| Literature DB >> 35328853 |
Elke Humer1, Christoph Pieh1, Ida-Maria Kisler2, Wolfgang Schimböck2, Petra Schadenhofer2,3.
Abstract
Telephone emergency service (TES) consultants have been challenged even more since the beginning of the pandemic. How the COVID-19 situation and the associated increasing demand for TES services affect the well-being and stress of TES counselors has not been assessed so far. This longitudinal study examined mental well-being (WHO-5), perceived stress level (PSS-10), and experienced job-related meaningfulness (CERES) of TES counselors at two measurement points during the pandemic. From December 2020 to January 2021 (t1), N = 374 counselors were recruited within the Austrian nationwide organization "TelefonSeelsorge". From those, N = 108 also participated one year later at t2. Neither well-being nor perceived stress differed significantly between t1 and t2. There was a decrease in job-related meaningfulness (from 5.46 at t1 to 5.34 at t2; p < 0.001). The consultants identified loneliness and mental health as the most common problems of helpline callers at both measurement points. The results confirm a stable level of stress and well-being during the pandemic in TES consultants. However, they also show a slight decrease in perceived job-related meaningfulness. Well-being of counselors should be watched closely, as they are an important part of the psychosocial healthcare system.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; counseling; helpline; job-related meaningfulness; mental well-being; stress
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35328853 PMCID: PMC8954390 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19063166
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.
| Characteristics | Responders | Non-Responders | Statistics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | ||
| Gender | |||||
| Female | 84 | 77.8 | 215 | 80.8 | X2 (1, 374) = 0.445; |
| Male | 24 | 22.2 | 51 | 19.2 | |
| Federal state | |||||
| Burgenland | 6 | 5.6 | 13 | 4.9 | X2 (8, 374) = 13.83; |
| Lower Austria | 14 | 13.0 | 26 | 9.8 | |
| Vienna | 17 | 15.7 | 46 | 17.3 | |
| Carinthia | 8 | 7.4 | 29 | 10.9 | |
| Styria | 5 | 4.6 | 33 | 12.4 | |
| Upper Austria | 16 | 14.8 | 25 | 9.4 | |
| Salzburg | 16 | 14.8 | 53 | 19.9 | |
| Tyrol | 9 | 8.3 | 19 | 7.1 | |
| Vorarlberg | 17 | 15.7 | 22 | 8.3 | |
| Education | |||||
| Secondary school | 2 | 1.9 | 5 | 1.9 | X2 (4, 374) = 3.252; |
| Apprenticeship | 9 | 8.3 | 24 | 9.0 | |
| Vocational secondary school | 24 | 22.2 | 45 | 16.9 | |
| High School | 18 | 16.7 | 64 | 24.1 | |
| University | 55 | 50.9 | 128 | 48.1 | |
Note: p-values (two-tailed), X2, chi-squared-test.
Measures of mental well-being (WHO-5), perceived stress (PSS-10), and perceived job-related meaningfulness (CERES) in Austrian telephone emergency counselors in winter 2020/2021 (t1) vs. winter 2021/2022 (t2) and in female vs. male counselors.
| Time | Gender | Statistics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | t1 | t2 | Female | Male | ||
| WHO-5 | ||||||
| N | 108 | 108 | 84 | 24 | time: F (1; 105) = 0.895; | |
| LSM | 68.93 | 69.32 | 67.44 | 70.81 | gender: F (1; 105) = 0.933; | |
| SEM | 1.850 | 2.001 | 1.64 | 3.08 | age: F (1; 105) = 6.769; | |
| PSS-10 | ||||||
| N | 108 | 108 | 84 | 24 | time F (1; 105) = 0.001; | |
| LSM | 11.87 | 12.83 | 12.86 | 11.85 | gender F (1; 105) = 0.790; | |
| SEM | 0.594 | 0.687 | 0.536 | 1.01 | age F (1; 105) = 3.369; | |
| CERES | ||||||
| N | 108 | 108 | 84 | 24 | time F (1; 105) = 18.337; | |
| LSM | 5.46 | 5.34 | 5.39 | 5.42 | gender F (1; 105) = 0.039; | |
| SEM | 0.068 | 0.081 | 0.063 | 0.119 | age F (1; 105) = 12.645; | |
Note: p-values (two-tailed); LSM, least squares mean; SEM, standard error of the mean; F, F-test; WHO-5, well-being questionnaire of the World Health Organization (WHO); PSS-10, perceived stress scale 10; CERES, experienced job-related meaningfulness.
Figure 1Counselors’ rating of the frequency of topics thematized by helpline callers during winter 2020/2021 (t1) vs. during winter 2021/2022 in Austria (t2) (N = 108). Note: counselors rated the frequency of each topic on a six-point scale from 1 = “never” to 6 = “always”. Data are shown as least squares means (LSM) ± standard error of the means.