A Cross-Sectional Survey of the Workplace Factors Contributing to Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression Among Nurses and Physicians During the First Wave of COVID-19 Pandemic in Two US Healthcare Systems

  1. Igor Burstyn
  2. Karyn Holt

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Anxiety and depression among physicians and nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA are not well described and their modifiable causes are poorly understood.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of symptoms of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) among physicians and nurses in two US healthcare systems in June through September 2020; participation rate was 5–10%. We described features of work as well as their perceptions and associated concerns in relation to the risk of anxiety and depression, while controlling for health history via regression and path analyses.

Results

About a third of 684 nurses and 185 physicians surveyed showed symptoms of anxiety or depression, and the excess of symptoms of mood disorders was particularly prominent in nurses. The belief that one was infected was a dominant correlate of both anxiety and depression. This belief was more associated with history of symptoms of pneumonia than the contact with COVID-19 diagnosed patients. Factors found to be associated with reduced anxiety and depression in this working environment were having confidence in the competent use of and access to personal protective equipment, maintaining usual working hours, being surrounded by colleagues who were both sufficient in numbers and not stressed, and the support of immediate family and religious communities. Involvement in aerosol-generating procedures with infected patients was linked with lower depression in nurses but higher among physicians. Likewise, the setting of recent patient encounters affected risk of anxiety and depression differently for physicians and nurses.

Conclusions

Our findings may help develop mitigation measures and underscore the need to help nurses and physicians bear the psychological burden of the COVID-19 pandemic and similar events in the future.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1093/annweh/wxab085
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.25.21250315: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All calculations were performed in SAS v 9.4 (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 10.1101/2021.01.25.21250315v1 on medRxiv