| Literature DB >> 33931034 |
Huan Wang1, Xinyao Zhou2, Xiuli Jia3, Caiping Song4, Xu Luo5, Hua Zhang6, Hao Wu7, Junying Ye8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing spread of COVID-19, healthcare workers, especially front-line medical staff, have become more vulnerable to emotional exhaustion.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Cognition; Healthcare workers; Mental fatigue; Occupational stress; Social support
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33931034 PMCID: PMC8085471 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-10891-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Theoretical Model
Demographic characteristics (N = 232)
| Variable | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 52 | 22.40% |
| Female | 180 | 77.60% |
| < 20 | 0 | 0.00% |
| 20–29 | 69 | 29.70% |
| 30–39 | 124 | 53.40% |
| 40–49 | 35 | 15.10% |
| > 50 | 4 | 1.70% |
| College or lower | 37 | 15.90% |
| Undergraduate | 164 | 70.70% |
| Postgraduate or above | 31 | 13.40% |
| Yes | 32 | 13.80% |
| No | 200 | 86.20% |
| Clinical medicine | 44 | 19.00% |
| Nursing | 169 | 72.80% |
| Pharmacy, Radiology, Testing, Imaging | 9 | 3.90% |
| Administrative management | 6 | 2.60% |
| Others | 4 | 1.70% |
EE and demographic characteristics in categorical items (N = 232)
| Variable | Emotional Exhaustion | |
|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | |
| Male | 2.56 | 0.93 |
| Female | 2.27 | 0.75 |
| < 20 | 0 | 0 |
| 20–29 | 2.04 | 0.56 |
| 30–39 | 2.42 | 0.83 |
| 40–49 | 2.57 | 0.96 |
| > 50 | 2.75 | 0.82 |
| College or lower | 2.17 | 0.82 |
| Undergraduate | 2.31 | 0.77 |
| Postgraduate or above | 2.66 | 0.90 |
| Yes | 2.67 | 0.98 |
| No | 2.28 | 0.76 |
| Clinical medicine | 2.47 | 0.87 |
| Nursing | 2.29 | 0.76 |
| Pharmacy, Radiology, Testing, Imaging | 2.02 | 0.60 |
| Administrative management | 3.27 | 0.94 |
| Others | 1.90 | 1.09 |
Note:EE is emotional exhaustion
Confirmatory factor analysis (N = 232)
| Model | Factor | χ | df | χ | Δχ | IFI | CFI | RMSEA | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Four-factor | 287.26 | 129 | 2.23 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.07 | 0.07 | |
| 2 | Three-factor | 481.28 | 132 | 3.65 | 194.02 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.11 | 0.10 |
| 3 | Two-factor | 669.26 | 134 | 4.99 | 382.00 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.13 | 0.12 |
| 4 | One-factor | 767.14 | 135 | 3.68 | 479.89 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.14 | 0.12 |
Note: Four-factor model: time pressure, social sharing, cognitive reappraisal, emotional exhaustion. Three-factor model: time pressure + cognitive reappraisal, social sharing, emotional exhaustion. Two-factor model: time pressure + cognitive reappraisal + social sharing, emotional exhaustion. One-factor model: time pressure + cognitive reappraisal + social sharing + emotional exhaustion
IFI incremental fit index, CFI comparative fit index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, SRMR standardized root mean square residual
Descriptive statistics and correlations (N = 232)
| Variables | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | 0.22 | 0.42 | 1 | |||||||
| 2. Age | 33.88 | 0.71 | 0.25** | 1 | ||||||
| 3. Education | 1.97 | 0.54 | 0.18** | 0.37** | 1 | |||||
| 4. Rescue Experience | 0.14 | 0.35 | 0.3** | 0.43** | 0.16* | 1 | ||||
| 5. Time Pressure | 2.49 | 0.88 | 0.13* | 0.21** | 0.15* | 0.1 | 1 | |||
| 6. Social Sharing | 2.31 | 0.92 | −0.09 | 0.16* | 0.19** | 0.04 | 0.22** | 1 | ||
| 7. Cognitive Reappraisal | 3.72 | 0.53 | −0.04 | −0.07 | −0.07 | −0.07 | − 0.16* | − 0.17** | 1 | |
| 8. Emotional Exhaustion | 2.34 | 0.80 | 0.15* | 0.24** | 0.16* | 0.17* | 0.56** | 0.25** | −0.25 | 1 |
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (two-tailed)
Indirect effect of social sharing (N = 232)
| Variable | Social Sharing | Emotional Exhaustion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1(β) | Step 2(β) | Step 1(β) | Step 2(β) | Step 3(β) | Step 4(β) | |
| Gender | −0.155* | −0.170* | 0.076 | 0.035 | 0.112* | 0.058 |
| Age | 0.134 | 0.102 | 0.167* | 0.082 | 0.136 | 0.069 |
| Education | 0.163* | 0.149* | 0.078 | 0.039 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
| Rescue Experience | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.059 | 0.06 | 0.059 | 0.06 |
| Time Pressure | 0.199* | 0.527*** | 0.501*** | |||
| Social Sharing | 0.232*** | 0.132* | ||||
| R2 | 0.066 | 0.103 | 0.074 | 0.336 | 0.124 | 0.352 |
| F | 4.012** | 3.208*** | 4.542** | 22.916*** | 6.426*** | 20.366*** |
| ΔR2 | 0.066 | 0.037 | 0.074 | 0.262 | 0.05 | 0.016 |
| ΔF | 4.012** | 9.396** | 4.542** | 89.341*** | 12.998*** | 3.389* |
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed)
Fig. 2a Moderate Influence of Cognitive Reappraisal (N = 232). b. Johnson-Neyman Plot of the Interaction between Time Pressure and Cognitive Reappraisal (N = 232)
Conditional process analysis
| Cognitive Reappraisal | Effect | BootSE | BootLLCI | BootULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low Level | 0.042 | 0.024 | 0.005 | 0.097 |
| Moderate Level | 0.024 | 0.014 | 0.002 | 0.056 |
| High Level | 0.006 | 0.013 | −0.023 | 0.032 |
Note: Bootstrap is set by a 95% confidence interval for 5000 repeated samples
BootSE bootstrap standard error, BootLLCI lower limit of the bootstrap confidence interval, BootULCI upper limit of the bootstrap confidence interval