METHOD: This is a multi-site cross-sectional study. The authors conducted a survey based on a translated self-administered questionnaire to participants from seven core hospital departments.
RESULTS: While most health-care workers regardless of department and specialty took their duty to prevent suicide seriously, a large majority of them expressed negative attitudes such as finding suicidal behavior irritating, and more than half believed suicidal attempts were a way of making others sorry. However, psychiatric workers were less likely to have judgmental attitudes that included believing suicide attempters as being selfish or trying to get sympathy from others.
CONCLUSIONS: As there were more similarities than differences in health-care workers' attitudes toward suicide, recommendations on basic and continuous suicide prevention and management training among hospital workers were made. The interventions focused on improving knowledge, affective, and skill-based areas that were aimed to correct the wrongful understanding of and to minimize the negative attitudes toward suicidal individuals indicated by the study results.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychological impact of COVID-19 on emergency HCWs and to understand how they are dealing with COVID-19 pandemic, their stress coping strategies or protective factors, and challenges while dealing with COVID-19 patients.
METHODS: Using a framework thematic analysis approach, 15 frontline emergency HCWs directly dealing with COVID-19 patients from April 2, 2020 to April 25, 2020. The semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Findings highlighted first major theme of stress coping, including, limiting media exposure, limited sharing of Covid-19 duty details, religious coping, just another emergency approach, altruism, and second major theme of Challenges includes, psychological response and noncompliance of public/denial by religious scholar.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants practiced and recommended various coping strategies to deal with stress and anxiety emerging from COVID-19 pandemic. Media was reported to be a principal source of raising stress and anxiety among the public. Religious coping as well as their passion to serve humanity and country were the commonly employed coping strategies.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively impacted global healthcare systems. We hypothesized that the degree of psychological impact would be higher for surgical providers deployed for COVID-19 work, certain surgical specialties, and for those who knew of someone diagnosed with, or who died, of COVID-19.
METHODS: We conducted a global web-based survey to investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19. The primary outcomes were the depression anxiety stress scale-21 and Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores.
RESULTS: A total of 4283 participants from 101 countries responded. 32.8%, 30.8%, 25.9%, and 24.0% screened positive for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD respectively. Respondents who knew someone who died of COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD (OR 1.3, 1.6, 1.4, 1.7 respectively, all P < 0.05). Respondents who knew of someone diagnosed with COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, stress, and PTSD (OR 1.2, 1.2, and 1.3 respectively, all P < 0.05). Surgical specialties that operated in the head and neck region had higher psychological distress among its surgeons. Deployment for COVID- 19-related work was not associated with increased psychological distress.
CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may have a mental health legacy outlasting its course. The long-term impact of this ongoing traumatic event underscores the importance of longitudinal mental health care for healthcare personnel, with particular attention to those who know of someone diagnosed with, or who died of COVID-19.
Methods: This study, stratified in pre-, during, and post-intervention periods, was conducted between February 2017 and March 2018 in two wards at a tertiary care hospital in Malaysia. Hand hygiene promotion was facilitated either by PICAs (study arm 1) or MSCAs (study arm 2), and the two wards were randomly allocated to one of the two interventions. Outcomes were: 1) perceived leadership styles of PICAs and MSCAs by staff, vocalised during question and answer sessions; 2) the social network connectedness and communication patterns between HCWs and change agents by applying social network analysis; and 3) hand hygiene leadership attributes obtained from HCWs in the post-intervention period by questionnaires.
Results: Hand hygiene compliance in study arm 1 and study arm 2 improved by from 48% (95% CI: 44-53%) to 66% (63-69%), and from 50% (44-55%) to 65% (60-69%), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two arms. Healthcare workers perceived that PICAs lead by example, while MSCAs applied an authoritarian top-down leadership style. The organisational culture of both wards was hierarchical, with little social interaction, but strong team cohesion. Position and networks of both PICAs and MSCAs were similar and generally weaker compared to the leaders who were nominated by HCWs in the post-intervention period. Healthcare workers on both wards perceived authoritative leadership to be the most desirable attribute for hand hygiene improvement.
