Day to Day and Environmental Risk Factors for Psychological Distress Among Healthcare Workers: A Mixed Methods
Kaitlyn Atkins1, Erin E Cooney, Soim Park
1From the Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland (K.A.); Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland (K.A., E.E.C., S.P., S.C., P.J.S., H.C.M.); Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland (S.S.-F.); Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (L.G.K., J.T.); Department of Neuropsychology, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland (L.G.K.); Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland (T.G.V.); and Center for Health Security, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (T.G.V.).
Objective:
Despite a growing literature on mental health among clinical staff during COVID-19, factors shaping distress for nonclinical staff are understudied and may be driven by inequalities at work. We aimed to discuss the role of workplace factors in shaping psychological distress for a diverse group of clinical, nonclinical, and other health and hospital workers (HHWs).
Methods:
This convergent parallel mixed-methods study with HHWs in a US hospital system included an online survey ( n = 1127) and interviews ( n = 73) collected from August 2020 to January 2021. We thematically analyzed interviews; findings informed log binomial regression estimating risk factors for severe psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire - 4 item version [PHQ-4] scores of 9 or greater).
Results:
Qualitatively, day-to-day stressors fostered fear and anxiety, and concerns about work environments manifest as betrayal and frustration with leadership. Distress was associated with burnout, financial concerns, and feeling betrayed or unsupported by the institution and leadership. Staff in service versus clinical roles had higher risk for severe distress (adjusted prevalence ratio = 2.04, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-2.66); HHWs receiving workplace mental health support had lower risk (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.52, 95% confidence interval = 0.29-0.92.
Conclusions:
Our mixed-methods study underscores how the pandemic brought inequalities to the surface to increase distress for vulnerable HHWs. Workplace mental health activities can support HHWs now and during future crises.
More Related Videos
08:25Polar Histogram Visualization of Acute Stress Disorder Scale Scores for Comprehensive Clinical Assessment
Published on: December 6, 2024
05:33Measuring Biophysical and Psychological Stress Levels Following Visitation to Three Locations with Differing Levels of Nature
Published on: June 19, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Stress and Mental Health
Individuals with depression often experience challenges in both their personal and professional...
Psychological Responses to Stress
Depressive Disorders: Etiology
Biological Factors in Depression
Biological predispositions significantly influence the risk of developing depressive disorders. Genetic studies highlight the role of variations in the serotonin transporter...
Psychoneuroimmunology: Cardiovascular Disease
A key area of focus in PNI is the relationship between stress and coronary...
Theoretical Approaches to Psychological Disorder
Biological approach
The biological approach posits that internal, organic factors are the primary causes of such disorders. This perspective emphasizes brain structure and function, genetic predispositions, and neurotransmitter imbalances. For example, schizophrenia has been associated with both genetic...
Introduction to Stress and Lifestyle
