ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Psychological Preparedness of Psychologists during the COVID-19 Emergency: Are There Any Individual Differences?
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 outbreak has posed an unprecedented global challenge. However, despite the large amount of evidence on the psychological consequences of the pandemic, very few studies have focused on psychologists themselves. (1) Background: The present study aimed to characterise the professional and clinical profile of psychologists facing the COVID-19 outbreak and to investigate the relationship between psychological preparedness and a series of potential predictors (e.g., sociodemographic and professional variables and psychological distress). (2) Methods: A total of 1115 psychologists fully completed an online survey. The data collection period started with the first wave of the pandemic. Participants were asked to provide sociodemographic and professional data and to complete three questionnaires assessing psychological preparedness, worry, and anxiety symptoms. (3) Results: Descriptive results showed that the COVID-19 outbreak did not cause an interruption to the psychological practice of professionals (both in the public and in private sectors) and that psychologists accepted the introduction of technological devices within their regime of work in order to guarantee their service to clients. Only a minority of participants reported clinically significant levels of symptoms of anxiety and worry. Regression analyses revealed that being older, having taken part in training courses on the COVID-19 emergency, and experiencing lower levels of worry and anxiety were all significant predictors of both cognitive and affective psychological preparedness. (4) Conclusions: Taken together, these findings seem to highlight that specific factors can enhance psychological preparedness among psychologists. Therefore, it is vital to inform authorities about the importance of providing emergency programmes to train healthcare workers, especially psychologists, on how to develop psychological preparedness when facing the negative consequences of critical incidents at a universal level, given their crucial role in promoting mental health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.