Methodology: Data was collected from 433 working professionals of private and public organizations in the Delhi and NCR region of India during India's third and fourth phase of lockdown via a survey, which was distributed online. Partial least squares structural equation modelling was applied first to establish the validity of this study's model (measurement model validity) and subsequently test the hypothesized relationships in the model (structural model).
Results: The COVID-19 induced stressors, i.e., role overload, lifestyle choices, and occupational discomfort, were significant predictors of distress during the lockdown. It has been found that role overload and change in lifestyle choice did not significantly affect job performance. Family distraction, occupational discomfort, and distress were significant in impacting job performance, with distress being the most significant one. During the COVID-19 pandemic, life satisfaction has reduced due to a significant increase in distress levels and lowered job performances.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-01567-0.
Methods: It was a cross-sectional study using online questionnaire, carried out in a public university in Sarawak, Malaysia. All medical and nursing students were invited to participate in this study. Data was entered and analysed using IBM SPSS version 22.
Result: A total of 304 respondents participated in the study, with 81.6% female and 69.4% medical students. Majority of the respondents were most willing to take a medical history, do a physical examination, throat swabbing, draw blood and perform IV drip insertion. There was a high commitment among respondents to treat COVID-19 patients regardless of personal risks. Majority of the respondents also agreed that medical staff who are involved in treating COVID-19 patients should be receiving a salary increase and compensation should be given to affected healthcare families, and all non-medical staff should be involved in treating COVID-19 patients. About 71% agreed about a law mandating medical staffs to treat patient.
Conclusion: The willingness and commitment of medical and nursing students to treat COVID-19 patients was high, indicating their potential work force as healthcare providers.
METHODS: A rapid online survey comprising 22 items was administered during the rapid outbreak of COVID-19 in Pakistan. Questions were focused on the prevention, transmission, clinical features, and control of COVID-19. In addition, the attitudes and practices of the participants were explored. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and regression analysis were carried out during data analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 1257 respondents participated in this study. Most of the respondents had good knowledge (good = 64.8%, average = 30.5%, poor = 4.7%) of COVID-19. Gender, marital status, education, and residence were observed to have a significant association with the knowledge score. A vast majority of the survey respondents (77.0%) believed that COVID-19 would be controlled successfully in Pakistan. The practices of wearing a mask (85.8%) and handwashing (88.1%) were common among the participants.
CONCLUSION: The participants demonstrated good knowledge and reasonable attitudes and practices toward most aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak. Improvements in certain areas could be made by mass-level education.
METHODOLOGY: All the subjects who met the inclusion criteria were recruited for this comparative cross-sectional study, which was conducted from May to July 2020 in two hospitals in Kelantan, Malaysia. A self-administered questionnaire, namely, the Malay-version Vicarious Traumatization Questionnaire and the Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey were utilized. A descriptive analysis, independent t-test, and analysis of covariance were performed using SPSS Statistics version 26.
RESULTS: A total of 160 frontline and 146 non-frontline healthcare providers were recruited. Vicarious traumatization was significantly higher among the non-frontline healthcare providers (estimated marginal mean [95% CI]: 79.7 [75.12, 84.30]) compared to the frontline healthcare providers (estimated marginal mean [95% CI]: 74.3 [68.26, 80.37]) after adjusting for sex, duration of employment, and social support.
CONCLUSION: The level of vicarious traumatization was higher among non-frontline compared to frontline healthcare providers. However, the level of severity may differ from person to person, depending on how they handle their physical, psychological, and mental health. Hence, support from various resources, such as colleagues, family, the general public, and the government, may play an essential role in the mental health of healthcare providers.