| Literature DB >> 33324250 |
Elisa H Kozasa1,2, Shirley S Lacerda2, Monica Aparecida Polissici2, Roseli da Silva Coelho2, Gedeon da Silva Farias2, Patrícia Chaves2, Eliseth R Leão2.
Abstract
Situational awareness is especially important to decision-making in health care. Comprehending the situation is crucial for anticipating any change in the environment and delivering optimal care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of a training to increase situational awareness and mutual care designed for health care workers (FoCo) in a randomized controlled trial with additional qualitative analysis. We also investigated the perception of the training for the COVID-19 pandemic moment, in May 2020, almost 6 months after we finished the data collection at the Emergency Care Unit, which became a COVID-19 treatment reference for the care of a population depending on the public health system, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. We conclude that FoCo training can be an important instrument for health care professionals both in times of pandemic and "normal times," to increase situational awareness, the culture of mutual care and decrease the possibility of occupational injuries and illnesses.Entities:
Keywords: care; health care workers (HCW); mental health; mindfulness; safety; situational awareness
Year: 2020 PMID: 33324250 PMCID: PMC7725753 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.570786
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Figure 1Flow chart of the study.
Comparison between groups at baseline.
| Age Mean (sd) | 33.30 (8.08) | 35.94 (9.19) | 0.205 |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 9 (24.32%) | 4 (12.12%) | 0.190 |
| Female | 28 (75.68%) | 29 (87.88%) | |
| Years of Schooling | |||
| <8 | 1 (2.70%) | 1 (3.03%) | 0.739 |
| 9–11 | 14 (37.84%) | 10 (30.30%) | |
| 12–16 | 11 (29.73%) | 12 (36.36%) | |
| 17 or more | 11 (29.73%) | 10 (30.30%) | |
| Ethnicity | |||
| Caucasian | 13 (35.14%) | 10 (30.30%) | 0.123 |
| African-Brazilian | 8 (21.62%) | 2 (6.06%) | |
| Brown | 15 (40.54%) | 21 (63.34%) | |
| Asian | 1 (2.70%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Marital Status | |||
| Single | 11 (29.73%) | 14 (42.42%) | 0.098 |
| Married | 16 (43.24%) | 9 (27.27%) | |
| Lives together | 9 (24.32%) | 4 (12.12%) | |
| Divorced | 1 (2.70%) | 4 (12.12%) | |
| Widowed | 0 (0%) | 2 (6.06%) | |
| Religion | |||
| Atheist | 1 (2.70%) | 0 (0%) | 0.558 |
| Without religion | 4 (10.81%) | 7 (21.21%) | |
| Catholic | 15 (40.54%) | 11 (33.33%) | |
| Protestant | 2 (5.40%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Evangelic | 12 (32.43%) | 12 (36.36%) | |
| Spiritualist | 1 (2.70%) | 2 (6.06%) | |
| Other | 2 (5.40%) | 1 (3.03%) | |
| Monthly income (minimum wages) | |||
| <1 | 1 (2.70%) | 3 (9.09%) | 0.426 |
| 1–3 | 14 (37.84%) | 10 (30.30%) | |
| 3–5 | 12 (32.43%) | 10 (30.30%) | |
| 5–8 | 10 (27.03%) | 8 (24.24%) | |
| 8 or more | 0 (0%) | 2 (6.06%) | |
| SRQ | 3.41 (3.05) | 2.85 (2.81) | 0.431 |
| SCS | 88.65 (17.44) | 93.18 (11.56) | 0.210 |
| MAAS | 70.97 (9.73) | 72.39 (10.08) | 0.551 |
| PSS | 15.97 (6.42) | 16.68 (5.77) | 0.638 |
| PANASP | 33.32 (6.03) | 34.97 (5.88) | 0.253 |
| PANASN | 15.24 (3.96) | 15.36 (4.68) | 0.908 |
| PSQI | 6.16 (3.40) | 6.18 (3.62) | 0.981 |
Student t test;
Chi-squared test. SRQ, Self-Report Questionnaire; SCS, Self-Compassion Scale; MAAS, Mindful Attention Awareness Scale; PSS, Perceived Stress Scale; PANAS-P, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—Positive Affects; PANAS-N, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—Negative Affects; PSQI,Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
Comparison between baseline and 1 month.
| SRQ | 3.31 (3.11) | 2.46 (2.78) | 3.04 (2.99) | 2.61 (3.41) | 0.031 | 0.929 | 0.466 |
| SCS | 88.60 (15.61) | 95.46 (16.43) | 93.89 (11.01) | 96.79 (13.65) | 0.007 | 0.313 | 0.257 |
| MAAS | 71.09 (9.99) | 72.03 (11.09) | 72.18 (10.35) | 71.71 (10.95) | 0.803 | 0.877 | 0.464 |
| PSS | 16.09 (6.48) | 13.80 (5.87) | 16.68 (5.61) | 14.93 (5.65) | 0.008 | 0.515 | 0.718 |
| PANAS-P | 33.60 (5.99) | 34.23 (6.81) | 34.82 (6.21) | 35.22 (6.68) | 0.438 | 0.467 | 0.868 |
| PANAS-N | 15.26 (4.01) | 13.69 (4.09) | 15.30 (3.94) | 15.48 (6.33) | 0.260 | 0.369 | 0.155 |
| PSQI | 6.03 (3.43) | 5.71 (3.15) | 6.29 (3.67) | 6.25 (3.49) | 0.584 | 0.625 | 0.663 |
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01. SRQ, Self-Report Questionnaire; SCS, Self-Compassion Scale; MAAS, Mindful Attention Awareness Scale; PSS, Perceived Stress Scale; PANAS-P, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—Positive Affects; PANAS-N, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—Negative Affects; PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
Comparison between baseline and 2 months.
| SRQ | 2.83 (2.75) | 2.43 (3.09) | 0.231 |
| SCS | 90.25 (14.63) | 93.41 (16.94) | 0.095 |
| MAAS | 72.31 (9.91) | 73.47 (12.24) | 0.246 |
| PSS | 16.13 (6.14) | 13.92 (6.69) | 0.004 |
| PANAS-P | 34.25 (5.90) | 34.14 (7.67) | 0.900 |
| PANAS-N | 15.31 (4.40) | 15.23 (6.40) | 0.909 |
| PSQI | 5.83 (3.23) | 5.02 (3.20) | 0.048 |
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01. SRQ, Self-Report Questionnaire; SCS, Self-Compassion Scale; MAAS, Mindful Attention Awareness Scale; PSS, Perceived Stress Scale; PANAS-P, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—Positive Affects; PANAS-N, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—Negative Affects; PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
Linear regression model for PSS as the dependent variable.
| 0.540 | 25.794 | <0.001 | PANAS-N | 0.676 | 0.131 | 5.153 | <0.001 |
| SRQ | 0.560 | 0.202 | 2.776 | 0.007 | |||
| MAAS | −0.124 | 0.057 | −2.175 | 0.033 |
R2, 0.540;
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01. PSS, Perceived Stress Scale; SRQ, Self-Report Questionnaire; MAAS, Mindful Attention Awareness Scale; PANAS-N, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—Negative Affects.