Psychological Distress Amongst Medical Laboratory Professionals Involved in COVID-19-Related Duties: A Nationally Stratified Cross-Sectional Survey,Ghana

Abstract

To assess the prevalence and factors associated with psychological distress (PD) and Medical Laboratory Professionals (MLPs) involvement in COVID-19-related duties. This study adopted an online cross-sectional, nationally stratified survey among 473 MLPs using Google Form with a designated link; Depression, anxiety, and stress scale-21 (DASS-21) was used to measure depression, anxiety, and stress (secondary outcome). We employed generalized Negative Binomial (NBR) and Poisson regression analytical approach to our study outcomes. All analyses were performed using Stata 16, and P-value≤.05 deemed significant. The overall DASS-21 score ranged from asymptomatic psychological distress to severe symptomatic PD. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress were 9.1 [95%CI=6.8–12.0], 17.8 [95%CI=14.6–21.5], and 7.5 [95%CI=5.4–10.1], respectively. The result evinced a high and significant association; the univariate NBR predicted a significant increase of PD score by 12% and 18% among participants who were involved in one and two or more COVID-19-related duties, respectively, (β[95%CI] = .12 [.05–.18] and .18 [.10–.26], respectively). A binary outcome predicted approximately 2-folds of overall psychological distress among participants involved in two or more COVID-19-related duties compared with non-involvement (adjusted Prevalence Ratio [95%CI]= 2.34 [1.12–4.85]). For depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms, both univariate and multivariate data analyses evinced a higher disadvantage among MLP involved in COVID-19-related duties. We observed a high tendency of experiencing significant psychological distress amongst MLP involved in COVID-19-related duties. Experience of psychological distress increased with deeper involvement in COVID-19-related activities. Psychological support should be extended to MLPs to limit the effect of these negative emotions on their cognitive and social behavior as well as job performance.

Keywords

psychological distress medical laboratory professionals COVID-19

Highlights

What do we already know about this topic?

Depression, anxiety, and stress are common among healthcare professionals as they need to deal with patients with COVID-19 illness, cope with the societal shifts and emotional stressors, face a greater risk of exposure, extreme workloads, and moral dilemmas.

How Does Your Research Contribute to the Field?

The dearth of research on the high tendency of experiencing psychological distress among Medical Laboratory Professionals (MLPs) involved in COVID-19-related duties in Ghana specifically exists.

What Are Your Research’s Implications Toward Theory, Practice, or Policy?

Experience of psychological distress increased with deeper involvement in COVID-19-related activities. Extending psychological support to MLPs will limit the effect on their cognitive and social behavior as well as job performance.

Introduction

Ghana reported its first official case of COVID-19 on 12^th March 2020, and so far over 43 000 cases have been recorded with over 250 deaths (as of 24^th August 2020); case fatality rate of .6%.^1,2 Infection across the globe continues to surge making “current” figures soon seem obsolete.

Since Ghana recorded its index case, the resulting public health interventions, the psychosocial impact, and the economic effects have been overwhelming. While the pandemic has inspired the public’s affection for front line healthcare workers (HCWs), additionally, Medical Laboratory Professionals (MLPs) deserve recognition for their crucial role in the fight to control the disease. The MLPs role during this pandemic extends beyond etiological diagnosis and epidemiologic surveillance to assessing disease severity, defining the prognosis, following-up patients, guiding treatment, and therapeutic monitoring of COVID-19.³ These professionals work incessantly to process incoming samples in order to provide vital test results to help clinicians distinguish groups of patients at high risk of developing the most severe COVID-19 complications.⁴ In Ghana, MLP’s are involved in sample taking, disease surveillance (contact tracing and tracking), diagnostic testing, as well as therapeutic monitoring of COVID-19.

