Zhicheng Du1, Hua You2, Huan Zhou3, Xiaohui Wang4, Jingdong Xu5, Yan Li6, Shan Li7, Lina Ma5, Jing Gu8, Yuantao Hao1. 1. School of Public Health, Global Health Institute, Key Laboratory of Tropical Disease Control, Sun Yat-sen University, 510080, Guangzhou, China. 2. School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, 210000, Nanjing, China. 3. West China School of Public Health, West China Fourth Hospital, Sichuan University, 610000, Chengdu, China. 4. School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 730000, Lanzhou, China. 5. Hubei Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 430097, Wuhan, China. 6. Guangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 510440, Guangzhou, China. 7. Zigong Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 643000, Zigong, China. 8. School of Public Health, Global Health Institute, Key Laboratory of Tropical Disease Control, Sun Yat-sen University, 510080, Guangzhou, China. gujing5@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to address the difficulties encountered by public health workers in the early and middle stages of their efforts to combat COVID-19, compare the gaps among different types of institutions, and identify shortcomings in epidemic control. METHODS: Using multi-stage sampling, a survey of public health workers involved in the prevention and control of COVID-19 was conducted from 18 February to 1 March 2020 through a self-administered questionnaire. These public health workers were from the primary health care center (defined as "primary-urban" and "primary-rural" for those in urban and rural areas, respectively) and the center for disease control and prevention (defined as "non-primary") in five provinces including Hubei, Guangdong, Sichuan, Jiangsu and Gansu, China. RESULTS: A total of 9,475 public health workers were surveyed, of which 40.0 %, 27.0 % and 33.0 % were from the primary-rural, primary-urban and non-primary, respectively. The resources shortage were reported by 27.9 % participants, with the primary-rural being the worst affected (OR = 1.201, 95 %CI: 1.073-1.345). The difficulties in data processing were reported by 31.5 % participants, with no significant differences among institutions. The difficulties in communication and coordination were reported by 29.8 % participants, with the non-primary being the most serious (primary-rural: OR = 0.520, 95 %CI: 0.446-0.606; primary-urban: OR = 0.533, 95 %CI: 0.454-0.625). The difficulties with target audiences were reported by 20.2 % participants, with the primary-urban being the worst (OR = 1.368, 95 %CI: 1.199-1.560). The psychological distress were reported by 48.8 % participants, with no significant differences among institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress is the most serious problem in the prevention and control of COVID-19. Resources shortage in primary-rural, difficulties in communication and coordination in non-primary, and difficulties with target audiences in the primary-urban deserve attention. This study will provide scientific evidences for improving the national public health emergency management system, especially for reducing the urban-rural differences in emergency response capacity.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to address the difficulties encountered by public health workers in the early and middle stages of their efforts to combat COVID-19, compare the gaps among different types of institutions, and identify shortcomings in epidemic control. METHODS: Using multi-stage sampling, a survey of public health workers involved in the prevention and control of COVID-19 was conducted from 18 February to 1 March 2020 through a self-administered questionnaire. These public health workers were from the primary health care center (defined as "primary-urban" and "primary-rural" for those in urban and rural areas, respectively) and the center for disease control and prevention (defined as "non-primary") in five provinces including Hubei, Guangdong, Sichuan, Jiangsu and Gansu, China. RESULTS: A total of 9,475 public health workers were surveyed, of which 40.0 %, 27.0 % and 33.0 % were from the primary-rural, primary-urban and non-primary, respectively. The resources shortage were reported by 27.9 % participants, with the primary-rural being the worst affected (OR = 1.201, 95 %CI: 1.073-1.345). The difficulties in data processing were reported by 31.5 % participants, with no significant differences among institutions. The difficulties in communication and coordination were reported by 29.8 % participants, with the non-primary being the most serious (primary-rural: OR = 0.520, 95 %CI: 0.446-0.606; primary-urban: OR = 0.533, 95 %CI: 0.454-0.625). The difficulties with target audiences were reported by 20.2 % participants, with the primary-urban being the worst (OR = 1.368, 95 %CI: 1.199-1.560). The psychological distress were reported by 48.8 % participants, with no significant differences among institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress is the most serious problem in the prevention and control of COVID-19. Resources shortage in primary-rural, difficulties in communication and coordination in non-primary, and difficulties with target audiences in the primary-urban deserve attention. This study will provide scientific evidences for improving the national public health emergency management system, especially for reducing the urban-rural differences in emergency response capacity.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; Difficulties; Public health workers
Authors: Jordi Alonso; Gemma Vilagut; Philippe Mortier; Montse Ferrer; Itxaso Alayo; Andrés Aragón-Peña; Enric Aragonès; Mireia Campos; Isabel D Cura-González; José I Emparanza; Meritxell Espuga; Maria João Forjaz; Ana González-Pinto; Josep M Haro; Nieves López-Fresneña; Alma D Martínez de Salázar; Juan D Molina; Rafael M Ortí-Lucas; Mara Parellada; José Maria Pelayo-Terán; Aurora Pérez-Zapata; José I Pijoan; Nieves Plana; Maria Teresa Puig; Cristina Rius; Carmen Rodríguez-Blázquez; Ferran Sanz; Consol Serra; Ronald C Kessler; Ronny Bruffaerts; Eduard Vieta; Víctor Pérez-Solà Journal: Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment (Engl Ed) Date: 2020-12-10