ObjectivesTo measure levels of psychological distress, psychological wellbeing and self-stigma in hospital doctors in Ireland.DesignNational cross-sectional study of randomised sample of hospital doctors. Participants provided sociodemographic data (age, sex, marital status), work grade (consultant, higher/basic specialist trainee), specialty and work hours and completed well-being questionnaires (the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, WHO Well-being Index, General Health Questionnaire) and single-item scales on self-rated health and self-stigma.SettingIrish publicly funded hospitals and residential institutions.Participants1749 doctors (response rate of 55%). All hospital specialties were represented except radiology.ResultsHalf of participants were men (50.5%). Mean hours worked per week were 57 hours. Over half (52%) rated their health as very good/excellent, while 50.5% reported positive subjective well-being (WHO-5). Over a third (35%) experienced psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire 12). Severe/extremely severe symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress were evident in 7.2%, 6.1% and 9.5% of participants (Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale 21). Symptoms of distress, depression, anxiety and stress were significantly higher and levels of well-being were significantly lower in trainees compared with consultants, and this was not accounted for by differences in sociodemographic variables. Self-stigma was present in 68.4%.ConclusionsThe work hours of doctors working in Irish hospitals were in excess of European Working Time Directive’s requirements. Just over half of hospital doctors in Ireland had positive well-being. Compared with international evidence, they had higher levels of psychological distress but slightly lower symptoms of depression and anxiety. Two-thirds of respondents reported self-stigma, which is likely to be a barrier to accessing care. These findings have implications for the design of support services for doctors, for discussions on quality of patient care and for future research.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a challenge to the physical and mental well-being of doctors worldwide. Countries around the world introduced severe social restrictions, and significant changes to health service provision in the first wave of the pandemic to suppress the spread of the virus and prioritize healthcare for those who contracted it. This study interviewed 48 hospital doctors who worked in Ireland during the first wave of the pandemic and investigated their conceptualizations of their own well-being during that time (March–May 2020). Doctors were interviewed via Zoom™ or telephone. Interview transcripts were analyzed using structured thematic analysis. Five composite narratives are presented which have been crafted to illustrate themes and experiences emerging from the data. This study found that despite the risks of contracting COVID-19, many doctors saw some improvements to their physical well-being in the first wave of the pandemic. However, most also experienced a decline in their mental well-being due to anxiety, emotional exhaustion, guilt, isolation and poor support. These findings shed light on doctor well-being during COVID-19, and the ways in which they have been affected by the pandemic, both professionally and personally. The paper concludes by highlighting how doctors’ work life and well-being can be better supported during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

BackgroundAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common childhood disorder with international prevalence estimates of 5 % in childhood, yet significant evidence exists that far fewer children receive ADHD services. In many countries, ADHD is assessed and diagnosed in specialist mental health or neuro-developmental paediatric clinics, to which referral by General (Family) Practitioners (GPs) is required. In such ‘gatekeeper’ settings, where GPs act as a filter to diagnosis and treatment, GPs may either not recognise potential ADHD cases, or may be reluctant to refer. This study systematically reviews the literature regarding GPs’ views of ADHD in such settings.MethodsA search of nine major databases was conducted, with wide search parameters; 3776 records were initially retrieved. Studies were included if they were from settings where GPs are typically gatekeepers to ADHD services; if they addressed GPs’ ADHD attitudes and knowledge; if methods were clearly described; and if results for GPs were reported separately from those of other health professionals.ResultsFew studies specifically addressed GP attitudes to ADHD. Only 11 papers (10 studies), spanning 2000–2010, met inclusion criteria, predominantly from the UK, Europe and Australia. As studies varied methodologically, findings are reported as a thematic narrative, under the following themes: Recognition rate; ADHD controversy (medicalisation, stigma, labelling); Causes of ADHD; GPs and ADHD diagnosis; GPs and ADHD treatment; GP ADHD training and sources of information; and Age, sex differences in knowledge and attitudes.ConclusionsAcross times and settings, GPs practising in first-contact gatekeeper settings had mixed and often unhelpful attitudes regarding the validity of ADHD as a construct, the role of medication and how parenting contributed to presentation. A paucity of training was identified, alongside a reluctance of GPs to become involved in shared care practice. If access to services is to be improved for possible ADHD cases, there needs to be a focused and collaborative approach to training.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0516-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary.A number of studies have been published on the benefits of prophylactic treatment in adults with haemophilia. However, in many countries, it is considered as optional due to financial constraints. This survey was carried out to examine the long-term effects of prophylaxis and the continuing benefit of the treatment into adulthood. Self-assessed health-related data and the EQ-5D questionnaire measuring health utility were collected from 124 men (26.9 ± 4.6 years) from Canada (N = 40), France (N = 14), Ireland (N = 17), the Netherlands (N = 16), Poland (N = 24) and the UK (N = 13). The respondents were split into four groups: On-Demand, <50% life on prophylaxis, ! 50% life on prophylaxis, Prophylaxis. Overall, longterm prophylaxis results in lower presence of target joints (P 0.001), occurrence of serious bleeding episodes (P 0.05), recurring bleeding episodes (P 0.01) and requirement for surgical procedures (P 0.05). Furthermore, health utility (P 0.01) in the On-demand group was significantly lower (P 0.01) compared to the ! 50% life on prophylaxis and the Prophylaxis group. No significant differences between countries were found except between the Netherlands and Poland, with Poland showing the lowest health utility (P 0.01) and the most problems with mobility (P 0.05) and pain/ discomfort (P 0.001). The Netherlands showed the highest health utility (0.915) followed by Canada (0.791), Ireland (0.786), UK (0.768), France (0.687) and Poland (0.629). The results demonstrate consistently higher quality of life of individuals who are on long-term prophylactic treatment when compared to on-demand treatment or intermittent prophylaxis and on -demand treatment.