Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:34:13.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Risk Perception and Psychosocial Impact During the Early Period of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Healthcare Workers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Chau Sian Lim*
Affiliation:
Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
Brian See
Affiliation:
Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
David Choon Liang Teo
Affiliation:
Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
Michelle Su Qing Tan
Affiliation:
Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
Norasyikin Hassan
Affiliation:
Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
Augustine Tee
Affiliation:
Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

This study sought to elucidate the occupational health risk perception and psychological impact during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers in a general hospital in Singapore, and factors that influenced risk perception and psychological impact.

Methods

Healthcare workers from a general hospital in Singapore were invited to participate in an online survey in June 2020. It posed questions on demographic and occupational information (age, gender, nationality, marital status, profession, working area, length of working experience in healthcare), 20 items on occupational health risk perception and psychological impact of COVID-19, and the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21).

The 20 items were adapted from a previous study during the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak and designed to assess participants’ perceived exposure risk, risk acceptance, families’ perception, stigmatisation, feelings of appreciation, workload, and perceived effectiveness of workplace protective measures. Participants’ responses were obtained on a 6-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, disagree, strongly disagree).

For data analysis, responses on occupational risk perception were regrouped into three levels. Depression, anxiety, and stress scores were categorised into quartiles. Ordinal logistics regression was used to compare the association of occupational risk perception with DASS-21 scores, and demographic factors with occupational risk perception. Variables that showed statistical significance (set at P <0.05) in univariate analysis were included in the multivariate ordinal logistics regression model to identify independent predictors.

Results

There were 1252 respondents (92 doctors, 661 nurses, 318 allied health professionals, 181 administrative and support personnel). 85% felt an increased risk of exposure to COVID-19 while 90% accepted the risk as part of their jobs. Stigmatisation against healthcare workers was present, with 45% reported they were shunned and 21% reported their families were avoided. 78% experienced increased workload. Fortunately, most (94%) found workplace protective measures adequate, and felt appreciated by their employer (87%) and society (81%).

Increased perception of occupational health risk was significantly associated with nursing profession, workers in patient-facing areas, and staff with shortest working experience in healthcare.

The mean DASS-21 scores were 9.2 (borderline normal) for Depression, 8.5 (borderline mild) for Anxiety, and 10.9 (normal) for Stress. Increased DASS-21 scores were significantly associated with greater occupational risk perception, younger age, and less years of working experience.

Conclusion

Occupational risk perception amid the early COVID-19 pandemic is associated with adverse mental health among healthcare workers. Nurses, younger staff, and staff with least working experience are more vulnerable.

Type
Research
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.