7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Relationship between interprofessional collaboration and psychological distress experienced by healthcare professionals during COVID-19: a monocentric cross-sectional study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, global healthcare systems have faced unprecedented challenges, leading to significant psychological distress among healthcare professionals. Recognizing the importance of enhanced interprofessional collaboration in alleviating this burden, as emphasized by the World Health Organization in 2020, we investigated whether such collaboration could mitigate staff psychological distress during crises. To our knowledge, no study has yet explored the role of interprofessional collaboration as a resilience factor in crises.

          Methods

          For this monocentric cross-sectional study at a German university hospital, we examined the relationship between the quality of interprofessional collaboration and the psychological distress of healthcare professionals during the initial pandemic wave. We employed validated mental health instruments, such as the GAD-7 and PHQ-2, to assess anxiety and depressive symptoms. Additionally, custom-designed questionnaires evaluated “Pandemic-Associated Burden and Anxiety (PAB; PAA)” and interprofessional crisis management experiences. A novel “Interprofessional collaboration and communication (IPC)” assessment tool was developed based on international competency frameworks, demonstrating strong reliability.

          Results

          The study involved 299 healthcare professionals (78.6% in direct contact with COVID-19 patients). Moderate levels of PAB/PAA were reported. However, a significant proportion experienced clinically relevant anxiety, as indicated by GAD-7. Negative IPC perceptions correlated with higher levels of psychological distress. Linear regression analysis showed associations between interprofessional collaboration and anxious and depressive symptoms, and pandemic-related burden.

          Conclusion

          Our findings highlight the vital role of enhanced interprofessional collaboration in strengthening the psychological well-being of healthcare professionals during crises. The study underscores the need to foster a collaborative environment and integrate interprofessional education for resilience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Factors Associated With Mental Health Outcomes Among Health Care Workers Exposed to Coronavirus Disease 2019

          Key Points Question What factors are associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers in China who are treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 1257 health care workers in 34 hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 in multiple regions of China, a considerable proportion of health care workers reported experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress, especially women, nurses, those in Wuhan, and front-line health care workers directly engaged in diagnosing, treating, or providing nursing care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Meaning These findings suggest that, among Chinese health care workers exposed to COVID-19, women, nurses, those in Wuhan, and front-line health care workers have a high risk of developing unfavorable mental health outcomes and may need psychological support or interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population

            Summary Background The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population mental health is of increasing global concern. We examine changes in adult mental health in the UK population before and during the lockdown. Methods In this secondary analysis of a national, longitudinal cohort study, households that took part in Waves 8 or 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) panel, including all members aged 16 or older in April, 2020, were invited to complete the COVID-19 web survey on April 23–30, 2020. Participants who were unable to make an informed decision as a result of incapacity, or who had unknown postal addresses or addresses abroad were excluded. Mental health was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Repeated cross-sectional analyses were done to examine temporal trends. Fixed-effects regression models were fitted to identify within-person change compared with preceding trends. Findings Waves 6–9 of the UKHLS had 53 351 participants. Eligible participants for the COVID-19 web survey were from households that took part in Waves 8 or 9, and 17 452 (41·2%) of 42 330 eligible people participated in the web survey. Population prevalence of clinically significant levels of mental distress rose from 18·9% (95% CI 17·8–20·0) in 2018–19 to 27·3% (26·3–28·2) in April, 2020, one month into UK lockdown. Mean GHQ-12 score also increased over this time, from 11·5 (95% CI 11·3–11·6) in 2018–19, to 12·6 (12·5–12·8) in April, 2020. This was 0·48 (95% CI 0·07–0·90) points higher than expected when accounting for previous upward trends between 2014 and 2018. Comparing GHQ-12 scores within individuals, adjusting for time trends and significant predictors of change, increases were greatest in 18–24-year-olds (2·69 points, 95% CI 1·89–3·48), 25–34-year-olds (1·57, 0·96–2·18), women (0·92, 0·50–1·35), and people living with young children (1·45, 0·79–2·12). People employed before the pandemic also averaged a notable increase in GHQ-12 score (0·63, 95% CI 0·20–1·06). Interpretation By late April, 2020, mental health in the UK had deteriorated compared with pre-COVID-19 trends. Policies emphasising the needs of women, young people, and those with preschool aged children are likely to play an important part in preventing future mental illness. Funding None.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic

