Literature DB >> 32449770

The impact of having inadequate safety equipment on mental health.

A Simms1, N T Fear1, N Greenberg2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Concerns are being raised about the impact of inadequate safety equipment on the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 medical response. AIMS: To assess the impact of inadequate safety equipment on the mental health of service personnel deployed on operations in order to better understand the impact on those working under the similarly demanding conditions of the COVID-19 medical response.
METHODS: Self-report surveys were conducted in four operational environments with 3435 personnel providing data. Surveys recorded data on socio-demographic, military and operational characteristics, mental health measures and specific occupational stressors. Analysis through logistic regression explored the association between inadequate equipment and all other factors.
RESULTS: A total of 3401 personnel provided data on their perceptions of the adequacy of their equipment, of which 532 (15%) stated that they had a lot of concerns that they did not have the right equipment in working order. Analysis found significantly greater odds of reporting symptoms of common mental health disorders (CMD), 2.49 (2.03-3.06), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 2.99 (2.11-4.24), poorer global health 2.09 (1.62-2.70) and emotional problems 1.69 (1.38-2.06) when individuals reported working with inadequate equipment. Analyses remained significant when adjusted for confounding factors such as rank, sex and operational environment.
CONCLUSIONS: An individual's perception of having inadequate equipment is significantly associated with symptoms of CMD, probable PTSD, poorer global health and increased reporting of emotional problems. This in turn may impact on their ability to safely carry out their duties and may have longer-term mental health consequences.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; mental health; presenteeism; protective equipment

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32449770      PMCID: PMC7313819          DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqaa101

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Occup Med (Lond)        ISSN: 0962-7480            Impact factor:   1.611


Concerns are being raised in the media about inadequate safety equipment for healthcare workers during the COVID-19 response. Work-related stress is associated with presenteeism, poorer mental health and increased staff turnover. The perception of having inadequate equipment has a significant association with poorer mental health within personnel working in demanding environments. The results suggest the need for robust psychological support is required to protect the mental health of all staff, especially those who feel that they have not been supplied with sufficient work-related equipment.

Introduction

There are frequent media reports and questions to the government relating to whether NHS and other key workers have sufficient equipment to safely carry out their roles. Furthermore, concerns about the relationship between inadequate equipment and the mental health and deaths of healthcare workers have been raised by the British Medical Association (BMA) [1] and the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) [2]. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) define work-related stress as an adverse reaction to excessive pressures or demands placed upon individuals [3]. This is associated with presenteeism, a reduction in work productivity including poorer quality of patient care, increased staff turnover and mental health disorders [4]. In 2018/19, 602 000 workers in the UK suffered from work-related stress, depression or anxiety with 12.8 million working days lost [5]. The UK Armed Forces have considerable experience of working in stressful environments, adapting to new threats at short notice, in unpleasant conditions for prolonged periods with limited resources. They have also carried out extensive research in order to better understand the stressors and mitigate against them [6]. This paper examines the association between inadequate equipment and mental health using data from four military operations to further understand how this issue might affect healthcare workers in the demanding COVID-19 environment.

Methods

A total of 3435 military personnel were surveyed across four operational environments; Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 [7] and 2010 [8], respectively, and operations between the Persian Gulf and South Atlantic in 2015 [9]. Each survey recorded socio-demographic details, military and operational characteristics, the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) [10] and the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-Civilian version (PCL-C) [11]. Self-rated general health was assessed using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) [12]. The survey also explored work-related stressors, specifically whether they were troubled by not having the right equipment in working order.

Results

A total of 3401 (99% responder rate) responded to the question asking whether they were troubled by having inadequate equipment, with 532 (15%) endorsing the statement (Table 1). Analysis found significantly greater odds of reporting symptoms of common mental health disorders (CMD), 2.49 (2.03–3.06), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 2.99 (2.11–4.24), poorer global health 2.09 (1.62–2.70) and emotional problems 1.69 (1.38–2.06) when individuals reported working with inadequate equipment (Table 2). Analyses remained significant when adjusted for confounding factors such as rank, sex and operational environment.
Table 1.

