Mao Peng1, Li Wang1, Qing Xue1, Lu Yin2, Bo-Heng Zhu3, Kun Wang1,4, Fang-Fang Shangguan5, Pei-Ran Zhang6, Yan-Yan Niu7, Wen-Rui Zhang1, Wen-Feng Zhao1, Huang Wang1, Jing Lv1, Hai-Qing Song1, Bao-Quan Min1, Hai-Xia Leng1, Yu Jia1, Hong Chang1, Zhi-Peng Yu1, Qing Tian8, Yuan Yang9, Zhou Zhu9, Wei Li10, Xiao-Ling Gao11, Xiao-Lei Liu12, Mei Yang13, Ping Wang14, Peng-Hu Wei15, Chun-Xue Wang16, Jin-Na Li17, Long-Bin Jia17, Xiao-Min Huang18, Dong-Ning Li18, Dong-Juan Xu19, Yun-Long Deng20, Tian-Mei Si21, Hui-Qing Dong1, Yu-Ping Wang1, Fiammetta Cosci22, Hong-Xing Wang23,24,25,26,27. 1. Division of Neuropsychiatry and Psychosomatics, Department of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 2. Medical Research and Biometrics Center, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 4. Department of Neurology, Beijing Puren Hospital, Beijing, China. 5. School of Psychology, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China. 6. Department of Public Economics, School of Economics, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 7. Department of Orthopedics, Jincheng People's Hospital, Shanxi Medical University, Jincheng, China. 8. Beijing Institute of Brain Disorders, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 9. Department of Psychiatry, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 10. Department of Neurology, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, China. 11. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China. 12. Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China. 13. Department of Psychology, Ningxia Fifth People's Hospital, Ningxia Medical University, Shizuishan, China. 14. Department of Neurology, The Second Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China. 15. Department of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 16. Department of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Neurology and Clinical Psychology Center, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 17. Department of Neurology, Jincheng People's Hospital, Shanxi Medical University, Jincheng, China. 18. Department of Neurology, Ningcheng Center Hospital, Ningcheng, China. 19. Department of Neurology, Dongyang People's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Dongyang, China. 20. Psychosomatic Health Institute, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. 21. Peking University Sixth Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Mental Health Disorders and Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Ministry of Health, Peking University, Beijing, China. 22. Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 23. Division of Neuropsychiatry and Psychosomatics, Department of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China, wanghongxing@xwh.ccmu.edu.cn. 24. Department of Neurology, Jincheng People's Hospital, Shanxi Medical University, Jincheng, China, wanghongxing@xwh.ccmu.edu.cn. 25. Department of Neurology, Ningcheng Center Hospital, Ningcheng, China, wanghongxing@xwh.ccmu.edu.cn. 26. Department of Neurology, Dongyang People's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Dongyang, China, wanghongxing@xwh.ccmu.edu.cn. 27. Beijing Psychosomatic Disease Consultation Center, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China, wanghongxing@xwh.ccmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the fight against the COVID-19 epidemic continues, medical workers may have allostatic load. OBJECTIVE: During the reopening of society, medical and nonmedical workers were compared in terms of allostatic load. METHODS: An online study was performed; 3,590 Chinese subjects were analyzed. Socio-demographic variables, allostatic load, stress, abnormal illness behavior, global well-being, mental status, and social support were assessed. RESULTS: There was no difference in allostatic load in medical workers compared to nonmedical workers (15.8 vs. 17.8%; p = 0.22). Multivariate conditional logistic regression revealed that anxiety (OR = 1.24; 95% CI 1.18-1.31; p < 0.01), depression (OR = 1.23; 95% CI 1.17-1.29; p < 0.01), somatization (OR = 1.20; 95% CI 1.14-1.25; p < 0.01), hostility (OR = 1.24; 95% CI 1.18-1.30; p < 0.01), and abnormal illness behavior (OR = 1.49; 95% CI 1.34-1.66; p < 0.01) were positively associated with allostatic load, while objective support (OR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.78-0.89; p < 0.01), subjective support (OR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.80-0.88; p < 0.01), utilization of support (OR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.72-0.88; p < 0.01), social support (OR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.87-0.93; p < 0.01), and global well-being (OR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.22-0.41; p < 0.01) were negatively associated. CONCLUSIONS: In the post-COVID-19 epidemic time, medical and nonmedical workers had similar allostatic load. Psychological distress and abnormal illness behavior were risk factors for it, while social support could relieve it.
BACKGROUND: As the fight against the COVID-19 epidemic continues, medical workers may have allostatic load. OBJECTIVE: During the reopening of society, medical and nonmedical workers were compared in terms of allostatic load. METHODS: An online study was performed; 3,590 Chinese subjects were analyzed. Socio-demographic variables, allostatic load, stress, abnormal illness behavior, global well-being, mental status, and social support were assessed. RESULTS: There was no difference in allostatic load in medical workers compared to nonmedical workers (15.8 vs. 17.8%; p = 0.22). Multivariate conditional logistic regression revealed that anxiety (OR = 1.24; 95% CI 1.18-1.31; p < 0.01), depression (OR = 1.23; 95% CI 1.17-1.29; p < 0.01), somatization (OR = 1.20; 95% CI 1.14-1.25; p < 0.01), hostility (OR = 1.24; 95% CI 1.18-1.30; p < 0.01), and abnormal illness behavior (OR = 1.49; 95% CI 1.34-1.66; p < 0.01) were positively associated with allostatic load, while objective support (OR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.78-0.89; p < 0.01), subjective support (OR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.80-0.88; p < 0.01), utilization of support (OR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.72-0.88; p < 0.01), social support (OR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.87-0.93; p < 0.01), and global well-being (OR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.22-0.41; p < 0.01) were negatively associated. CONCLUSIONS: In the post-COVID-19 epidemic time, medical and nonmedical workers had similar allostatic load. Psychological distress and abnormal illness behavior were risk factors for it, while social support could relieve it.
Authors: Paul A Sandifer; Robert-Paul Juster; Teresa E Seeman; Maureen Y Lichtveld; Burton H Singer Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 4.693
Authors: Alexandre Luiz de Oliveira Serpa; André Luiz Braule Pinto; Alexandre Paim Diaz; Marco Aurélio Romano-Silva; Danielle de Souza Costa; Rui M Joaquim; Jonas Jardim de Paula; Rafaela Guatimosim; Antônio Geraldo da Silva; Débora Marques de Miranda; Leandro F Malloy-Diniz Journal: Braz J Psychiatry Date: 2022-08-22
Authors: Giovanni Mansueto; Sara Palmieri; Claudia Marino; Gabriele Caselli; Sandra Sassaroli; Giovanni Maria Ruggiero; Ana V Nikčević; Marcantonio M Spada Journal: Clin Psychol Psychother Date: 2022-06-30
Authors: Stephen X Zhang; Hao Huang; Jizhen Li; Mayra Antonelli-Ponti; Scheila Farias de Paiva; José Aparecido da Silva Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 3.390