Ethical and psychosocial considerations for hospital personnel in the Covid-19 crisis: Moral injury and resilience
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
This study aims at investigating the nature of resilience and stress experience of health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirteen healthcare workers from Italian and Austrian hospitals specifically dealing with COVID-19 patients during the first phase of the pandemic were interviewed. Data was analysed using grounded theory methodology. Psychosocial effects on stress experience, stressors and resilience factors were identified. We generated three hypotheses. Hypothesis one is that moral distress and moral injury are main stressors experienced by healthcare workers. Hypothesis two states that organisational resilience plays an important part in how healthcare workers experience the crisis. Organisational justice and decentralized decision making are essential elements of staff wellbeing. Hypothesis three refers to effective psychosocial support: Basic on scene psychosocial support based on the Hobfoll principles given by trusted and well-known mental health professionals and peers in an integrated approach works best during the pandemic.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.18.20232272: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: They subsequently signed an informed consent that was previously reviewed by the NO-FEAR Project External Ethics Advisory Board.
IRB: They subsequently signed an informed consent that was previously reviewed by the NO-FEAR Project External Ethics Advisory Board.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable The Austrian team consisting of male and female scientifically experienced psychologists conducted two semi-structured interviews with mental health experts from hospitals in Italy and one Focus group discussion with four psychologists involved in the hospital response in Austria. Table 2: …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.18.20232272: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: They subsequently signed an informed consent that was previously reviewed by the NO-FEAR Project External Ethics Advisory Board.
IRB: They subsequently signed an informed consent that was previously reviewed by the NO-FEAR Project External Ethics Advisory Board.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable The Austrian team consisting of male and female scientifically experienced psychologists conducted two semi-structured interviews with mental health experts from hospitals in Italy and one Focus group discussion with four psychologists involved in the hospital response in Austria. 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.
-
