| Literature DB >> 36091496 |
Wei Yan1, Xinyao Zhou2, Caiping Song3, Xu Luo4, Huan Wang5, Pengpeng Yin6, Hao Wu3, Junying Ye6.
Abstract
Objective: Thousands of healthcare workers on the frontlines who have been battling the COVID-19 pandemic could face emotional and mental health risks even after their critical pandemic work. This study examined the impact of affective rumination on emotional exhaustion and the spillover effect of affective rumination on unhealthy food consumption among healthcare workers during recuperation.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; affective rumination; emotional exhaustion; front-line healthcare workers; unhealthy food consumption
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36091496 PMCID: PMC9453554 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.926395
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Demographic characteristics (N = 418).
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 125 | 29.90% |
| Female | 293 | 70.10% |
| Age (year) | ||
| <20 | 0 | 0.00% |
| 20–29 | 93 | 22.25% |
| 30–39 | 252 | 60.29% |
| 40–49 | 68 | 16.27% |
| 5 | 1.20% | |
| Education | ||
| College or under | 37 | 8.85% |
| Undergraduate | 311 | 74.40% |
| Master | 41 | 9.81% |
| Doctor | 29 | 6.94% |
Confirmatory factor analysis (N = 232).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Four-factor | 1264.48 | 129 | 9.80 | 0.869 | 0.890 | 0.101 | 0.071 | |
| 2 | Three-factor | 1295.40 | 132 | 9.81 | 30.92 | 0.725 | 0.763 | 0.145 | 0.129 |
| 3 | Two-factor | 2008.63 | 134 | 14.99 | 713.23 | 0.564 | 0.618 | 0.183 | 0.145 |
| 4 | One-factor | 2998.69 | 135 | 22.21 | 990.06 | 0.339 | 0.416 | 0.225 | 0.177 |
Four-factor model: affective rumination, emotional exhaustion, unhealthy food consumption, family support; three-factor model: affective rumination + unhealthy food consumption, emotional exhaustion, family support; two-factor model: affective rumination + emotional exhaustion + unhealthy food consumption, family support; one-factor model: affective rumination + emotional exhaustion + unhealthy food consumption + family support.
Descriptive statistics and correlations (N = 418).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Affective rumination | 1.68 | 0.65 | 1 | 0.392** | 0.199** | −0.158** |
| Emotional exhaustion | 2.45 | 0.88 | 0.392** | 1 | 0.306** | −0.303** |
| Unhealthy food consumption | 2.19 | 0.87 | 0.199** | 0.306** | 1 | −0.277** |
| Family support | 4.03 | 0.81 | −0.158** | −0.303** | −0.277** | 1 |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (two-tailed).
Indirect effect of emotional exhaustion (N = 418).
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Gender | 0.018 | 0.057 | 0.009 | 0.128 | 0.198 |
| Age | −0.352*** | −0.381*** | −0.338*** | −0.121 | −0.172* |
| Education | −0.007 | −0.011 | −0.049 | 0.162* | 0.154* |
| Affective rumination | 0.228*** | 0.128* | 0.626*** | ||
| Emotional exhaustion | 0.246*** | ||||
| R2 | 0.055 | 0.106 | 0.156 | 0.014 | 0.177 |
| ΔR2 | - | 0.051 | 0.101 | - | 0.163 |
| F | 8.067*** | 23.61*** | 24.379*** | 1.959 | 81.564*** |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed); gender, age, and education served as control variables; and affective rumination and emotional exhaustion served as predictive variables.
Bootstrap test for mediating effect (N = 418).
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| AR → EE → UFC | Indirect effect | 0.100 | 0.023 | 0.058 | 0.146 |
| Direct effect | 0.128 | 0.049 | 0.028 | 0.225 | |
| Total effect | 0.228 | 0.046 | 0.136 | 0.317 |
AR, affective rumination; EE, emotional exhaustion; UFC, unhealthy food consumption; bootstrap is set by a 95% confidence interval for 5,000 repeated samples.
Moderating influence of family support (N = 418).
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.018 | 0.009 | 0 |
| Age | −0.352*** | −0.303*** | −0.303*** |
| Education | −0.007 | −0.032 | −0.036 |
| Emotional exhaustion | 0.24*** | 0.24*** | |
| Family support | −0.188*** | −0.197*** | |
| Emotional exhaustion × Family support | 0.092* | ||
| R2 | 0.055 | 0.174 | 0.183 |
| ΔR2 | – | 0.119 | 0.008 |
| F | 8.067*** | 29.745*** | 4.218* |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed).
Figure 1Moderating influence of family support (N = 418).
Conditional process analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low level | 0.040 | 0.032 | −0.021 | 0.104 |
| Moderate level | 0.079 | 0.022 | 0.036 | 0.125 |
| High level | 0.118 | 0.031 | 0.057 | 0.180 |
Bootstrap is set at a 95% confidence interval for 5,000 repeated samples. BootSE, bootstrap standard error; BootLLCI, lower limit of the bootstrap confidence interval; BootULCI, upper limit of the bootstrap confidence interval.