Covid-19 Pandemic and its Effect on Residents’ Mental Well-Being

  1. Anwar Yazdani
  2. Hend Esmaeili
  3. Abdulla K AlSaleh
  4. Ahmed Sultan
  5. Esam Alamad
  6. Ali Bandar
  7. Hanouf Rawdhan
  8. Mariam Ayed

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Concerns about COVID-19’s long-term consequences on the mental health of frontline health professionals are mounting as the entire world strives anew to contain it. The primary objective of this research is to describe the impact of working during the COVID-19 pandemic on junior doctors’ mental health and to investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on junior doctors’ training and professional performance. A cross-sectional online survey using the Google Forms platform was conducted from May 1 st to May 30 th , 2021, in 311 healthcare workers who were currently enrolled in a residency program at the Kuwait Institutional of Medical Specialization (KIMS). Socio-demographic details of each health worker were collected and the scores related to depression, anxiety, and stress were measured using the previously validated depression anxiety stress scale-21 (DASS-21). Higher stress scores were seen in those who were devoid of the option to work with COVID-19 patients (adjusted β 5.1 (95%CI:1.2-9); p= 0.01), who reported that working during the pandemic affected their study schedule (adjusted β 4.8 (95%CI:1.6-8.1); p= 0.004), and who lost off service training time (adjusted β 2.7 (95%CI:0.13-5.2); p= 0.034). Further, the anxiety scores were significantly higher in females. The impact of the ongoing pandemic on residents’ mental health is grave, necessitating psychological treatment and support. The study discovered various factors linked to depression, anxiety, and stress. As a result, these aspects must be regarded to protect the residents’ mental health.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.12.21266292: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIACUC: The study was authorized by Kuwait’s Ministry of Health’s Ethical Research Committee.
    Consent: The participants gave their consent to participate in the survey by filling the questionnaire.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis: STATA 14 IC was used to analyze the data.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations of the study: The survey’s voluntary structure may have resulted in a selection bias, and the participants may not accurately reflect the actual population. A self-report questionnaire was employed to assess psychological symptoms, which did not concentrate on diagnostic evaluation by mental health specialists, in order to contact as many people as possible during this emergency situation and to reduce face-to-face interviews. We solely looked into the depression, anxiety, and stress levels of junior residents in this study. More research incorporating social support and post-traumatic stress disorder assessment among healthcare workers, on the other hand, would undoubtedly add to the literature.

    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 10.1101/2021.11.12.21266292 on medRxiv