Predictors of psychological distress among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in California

Keen, Leah; Santhiveeran, Janaki

doi:10.1080/10911359.2023.2231977

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and governmental response strategies like the classification of work as either essential or non-essential, sparked a scientific research agenda on how such strategies might change the organization and meaning of work, work-life balance, and work productivity (Kramer & Kramer, 2020;Stephens et al, 2020). Notably, the significant body of empirical research emerging since the outbreak of the pandemic has primarily focused on the position of essential workers and how they were disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, for example in the extra workload they took on, the health risks they faced, the additional work stress, or difficulties with work-life balance (Copel et al, 2023;Correia & Almeida, 2020;Denning et al, 2021;Gilleen et al, 2021;Hennekam et al, 2020;Keen & Santhiveeran, 2023;Luo & Mao, 2022;Rose et al, 2021;Vagni et al, 2020;Van Der Goot et al, 2021). These studies have also pointed to the gendered nature of essential work (Carli, 2020;Fisher & Ryan, 2021;Leo et al, 2022;Meekes et al, 2023;M.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Declared Non-Essential during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects on Professional Identity

van Veelen,

Kruger,

Derks

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study applies a social identity lens to show that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Dutch government’s classification of occupations and labor market sectors as essential versus non-essential imposed a professional identity threat to those categorized as non-essential. Specifically, we hypothesized (1) that non-essential workers in the Netherlands would report lower professional identification (PI) during the pandemic relative to essential workers; (2) that non-essential workers’ mandatory shift to working from home and working fewer hours would (partially) explain their lower PI relative to essential workers; (3) that gender differences would emerge in the impact of categorization as (non-)essential worker on PI levels; and (4) that lower PI would negatively relate to work productivity and performance during the pandemic. Empirical evidence based on three cross-sectional datasets sampled among the Dutch working population during two peak waves of COVID-19 infections and national lockdowns (May/June 2020; Study 1: N = 371; November/December 2020, Study 2: N = 467; Study 3 = 735) all confirmed that non-essential workers reported lower PI relative to essential workers. The explanation for this outcome varied at different stages in the pandemic. Study 1 results showed that lower PI among those declared non-essential was partially explained by non-essential workers’ work location (home-bound) and reduced work hours, but only during the 1st peak wave. As the pandemic continued (2nd peak wave; Study 2 and 3), gender differences emerged, with more negative consequences of being classified non-essential for women than men. Non-essential workers’ lower PI levels were also associated with lower work productivity and performance. These findings underscore the importance of understanding social identity processes during the pandemic. We discuss socio-psychological ramifications of government regulations to control health crises, given how these may inadvertently undermine the professional identity of over half a working population in society.

show abstract