ObjectiveThe study is an explorative investigation aimed to assess the differences in acute stress response patterns of health workers facing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during Italy’s first lockdown.MethodsA cross-sectional investigation using convenience sampling method was conducted in Italy during April 2020. Eight hundred fifty-eight health workers participated in the research filling out self-report measures including Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and Impact of Event Scale–Revised (IES-R).ResultsModerate/severe depression was found (...) in 28.9% (95% CI, 25.8–32.04), moderate/severe anxiety in 55.4% (95% CI, 51.9–58.8), insomnia in 15% (95% CI, 12.5–17.5), and distress in 52.5% (95% CI, 48.5%–56.6) of participants. The 3% of health workers reported frequent suicidal thoughts. Female sex, working for >15 h/week in a COVID-19 unit, and living apart from family were associated with a significantly higher risk of distress, anxiety, insomnia, depression, and functional impairment. Four profiles were identified on the basis of psychopathological measures: Profile_0 included 44% (N= 270); Profile_1, 25.6% (N= 157); Profile_2, 19.1% (N= 117); and Profile_3, 11.3% (N= 69) of participants. Results showed a significant effect for Profiles X IES-R (η2= 0.079;f= 0.29), indicating that in all profiles, except for Profile_0, avoidance scale is lower than hyperarousal and intrusion symptoms scales of the IES-R. This characteristic could be a probable index of the control exerted by the responders to not fly away from their job.ConclusionThe identification of specific profiles could help psychiatrists and emergency psychologists to build specific interventions in terms of both primary and secondary prevention to face future waves of the COVID-19 outbreak. (shrink)

The Mental Health Literacy Scale is the most widely used and strong theory-based measurement tool to gain an understanding of mental health knowledge and ability. This study aimed to test the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Mental Health Literacy Scale and to document the norm and its influential factors of mental health literacy among nurses. The MHLS was translated following Brislin’s translation model and tested with a sample of 872 clinical registered nurses. The (...) Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Health Professionals, Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 were administered to assess convergent validity. The minimum average partial test, parallel analysis and confirmatory factor analysis supported 4 first-order 2 second-order structure. The 4 factors were named “knowledge of mental disorder,” “ability to seek information and help,” “recognition of mental disorder,” and “acceptance of patients with mental illness,” with factor 1-3 were summarized into MHLS-Core and factor 4 as MHLS-SA. The MHLS-C was moderately negatively correlated with the PHQ-2 and GAD-2 and highly positively correlated with JSE-HP. The Cronbach’s α was 0.85 for the overall scale and 0.89 and 0.93 for two subscales. The test-retest reliability was good, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.80 for the whole scale, and 0.79 and 0.94 for two subscales. As an approximately normal distribution, the 50th percentile for the MHLS-C was 99, with 50th percentiles of 74 and 20 for MHLS-Core and MHLS-SA. Higher position, higher professional credentials, higher hospital hierarchy, other specialist hospital, psychiatric hospital and unmarried status were positive predictors. The 29-item MHLS-C, with two subscales of MHLS-Core and MHLE-SA, is a stable and validated tool to measure mental health literacy. MHLS-Core could be used independently to measure the core content of mental health literacy. It may be applicable for Chinese health professionals, but need further validation among the general public. MHL curriculum and a targeted culturally appropriate program for acceptance for health professionals, especially for those in general hospitals and with less working tenure, may be recommended. (shrink)

ObjectiveAnti-epidemic work against coronavirus disease has become routine work in China. Our study was intended to investigate the emotional and psychological state of healthcare workers and look for the association between sociodemographic factors/profession-related condition and emotional state.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted online among healthcare workers from various backgrounds. Symptoms of anxiety and depression were assessed by the Chinese versions of the seven-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder and the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire, respectively. Supplementary questions were recorded to describe (...) the participants’ information about workplace violence, profession, and attitude related to the COVID pandemic. Wherever suitable, independent t-test, and one-way ANOVA were performed to detect group differences of GAD-7 and PHQ-9 total scores after grouping by sociodemographic variables, respectively, such as age, gender, marital status, educational level, after-tax income, department category, job title, experience of workplace violence, and anti-epidemic participation. Multiple linear regression analyses were utilized in order to look for the potential associated factors of GAD-7 and PHQ-9 total scores.ResultsA total of 2,139 questionnaires with valid response were completed. Approximately 86.44% of participants had minimal symptoms of anxiety, 11.08% mild, 1.59% moderate, and 0.89% severe. Meanwhile, 81.34% had minimal symptoms of depression, 14.07% mild, 2.90% moderate, 1.17% moderately severe, and 0.51% severe. Student’s t-test showed that participants with female gender, with experience of workplace violence scored higher on both GAD-7 and PHQ-9, and participants with experience of anti-epidemic front-line work during pandemic scored lower on both GAD-7 and PHQ-9. ANOVA showed that participants aging from 31 to 40, with higher educational level, with middle level of annual after-tax income, with department of internal medicine or surgery, or with middle level of job title scored higher on both GAD-7 and PHQ-9. Regression analyses showed that female gender, high job title, and the experience of workplace violence positively were associated with anxiety or depression. Doctoral education, department, job enthusiasm, and professional self-identity were negatively associated with anxiety or depression. Additionally, psychological support was negatively associated with depression.ConclusionAs the epidemic prevention and control against COVID-19 become normalized in China, emotional state of healthcare workers deserves extensive attention. Our study revealed that gender, educational level, department category, job title, the experience of workplace violence, job enthusiasm, and professional self-identity are the most important influencing factors of physician’s anxiety and depression. Self-tailored psychological intervention should be based on the predisposing factors above to mentally prepare healthcare workers for this long-lasting battle against COVID-19. (shrink)