Prospective Bidirectional Relationship Between Sleep Duration and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms After Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Sleep disturbance is a "hallmark" symptom of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Poor sleep (including short sleep) after combat-related trauma can also predict subsequent PTSD. Less is known about the association between sleep duration and PTSD symptoms when PTSD is induced by acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We examined the bidirectional relationship between sleep duration and PTSD symptoms over the year after hospital evaluation for ACS. METHODS: Participants were enrolled in this observational study after emergency department evaluation for ACS. Sleep duration ("During the past month, how many hours of actual sleep did you get at night?") and cardiac event or hospitalization-induced PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist) were assessed at 1, 6, and 12 months after hospital discharge. Cross-lagged path analysis was used to model the effects of sleep duration and PTSD symptoms on each other. Covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, cardiac severity, baseline depression symptoms, and early acute stress disorder symptoms. RESULTS: The sample included 1145 participants; 16% screened positive for probable PTSD (PTSD Checklist score ≥33). Mean sleep duration across time points was 6.1 hours. Higher PTSD symptoms predicted shorter sleep duration at the next time point (i.e., 1-6 and 6-12 months; B = -0.14 hours/10-point difference, SE = 0.03, p < .001). Shorter sleep duration was associated with higher PTSD symptoms at the next time point (B = -0.25 points/hour, SE = 0.12, p = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Short sleep duration and PTSD symptoms are mutually reinforcing across the first year after ACS evaluation. Findings suggest that sleep, PTSD symptoms, and their relationship should be considered in the post-ACS period.

The association between sleep and psychological distress among New York City healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) treating patients with COVID-19 report psychological distress. We examined whether disturbed sleep was associated with psychological distress in New York City (NYC) HCWs during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-May 2020). METHODS: HCWs completed a survey screening for acute stress (4-item Primary Care PTSD screen), depressive (Patient Health Questionaire-2), and anxiety (2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale) symptoms. Insomnia symptoms (modified item from the Insomnia Severity Index) and short sleep (SS, sleep duration <6 h/day) were assessed. Poisson regression analyses predicting psychological distress from SS and insomnia symptoms, adjusting for demographics, clinical role/setting, redeployment status, shifts worked, and multiple comparisons were performed. RESULTS: Among 813 HCWs (80.6% female, 59.0% white) mean sleep duration was 5.8 ± 1.2 h/night. Prevalence of SS, insomnia, acute stress, depressive, and anxiety symptoms were 38.8%, 72.8%, 57.9%, 33.8%, and 48.2%, respectively. Insomnia symptoms was associated with acute stress (adjusted prevalence ratio [PR]: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.35, 1.69), depressive (PR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.78, 2.33), and anxiety (PR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.55, 1.94) symptoms. SS was also associated with acute stress (PR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.29), depressive (PR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.233, 1.51), and anxiety (PR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.26, 1.50) symptoms. LIMITATIONS: Our cross-sectional analysis may preclude the identification of temporal associations and limit causal claims. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, SS and insomnia were associated with psychological distress symptoms in NYC HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sleep may be a target for interventions to decrease psychological distress among HCWs.

Factors Associated with Insomnia Symptoms in a Longitudinal Study among New York City Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the longer-term psychological impact of COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs). PURPOSE: We examined the 10-week trajectory of insomnia symptoms in HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: HCWs completed a web-based survey at baseline (9 April-11 May 2020) and every 2 weeks for 10 weeks. The main outcome was the severity of insomnia symptoms in the past week. Multivariable-adjusted generalized estimating equation analyses examined factors associated with insomnia symptoms. RESULTS: n = 230 completed surveys at baseline. n = 155, n = 130, n = 118, n = 95, and n = 89 completed follow-ups at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10, respectively. Prevalence of insomnia symptoms of at least moderate severity was 72.6% at baseline, and 63.2%, 44.6%, 40.7%, 34.7%, and 39.3% at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10, respectively. In multivariable analyses, factors significantly associated with increased odds of insomnia symptoms were younger age (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-1.00), working in a COVID-facing environment (OR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.15-2.67) and hours worked (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.06-1.27). CONCLUSIONS: The initial high rates of insomnia symptoms improved as time passed from the peak of local COVID-19 cases but four out of ten HCWs still had moderate-to-severe insomnia symptoms ten weeks after baseline.

