Worries and concerns among healthcare workers during the coronavirus 2019 pandemic: A web-based cross-sectional survey

  1. Yuki Sahashi
  2. Hirohisa Endo
  3. Tadafumi Sugimoto
  4. Takeru Nabeta
  5. Kimitaka Nishizaki
  6. Atsushi Kikuchi
  7. Shingo Matsumoto
  8. Hiroyuki Sato
  9. Tadahiro Goto
  10. Kohei Hasegawa
  11. Yuya Matsue

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Healthcare workers (HCWs) treating and caring for patients with emerging infectious diseases often experience psychological distress. However, the psychological impact and behavior change of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among HCWs are still unknown. This study aimed to investigate the worries and concerns of HCWs regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. In this cross-sectional survey, a web-based questionnaire was distributed among HCWs working in hospitals or clinics across Japanese medical facilities from April 20 to May 1, 2020. The questionnaire comprised items on demographics, worries and concerns, perceptions regarding the sufficiency of information, and behavioral changes pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 4386 HCWs completed the survey; 1648 (64.7%) were aged 30–39 years, 2379 (54.2%) were male, and 782 (18.1%) were frontline HCWs, directly caring for patients with COVID-19 on a daily basis. 3500 HCWs (79.8%) indicated that they were seriously worried about the pandemic. The most frequent concern was the consequence of becoming infected on their family, work, and society (87.4%). Additionally, the majority (55.5%) had restricted social contact and almost all HCWs endorsed a shortage in personal protective equipment (median, 8/9 (interquartile range; 7–9) on a Likert scale). There was no significant difference in the degree of worry between frontline and non-frontline HCWs (8/9 (7–9) vs. 8/9 (7–9), p  = 0.25). Frontline HCWs, compared to non-frontline HCWs, were more likely to have the need to avoid contact with families and friends (24.8% vs. 17.8%, p  < 0.001) and indicated that they cannot evade their professional duty during the COVID-19 pandemic (9/9 (7–9) vs. 8/9 (6–9), p  < 0.001). Further, the extremely low proportion of frontline HCWs reported that they would take a leave of absence to avoid infection (1.2%). In conclusions, both frontline and non-frontline HCWs expressed comparable concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Because HCWs, especially frontline HCWs, reported that they cannot be obliged to do avoid their duty, effective mental health protection strategies should be developed and implemented for HCWs.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1057/s41599-021-00716-x
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.09.20126045: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIACUC: This study was approved by the ethical committee of Juntendo University (No. 2020025) and was performed in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
    Consent: The requirement for written informed consent was waived because of the nature of study design.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All data were analyzed using JMP version 12.2 for Windows (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
    SAS Institute
    suggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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 10.1101/2020.06.09.20126045 on medRxiv