              (2021)
              Background Before 2020, mental disorders were leading causes of the global health-related burden, with depressive and anxiety disorders being leading contributors to this burden. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment where many determinants of poor mental health are exacerbated. The need for up-to-date information on the mental health impacts of COVID-19 in a way that informs health system responses is imperative. In this study, we aimed to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence and burden of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders globally in 2020. Methods We conducted a systematic review of data reporting the prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic and published between Jan 1, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, preprint servers, grey literature sources, and consulted experts. Eligible studies reported prevalence of depressive or anxiety disorders that were representative of the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic and had a pre-pandemic baseline. We used the assembled data in a meta-regression to estimate change in the prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders between pre-pandemic and mid-pandemic (using periods as defined by each study) via COVID-19 impact indicators (human mobility, daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, and daily excess mortality rate). We then used this model to estimate the change from pre-pandemic prevalence (estimated using Disease Modelling Meta-Regression version 2.1 [known as DisMod-MR 2.1]) by age, sex, and location. We used final prevalence estimates and disability weights to estimate years lived with disability and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. Findings We identified 5683 unique data sources, of which 48 met inclusion criteria (46 studies met criteria for major depressive disorder and 27 for anxiety disorders). Two COVID-19 impact indicators, specifically daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and reductions in human mobility, were associated with increased prevalence of major depressive disorder (regression coefficient [ B ] 0·9 [95% uncertainty interval 0·1 to 1·8; p=0·029] for human mobility, 18·1 [7·9 to 28·3; p=0·0005] for daily SARS-CoV-2 infection) and anxiety disorders (0·9 [0·1 to 1·7; p=0·022] and 13·8 [10·7 to 17·0; p<0·0001]. Females were affected more by the pandemic than males ( B 0·1 [0·1 to 0·2; p=0·0001] for major depressive disorder, 0·1 [0·1 to 0·2; p=0·0001] for anxiety disorders) and younger age groups were more affected than older age groups (−0·007 [–0·009 to −0·006; p=0·0001] for major depressive disorder, −0·003 [–0·005 to −0·002; p=0·0001] for anxiety disorders). We estimated that the locations hit hardest by the pandemic in 2020, as measured with decreased human mobility and daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, had the greatest increases in prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. We estimated an additional 53·2 million (44·8 to 62·9) cases of major depressive disorder globally (an increase of 27·6% [25·1 to 30·3]) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, such that the total prevalence was 3152·9 cases (2722·5 to 3654·5) per 100 000 population. We also estimated an additional 76·2 million (64·3 to 90·6) cases of anxiety disorders globally (an increase of 25·6% [23·2 to 28·0]), such that the total prevalence was 4802·4 cases (4108·2 to 5588·6) per 100 000 population. Altogether, major depressive disorder caused 49·4 million (33·6 to 68·7) DALYs and anxiety disorders caused 44·5 million (30·2 to 62·5) DALYs globally in 2020. Interpretation This pandemic has created an increased urgency to strengthen mental health systems in most countries. Mitigation strategies could incorporate ways to promote mental wellbeing and target determinants of poor mental health and interventions to treat those with a mental disorder. Taking no action to address the burden of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders should not be an option. Funding Queensland Health, National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2433946/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1172475/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role:
                Role: Role:
                Role:
                Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1939081/overviewRole: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/28018/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Journal
                Front Med (Lausanne)
                Front Med (Lausanne)
                Front. Med.
                Frontiers in Medicine
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-858X
                10 April 2024
                2024
                : 11
                : 1292608
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Internal Medicine I, Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Endocrinology, Rheumatology, and Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Regensburg , Regensburg, Germany
                [2] 2Nursing Development Department of the Care Management Head Office, University Hospital Regensburg , Regensburg, Germany
                [3] 3Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital of Regensburg , Regensburg, Germany
                Author notes

                Edited by: Aleksandra Klisic, Primary Health Care Center Podgorica, Montenegro

                Reviewed by: Chan Choong Foong, University of Malaya, Malaysia

                Attila Sárváry, University of Debrecen, Hungary

                Dominika Vrbnjak, University of Maribor, Slovenia

                Roger Edwards, MGH Institute of Health Professions, United States

                *Correspondence: Kirstin Ruttmann, Kirstin.Ruttmann@ 123456ukr.de
                Article
                10.3389/fmed.2024.1292608
                11039835
                38660424
                5f62509f-9602-424d-82c7-48e800d08bab
                Copyright © 2024 Ruttmann, Albaladejo-Fuertes, Lindenberg, Kunst, Mehrl, Kindl, Gülow, Schlosser-Hupf, Schmid and Müller.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 11 September 2023
                : 18 March 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 6, Equations: 0, References: 35, Pages: 15, Words: 10420
                Funding
                The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
                Categories
                Medicine
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                Healthcare Professions Education

                interprofessional collaboration,interprofessional communication,interprofessional education,covid-19 pandemic,mental well-being of healthcare professionals,mental health of health professionals,interprofessional collaborative practice,internal medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article