Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35041679›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2022

Stressors faced by healthcare professionals and coping strategies during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

Marie Ottilie Frenkel, Katja Mareike Pollak, Oliver Schilling, Laura Voigt, Benedikt Fritzsching, Cornelia Wrzus, Sebastian Egger-Lampl, Uta Merle, Markus Alexander Weigand, Stefan Mohr

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Marie Ottilie FrenkelInstitute for Sport and Sport Sciences, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0646-2612
Katja Mareike PollakDepartment of Psychology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Oliver SchillingPsychological Institute, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Laura VoigtInstitute of Psychology, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Benedikt FritzschingCorona specialized physician practice, Heidelberg, Germany.
Cornelia WrzusPsychological Institute, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sebastian Egger-LamplCenter for Technology Experience, Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT) GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria.
Uta MerleDepartment for Gastroenterology, Infectious diseases and Intoxication, University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus Alexander WeigandDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan MohrDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DEAustrian Institute of Technology · ATGerman Sport University Cologne · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has exerted great pressure on national health systems, which have aimed to ensure comprehensive healthcare at all times. Healthcare professionals working with COVID-19 patients are on the frontline and thereby confronted with enormous demands. Although early reports exist on the psychological impact of the pandemic on frontline medical staff working in Asia, little is known about its impact on healthcare professionals in other countries and across various work sectors. The present cross-sectional, online survey sought to investigate common work stressors among healthcare professionals, their psychological stress as well as coping resources during the pandemic.

methodsA sample of 575 healthcare professionals (57% male) in three different sectors (hospital, prehospital emergency care, and outpatient service) reported their experiences concerning work and private stressors, psychological stress, and coping strategies between April 17, 2020 and June 5, 2020. To capture pandemic-specific answers, most of the items were adapted or newly developed. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were conducted to detect underlying latent factors relating to COVID-specific work stressors. In a next step, the effects of these latent stressors across various work sectors on psychological stress (perceived stress, fatigue, and mood) were examined by means of structural equation models (SEM). To add lived experience to the findings, responses to open-ended questions about healthcare professionals' stressors, effective crisis measures and prevention, and individual coping strategies were coded inductively, and emergent themes were identified.

resultsThe EFA revealed that the examined work stressors can be grouped into four latent factors: "fear of transmission", "interference of workload with private life", "uncertainty/lack of knowledge", and "concerns about the team". The SEM results showed that "interference of workload with private life" represented the pivotal predictor of psychological stress. "Concerns about the team" had stress-reducing effects. The latent stressors had an equal effect on psychological stress across work sectors. On average, psychological stress levels were moderate, yet differed significantly between sectors (all p < .001); the outpatient group experienced reduced calmness and more stress than the other two sectors, while the prehospital group reported lower fatigue than the other two sectors. The prehospital group reported significantly higher concerns about the team than the hospital group (p < .001). In their reports, healthcare professionals highlighted regulations such as social distancing and the use of compulsory masks, training, experience and knowledge exchange, and social support as effective coping strategies during the pandemic. The hospital group mainly mentioned organizational measures such as visiting bans as effective crisis measures, whereas the prehospital sector most frequently named governmental measures such as contact restrictions.

conclusionThe study demonstrated the need for sector-specific crisis measures to effectively address the specific work stressors faced by the outpatient sector in particular. The results on pandemic-specific work stressors reveal that healthcare professionals might benefit from coping strategies that facilitate the utilization of social support. At the workplace, team commitment and knowledge exchange might buffer against adverse psychological stress responses. Schedules during pandemics should give healthcare workers the opportunity to interact with families and friends in ways that facilitate social support outside work. Future studies should investigate cross-sector stressors using a longitudinal design to identify both sector- and time-specific measures. Ultimately, an international comparison of stressors and measures in different sectors of healthcare systems is desirable.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AdultBurnout, ProfessionalFemaleGermanyHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35041679
PMCPMC8765664
OpenAlexW4205746026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.