Psychological Differences Among Healthcare Workers of a Rehabilitation Institute During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Two-Step Study

Panzeri, Anna; Ferrario, Silvia Rossi; Cerutti, Paola

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636129

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to literature (e.g., Bonanno & Diminich, 2013) [ 73 ], age may have a curvilinear relationship with resilience, with the younger and elder individuals at higher risk for psychological issues [ 74 – 76 ]. Thus, particular attention should be dedicated to individuals with unfavourable conditions and the already vulnerable groups, as great elderlies [ 63 , 77 ], patients with pre-existing medical diseases–e.g., cardiac, oncological [ 26 , 75 , 78 – 82 ], and health-care professionals [ 83 , 84 ] for which the COVID-19 may have increased the risk of developing dangerous consequences and detrimental effects on both physical and mental health.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors impacting resilience as a result of exposure to COVID-19: The ecological resilience model

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the severe psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, some individuals do not develop high levels of psychological distress and can be termed resilient. Using the ecological resilience model, we examined factors promoting or hindering resilience in the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 1034 participants (49.9±16.2 years; females 51.2%) from Italian general population, 70% displayed resilient outcomes and 30% reported moderate-severe anxiety and/or depression. A binary regression model revealed that factors promoting resilience were mostly psychological (e.g., trait resilience, conscientiousness) together with social distancing. Conversely, factors hindering resilience included COVID-19-anxiety, COVID-19-related PTSD symptoms, intolerance of uncertainty, loneliness, living with children, higher education, and living in regions where the virus was starting to spread. In conclusion, the ecological resilience model in the COVID-19 pandemic explained 64% of the variance and identified factors promoting or hindering resilient outcomes. Critically, these findings can inform psychological interventions supporting individuals by strengthening factors associated with resilience.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors impacting resilience as a result of exposure to COVID-19: The ecological resilience model

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In line with previous studies [80], the pool of items of the structured interview was developed using a two-step procedure [46,[81][82][83][84].…”

Section: Measures: (Development Of) the Structured Interviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Fear to Hopelessness: The Buffering Effect of Patient-Centered Communication in a Sample of Oncological Patients during COVID-19

Rossi

Marconi

Taccini

et al. 2021

Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: COVID-19 represents a threat both for the physical and psychological health of oncological patients experiencing heightened distress levels to which the fear of the virus is also added. Moreover, fear of COVID-19 could lead oncological patients to experience feelings of hopelessness related to their medical care. Patient-centered communication may act as a buffer against the aforementioned variables. This study aimed to test the role of doctor–patient communication in the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and hopelessness. Methods: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a sample of 90 oncological outpatients was recruited (40 males (44.4%) and 50 females (55.6%), mean age = 66.08 (SD = 12.12)). A structured interview was developed and used during the pandemic to measure the patients’ perceived (A) fear of COVID-19, and (B) feelings of hopelessness, and (C) physicians’ use of empathetic and (D) clear language during the consultation. A multiple mediation model was tested, and the effects between males and females were also compared. Results: Empathetic and clear doctor–patient communication buffered the adverse effect of the fear of COVID-19 on hopelessness through a full-mediation model. The effects did not differ between males and females in the overall model but its indirect effects. Discussions: Patient-centered communication using empathy and clear language can buffer the adverse effect of the fear of COVID-19 and protect oncological patients from hopelessness during the pandemic. These findings might help to improve clinical oncological practice.

show abstract

“…HCPs, due to prolonged work shifts, isolation, fear of being infected or of infecting others, and distress over the loss of many patients and colleagues [ 23 , 24 ], experienced unparalleled COVID-19-related stress, emotional pain, insomnia, exhaustion, job dissatisfaction [ 25 , 26 , 27 ], and depressive symptoms [ 28 ], which are expected to increase up to several years after the outbreak [ 29 , 30 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological Support Interventions for Healthcare Providers and Informal Caregivers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Bertuzzi

Semonella

Bruno

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers and informal caregivers were at an increased risk of adverse mental health effects. This systematic review provides a summary of the available evidence on the content and efficacy of the psychological support interventions in increasing mental health among healthcare providers and informal caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, PsychINFO, and Scopus databases were systematically searched for relevant articles, and the methodological quality of selected articles was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Results: A search of electronic databases identified five reports based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. All psychological support interventions for caregivers were delivered digitally. Despite the large heterogeneity of the selected studies, the findings support the efficacy of mental health interventions in reducing distress and burnout, while promoting self-efficacy and well-being in both healthcare providers and informal caregivers. Conclusion: Since mental health problems are expected to increase during, and as a result of, the COVID-19 pandemic, and digital tools might offer a range of mental health treatments to meet the unique and immediate needs of people, further research is needed to test the cost-effectiveness of digital psychological interventions.

show abstract

Psychological Differences Among Healthcare Workers of a Rehabilitation Institute During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Two-Step Study

Cited by 22 publications

References 65 publications

Factors impacting resilience as a result of exposure to COVID-19: The ecological resilience model

Factors impacting resilience as a result of exposure to COVID-19: The ecological resilience model

From Fear to Hopelessness: The Buffering Effect of Patient-Centered Communication in a Sample of Oncological Patients during COVID-19

Psychological Support Interventions for Healthcare Providers and Informal Caregivers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About