The pandemic has not only resulted in increased mortality but also brought about huge public health concerns one of such being psychological distress (PD), especially for HCWs. Dealing with a pandemic of such magnitude is known to be associated with immense pressure on all HCWs due to increased workload, anxiety regarding acquiring an infection and passing it on to a family member, and fears of death.⁵ In this period of uncertainty of the unknown, with health statisticians forecasting that COVID‐19 will continue for some time as a public health crisis,⁶ PD such as depression, anxiety, stress, and fear are likely to be on the rise.^7,8 Yet, the focus of assessing the impact of COVID-19 tends to be skewed toward mortality and infection risk, while mental well-being, which is crucial to the functioning of every society, unfortunately, takes backstage.⁸

Depression, anxiety, and stress are common among healthcare professionals as they need to deal with patients, cope with the societal shifts and emotional stressors, face a greater risk of exposure, extreme workloads, moral dilemmas, and a rapidly evolving practice environment that differs greatly from what they are familiar with.^9,10

The prevalence and factors associated with depression and anxiety among healthcare personnel and the general public have been reported in some studies. Luo and colleagues in a systematic review reported a pool prevalence of 33% and 28% for anxiety and depression respectively. The prevalence of anxiety and depression was the highest among patients with pre-existing conditions and COVID-19 infection, and it was similar between HCWs and the general public. Common risk factors included being women, being nurses, having lower socioeconomic status, having high risks of contracting COVID-19, and social isolation. Protective factors included having sufficient medical resources, up-to-date and accurate information, and taking precautionary measures. In conclusion, psychological interventions targeting high-risk populations with heavy psychological distress are in urgent need.¹¹

In a cross-sectional survey, Zhu and colleagues¹² reported prevalence rate of 11.4% and 45.6% for anxiety and depression, respectively, among doctors. History of depression or anxiety was shown to be a risk factor for anxiety symptoms in doctors, while being male was a protective factor for depression. The prevalence rate of anxiety and depression symptoms among nurses was 27.9% and 43.0%, respectively. History of depression or anxiety was a common risk factor for anxiety and depression symptoms in nurses. Similarly, using a cross-sectional survey, Lai et al¹³ assessed the magnitude of mental health outcomes and associated factors among 1257 healthcare professionals working in 34 hospitals treating patients exposed to COVID-19 in China. They found that a considerable proportion of HCWs reported symptoms of depression (50.4%), anxiety (44.6%), insomnia (34.0%), and distress (71.5%). Frontline HCWs engaged in direct diagnosis, treatment, and care of patients with COVID-19 were associated with a higher risk of symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress.

Among dentists, Mijiritsky and colleagues¹⁴ reported a positive association between subjective overload and psychological distress that differed among countries. The interaction variable of the subjective overload and psychological distress was significantly associated with a particular country, with those individuals reporting fear of contracting COVID-19 from patients, fear of their families contracting COVID-19, and receiving enough professional knowledge regarding COVID-19. These PDs can be significant and might cause negative influence in their job performance and productivity which may subsequently put patients’ life at risk,¹⁵ affect healthcare professionals’ emotions, cognitive behavior, and social abilities,¹⁶ and pose negative consequences for organizations.¹⁷ While there is a plethora of literature on PD outcomes during the COVID-19 outbreak among general HCWs as espoused, none specifically addresses the unique challenges of MLPs. This study therefore is intended to estimate the prevalence and factors associated with PD amongst MLPs involved in COVID-19-related duties in Ghana.

Methods

Study Design

This study adopted a cross-sectional, regionally stratified online-based survey across the 16 administrative regions of Ghana. It was conducted by using the online data collection method (Google Form Questionnaire) with a designated link, which was disseminated through national MLPs social media platforms (WhatsApp and short message service—SMS). An approach adopted to increase reach and coverage within the limits of the restrictions imposed due to the pandemic.

Study Participants

This study involved MLPs across the 16 administrative regions of Ghana. MLPs form the bedrock of meticulous detectives in healthcare systems across the world and are at the forefront of the COVID-19 fight as has been the case with other outbreaks of pandemic diseases. This notwithstanding, there is little or no literature on PD vis-à-vis the MLPs in the forefront of a global pandemic. Participation was voluntary during initial contact and at the end of the survey, 473 MLPs participated across 16 administrative regions in Ghana, grouped into 3 major zones, Central (124 participants), Northern (60), and Southern zones (289). The data was collected over the period 1^st May to 31^st July to allow for a larger sample size across the country. After data collection, pragmatically, 356 MLPs were involved in COVID-19-related duties while 117 were not, leading to approximately 3:1 pragmatic voluntary participation.

