Individual and working experiences of healthcare workers infected with COVID‐19: A qualitative study

Abstract

Introduction The major burden of the COVID‐19 pandemic has been mainly on healthcare workers (HCWs) and as a result many of them have been afflicted with the disease thus far. Purpose The present study was an effort to investigate Tehran University of Medical Sciences HCWs' experiences of COVID‐19 during the pandemic in Tehran, Iran. Methods This study is essentially a conventional qualitative content analysis. Twenty‐six HCWs (including 7 physicians, 16 nurses, and 3 physiotherapists) were purposefully selected to participate in the study. The data were collected from April 2020 to January 2021 through semi‐structured face‐to‐face interviews. The interviews were transcribed and then analyzed based on the Graneheim and Lundman method using MAXQDA 12. Results Based on the qualitative content analysis which resulted in 364 initial codes, three themes and eight subthemes were extracted. The extracted themes were “support,” “control,” and “improvement.” Conclusions HCWs are in close contact with COVID‐19 patients as part of their professional careers and the provision of quality patient care in times of crises is unattainable unless HCWs enjoy support and their own health is maintained. Making institutional, national, and international preparations for their protection is an obligation.

Patient experience of symptoms and impacts of COVID-19: a qualitative investigation with symptomatic outpatients

“…Symptom profiles in COVID-19 are largely based on community and hospitalised patient-reported quantitative data 5. To date, qualitative research has largely focused on the experiences of those hospitalised by COVID-196 and of the healthcare professionals who treat them 7 8. However, the majority of patients with COVID-19 do not require hospitalisation9 10; little is known about the qualitative experiences of these patients.…”

Risk of COVID-19 infection and the associated hospitalization, ICU admission and mortality in opioid use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…A total of 462 million confirmed patients with COVID-19 and over 6 million deaths caused by the disease had been reported until March 2022 [1,2]. Although respiratory depression seems to be the most serious complication of COVID-19 infection, other physical and mental disorders were observed in infected individuals, especially in cases with a high virus load, such as healthcare workers [3][4][5][6]. As a major threat to public health, the growing mortality and morbidity associated with COVID-19 require the evaluation of the risk factors for COVID-19-induced complications.…”

Experiences and perspectives of nurses infected with COVID‐19: A qualitative systematic review and meta‐synthesis

“…Table 2 summarizes the included studies conducted mainly in China ( K = 6) (Chun et al, 2021; Dou et al, 2021; He et al, 2021; Jiang et al, 2022; Luo et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2021), Turkey ( K = 4) (Özlük & Bikmaz, 2021; Ruveyde & Bulut, 2022; Savas et al, 2022; Topdemir et al, 2022), Iran ( K = 2) (Safiri et al, 2022; Shali et al, 2022), Italy ( K = 2) (Piredda et al, 2022; Simeone et al, 2022), Zimbabwe ( K = 1) (Moyo et al, 2022), Indonesia ( K = 1) (Siagian & Rantung, 2022), and the United Arab Emirates ( K = 1) (Khaled et al, 2022) between 2021 and 2022. These seventeen studies involved 271 nurses, predominantly female, and covered a wide age range.…”

“…Furthermore, phenomenology ( K = 10) (Chun et al, 2021; Dou et al, 2021; He et al, 2021; Jiang et al, 2022; Khaled et al, 2022; Luo et al, 2022; Moyo et al, 2022; Piredda et al, 2022; Siagian & Rantung, 2022; Simeone et al, 2022) and descriptive qualitative research ( K = 7) (Özlük & Bikmaz, 2021; Ruveyde & Bulut, 2022; Safiri et al, 2022; Savas et al, 2022; Shali et al, 2022; Topdemir et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2021) were the primary methodological approaches employed. Data collection methods included semi‐structured interviews ( K = 16) (Chun et al, 2021; Dou et al, 2021; He et al, 2021; Jiang et al, 2022; Khaled et al, 2022; Luo et al, 2022; Moyo et al, 2022; Özlük & Bikmaz, 2021; Ruveyde & Bulut, 2022; Safiri et al, 2022; Savas et al, 2022; Shali et al, 2022; Siagian & Rantung, 2022; Simeone et al, 2022; Topdemir et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2021), individual interviews ( K = 1) (Piredda et al, 2022), and focus group interviews ( K = 1) (Piredda et al, 2022), with many conducted remotely due to pandemic restrictions. Various data analysis methods were used, such as content analysis ( K = 5) (Dou et al, 2021; Özlük & Bikmaz, 2021; Safiri et al, 2022; Savas et al, 2022; Shali et al, 2022), thematic analysis ( K = 4) (Khaled et al, 2022; Ruveyde & Bulut, 2022; Topdemir et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2021), and Colaizzi's Seven‐step analysis ( K = 4) (Chun et al, 2021; Jiang et al, 2022; Luo et al, 2022; Siagian & Rantung, 2022).…”

“…Data collection methods included semi‐structured interviews ( K = 16) (Chun et al, 2021; Dou et al, 2021; He et al, 2021; Jiang et al, 2022; Khaled et al, 2022; Luo et al, 2022; Moyo et al, 2022; Özlük & Bikmaz, 2021; Ruveyde & Bulut, 2022; Safiri et al, 2022; Savas et al, 2022; Shali et al, 2022; Siagian & Rantung, 2022; Simeone et al, 2022; Topdemir et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2021), individual interviews ( K = 1) (Piredda et al, 2022), and focus group interviews ( K = 1) (Piredda et al, 2022), with many conducted remotely due to pandemic restrictions. Various data analysis methods were used, such as content analysis ( K = 5) (Dou et al, 2021; Özlük & Bikmaz, 2021; Safiri et al, 2022; Savas et al, 2022; Shali et al, 2022), thematic analysis ( K = 4) (Khaled et al, 2022; Ruveyde & Bulut, 2022; Topdemir et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2021), and Colaizzi's Seven‐step analysis ( K = 4) (Chun et al, 2021; Jiang et al, 2022; Luo et al, 2022; Siagian & Rantung, 2022).…”