NHS CHECK: protocol for a cohort study investigating the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on the working lives of healthcare workers (HCWs), but the extent to which their well-being and mental health have been affected remains unclear. This longitudinal cohort study aims to recruit a cohort of NHS healthcare workers, conducting surveys at regular intervals to provide evidence about the prevalence of symptoms of mental disorders, investigate associated factors such as occupational contexts and support interventions available.
Methods and Analysis
All staff, students, and volunteers working in each of the 18 participating NHS Trusts in England will be sent emails inviting them to complete a survey at baseline, with email invitations for the follow up surveys being sent 6 and 12 months later. Opening in late April 2020, the baseline survey collects data on demographics, occupational and organisational factors, experiences of COVID-19, a number of validated measures of symptoms of poor mental health (e.g. depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder; PTSD), and measures of constructs such as resilience and moral injury. These regular surveys will be complemented by in-depth psychiatric interviews with a select sample of healthcare workers. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted, to gain deeper understanding of the support programmes used or desired by staff, and facilitators and barriers to accessing such programmes.
Ethics and Dissemination
Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Health Research Authority (reference: 20/HRA/210, IRAS: 282686) and local Trust Research and Development approval. Cohort data are being collected via Qualtrics online survey software, are pseudonymised and held on secure University servers. Participants are aware that they can withdraw from the study at any time, and there is signposting to support services for any participant who feels they need it. Only those consenting to be contacted about further research will be invited to participate in the psychiatric and qualitative interview components of the study. Findings will be rapidly shared with NHS Trusts to enable better support of staff during the pandemic, and via academic publications in due course.
Strengths and limitations of this study
-
The longitudinal cohort design addresses the lack of long-term data on this population, and the current predominance of cross-sectional evidence available.
-
The availability of Trust HR data means we will be able to calculate response rates, and weight the data appropriately.
-
The diagnostic interview component of the study will allow us to establish the true prevalence of mental disorders, which can be inflated by the measures used in most mental health and wellbeing cohort studies.
-
The qualitative interviews will give deeper insight into the support programmes that HCWs find most helpful, and provide ideas for Trusts to improve their offer to staff.
-
The three components of the study give breadth and depth lacking in much of the mental health and wellbeing research currently available, but there is a risk of over-burdening already stretched HCWs.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.08.21258551: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis 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:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.08.21258551: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis 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.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
-