning, however the evidence for adolescent and adult low- and moderate-dose exposure remains uncertain. The persistent psychological stress following accidental exposure to low-doses in adulthood may pose a greater threat to our cognitive functioning. Indeed, the psychological implications for instructed cohorts (e.g., astronauts and radiotherapy patients) is less clear and warrants further investigation. Nonetheless, the psychosocial consequences of low- and moderate-dose exposure must be carefully considered when evaluating radiation effects on cognitive functioning, and to avoid unnecessary harm when planning public health response strategies.