Medical rescuers’ occupational health during COVID-19: Contribution of coping and emotion regulation on burnout, trauma and post-traumatic growth

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic places unique challenges to medical rescuers’ occupational health. Thus, it is crucial to assess its direct and indirect impacts on key psychological outcomes and adaptation strategies. This study aims to analyse the impact of this pandemic on medical rescuers’ coping and emotion regulation strategies, and their levels of work-related psychological outcomes, such as burnout, trauma and post-traumatic growth. Additionally, it aims to analyse the contribution of coping and emotion regulation strategies, employed to manage the COVID-19 pandemic, on burnout, trauma and post-traumatic growth. A sample of 111 medical rescuers answered the Brief Cope, Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, Impact of Event Scale-Revised and Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory. Medical rescuers resorted moderately to coping and emotion regulation strategies, since the beginning of COVID-19. They presented moderate burnout and post-traumatic growth and low trauma. Coping presented a higher weight on burnout, trauma and post-traumatic growth, than emotion regulation. Expressive suppression and dysfunctional coping predicted burnout and trauma, and problem and emotion-focused coping predicted post-traumatic growth. Dysfunctional coping mediated and, thus, exacerbated the effect of expressive suppression on burnout and on trauma. Practitioners should pay closer attention to professionals with higher burnout and trauma. Occupational practices should focus on reducing dysfunctional coping and expressive suppression and promoting problem-focused coping.

Coping with burnout and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workers’ mental health: A systematic review

“…Thirteen studies were conducted on healthcare workers (86.6%) ( 39 , 41 – 51 , 53 ), one on frontline workers (6.7%) ( 52 ), and one on psychologists (6.7%) ( 40 ). Concerning sample size, one study (6.7%) had a sample ≤ 100 ( 51 ), six (40.0%) had a sample size between 101 and 200 ( 39 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 50 , 53 ), two (13.3%) had a sample size between 201 and 500 ( 40 , 49 ), two (13.3%) between 501 and 1,000 ( 45 , 46 ), and four (26.6%) had a sample size ≥ 1,000 ( 41 , 42 , 48 , 52 ). Most included studies ( n = 13, 86.6%) included a majority of female workers ( 39 – 49 , 51 , 52 ), and only two studies (13.3%) included a majority of male workers ( 50 , 53 ).…”

“…AlJhani et al ( 49 ) found that active coping was predictive of burnout ( p < 0.01). Fonseca et al ( 50 ) reported that dysfunctional coping was predictive of burnout ( p < 0.001). Miller et al ( 53 ) highlighted behavioral disengagement as predictive of burnout ( p < 0.001).…”

“…The remaining 33 articles were screened by full text; all the articles were successfully retrieved. A total of 18 articles were excluded based on full text (see Figure 1 for exclusion motivations), leaving 15 studies to be included in this systematic review (Table 1) (39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53).…”

“…Out of the fifteen included studies, three were conducted in Italy (20.0%) (40,42,43), two in China (13.3%) (45,46), two in USA (13.3%) (51, 53), one each (6.7%) in the following countries: Cyprus (48), France (41), Portugal (50), Romania (39), Sabah (47), Saudi Arabia (49), Turkey (44), UK and Ireland (52). Thirteen studies were conducted on healthcare workers (86.6%) (39,(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)53), one on frontline workers (6.7%) (52), and one on psychologists (6.7%) (40).…”

“…Out of the fifteen included studies, three were conducted in Italy (20.0%) (40,42,43), two in China (13.3%) (45,46), two in USA (13.3%) (51, 53), one each (6.7%) in the following countries: Cyprus (48), France (41), Portugal (50), Romania (39), Sabah (47), Saudi Arabia (49), Turkey (44), UK and Ireland (52). Thirteen studies were conducted on healthcare workers (86.6%) (39,(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)53), one on frontline workers (6.7%) (52), and one on psychologists (6.7%) (40). Concerning sample size, one study (6.7%) had a sample ≤ 100 (51), six (40.0%) had a sample size between 101 and 200 (39,43,44,47,50,53), two (13.3%) had a sample size between 201 and 500 (40,49), two (13.3%) between 501 and 1,000 (45,46), and four (26.6%) had a sample size ≥ 1,000 (41,42,48,52).…”