Distribution of socio-demographic factors and poor equipment

Characteristic Population, n (%) N = 3435Poor equipment, n (%) N = 523 (15%) X 2, df, P
Operation
 Iraq611 (18)40 (7)126.97, 2, P < 0.000
 Afghan1431 (42)156 (11)
 Maritime1393 (41)327 (24)
Service background
 RN1299 (38)290 (2)120.85, 3, P < 0.000
 Army1808 (53)173 (10)
 RM139 (4)40 (29)
 RAF171 (5)13 (8)
Rank
 Officer439 (13)54 (12)19.96, 2, P < 0.000
 Senior609 (18)127 (21)
 Junior2358 (69)334 (14)
Age at time of sampling (years)
 18–241264 (3)183 (15)1.44, 2, P < 0.488
 25–391805 (53)288 (16)
 40 and over348 (10)51 (15)
Deployment status
 Formed unit2746 (82)475 (17)40.51, 1, P < 0.00
 Individual Augmentee601 (18)41 (7)
Sex
 Male3021 (89)475 (16)3.94, 1, P < 0.047
 Female381 (11)45 (12)
Previous deployment
 First tour727 (21)72 (10)20.19, 1, P < 0.000
 Previous tours2704 (78)451 (17)
General health
 Good to excellent3022 (88)409 (14)61.78, 1, P < 0.001
 Fair to poor398 (12)114 (29)
Self-reported emotional problems
 No2298 (67)286 (12)45.88, 1, P < 0.001
 Yes1111 (33)235 (21)
CMD caseness
 No2467 (72)276 (11)116.69, 1, P < 0.001
 Yes938 (27)245 (26)
Probable PTSD caseness
 No3239 (95)463 (14)54.74, 1, P < 0.001
 Yes167 (5)59 (36)
Table 2.

Health factors associated with having poor equipment

CharacteristicOR (95% CI) P-valueAORa (95% CI) P-valueAORb (95% CI) P-valueAORc (95% CI) P-value
General health
 Good to excellent1111
 Fair to poor2.56 (2.01–3.26) P < 0.0012.03 (1.58–2.61) P < 0.0012.62 (2.05–3.35) P < 0.0012.09 (1.62–2.70) P < 0.001
Self-reported emotional problems
 No1111
 Yes1.92 (1.58–2.32) P < 0.0011.64 (1.35–1.99) P < 0.0011.99 (1.64–2.41) P < 0.0011.69 (1.38–2.06) P < 0.001
CMD
 No 1111
 Caseness2.81 (2.32–3.40) P < 0.0012.40 (1.96–2.94) P < 0.0012.92 (2.40–3.55) P < 0.0012.49 (2.03–3.06) P < 0.001
Probable PTSD
 No 1111
 Caseness3.31 (2.37–4.61) P < 0.0012.81 (1.99–3.97) P < 0.0013.55 (2.53–4.97) P < 0.0012.99 (2.11–4.24) P < 0.001

AOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder.

aAdjusted for operational environment, whether an Individual Augmentee and whether first tour.

bAdjusted for rank and sex.

cAdjusted for all above.

Distribution of socio-demographic factors and poor equipment Health factors associated with having poor equipment AOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder. aAdjusted for operational environment, whether an Individual Augmentee and whether first tour. bAdjusted for rank and sex. cAdjusted for all above.

Discussion

This study found significant associations between the perception of having inadequate equipment and poorer mental health in personnel operating in an arduous environment, a situation similar to the current COVID-19 response given the tangible threat, persistent pressure and uncomfortable working conditions. Previous research shows that poorer mental health is often associated with significant functional impairment [13] and has identified that healthcare workers are at an increased risk of presenteeism in relation to infectious illnesses [14]. Whilst poorer mental health may impact on their ability to carry out their duties efficiently and safely with catastrophic consequences to both staff and patients, the individual is also at risk of longer-term difficulties such as burnout [15,16] which is associated with depression [17] and higher staff turnover [18]. Healthcare managers should be aware that staff who complain about poor equipment are at increased risk of poor mental health which may impair their ability to carry out their role safely. Robust support processes should be put in place to mitigate this risk.
  12 in total

1.  Mental health of UK military personnel while on deployment in Iraq.

Authors:  Kathleen Mulligan; Norman Jones; Charlotte Woodhead; Mark Davies; Simon Wessely; Neil Greenberg
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 9.319

2.  The impact of posttraumatic stress disorder on impairment in the UK military at the time of the Iraq war.

Authors:  Roberto J Rona; Margaret Jones; Amy Iversen; Lisa Hull; Neil Greenberg; Nicola T Fear; Matthew Hotopf; Simon Wessely
Journal:  J Psychiatr Res       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 4.791

3.  Mental health and psychological support in UK armed forces personnel deployed to Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011.

