Psychological Distress of Healthcare Workers in Québec (Canada) During the Second and the Third Pandemic Waves

  1. Sara Carazo
  2. Mariève Pelletier
  3. Denis Talbot
  4. Nathalie Jauvin
  5. Gaston De Serres
  6. Michel Vézina

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to measure the prevalence of psychological distress among Quebec healthcare workers (HCWs) during the second and third pandemic waves and to assess the effect of psychosocial risk factors (PSRs) on work-related psychological distress among severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected (cases) and non-infected (controls) HCWs.

Methods

A self-administered survey was used to measure validated indicators of psychological distress (K6 scale) and PSR (questions based on Karasek and Siegrist models, value conflicts, and work-life balance). Adjusted robust Poisson models were used to estimate prevalence ratios.

Results

Four thousand sixty eight cases and 4152 controls completed the survey. Prevalence of high work-related psychological distress was 42%; it was associated with PSRs (mainly work-life balance, value conflicts, and high psychological demands) but not with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Conclusion

Primary prevention measures targeting PSRs are needed to reduce mental health risks of HCWs.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1097/jom.0000000000002487
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.19.21265175: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The study was approved by the research ethics committee of the CHU (University Hospital Center) de Québec-Université Laval and all participants gave oral or written informed consent before inclusion.
    Consent: The study was approved by the research ethics committee of the CHU (University Hospital Center) de Québec-Université Laval and all participants gave oral or written informed consent before inclusion.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line AuthenticationAuthentication: In addition, PSRs were measured by validated indicators from the two main internationally recognized models, that is, Karasek and Theorell’s “demand-control-support” model and Siegrist’s “effort-reward imbalance” model [17,18].

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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:
    This study has also some limitations. As said earlier, an observational cross-sectional survey cannot conclude on a causal relationship between PSRs and work-related psychological distress, but our results are consistent with several published studies. Exposures and events were self-reported, but bias should be limited because the questions were derived from theoretical models that have been internationally recognized for many years and used in national surveys. We cannot rule out a selection bias related to the ∼40% response rate, but such a bias would most likely underestimate the rate of distress as individuals with high and very high psychological distress may feel too bad to respond to a questionnaire.

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.10.19.21265175v1 on medRxiv