Many affected counties have had experienced a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to investigate the needs of healthcare professionals and the technical difficulties faced by them during the initial outbreak. A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted among the healthcare workforce in the most populous cities from three Latin American countries in April 2020. In total, 1,082 participants were included. Of these, 534 (49.4%), 263 (24.3%), and 114 (10.5%) were physicians, nurses, and other professionals, respectively. At least 70% of participants reported a lack of PPE. The most common shortages were shortages in gown coverall suits (643, 59.4%), N95 masks (600, 55.5%), and face shields (569, 52.6%). Professionals who performed procedures that generated aerosols reported shortages more frequently (p<0.05). Professionals working in the emergency department and primary care units reported more shortages than those working in intensive care units and hospital-based wards (p<0.001). Up to 556 (51.4%) participants reported the lack of sufficient knowledge about using PPE. Professionals working in public institutions felt less prepared, received less training, and had no protocols compared with their peers in working private institutions (p<0.001). Although the study sample corresponded to different hospital centers in different cities from the participating countries, sampling was non-random. Healthcare professionals in Latin America may face more difficulties than those from other countries, with 7 out of 10 professionals reporting that they did not have the necessary resources to care for patients with COVID-19. Technical and logistical difficulties should be addressed in the event of a future outbreak, as they have a negative impact on healthcare workers. Clinical trial registration: NCT04486404

ObjectivesTo determine the volume of health professionals who suffered distress due to their care of patients with COVID-19 and to analyse the direction in which the response capacity of the professionals to face future waves of COVID-19 is evolving.DesignA cross-sectional study.SettingPrimary care and hospitals in Spain.ParticipantsA non-randomised sample of 685 professionals (physicians, nurses and other health staff).Primary and secondary outcome measuresFrequency and intensity of stress responses measured by the Acute Stress of Health Professionals Caring COVID-19 Scale (EASE). Variation of stress responses according to the number of deaths per day per territory and the evolutionary stage of the COVID-19 outbreak measured by the Kruskal-Wallis and the Mann-Whitney U tests.ResultsThe average score on the EASE Scale was 11.1 (SD 6.7) out of 30. Among the participants, 44.2% presented a good emotional adjustment, 27.4% a tolerable level of distress, 23.9% medium–high emotional load and 4.5% extreme acute stress. The stress responses were more intense in the most affected territories (12.1 vs 9.3, p=0.003) and during the disillusionment phase (12.7 vs 8.5 impact, 10.2 heroic and 9.8 honeymoon, p=0.000).ConclusionsThe pandemic has affected the mental health of a significant proportion of health professionals which may reduce their resilience in the face of future waves of COVID-19. The institutional approaches to support the psychological needs of health professionals are essential to ensure optimal care considering these results.

This study analyzed the frequency and intensity of acute stress among health professionals caring for COVID-19 patients in four Latin American Spanish-speaking countries during the outbreak. A cross-sectional study involved a non-probability sample of healthcare professionals in four Latin American countries. Participants from each country were invited using a platform and mobile application designed for this study. Hospital and primary care workers from different services caring for COVID-19 patients were included. The EASE Scale (SARS-CoV-2 Emotional Overload Scale, in Spanish named Escala Auto-aplicada de Sobrecarga Emocional) was a previously validated measure of acute stress. EASE scores were described overall by age, sex, work area, and experience of being ill with COVID-19. Using the Mann–Whitney U test, the EASE scores were compared according to the most critical moments of the pandemic. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to investigate associations between these factors and the outcome ‘acute stress’. Finally, the Kruskal–Wallis was used to compare EASE scores and the experience of being ill. A total of 1372 professionals responded to all the items in the EASE scale: 375 (27.3%) Argentines, 365 (26.6%) Colombians, 345 (25.1%) Chileans, 209 (15.2%) Ecuadorians, and 78 (5.7%) from other countries. 27% of providers suffered middle-higher acute stress due to the outbreak. Worse results were observed in moments of peak incidence of cases (14.3 ± 5.3 vs. 6.9 ± 1.7, p < 0.05). Higher scores were found in professionals in COVID-19 critical care (13 ± 1.2) than those in non-COVID-19 areas (10.7 ± 1.9) (p = 0.03). Distress was higher among professionals who were COVID-19 patients (11.7 ± 1) or had doubts about their potential infection (12 ± 1.2) compared to those not infected (9.5 ± 0.7) (p = 0.001). Around one-third of the professionals experienced acute stress, increasing in intensity as the incidence of COVID-19 increased and as they became infected or in doubt whether they were infected. EASE scale could be a valuable asset for monitoring acute stress levels among health professionals in Latin America.ClinicalTrials: NCT04486404.

Background Chronic diseases, such as IBD, can lead to anxiety and depression which can have a significant impact on productivity at work (presenteeism). The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of depression/anxiety, presenteeism and exercise levels amongst IBD patients. Methods This was a multicentre study whereby adult IBD patients, in clinical remission, were asked to answer an anonymous questionnaire. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS), Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) and Godin exercise score were also collected. Results A total of 585 patients were recruited. The majority had Crohn’s disease (CD, 62.2%) and were male (53.0%), with a median age of 39 years (IQR 30-49). A psychiatric diagnosis was present in 10.8% of patients prior to their IBD diagnosis. A further 14.2% of patients were diagnosed post IBD diagnosis, this being commoner in CD patients (41.6% of CD, p&lt;0.01). A raised HADS-anxiety or a HADS-depression score ≥8 was present in 46.1% of patients, with 27.4% having a score ≥11. Low presenteeism at work was present in 34.0%. Patients diagnosed with depression/anxiety had a more sedentary lifestyle (p&lt;0.01), lower presenteeism at work (p&lt;0.01) and a higher rate of unemployment (p&lt;0.01). Conclusion A significant percentage of IBD patients in remission suffer from anxiety and/or depression. Risk factors for these are CD, female gender, use of biological medications, long-standing and perianal disease. Depression/anxiety was associated with a sedentary lifestyle, lower presenteeism at work and unemployment. The use of validated screening tools and appropriate referrals to psychologists and/or psychiatrists should be employed within IBD clinics.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of interventions to provide emotional and psychological support to healthcare workers in many countries. This ecological study aims to describe the strategies implemented in different countries to support healthcare professionals during the outbreak. Data were collected through an online survey about the measures to address the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of healthcare workers. Healthcare professionals, researchers, and academics were invited to respond to the survey. Fifty-six professionals from 35 countries contributed data to this study. Ten countries (28.6%) reported that they did not launch any national interventions. Both developed and developing countries launched similar initiatives. There was no relationship between the existence of any type of initiative in a country with the incidence, lethality, and mortality rates of the country due to COVID-19, and per capita income in 2020. The 24 h hotline for psychological support was the most frequent intervention. Tools for self-rescue by using apps or websites were extensively used, too. Other common interventions were the development of action protocols, availability of regular and updated information, implantation of distance learning systems, early detection of infection programs for professionals, economic reinforcements, hiring of staff reinforcement, and modification of leave and vacation dates.