RESUMO
COVID-19 is a major public health event affecting the people worldwide. Nurses are still under immense psychological pressure. This study aimed to explore the relationship between mental fatigue and negative emotions among frontline medical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study was conducted in August 2020, which included 419 medical staff between 17 to 28 years. The Fatigue Scale, Multidimensional Mental Flexibility Questionnaire, Cognitive Fusion Scale, and Depression-Anxiety-Stress Brief Version Scale were used. During the data collection period, the pandemic was under control in China and continued worldwide. The results indicated that 27.7% of the medical staff experienced depression, and 32.3% of them feel stressed. Specifically, first, correlation analyses showed significant positive pairwise correlations between mental fatigue, psychological inflexibility, cognitive fusion, and negative emotions among nurses. Second, mediation model tests showed statistically significant mediating effects of psychological inflexibility and cognitive fusion between mental fatigue on nurses' negative emotions, and statistically, significant chain mediating effects of psychological inflexibility and cognitive fusion. Mental fatigue indirectly affects nurses' negative effects through the mediating effects of psychological inflexibility, cognitive fusion, and the chain mediating effects of psychological inflexibility and cognitive fusion, respectively. the negative effects of mental fatigue come from impairment of cognitive functioning, and interventions using acceptance and commitment therapy for mental fatigue and negative emotions are more effective since both psychological inflexibility and cognitive fusion are important components of the therapy.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were to investigate the burden for health care workers (HCWs) who suffer from occupational-related adverse events (ORAEs) while working in contaminated areas in a specialized hospital for novel coronavirus pneumonia, to explore related risk factors, to evaluate the effectiveness of bundled interventions, as well as to provide scientific evidence regarding the reduction of risks concerning ORAEs and occupational exposure events. METHODS: The study was completed using a special team of 138 HCWs assembled for a specialized hospital for novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, dated from February 16 to March 26, 2020. The incidence of occupational exposure was determined by data reported from the hospital, while the prevalence of ORAEs was derived from questionnaire results. The relation coefficients of ORAEs and the variable potential risk factors are analyzed by logistic regression. After the risk factors were identified, targeted organized intervention was implemented and chi-square tests were performed to compare the incidence of occupational exposure and the prevalence of ORAEs in contaminated areas before and after the interventions. RESULTS: Ninety one out of 138 (65.94%) had reported ORAEs with 300 (27.96%) cases of ORAEs being recorded in a total of 1073 entries into contaminated areas. The prevalence of different ORAEs include 205 tenderness (24.73%), 182 headache/dizziness (21.95%), 138 dyspnea (16.65%), 130 blurred vision (15.68%), and 95 nausea/vomiting (11.46%). Personal protective equipment (PPE) is significantly associated with ORAEs in contaminated areas (P < 0.05). Among non-PPE-related factors, insomnia is associated with the majority of ORAEs in contaminated areas. Significant differences were achieved after organized interventions in the incidence of occupational exposure of HCWs (χ2 = 39.07, P < 0.001) and the prevalence of ORAEs in contaminated areas (χ2 = 22.95, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: During the epidemic period of novel severe respiratory infectious disease, the burden of the ORAEs in contaminated areas and the risk of occupational exposure of HCWs were relatively high. In time, comprehensive and multi-level bundled interventions may help decrease the risk of both ORAEs and occupational exposure.