Authors:  Norman Jones; Paul Mitchell; John Clack; Mohammed Fertout; Nicola T Fear; Simon Wessely; Neil Greenberg
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 9.319

4.  Occupational variation in burnout among medical staff: Evidence for the stress of higher status.

Authors:  Matthew K Grace; Jane S VanHeuvelen
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2019-05-11       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Burnout and Health Care Workforce Turnover.

Authors:  Rachel Willard-Grace; Margae Knox; Beatrice Huang; Hali Hammer; Coleen Kivlahan; Kevin Grumbach
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 6.  Burnout-depression overlap: a review.

Authors:  Renzo Bianchi; Irvin Sam Schonfeld; Eric Laurent
Journal:  Clin Psychol Rev       Date:  2015-01-17

7.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; A E Raczek
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Work related stress, burnout, job satisfaction and general health of nurses.

Authors:  Natasha Khamisa; Brian Oldenburg; Karl Peltzer; Dragan Ilic
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2015-01-12       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  A systematic review of infectious illness Presenteeism: prevalence, reasons and risk factors.

Authors:  R K Webster; R Liu; K Karimullina; I Hall; R Amlôt; G J Rubin
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Resilience, burnout and coping mechanisms in UK doctors: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Nicola McKinley; R Scott McCain; Liam Convie; Mike Clarke; Martin Dempster; William Jeffrey Campbell; Stephen James Kirk
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 2.692

View more
  11 in total

1.  COVID-19 challenges to dentistry in the new pandemic epicenter: Brazil.

Authors:  Rafael R Moraes; Marcos B Correa; Ana B Queiroz; Ândrea Daneris; João P Lopes; Tatiana Pereira-Cenci; Otávio P D'Avila; Maximiliano S Cenci; Giana S Lima; Flávio F Demarco
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Mental Health Burden of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Healthcare Workers in Four Latin American Countries.

Authors:  Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga; Hugo Juanillo-Maluenda; María Alejandra Sánchez-Bandala; Graciela Verónica Burgos; Silvina Andrea Müller; Jorge Rafael Rodríguez López
Journal:  Inquiry       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 1.730

3.  Mental Health Differences in Healthcare Workers Exposed to Different Risks During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

Authors:  Yihui Zhang; Da Li; Xuan Ouyang; Hanping Bai; Linlin Zhao; Yongyan Shi; Liwen Tan
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 4.157

4.  A qualitative study on safety perception among healthcare workers of a tertiary academic care center during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Authors:  Selina Ehrenzeller; Ana Durovic; Richard Kuehl; Aurélien Emmanuel Martinez; Michèle Bielser; Manuel Battegay; Matthias von Rotz; André Fringer; Sarah Tschudin-Sutter
Journal:  Antimicrob Resist Infect Control       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 4.887

Review 5.  PTSD in the COVID-19 Era.

Authors:  Farah Chamaa; Hisham F Bahmad; Batoul Darwish; Jana M Kobeissi; Malak Hoballah; Sibell Bou Nassif; Yara Ghandour; Jean-Paul Saliba; Nada Lawand; Wassim Abou-Kheir
Journal:  Curr Neuropharmacol       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 7.708

Review 6.  COVID-19-Related Mental Health Effects in the Workplace: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Gabriele Giorgi; Luigi Isaia Lecca; Federico Alessio; Georgia Libera Finstad; Giorgia Bondanini; Lucrezia Ginevra Lulli; Giulio Arcangeli; Nicola Mucci
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Health-related factors of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic among non-health workers in Spain.

Authors:  Carlos Ruiz-Frutos; Mónica Ortega-Moreno; Regina Allande-Cussó; Sara Domínguez-Salas; Adriano Dias; Juan Gómez-Salgado
Journal:  Saf Sci       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 4.877

8.  Developing a toolkit to navigate clinical, educational and research practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Yuli Guzman-Prado; Roberto Vita; Jennifer Ben Shimol
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 3.149

9.  Occupational Stress and Mental Health Among Healthcare Workers Serving Socially Vulnerable Populations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  V Nelly Salgado de Snyder; Alice P Villatoro; Marisol D McDaniel; Ana Sofia Ocegueda; Deliana Garcia; Deborah Parra-Medina
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-12-09

10.  Factors mediating the psychological well-being of healthcare workers responding to global pandemics: A systematic review.

Authors:  Jekaterina Schneider; Deborah Talamonti; Benjamin Gibson; Mark Forshaw
Journal:  J Health Psychol       Date:  2021-04-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.