Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39922828›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Perceived coercion amongst healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Andrea S Stoltenberg, Veronica Ranieri, Hege Kristine N Dahlen, Eleni Nastouli, SAFER Investigators, Roger Almvik, Sarah J L Edwards, Sunjeev K Kamboj

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Andrea S StoltenbergResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Veronica RanieriResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Hege Kristine N DahlenFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Eleni NastouliCentre for Behaviour Change, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
SAFER Investigators
Roger AlmvikFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Sarah J L EdwardsDepartment of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy, University College London, London, UK.
Sunjeev K KambojResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK. sunjeev.kamboj@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

the MRC UKRI MC_PC_19082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Direct and prolonged exposure to stress and uncertainty among healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic likely had a significant negative impact on their mental health and general wellbeing. Although the contributors to such distress remain to be fully understood, the construct of perceived coercion appears to be relevant. Among HCWs, perceived coercion is conceptualised as appraisals about lack of control/'freedom to choose' and pressure to perform patient-care duties in the context of unprecedented threat of contagion from patients. To improve our understanding of perceived coercion amongst HCWs, we developed a 10-item scale-the Pandemic-specific Perceived Coercion Scale for Healthcare Workers (PPCS-HCW) scale-designed to be adaptable and applicable for use in future mass-contagion emergencies. A preliminary (exploratory) factor analysis (N = 546) showed that relevant items coalesced around three factors-'internal pressure', 'external pressure' and 'perceived coercion', that partly overlap with previous conceptualisations of perceived coercion. The exploratory conceptual and psychometric structure was confirmed in a separate sample of HCWs from the UK and Norway (N = 483). On average, across the three PPCS-HCW scale factors, HCWs showed low levels of perceived coercion (M = 0.22 (95% CI [0.11, 0.33] on a - 3 to + 3 scale). However, cluster analysis identified three groups: low (- 1.09 (95% CI [- 1.20, - 0.99]), moderate (0.17 (95% CI [0.08, 0.25]) and high scoring (1.57 (95% CI [1.47, 1.67]) PPCS-HCW clusters. High scoring participants showed higher levels of psychological distress, avoidance coping and compassion fatigue. In summary, our findings suggest that perceived coercion is a relevant construct in understanding the adverse psychological impact of large-scale contagion emergencies on HCWs.

Indexed as

CoercionCOVID-19Health PersonnelAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayPandemicsPsychometricsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomHealthcare workersPandemicPerceived coercionPsychological distressScale validation

Identifiers

PMID39922828
PMCPMC11807210

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.