Psychological Distress Variable Definition

This study adopted the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale which is a set of three self-reported scales designed to measure depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms among the population. The tool was first developed in 1995 by Lovibond and Lovibond with 42 items¹⁸; however, later shortened to 21 items (DASS-21). The DASS-21 scale is a subjective reporting of the severity of a range of symptoms common to depression, anxiety, and stress. The most significant function of the scale is to assess the severity of the core symptoms of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress.¹⁹ The tool assesses the presence of depression, anxiety, and stress symptom over the past week with a score ranging from 0 (did not apply to me at all over the last week—NEVER); 1 (applied to me to some degree, or some of the time—SOMETIMES); 2 (applied to me to a considerable degree, or a good part of the time—OFTEN); to 3 (applied to me very much or most of the time over the past week—ALMOST ALWAYS).¹⁹ In all, the domains of DASS-21 have seven items for each with an overall score ranging from asymptomatic (0 point) to 21 symptomatic depression, anxiety, and stress among individuals. In clinical and non-clinical studies, DASS-21 has been recognized as validated and reliably recommended as the potential for accurate screening for symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress among individuals.^19-21 For PD individual domains, authors used the following cutoffs: depression≥10, anxiety≥8, and stress≥16.²² For internal consistency and reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha test was performed and analysis showed that the overall test of reliability was very high (approximately 93%) (Supplementary Table 1).

Dependent Variable

Two outcomes individually were considered in this study, the primary outcome (composite total of DASS-21) and secondary outcomes (three domains of psychosocial distress variables, namely, depression, anxiety, and stress). The aforementioned variables (domains) were generated for all participants using the DASS-21 tool. Depression score among MLPs ranged from asymptomatic to 17 points depression symptomatic, while anxiety and stress ranged from asymptomatic to 16 points anxiety and stress symptoms, respectively. The scores of the domains were further classified as normal, mild, moderate, severe, and extreme severe using the definition from Tran and colleagues.²¹ To estimate the overall prevalence of our outcome variables rather than the severity levels, artificial dummy variables were generated by combining mild, moderate, severe, and extreme severe as “Yes = 1” and keeping normal as “No=0”.

The primary outcome assesses the composite score of the secondary outcomes (thus; depression, anxiety, and stress). The overall score ranged from asymptomatic to 41 PD. Based on Lovibond and Lovibond¹⁸ criteria for classifying low and high overall DASS, we computed the overall DASS-21 severity ratings; low DASS (≤30 scores) and high DASS (≥31 scores).

Exposure Variable

The main exposure variable considered in this study was MLPs involvement in COVID-19-related duties. Participants were asked whether they were involved in COVID-19-related duties since Ghana recorded its index case. Under this category, four observed variables considered were Contact Tracing and Tracking, Sample Collection, Sample Testing, and facilitating COVID-19-related training/workshops. These aforementioned variables were coded as 1 “Yes” or 0 “No”. A composite variable was generated with scores ranging from 0–4, meaning not involved in COVID-19 duties (0) and one or more duties were involved (1–4). The variable was further classified into 0=0 “No involvement”, 1 = 1 “Involve in only 1 duty,” and 2/4 = 2 “Involve in two or more duties”.

Covariates

Independent variables which were analyzed in this study included sex (male or female), age group (≤29, 30–39, and 40+), marital status (single and married), number of children (none, 1–2, and 3+), religion (Christian and Islam), ever experienced working in the outbreak before (No or Yes), professional cadre (MedLab Assistant-MLA, MedLab Consultant-MLC, MedLab Scientist-MLS, and MedLab Technician-MLT), working experience (≤1, 2–5, 6–10, and 11+), MedLab specialty (Chemical Pathology-ChemP, general-GEN, Hematology and Blood Bank-HeamBB, microbiology and others-), and place of work (Gov’t hospital, mission hospital, private hospital, research facility, and teaching hospital). These variables were considered as potential confounders of our main outcome variables.

Data Analysis

The hypothetical idea of the study was to find a significant association between PD and MLPs involvement in COVID-19-related duties in Ghana. Data analytical approach was considered in two forms, namely, descriptive and inferential approaches. The descriptive analysis involved describing the variables understudied based on the stratification of the study participants region of work. Appropriate test statistic involving chi-square (χ²) test was adopted to describe the significant independent test of proportions of all categorical variables associated with the region of work of MLPs. For normally distributed variables like age, the F-test statistic (parametric test) was adopted to assess the significant mean difference of age, while Kruskal–Wallis (nonparametric test) test statistic was applied on continuous variables that were not normally distributed to assess the rank-based significant difference.

