Evaluation of the effect of COVID‐19 pandemic on anxiety severity of physicians working in the internal medicine department of a tertiary care hospital: a cross‐sectional survey

Abstract

Background: Internists who have an important role in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic are under both physical and psychological pressures. Aims: To assess the anxiety among physicians working in the internal medicine department of a tertiary care hospital who are on the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This single-centre, non-intervention, cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted using an online survey questionnaire from 1 April to 14 April 2020. Physicians of the Department of Internal Medicine were invited to participate with a selfadministered questionnaire. The degree of symptoms of anxiety was assessed by the Turkish versions of the 7-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale and Beck Anxiety Inventory, respectively. Results: A total of 113 participants consented for the study and completed the questionnaire. The median age was 29 (IQR = 5) years and 53.1% were male. A total of 72 internists (63.7%) worked as 'frontline' healthcare workers directly engaged in diagnosing, treating or caring for patients with or suspected to have COVID-19. Female gender was significantly associated with high scores and levels in all scales compared to the male gender (P < 0.005). Having family members over 65 years old and with chronic diseases were significantly associated with high anxiety scores and levels (P < 0.005). Conclusions: In this survey of internists in a university hospital equipped with clinics, wards and intensive care unit for patients with COVID-19, female gender and having family members over 65 years old and with chronic diseases were associated with increased anxiety levels.

What We Have Learned from Two Decades of Epidemics and Pandemics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Burden of Frontline Healthcare Workers

“…Most of the 86 studies applying a cross-sectional study design assessed the psychological impact at a single point in time. Namely, 29 studies performed data collection in earlier phases of the outbreak in the respective country [64-66, 77, 79-81, 84-89, 91, 96, 98, 100, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 111-115, 120, 126], nine during the outbreak [69, 73, 82, 95, 97, 101, 110, 118, 125], 32 in later phases [41, 42, 44-46, 50, 53, 54, 56, 59-61, 67, 68, 70-72, 74, 78, 83, 90, 92-94, 102, 104, 107, 117, 119, 121, 122, 124], and eight after the end of the outbreak [47-49, 52, 57, 58, 63, 99]. Another seven studies focusing on SARS [43, 51, 55], MERS [64], and COVID-19 [75, 76, 123] also included follow-up data.…”

“…More than two-thirds of the studies ( n = 60) [41-45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53-55, 57, 59, 60, 62-68, 71, 72, 74, 75, 78-80, 83, 87-93, 99-105, 107-109, 111-117, 119-122, 124, 126] compared psychological and psychosomatic symptoms between frontline staff and other groups of participants (e.g., non-frontline healthcare providers, general public).…”

“…All 79 cross-sectional studies [ 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 ...…”

“…Most of the studies clearly defined criteria for inclusion in the sample, described study subjects and setting in detail, measured the exposure in a valid, reliable way, and used objective standard criteria for measurement of condition and appropriate statistical analysis. However, several studies had shortcomings regarding the identification of confounding factors [ 45 , 47 , 62 , 112 , 116 , 122 ], strategies to deal with confounders [ 42 , 45 , 47 , 53 , 62 , 63 , 90 , 92 , 111 , 112 , 116 , 117 , 122 ], and the measurement of outcomes in a valid and reliable way [ 42 , 45 , 46 , 62 , 73 , 90 , 106 ].…”

Two separate and important points that should not be forgotten among the consequences of the pandemic: psychology of healthcare workers and readmission of discharged COVID-19 patients

“…Although there were 9 original articles [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] from Turkey indexed in LitCovid between the dates specified in your study, we haven't seen any article about this topic among the selected articles. The study held in our hospital, namely Evaluation of the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety severity of physicians working in the internal medicine department of a tertiary care hospital: a crosssectional survey yielded that particularly female doctors and physicians who have elderly family members and family members with chronic medical conditions showed more severe symptoms of anxiety [3]. Our study is one of the first studies published from…”