The impact of vaccine hesitancy on psychological impairment among healthcare workers in a Total Worker Health© approach.

Introduction: Vaccination practice is a well-known individual protective measure for biological risk in healthcare. During the COVID-19 pandemic vaccine hesitancy has grown among healthcare workers (HCWs). The study aims to investigate how vaccine hesitancy influences the psychological burden experienced by healthcare workers. Methods: This study aimed to explore attitudes of HCWs in acceptance or refusal of vaccinations related to the risk of psychological impairment (PI) and describe the associated occupational factors, during the seasonal flu/COVID-19 vaccination campaign of 2022-2023. 302 HCWs were enrolled in the study. A questionnaire was self-administered, including two scales on the risk of psychological impairment (Psychological Injury Risk Indicator, PIRI) and vaccine hesitancy (Adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, AVHS). Results: PIRI scores revealed that 29.8% of participants were at risk of PI. Differences in sex, age, occupational seniority, professional category, and night shifts were found between HCWs at risk of PI and those not at risk. Females registered a four-fold higher risk than males (85.6% vs. 14.4%, χ2 = 4.450, p < 0.05). Nurses were the highest risk category, followed by physicians and technicians (54.4% vs. 30.0% vs. 12.2%, χ2 = 14.463, p < 0.001). 41.7% of participants received the flu vaccination, and 98.9% received the COVID-19 vaccine. HCWs were prone to being vaccinated to protect patients and family members. Conversely, vaccine refusal was attributed to the perception of flu vaccines as not beneficial and COVID-19 contagion at low risk. The latter was more frequently reported for HCWs at risk of PI (16.7% vs. 4.7%, χ2 = 11.882, p = 0.001). Finally, hesitant HCWs were at higher risk of psychological impairment than others. Discussion: HCWs expressed vaccine acceptance considering their social role in the community as protectors. However, the underestimation of the risk of severity of COVID-19 was more relevant among HCWs at risk of PI than others. Psychological aspects need to be considered by healthcare providers when fighting vaccine hesitancy.

Feasibility of a Stop Smoking Program for Healthcare Workers in an Italian Hospital: Econometric Analysis in a Total Worker Health® Approach.

Background: Over 20% of healthcare workers (HCWs) are active smokers. Smoking is a targeted issue for workplace health promotion (WHP) programs. Objective: Our study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Stop Smoking Promotion (SSP) intervention, a 6-hour training course for HCWs, which took place from May 2018 to July 2019. Methods: We compared HCWs who successfully quit smoking (n = 15) to those who did not (n = 25) in terms of Sickness Absence Days (SADs). Moreover, we conducted an econometric analysis by calculating the return on investment and implementing a break-even analysis. Findings: Among the 40 enrolled workers, a success rate of 37.5% was observed after a span of over two years from the SSP intervention (with nurses and physicians showed the best success rate). Overall, participants showed a noticeable absenteeism reduction after the SSP intervention, with a reduction rate of 85.0% in a one-year period. The estimated ROI for the hospital was 1.90, and the break-even point was 7.85. In other words, the organization nearly doubled its profit from the investment, and the success of at least eight participants balanced costs and profits. Conclusion: Our pilot study confirms that WHP programs are simple and cost-saving tools which may help improve control over the smoking pandemic in healthcare settings.

The Management of Workplace Violence against Healthcare Workers: A Multidisciplinary Team for Total Worker Health® Approach in a Hospital.

The risk of aggression against healthcare workers (HCWs) is a globally well-known topic. However, workplace violence (WV) is often considered as part of HCW's job, leading to a general underreporting. This cross-sectional study aims at providing a descriptive analysis of aggressive acts against HCWs registered in a 34-month period in a pediatric hospital. According to a specific protocol, each aggressive act was analyzed by a multidisciplinary team using the "Modified Overt Aggression Scale" (MOAS), the "General Health Questionnaire-12" (GHQ-12), and the "Short Form-36 Health Survey" (SF-36) to build a report addressing improvement measures. A three-domain model of WV was also developed considering: (1) assaulted HCWs, (2) attacker-related issues, and (3) environmental context. Contributing factors to overt aggression were outlined and tested using univariate analyses. Statistically significant factors were then included in a multiple linear regression model. A total of 82 aggressive acts were registered in the period. MOAS scores registered a mean value of 3.71 (SD: 4.09). Verbal abuse was the most common form of WV. HCWs professional category, minor psychiatric disorder, emotional role limitation, type of containment used, and emotion intensity were significantly associated with overt aggression (p < 0.05), as well as the attacker's role in the hospital (p < 0.05). The multiple regression analysis confirmed these findings (p < 0.001). Raising awareness on the aggression risk and contributing factors may lead to a relevant improvement of workplace environment, individual workers' health, and organizational well-being.

Effectiveness of Psychological Support to Healthcare Workers by the Occupational Health Service: A Pilot Experience.

Work-related stress is a significant risk for healthcare workers (HCWs). This study aims at evaluating the effectiveness of an individual psychological support programme for hospital workers. In all, 35 workers participated (n). A control group of 245 workers (7n) was set. Occupational distress was measured by the General Health Questionnaire, (GHQ-12), the quality of life by the Short Form-36 health survey, (SF-36), and sickness absence was recorded. Costs and benefits of the service were evaluated and the return on investment (ROI) was calculated. The level of distress was significantly reduced in the treated group at the end of the follow-up (p < 0.001). Quality of life had significantly improved (p < 0.003). A 60% reduction of sickness absence days (SADs) following the intervention was recorded. After the treatment, absenteeism in cases was significantly lower than in controls (p < 0.02). The individual improvement of mental health and quality of life was significantly correlated with the number of meetings with the psychologist (p < 0.01 and p < 0.03, respectively). The recovery of direct costs due to reduced sick leave absence was significantly higher than the costs of the programme; ROI was 2.73. The results must be examined with caution, given the very limited number of workers treated; this first study, however, encouraged us to continue the experience.