Psychological Effects of COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers, and How They Are Coping: A Web-Based, Cross-Sectional Study During the First Wave of COVID-19 in Pakistan

  1. Muhammad Salman
  2. Zia Ul Mustafa
  3. Muhammad Husnnain Raza
  4. Tahir Mehmood Khan
  5. Noman Asif
  6. Humera Tahir
  7. Naureen Shehzadi
  8. Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi
  9. Yusra Habib Khan
  10. Kishwar Sultana
  11. Fahad Saleem
  12. Khalid Hussain

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study is to ascertain the psychological impacts of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) among the Pakistani health care workers (HCWs) and their coping strategies.

Methods:

This web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs (N = 398) from Punjab Province of Pakistan. The generalized anxiety scale (GAD-7), patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), and Brief-COPE were used to assess anxiety, depression, and coping strategies, respectively.

Results:

The average age of respondents was 28.67 years (SD = 4.15), with the majority being medical doctors (52%). Prevalences of anxiety and depression were 21.4% and 21.9%, respectively. There was no significant difference in anxiety and depression scores among doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. Females had significantly higher anxiety ( P = 0.003) and depression ( P = 0.001) scores than males. Moreover, frontline HCWs had significantly higher depression scores ( P = 0.010) than others. The depression, not anxiety, score was significantly higher among those who did not receive the infection prevention training ( P = 0.004). The most frequently adopted coping strategies were religious coping (M = 5.98, SD = 1.73), acceptance (M = 5.59, SD = 1.55), and coping planning (M = 4.91, SD = 1.85).

Conclusion:

A considerable proportion of HCWs are having generalized anxiety and depression during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings call for interventions to mitigate mental health risks in HCWs.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1017/dmp.2022.4
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.03.20119867: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Lahore.
    Consent: An online informed consent was obtained from every participant prior to their enrolment.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All the data were entered and analysed using IBM SPSS version 22 for Windows.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Although we achieved our study objectives, our study had several limitations. First, this study was conducted among HCWs of only the Punjab province of Pakistan so our findings may not be generalized to overall HCWs population of Pakistan. Second, the survey was administered using snowball sampling method and we used a self-administered questionnaire so disadvantages associated with self-report data (e.g. introspective ability, response bias and sampling bias) may be present. Third, the clinical assessment for the diagnosis of depression and generalized anxiety disorders as per criteria of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was not done. However, our findings offer valuable insight about the psychological impact of COVID-19 on frontline medical forces, sources of distress, and coping strategies.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.03.20119867v1 on medRxiv