Peritraumatic Distress of COVID-19 on Physicians in Bangladesh: Implications and Policy Recommendations

  1. Zafar Ahmad
  2. Abdullah al Kium
  3. Md Ripon Ahammed
  4. Md Montaser Hamid
  5. Sarmina Tarannum
  6. Md. Ruhul Amin
  7. Md. Daharul Islam

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

COVID-19 pandemic has been an ultimate test of resource management for any governance, especially in the healthcare system. Bangladesh, being a developing country and with very limited resources, is fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The frontline workers, especially the physicians and nurses are going through immense physical and psychological stress during the pandemic. Social unawareness, the absence of strict preventive policies, increasing workload, and the lack of resource management are making the frontline healthcare workers extremely vulnerable to COVID-19. In this paper, we present the outcome of our study on peritraumatic distress of COVID-19 among physicians in Bangladesh. Based on the user study, we have identified a number of key factors behind the peritraumatic distress and psychological stress caused by COVID-19. Our study shows, more than 78% respondents are suffering from peritraumatic psychological distress. We also recommended some very important and yet easy to implement policies to reduce the peritraumatic stress of the physicians of Bangladesh. These policy recommendations were a result of the survey analysis and the suggestions from the COVID-19 designated physicians.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.05.21250138: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: At the beginning of the survey, the objective of the study and question settings were explained, and then an informed consent of the study was taken from the participants.
    Sex as a biological variableFor example, to understand the influence of gender on the CPDI score, we divided the dataset into two categories: Male and Female.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.07.05.21250138v1 on medRxiv