Correlation analysis of risk factors and GSI score of a medical team assisting Wuhan city during the epidemic of COVID-19 in China -A cohort study

  1. Cheng Wang
  2. Jinlong Zhang
  3. Zhaohui Lu
  4. Jingquan Wang
  5. Yunyun Fang
  6. Yanlin Wang
  7. Xia Chen
  8. Na Hong
  9. Xiaolei Jing

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Importance

There are few studies on the psychological status of medical staff during the COVID-19 outbreak. This study is the first in the world about the psychological status of the medical team during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Objective

To study the correlation between risk factors and general symptom index (GSI) score of medical team members who support Wuhan against COVID-19.

Design

Cohort study.

Setting

Population-based.

Participants

Anhui Province sent a total of eight medical teams, including 1382 members, to support Hubei Province. We adopted a stratified sampling method and selected the fourth team sent by Anhui Provincial Hospital, with a total of 137 members as our subjects.

Exposures

Four main exposures were collected, including basic information, preparations before going to Wuhan, life issues and working issues after going to Wuhan.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The GSI score of SCL-90 scale was used to reflect the frequency and intensity of psychological symptoms. We made the hypothesis of this study before data collection.

Results

110(80.29%) members completed the questionnaire, of which, 77(70.00%) female and 33(30.00%) male. When adjusted age, gender and covariates, DC, LCWT had a positive correlations with GSI score(β was10.17, 95%CI was 3.30 to 17.04 for DC, P =0.00<0.05; β was 11.55, 95%CI was 0.40 to 22.71 for LCWT, P =0.04<0.05;respectively), RBT had a negative positive correlation with GSI score (β was -28.09, 95%CI was -45.79 to -10.40, P =0.00<0.05), AoBI did not had a correlation with GSI score (β was 11.55, 95%CI was 0.40 to 22.71, P =0.16>0.05). When adjusted covariates, DC had a positive and RBT had a negative correlation with GSI score of female (β was 13.20, 95%CI was 4.55 to 21.85, P =0.00<0.05; β was -57.85, 95%CI was -94.52 to -21.18, P =0.00<0.05; respectively), but for male was not ( P =0.59>0.05, P =0.08>0.05, respectively), LCWT and AoBI didn’t had correlation with GSI score between genders ( P >0.05).

Conclusions and Relevance

Improving DC, RBT and decreasing LCWT can reduce the GSI score. AoBI didn’t affect the psychological status; male members have a more stable mood than female. Whether other countries medical team has the same result still needs further research.

Key Points

Question

What is the correlation between risk factors and general symptom index (GSI) score of medical team members who support Wuhan against COVID-19?

Findings

Dietary conditions (DC) had a positive and relationship between team (RBT) had a negative correlation with GSI score of female, but for male was not ( P =0.59>0.05, P =0.08>0.05, respectively), lacking communication with teams (LCWT) and afraid of being infected (AoBI) didn’t had correlation with GSI score between genders, a significant difference.

Meaning

Improving DC, RBT and decreasing LCWT between team members can reduce the GSI score. Whether they are AoBI, didn’t affect the psychological status, male members have a more stable mood than female.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.27.20070466v2 on medRxiv
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.27.20070466: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Our research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China (Anhui Provincial Hospital).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    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: 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 10.1101/2020.04.27.20070466v1 on medRxiv