Before inferential analysis was adopted, multi-collinearity analysis was performed to identify any potential high correlation between our outcome variables and the independent variables. This was performed by adopting the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). After initial analysis, there was a high value of VIF for independent variables; working experience, Med Lab specialty, and place of work (VIF>10). These variables were dropped and further VIF analysis showed no high correlation between the remaining variables.

To assess significant association between PD and MLPs involvement in COVID-19-related duties, two separate models were considered concurrently; the natural model (raw scores and the natural categories of our outcome variables). Considering the raw scores, the over-dispersed nature of the data for our primary and outcome variables allowed for the Negative Binomial Regression (NBR) analytical approach to assess psychosocial distress associated factors. NBR is appropriate when the variance exceeds the mean (thus σ² > μ) which has been adopted by Tetteh et al in recent times.²³ In all our outcome variables, the raw scores were over-dispersed where the variance exceeds the mean (thus; primary outcome [overall DASS-21- σ² vs μ = 57.79 vs 14.19] and secondary outcomes; depression scores-σ² vs μ = 9.82 vs 2.82, anxiety raw scores- σ² vs μ = 5.31 vs 6.47, and stress raw scores σ² vs μ = 7.92 vs 6.06).

We applied Poisson, Logistic, and Probit Regression analyses separately to assess the prevalence ratio, odds ratio, and relative log odds of experiencing subscale of psychosocial distress (depression, anxiety, and stress) among MLPs who were involved in COVID-19-related duties. Adopting these models helped to have an in-depth understanding of the factors associated with our outcome variables as suggested by Chen et al.²⁴

In all, both univariate and multivariate data analyses and presentation were performed and missing responses were strictly excluded following the recommendation by Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE).²⁵ The robust standard error analytical approach was considered in estimating the associated factors by considering the stratification of participants by region of work. Stata 16 was used to perform all analyses, and P-value <.05 was set at a significant level.

Ethical Requirements

Ethical approval was obtained from the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital Institutional Review Board. Permission with clearance to conduct the study was sought from the Ghana Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists. All participants consented to participate in the survey and provided informed consent.

Results

In general, there was a preponderance of males in the MLPs survey population in Ghana (female vs male = 20.1 [95%CI = 16.7–23.9] vs 79.9 [95%CI = 76.1–83.3]) with overall mean ± Standard Deviation being 33.3 ± 6.5. The association test of independence showed no significant association between PD and the location/region of MLPs (P > .05). However, significant differences were observed in the proportions of MLPs based on marital status, religion, type of facility, and work specialty (P ≤ .05) (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 2). The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress were 9.1 (95%CI = 6.8–12.0), 17.8 (95%CI = 14.6–21.5), and 7.5 (95%CI = 5.4–10.1), respectively, (Supplementary Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Medical Laboratory Professionals Stratified by Region of Work During COVID-19 Pandemic in Ghana.

