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
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
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
-
-
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 Statement IRB: Our research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China (Anhui Provincial Hospital). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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 …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 Statement IRB: Our research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China (Anhui Provincial Hospital). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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.
-