Prevalence, Incidence, and Factors Associated with Posttraumatic Stress at Three-Month Follow-Up among New York City Healthcare Workers after the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence, incidence, and factors associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms at follow-up among healthcare workers after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic are unknown. METHODS: A web survey invitation was sent to healthcare worker listservs at a NYC medical center (April, 2020). The Primary Care (PC)-PTSD questionnaire was used to screen for PTSD symptoms at baseline and then every 2 weeks for 10 weeks. Incidence and prevalence of PTSD symptoms were determined at each time point. Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were performed to investigate the factors associated with a positive PC-PTSD screen at follow-up. RESULTS: Median age (interquartile range) of N = 230 participants was 36 (31-48) years; 79.6% were women; 82.6% worked in COVID-19-focused settings. The prevalence of PTSD symptoms decreased from 55.2% at baseline to 25.0% at 10 weeks (p < 0.001). Among participants who had a baseline negative screen for PTSD symptoms, the incidence of PTSD at 10 weeks was 12.2% (p-trend 0.034). In multivariable-adjusted analyses, being a nurse (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-2.71), female (OR: 3.00, 95% CI: 1.59, 5.72), and working in a COVID-19-focused location (OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.21) were associated with increased odds of PTSD symptoms at 10-weeks. CONCLUSIONS: PTSD symptoms improved over 3 months following the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, one out of four NYC healthcare workers still had an increased risk for PTSD at 10-weeks. Screening healthcare workers for PTSD symptoms should be considered during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Psychological distress, coping behaviors, and preferences for support among New York healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The mental health toll of COVID-19 on healthcare workers (HCW) is not yet fully described. We characterized distress, coping, and preferences for support among NYC HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional web survey of physicians, advanced practice providers, residents/fellows, and nurses, conducted during a peak of inpatient admissions for COVID-19 in NYC (April 9th-April 24th 2020) at a large medical center in NYC (n = 657). RESULTS: Positive screens for psychological symptoms were common; 57% for acute stress, 48% for depressive, and 33% for anxiety symptoms. For each, a higher percent of nurses/advanced practice providers screened positive vs. attending physicians, though housestaff's rates for acute stress and depression did not differ from either. Sixty-one percent of participants reported increased sense of meaning/purpose since the COVID-19 outbreak. Physical activity/exercise was the most common coping behavior (59%), and access to an individual therapist with online self-guided counseling (33%) garnered the most interest. CONCLUSIONS: NYC HCWs, especially nurses and advanced practice providers, are experiencing COVID-19-related psychological distress. Participants reported using empirically-supported coping behaviors, and endorsed indicators of resilience, but they also reported interest in additional wellness resources. Programs developed to mitigate stress among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic should integrate HCW preferences.

Patient Barriers and Facilitators to Ambulatory and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that patients with newly elevated office blood pressure undergo ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) to rule-out white coat hypertension before being diagnosed with hypertension. We explored patients' perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to undergoing ABPM or HBPM. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with twenty English- and Spanish-speaking individuals from underserved communities in New York City. Two researchers analyzed transcripts using a conventional content analysis to identify barriers and facilitators to participation in ABPM and HBPM. RESULTS: Participants described favorable attitudes toward testing including readily understanding white coat hypertension, agreeing with the rationale for out-of-office testing, and believing that testing would benefit patients. Regarding ABPM, participants expressed concerns over the representativeness of the day the test was performed and the intrusiveness of the frequent readings. Regarding HBPM, participants expressed concerns over the validity of the monitoring method and the reliability of home blood pressure devices. For both tests, participants noted that out-of-pocket costs may deter patient participation and felt that patients would require detailed information about the test itself before deciding to participate. Participants overwhelmingly believed that out-of-office testing benefits outweighed testing barriers, were confident that they could successfully complete either testing if recommended by their provider, and described the rationale for their testing preference. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified dominant barriers and facilitators to ABPM and HBPM testing, articulated testing preferences, and believed that they could successfully complete out-of-office testing if recommended by their provider.