Background The association of workplace factors on mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic needs to be urgently established. This will enable governments and policy-makers to make evidence-based decisions. This international study reports the association between workplace factors and the mental health of HCWs during the pandemic. Methods An international, cross-sectional study was conducted in 41 countries. The primary outcome was depressive symptoms, derived from the validated Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2). Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with mental health outcomes. Inter-country differences were also evaluated. Results A total of 2527 responses were received, from 41 countries, including China (n = 1213; 48.0%), UK (n = 891; 35.3%), and USA (n = 252; 10.0%). Of all participants, 1343 (57.1%) were aged 26 to 40 years, and 2021 (80.0%) were female; 874 (34.6%) were doctors, and 1367 (54.1%) were nurses. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of depressive symptoms were: working in the UK (OR = 3.63; CI = [2.90–4.54]; p < 0.001) and USA (OR = 4.10; CI = [3.03–5.54]), p < 0.001); being female (OR = 1.74; CI = [1.42–2.13]; p < 0.001); being a nurse (OR = 1.64; CI = [1.34–2.01]; p < 0.001); and caring for a COVID-19 positive patient who subsequently died (OR = 1.20; CI = [1.01–1.43]; p = 0.040). Workplace factors associated with depressive symptoms were: redeployment to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) (OR = 1.67; CI = [1.14–2.46]; p = 0.009); redeployment with perceived unsatisfactory training (OR = 1.67; CI = [1.32–2.11]; p < 0.001); not being issued with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) (OR = 2.49; CI = [2.03–3.04]; p < 0.001); perceived poor workplace support within area/specialty (OR = 2.49; CI = [2.03–3.04]; p < 0.001); and perceived poor mental health support (OR = 1.63; CI = [1.38–1.92]; p < 0.001). Conclusion This is the first international study, demonstrating that workplace factors, including PPE availability, staff training pre-redeployment, and provision of mental health support, are significantly associated with mental health during COVID-19. Governments, policy-makers and other stakeholders need to ensure provision of these to safeguard HCWs’ mental health, for future waves and other pandemics.

In recent years policy makers and social scientists have devoted considerable attention to wellbeing, a concept that refers to people’s capacity to live healthy, creative and fulfilling lives. Two conceptual approaches dominate wellbeing research. The objective approach examines the objective components of a good life. The subjective approach examines people’s subjective evaluations of their lives. In the objective approach how subjective wellbeing relates to objective wellbeing is not a relevant research question. The subjective approach does investigate how objective wellbeing relates to subjective wellbeing, but has focused primarily on one objective wellbeing indicator, income, rather than the comprehensive indicator set implied by the objective approach. This paper attempts to contribute by examining relationships between a comprehensive set of objective wellbeing measures and subjective wellbeing, and by linking wellbeing research to inequality research by also investigating how subjective and objective wellbeing relate to class, gender, age and ethnicity. We use three waves of a representative state-level household panel study from Queensland, Australia, undertaken from 2008 to 2010, to investigate how objective measures of wellbeing are socially distributed by gender, class, age, and ethnicity. We also examine relationships between objective wellbeing and overall life satisfaction, providing one of the first longitudinal analyses linking objective wellbeing with subjective evaluations. Objective aspects of wellbeing are unequally distributed by gender, age, class and ethnicity and are strongly associated with life satisfaction. Moreover, associations between gender, ethnicity, class and life satisfaction persist after controlling for objective wellbeing, suggesting that mechanisms in addition to objective wellbeing link structural dimensions of inequality to life satisfaction.

To examine the effects of timing of return to work, number of hours worked, and their interaction, on the likelihood of breastfeeding at 6 months and predominant breastfeeding at 16 weeks. METHODS:A nationally representative sample of Australian mothers in paid employment in the 13 months before giving birth (n = 2300) were surveyed by telephone. Four multivariate logistic regression models were used to analyze the effects of timing of return to work and work hours, independently and in interaction, on any breastfeeding at 6 months and on predominant breastfeeding at 16 weeks, controlling for maternal sociodemographics, employment patterns, and health measures. RESULTS:Mothers who returned to work within 6 months and who worked for ≥20 hours per week were significantly less likely than mothers who had not returned to work to be breastfeeding at 6 months. However, returning to work for ≤19 hours per week had no significant impact on the likelihood of breastfeeding regardless of when mothers returned to work. Older maternal age, higher educational attainment, better physical or mental health, managerial or professional maternal occupation, and being self-employed all significantly contributed to the increased likelihood of any breastfeeding at 6 months. Similar patterns exist for predominant breastfeeding at 16 weeks. CONCLUSIONS:The effects of timing of return to work are secondary to the hours of employment. Working ≤19 hours per week is associated with higher likelihood of maintaining breastfeeding, regardless of timing of return to work.

No abstract