Snapshot Impact of COVID‐19 on Mental Wellness in Nonphysician Otolaryngology Health Care Workers: A National Study

Abstract

Objective Nonphysician health care workers are involved in high-risk patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic, placing them at high risk of mental health burden. The mental health impact of COVID-19 in this crucial population has not been studied thus far. Thus, the objective of this study is to assess the psychosocial well-being of these providers. Study Design National cross-sectional online survey (no control group). Setting Academic otolaryngology programs in the United States. Subjects and Methods We distributed a survey to nonphysician health care workers in otolaryngology departments across the United States. The survey incorporated a variety of validated mental health assessment tools to measure participant burnout (Mini-Z assessment), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7), distress (Impact of Event Scale), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire–2). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictive factors associated with these mental health outcomes. Results We received 347 survey responses: 248 (71.5%) nurses, 63 (18.2%) administrative staff, and 36 (10.4%) advanced practice providers. A total of 104 (30.0%) respondents reported symptoms of burnout; 241 (69.5%), symptoms of anxiety; 292 (84.1%), symptoms of at least mild distress; and 79 (22.8%), symptoms of depression. Upon further analysis, development of these symptoms was associated with factors such as occupation, practice setting, and case load. Conclusion Frontline otolaryngology health care providers exhibit high rates of mental health complications, particularly anxiety and distress, in the wake of COVID-19. Adequate support systems must be put into place to address these issues.

Prevalence of stress, depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance among nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Stress was estimated in 40 studies [ 18 , 20 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 33 , 35 , 36 , [39] , [40] , [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] ]. The overall pooled point estimates of prevalence for stress varied between 10% and 84% ( Fig.…”

“…Seventeen studies [ 20 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 54 , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] , [62] , [63] , 67 , 69 ] involving nurses who were working on the frontline showed stress prevalence at 46% (95% CI = 39–54; I 2 = 97), whereas 20 studies including mixed nurses working in the frontline and second line showed the stress prevalence was 42% (95% CI = 31–53, I 2 = 99). Thirteen studies that used the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) showed a pooled prevalence of stress at 50% (95% CI = 41–59, I 2 = 98), whereas eight studies [ 35 , 45 , [54] , [55] , [56] , 63 , 64 , 67 ] using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) had a pooled prevalence of 50% (95% CI = 37–63, I 2 = 99). The other studies used different scales.…”

“…The overall pooled point estimates of prevalence for anxiety varied between 8% and 91%, which was reported by 73 studies [ [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [28] , [29] , [30] , 32 , 34 , 35 , [37] , [38] , [39] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , 48 , 49 , 51 , [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] , 62 , [64] , [65] , [66] , [67] , [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] ,…”

“…This meta-analysis found that the pooled prevalence varied between studies; for example, ranging between 10% [ 66 ] - 84% [ 52 , 64 ] for stress, 8% [ 94 ] - 91% [ 51 ] for anxiety, 9% [ 94 ] - 89% [ 51 ] for depression and 12% [ 48 ] - 87% [ 72 ] for sleep disturbance. This could be explained by the diversity of the assessment scale, healthcare system, population characteristics and lifestyles.…”

Nurses’ burnout and associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Study population included only nurses in five studies, 27,28,33,36,40 while nine studies 29–32,34,35,37–39 included HCWs in general. A total of 17,390 nurses were included in this systematic review, while two studies 37,38 did not report the number of nurses. All studies were cross-sectional, while 12 studies 27–30,33–40 used a convenience sample method and two studies 31,32 used a snowball sampling method.…”