Background Workplace aggression constitutes a serious issue for healthcare workers and organizations. Aggression is tied to physical and mental health issues at an individual level, as well as to absenteeism, decreased productivity or quality of work, and high employee turnover rates at an organizational level. To counteract these negative impacts, organizations have used a variety of interventions, including education and training, to provide workers with the knowledge and skills needed to prevent aggression. Objectives To assess the e ectiveness of education and training interventions that aim to prevent and minimize workplace aggression directed toward healthcare workers by patients and patient advocates. Search methods CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and five trial registers were searched from their inception to June 2020 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomized controlled trials (CRCTs), and controlled before and a er studies (CBAs) that investigated the e ectiveness of education and training interventions targeting aggression prevention for healthcare workers. Data collection and analysis Four review authors evaluated and selected the studies resulting from the search. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Education and training for preventing and minimizing workplace aggression directed toward healthcare workers (Review)

No abstract

The Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) scale is one of the most widely used measures of compassion satisfaction and fatigue despite there being little publicly available evidence to support its validity. This study, conducted among a sample of 310 child protection workers, assessed the construct validity of this measure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and bifactor modeling. The CFA failed to confirm the adequacy of the three‐factor structure proposed by Stamm (2010). In response, a bifactor model postulating a factor structure with a general factor in addition to independent factors (compassion satisfaction, job burnout, and secondary traumatic stress) was proposed, highlighting the unidimensionality of the ProQOL while allowing for each subscale to be used separately. Moreover, this bifactor model of the ProQOL was moderately correlated with the Posttraumatic Disorder Checklist, r = −.427, p < .001, and strongly correlated with scales of well‐being at work, r = .694, p < .001, and psychological distress at work, r = −.666, p < .001, thus supporting the ProQOL's convergent validity. No associations were found between the ProQOL and the Life Event Checklist, which supports the ProQOL's discriminant validity. Overall, the results indicated that compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue represent higher and lower levels of the same construct rather than two different constructs. Researchers and clinicians could therefore compute a single score to rate professionals’ individual levels of professional quality of life.

Objectives: Health-care workers (HCW) exposed to COVID-19 are at risk of experiencing psychological distress. Although several cross-sectional studies have been carried out, a longitudinal perspective is needed to better understand the evolution of psychological distress indicators within this population. The objectives of this study were to assess the evolution of psychological distress and to identify psychological distress trajectories of Canadian HCW during and after the first wave of COVID-19. Method: This prospective cohort study was conducted from May 8 to September 4, 2020, and includes a volunteer sample of 373 HCW. Symptoms of post-traumatic disorder, anxiety, and depression were assessed using the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fifth edition (PCL-5), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Descriptive statistics were used to illustrate the evolution of psychological distress indicators, whereas latent class analysis was carried out to identify trajectories. Results: During and after the first wave of COVID-19, the rates of clinical mental health symptoms among our sample varied between 6.2% and 22.2% for post-traumatic stress, 10.1% and 29.9% for depression, and 7.3% and 26.9% for anxiety. Finally, 4 trajectories were identified: recovered (18.77%), resilient (65.95%), subchronic (7.24%), and delayed (8.04%). Conclusion: The longitudinal nature of our study and the scarcity of our data are unique among existing studies on psychological distress of HCW in COVID-19 context and allow us to contextualize prior transversal data on the topic. Although our data illustrated an optimistic picture in showing that the majority of HCW follow a resilience trajectory, it is still important to focus our attention on those who present psychological distress. Implementing preventive mental health interventions in our health-care institutions that may prevent chronic distress is imperative. Further studies need to be done to identify predictors that may help to characterize these trajectories.