Conclusion: Despite experiencing successful hand hygiene improvement from PICAs, HCWs expressed a preference for the existing top-down leadership structure. This highlights the limits of applying leadership models that are not supported by the local organisational culture.
METHODS: This is a quasi-experimental study conducted in 20 intervention and 20 matched control clinics. We surveyed all HCPs who were directly involved in patient management. A self-administered questionnaire which included six questions on job satisfaction were assessed on a scale of 1-4 at baseline (April and May 2017) and post-intervention phase (March and April 2019). Unadjusted intervention effect was calculated based on absolute differences in mean scores between intervention and control groups after implementation. Difference-in-differences analysis was used in the multivariable linear regression model and adjusted for providers and clinics characteristics to detect changes in job satisfaction following EnPHC interventions. A negative estimate indicates relative decrease in job satisfaction in the intervention group compared with control group.
RESULTS: A total of 1042 and 1215 HCPs responded at baseline and post-intervention respectively. At post-intervention, the intervention group reported higher level of stress with adjusted differences of - 0.139 (95% CI -0.266,-0.012; p = 0.032). Nurses, being the largest workforce in public clinics were the only group experiencing dissatisfaction at post-intervention. In subgroup analysis, nurses from intervention group experienced increase in work stress following EnPHC interventions with adjusted differences of - 0.223 (95% CI -0.419,-0.026; p = 0.026). Additionally, the same group were less likely to perceive their profession as well-respected at post-intervention (β = - 0.175; 95% CI -0.331,-0.019; p = 0.027).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that EnPHC interventions had resulted in some untoward effect on HCPs' job satisfaction. Job dissatisfaction can have detrimental effects on the organisation and healthcare system. Therefore, provider experience and well-being should be considered before introducing healthcare delivery reforms to avoid overburdening of HCPs.
METHOD: This study was conducted using an exploratory qualitative approach on purposely selected healthcare providers at primary healthcare clinics. Twenty focus group discussions and three in-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Consent was obtained prior to interviews and for audio-recordings. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a framework comprised of five major domains promoting implementation theory development and verification across multiple contexts.
RESULTS: The study revealed via CFIR that most primary healthcare providers were receptive towards any proposed changes or intervention for the betterment of NCD care management. However, many challenges were outlined across four CFIR domains-intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and individual characteristics-that included perceived barriers to implementation. Perception of issues that triggered proposed changes reflected the current situation, including existing facilitating aspects that can support the implementation of any future intervention. The importance of strengthening the primary healthcare delivery system was also expressed.
CONCLUSION: Understanding existing situations faced at the primary healthcare setting is imperative prior to implementation of any intervention. Healthcare providers' receptiveness to change was explored, and using CFIR framework, challenges or perceived barriers among healthcare providers were identified. CFIR was able to outline the clinics' setting, individual behaviour and external agency factors that have direct impact to the organisation. These are important indicators in ensuring feasibility, effectiveness and sustainability of any intervention, as well as future scalability considerations.
METHODS: Ten focus group discussions were held with opinion leaders (chiefs, elders, assemblymen, leaders of women groups) and 16 in-depth interviews were conducted with healthcare workers (District Directors of Health, Medical Assistants in-charge of health centres, and district Public Health Nurses and Midwives). The interviews and discussions were audio recorded, transcribed into English and imported into NVivo 10 for content analysis.
RESULTS: As heads of the family, men control resources, consult soothsayers to determine the health seeking or treatment for pregnant women, and serve as the final authority on where and when pregnant women should seek medical care. Beyond that, they have no expectation of any further role during antenatal care and therefore find it unnecessary to attend clinics with their partners. There were conflicting views about whether men needed to provide any extra support to their pregnant partners within the home. Health workers generally agreed that men provided little or no support to their partners. Although health workers had facilitated the formation of father support groups, there was little evidence of any impact on antenatal support.
CONCLUSIONS: In patriarchal settings, the role of men can be complex and social and cultural traditions may conflict with public health recommendations. Initiatives to promote male involvement should focus on young men and use chiefs and opinion leaders as advocates to re-orient men towards more proactive involvement in ensuring the health of their partners.