Literature DB >> 34933949

From Epidemic to Pandemic: Comparing Hospital Staff Emotional Experience Between MERS and COVID-19.

Imran Khalid1,2,3, Maryam Imran4, Manahil Imran4, Muhammad Ali Akhtar5, Saifullah Khan6, Khadija Amanullah6, Tabindeh Jabeen Khalid6.   

Abstract

Objective: Both Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have an emotional toll on healthcare workers (HCWs), but the difference of the impact between the two diseases remains unknown.Design: A cross sectional descriptive survey.Setting: A tertiary care hospital.Participants: 125 HCWs who worked during the 2014 MERS as well as the 2020 COVID-19 outbreaks in high-risk areas of the hospital including critical care, emergency room and COVID-19 clinics.
Methods: The comprehensive survey comprised 5 sections and 68 questions and was administered to HCWs before availability of the COVID-19 vaccine. The survey evaluated hospital staff emotions, perceived stressors, external factors that reduced stress, personal coping strategies, and motivators for future outbreaks. The participants rated each question for MERS and COVID-19 simultaneously on a scale from 0-3. The responses were reported as mean and standard deviation, while Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to calculate the difference in responses.
Results: There were 102 (82%) participants who returned the questionnaire. The ritual of obsessive hand washing, emotional and physical fatigue, ongoing changes in infection control guidelines, fear of community transmission, and limitations on socialization and travel were the major stressors that were significantly worse during COVID-19 compared to MERS (P<0.05) and led to HCWs adoption of additional 'personal' coping strategies during COVID-19. There was no difference between COVID-19 and MERS, however, among preferences for 'external' factors made available to HCWs that could reduce stress or in their preferences for motivators to work in future outbreaks (P>.05).
Conclusion: Both the MERS and COVID-19 outbreaks were emotionally draining for HCWs. However, COVID-19 was a relatively more stressful experience than MERS for HCWs and led to greater personal, behavioral, and protective adaptations by the hospital staff.
© 2021 Marshfield Clinic Health System.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; Coping; Emotions; Healthcare workers; MERS; Motivators

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34933949      PMCID: PMC8691431          DOI: 10.3121/cmr.2021.1657

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Med Res        ISSN: 1539-4182


  24 in total

1.  Reducing questionnaire length did not improve physician response rate: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Eva E Bolt; Agnes van der Heide; Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Lives on the line? Ethics and practicalities of duty of care in pandemics and disasters.

Authors:  A K Simonds; D K Sokol
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 16.671

3.  Retrieval of Emotional Events from Memory.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Kensinger; Jaclyn H Ford
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 24.137

4.  Can't get it out of my mind: A systematic review of predictors of intrusive memories of distressing events.

Authors:  Elizabeth H Marks; Anna R Franklin; Lori A Zoellner
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 17.737

Review 5.  Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response.

Authors:  Jay J Van Bavel; Katherine Baicker; Paulo S Boggio; Valerio Capraro; Aleksandra Cichocka; Mina Cikara; Molly J Crockett; Alia J Crum; Karen M Douglas; James N Druckman; John Drury; Oeindrila Dube; Naomi Ellemers; Eli J Finkel; James H Fowler; Michele Gelfand; Shihui Han; S Alexander Haslam; Jolanda Jetten; Shinobu Kitayama; Dean Mobbs; Lucy E Napper; Dominic J Packer; Gordon Pennycook; Ellen Peters; Richard E Petty; David G Rand; Stephen D Reicher; Simone Schnall; Azim Shariff; Linda J Skitka; Sandra Susan Smith; Cass R Sunstein; Nassim Tabri; Joshua A Tucker; Sander van der Linden; Paul van Lange; Kim A Weeden; Michael J A Wohl; Jamil Zaki; Sean R Zion; Robb Willer
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-04-30

6.  Exploring stress coping strategies of frontline emergency health workers dealing Covid-19 in Pakistan: A qualitative inquiry.

Authors:  Khadeeja Munawar; Fahad Riaz Choudhry
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 2.918

7.  Factors associated with hospital admission and critical illness among 5279 people with coronavirus disease 2019 in New York City: prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Christopher M Petrilli; Simon A Jones; Jie Yang; Harish Rajagopalan; Luke O'Donnell; Yelena Chernyak; Katie A Tobin; Robert J Cerfolio; Fritz Francois; Leora I Horwitz
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2020-05-22

8.  Healthcare workers' anxieties and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey.

Authors:  Damla Özçevik Subaşi; Aylin Akça Sümengen; Enes Şimşek; Ayşe Ferda Ocakçı
Journal:  Perspect Psychiatr Care       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 2.223

9.  Psychological Impact and Coping Strategies of Frontline Medical Staff in Hunan Between January and March 2020 During the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‑19) in Hubei, China.

Authors:  Haozheng Cai; Baoren Tu; Jing Ma; Limin Chen; Lei Fu; Yongfang Jiang; Quan Zhuang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-04-15

Review 10.  The Household Secondary Attack Rate of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A Rapid Review.

Authors:  Hannah F Fung; Leonardo Martinez; Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Joshua A Salomon; David M Studdert; Jason R Andrews; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 20.999

View more
  1 in total

1.  Perspective on the challenges of COVID-19 facing healthcare workers.

Authors:  Jaffar A Al-Tawfiq; Mohamad-Hani Temsah
Journal:  Infection       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 3.553

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.