METHOD: A systematic review and metanalysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. The PubMed, Scopus, Science direct, Web of science, CINHAL, Medline, and Google Scholar databases were searched with no lower time-limt and until 24 June 2020. The heterogeneity of the studies was measured using I2 test and the publication bias was assessed by the Egger's test at the significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS: The I2 test was used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the selected studies, based on the results of I2 test, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians is I2: 97.4% and I2: 97.3% respectively. After following the systematic review processes, 7 cross-sectional studies were selected for meta-analysis. Six studies with the sample size of 3745 nurses were examined in and the prevalence of sleep disturbances was approximated to be 34.8% (95% CI: 24.8-46.4%). The prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians was also measured in 5 studies with the sample size of 2123 physicians. According to the results, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians caring for the COVID-19 patients was reported to be 41.6% (95% CI: 27.7-57%).
CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers, as the front line of the fight against COVID-19, are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of this disease than other groups in society. Increasing workplace stress increases sleep disturbances in the medical staff, especially nurses and physicians. In other words, increased stress due to the exposure to COVID-19 increases the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians. Therefore, it is important for health policymakers to provide solutions and interventions to reduce the workplace stress and pressures on medical staff.
BACKGROUND: Previous literature showed that mindfulness-based training is useful for helping nurses cope with stress.
METHOD: Nurses who have mild to moderate levels of stress, anxiety and depression identified from a teaching hospital were invited to a randomized control trial. The intervention group had a 2-hr Mindfulness-Based Training workshop, followed by 4 weeks of guided self-practice Mindfulness-Based Training website. Both the intervention group (n = 118) and the control group (n = 106) were evaluated pre- and post-intervention, and 8 weeks later (follow-up) using the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21, Job Satisfaction Scale and Mindful Attention Awareness Scale.
RESULTS: There was a significant effect over time on stress, anxiety, depression and mindfulness level (p
METHODS: In this research work, the systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression approaches are used to approximate the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. The keywords of prevalence, anxiety, stress, depression, psychopathy, mental illness, mental disorder, doctor, physician, nurse, hospital staff, 2019-nCoV, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and Coronaviruses were used for searching the SID, MagIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases. The search process was conducted in December 2019 to June 2020. In order to amalgamate and analyze the reported results within the collected studies, the random effects model is used. The heterogeneity of the studies is assessed using the I2 index. Lastly, the data analysis is performed within the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.
RESULTS: Of the 29 studies with a total sample size of 22,380, 21 papers have reported the prevalence of depression, 23 have reported the prevalence of anxiety, and 9 studies have reported the prevalence of stress. The prevalence of depression is 24.3% (18% CI 18.2-31.6%), the prevalence of anxiety is 25.8% (95% CI 20.5-31.9%), and the prevalence of stress is 45% (95% CI 24.3-67.5%) among the hospitals' Hospital staff caring for the COVID-19 patients. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, with increasing the sample size, the prevalence of depression and anxiety decreased, and this was statistically significant (P
OBJECTIVE: This research aimed to examine the relationship between spiritual well-being and moral distress among a sample of Iranian nurses and also to study the determinant factors of moral distress and spiritual well-being in nurses.
RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional, correlational design was employed to collect data from 193 nurses using the Spiritual Well-Being Scale and the Moral Distress Scale-Revised.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: This study was approved by the Regional Committee of Medical Research Ethics. The ethical principles of voluntary participation, anonymity, and confidentiality were considered.
FINDINGS: Mean scores of spiritual well-being and moral distress were 94.73 ± 15.89 and 109.56 ± 58.70, respectively. There was no significant correlation between spiritual well-being and moral distress (r = -.053, p = .462). Marital status and job satisfaction were found to be independent predictors of spiritual well-being. However, gender and educational levels were found to be independent predictors for moral distress. Age, working in rotation shifts, and a tendency to leave the current job also became significant after adjusting other factors for moral distress.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study could not support the relationship between spiritual well-being and moral distress. However, the results showed that moral distress is related to many elements including individual ideals and differences as well as organizational factors. Informing nurses about moral distress and its consequences, establishing periodic consultations, and making some organizational arrangement may play an important role in the identification and management of moral distress and spiritual well-being.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a correlational cross-sectional study. The sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire, sickness absenteeism questionnaire, job characteristics questionnaire, Demand-Control-Support Questionnaire (DCSQ), Work-Related Strain Inventory (WRSI), Work and Family Conflict Scale (WAFCS), the COVID-19-related workplace worries questionnaire, as well as the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress (DASS-21) questionnaire will be randomly distributed to 166 nurses from October 2024 to May 2025.
DISCUSSION: While physical illnesses, psychological disorders, job-related factors, and sociodemographic factors have been identified as risk factors to sickness absenteeism among healthcare professionals in general, the role of these risk factors in causing sickness absenteeism among the nurses remains unclear. Additionally, the increased stress and workload faced by nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, may have further impacted sickness absenteeism.
CONCLUSION: By examining the various risk factors of sickness absenteeism, especially in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era, this research will inform future targeted interventions to reduce sickness absenteeism among Malaysian nurses and its associated consequences.