Social discrimination and stigma on the community of health professionals during the Covid-19 pandemic. An ethnographic approach

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that caused the pandemic since March 2020, has affected among others, health professionals who work in covid-19 units by facing social discrimination. The aim of this study was to record the experiences of health professionals working in the first line of treatment of the pandemic, to analyse the effects of the pandemic on the interpersonal relationships of health professionals, and to ask about the stigma they faced during their work with people with covid-19.

This is a qualitative study with an ethnographic approach based on 160 semi-structured interviews with health professionals living and working in the Epirus Region, Greece. For the data collection we used semi-structured interviews, discussions and participatory observation. Specifically, the interviews were conducted on health professionals and more specifically doctors, nurses, rescuers, physiotherapists and administrative staff, working in covid-19 units at the University General Hospital of Ioannina (Reference hospital for Ioannina, in Epirus), which assists in the treatment of patients with covid-19, and in the branch of the rescue department of Ioannina.

The data were analysed in four thematic units based on their common characteristics: a) emotions and experiences of health professionals, b) interpersonal relations of health professionals, c) social exclusion and discrimination, and d) health professionals as patients. The results showed that the main emotions that health professionals experienced when they were moved to covid-19 clinics were fear, anxiety, distress, anger and insecurity. These feelings worsened when their family environment treated them with fear and hesitancy. Their social environment tended to avoid them, leading to a state of self-isolation. To conclude, health professionals faced discriminating behaviors and stigma both from their families and social environment, and from other health professionals. The government struggled to handle the situation in keeping a balance between both the security and well-being of health professionals as it was not prepared for a pandemic like this.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.28.21265608: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Prior to the interview, a telephone contact was held in which the reasons for the interview were explained, the necessary information was provided and an e-mail with the consent form was sent.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    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.