Exploring the vulnerability of frontline nurses to COVID-19 and its impact on perceived stress

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed at exploring and comparing the vulnerability to COVID-19, demographic variables and perceived stress of frontline nurses. Methods This study employed a quantitative comparative-correlational approach. Using the snowball sampling technique, we conducted this study involving 176 frontline nurses from hospitals of the Hail region, KSA. Results The frontline nurses showed high perceived infectability (x = 4.36) and germ aversion (x = 5.65) but were moderately stressed (19.19). Of the examined variables, only years of experience resulted in significant differences in germ aversion ( F [3] = 8.980, p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in perceived infectability and stress. Perceived infectability ( r = −0.152, p < 0.05) and germ aversion ( r = 0.007, p > 0.05) were negatively correlated to perceived stress. Conclusion In this study, frontline nurses perceived moderate to high stress vulnerability to COVID-19. There were significant differences in germ aversion based on the duration of experience. It is noteworthy that perceived vulnerability to COVID-19 did not impact stress. Paying attention to concerns of nurses can potentially improve preventive practices and positive behaviours in combating the pandemic.

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.…”

“…We retrieved 1,640 records from the electronic databases (after removal of duplicates) and 355 from the additional searches. After screening of title and/or abstract, we assessed 417 full texts for eligibility, of which 331 were excluded for a variety of reasons (e.g., mismatch with inclusion criteria, mixed population, wrong focus), and 86 [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 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 , …”

“…The majority of the studies on COVID-19 were published in China ( n = 32) [ 67 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 88 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 99 , 101 , 102 , 107 , 110 , 113 , 114 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 ] and Italy ( n = 6) [ 71 , 72 , 78 , 79 , 83 , 103 ]. Other studies were conducted in the United States [ 68 , 89 , 106 ], Iran [ 100 , 105 , 112 ], Turkey [ 80 , 104 , 111 ], Germany [ 90 , 120 ], Pakistan [ 66 , 87 ], Poland [ 115 ], India [ 108 ], Egypt [ 81 ], Brazil [ 77 ], France [ 70 ], Spain [ 94 ], Saudi Arabia [ 98 ], and Singapore [ 109 ]. Two studies recruited participants from different countries [ 69 , 82 ].…”

“…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 , 65 , 66 , 77 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 91 , 96 , 98 , 100 , 103 , 105 , 106 , 108 , 109 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 120 , 126 ], nine during the outbreak [ 69 , 73 , 82 , 95 , 97 , 101 , 110 , 118 , 125 ], 32 in later phases [ 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 50 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 67 , 68 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 78 , 83 , 90 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 102 , 104 , 107 , 117 , 119 ,…”

Mental health among healthcare providers during coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Saudi Arabia

“…The literature has shown that, compared to other professionals, healthcare providers, especially nurses, have a higher risk of developing emotional distress like depression, anxiety, and burnout due to work-related stress [ 25 ]. Moderate stress was also evident among frontline nurses in Saudi Arabia who were highly perceived infectability to COVID-19 and germ aversion [ 26 ]. There are factors that appeared to increase the risk of developing anxiety symptoms among Chinese nurses, like poor nurse-patient relationships, over-commitment, and lower job rank [ 27 ].…”