Characteristics	Total	MLPs Stratification			Test Statistic
		Central	North	South
n (% [95%])		124 (26.2 [22.4–30.4])	60 (12.7 [10.0–16.0])	289 (61.1 [56.6–65.4])
	n (% [95%CI])	n (% [95%CI])	n (% [95%CI])	n (% [95%CI])
Sex					^χ229.58***
Female	95 (20.1 [16.7–23.9])	11 (8.9 [5.0–15.4])	3 (5.0 [1.6–14.5])	81 )28.0 [23.1–33.5])
Male	378 (79.9 [76.1–83.3])	113 (91.1 [84.6–95.0])	57 (95.0 [85.4–98.3])	208 (72.0 [66.4–76.8])
Total	473	124	60	289
Age [Mean ± SD]	33.3 ± 6.5	32.5 ± 6.6	34.2 ± 6.4	33.5 ± 6.5	1.4^ψ
Age group					^χ26.36
<29	153 (33.4 [29.3–37.8])	46 (37.7 [29.5–46.7])	14 (23.7 [14.5–36.3])	93 (32.6 [27.4–38.3])
30-39	232 (49.6 [45.1–54.1])	61 (50.0 [41.2–58.8])	35 (59.3 [46.3–71.1])	136 (47.7 [41.9–53.5])
40+	81 (17.0 [13.9–20.7])	15 (12.3 [7.5–19.5])	10 (16.9 [9.3–28.9])	56 (19.6 [15.4–24.7])
Total	466	122	59	285
Marital status					8.23*
Married	257 (54.1 [49.6–58.5])	59 (47.6 [38.9–56.4])	42 (70.0 [57.2–80.3])	156 (54.0 [48.1–59.7])
Single	216 (46.0 [41.5–50.1])	65 (52.4 [43.6–61.1])	18 (30.0 [19.7–42.8])	133 (46.0 [40.3–51.8])
Total	473	124	60	289
Number of children [p50 (min-max)]	1 (No child-8 children]	1 [No child-5 children]	1 [No child-8 children]	1 [No child-7 children]	^K2.28
None	177 (41.6 [37.0–46.3])	48 (4.36 [34.6–53.0])	17 (31.5 [20.4–45.1])	112 (42.9 [37.0–49.0])	^χ23.66
33.1-2	152 (35.8 [31.4–40.4])	41 (37.3 [28.7–46.7])	21 (38.9 [26.8–52.5])	90 (34.5 [28.9–40.5])
3+	96 (22.6 [18.9–26.8])	21 (19.1 [12.8–27.6])	16 (29.6 [18.9–43.2])	59 (22.6 [17.9–28.1])
Total	425	110	54	261
Religion					^χ233.68***
Christian	429 (91.1 [88.1–93.3])	112 (91.1 [84.5–95.0])	43 (71.7 [58.9–81.7])	274 (95.1 [91.9–97.1])
Islam	42 (8.9 [6.7–11.9])	11 (8.9 [5.0–15.5])	17 (28.3 [18.3–41.1])	14 (4.9 [2.9–8.1])
Total	471	123	60	288
Ever experience any outbreak					^χ25.32
Yes	122 (25.7 [22.0–29.8])	38 (30.6 [23.1–39.4])	20 (33.3 [22.5–46.2])	64 (22.1 [17.7–27.3])
No	351 (74.3 [70.2–78.0])	86 (69.4 [60.6–76.9])	40 ]66.7 [53.8–77.5])	225 (77.9 [72.7–82.3])
Total	473	124	60	289
Professional Cadre					^χ210.48
MLA	33 (7.1 [5.1–9.8])	4 (3.3 [1.2–8.4])	5 (8.3 [3.5–18.7])	24 (8.4 [5.7–12.2])
MLC	26 (5.4 [3.7–7.8])	4 (3.3 [1.2–8.4])	2 (3.3 [.8–12.5])	20 (7.0 [4.5–10.6])
MLS	292 (61.9 [57.4–66.1])	77 (62.6 [53.7–70.7])	34 (56.7 [43.8–68.7])	181 (63.1 [57.3–68.5])
MLT	119 (25.6 [21.9–29.7])	38 (30.9 [23.3–39.7])	19 (31.7 [21.1–44.5])	62 (21.6 [17.2–26.8])
Total	470	123	60	287

NOTE: Abbreviation: MLA=Medical Laboratory Assistant, MLC= Medical Laboratory Consultant, MLS= Medical Laboratory Scientist, MLT= Medical Laboratory Technician. Analysis was presented as frequencies (n), column percentages at 95% Confidence Interval (%; 95%).CI denotes Confidence Interval. Test statistic; χ² denotes chi-square independence test of proportion; ψ denotes F-test statistics for independence test of mean, K denotes Kruskal–Wallis independence test of rank sum. P-value notation; *P = value≤.05, **P-value≤.01 and ***P-value≤.001.

Interestingly, Kruskal–Wallis and Chi-square test of independence showed significant association between PD (including depression, anxiety, and stress subscales) and MLPs involvement in COVID-19-related duties (P-vale≤.05). In general, participants involvement in COVID-19-related duties median PD score was significantly higher compared with non-involvement in COVID-19-related duties. (Supplementary Table 3).

The impact of involvement in COVID-19-related duties on DASS PD evinced a significant association (Negative Binomial Regression: β[95%CI] = .12 [.05–.18] and .18 [.10–.26] respectively). Multivariate analysis showed a significant association for participants who were involved in 2 or more COVID-19 related duties (a[β95%CI] = .16 [.04–.28]).

Other adjusted variables including age group, marital status, and professional cadre significantly influence the overall PD among participants. From the artificial model, participants aged 30 years or more were less likely to experience overall PD compared with age group ≤29 years. Participants who were married significantly increased the overall outcome variable by .15 point compared with single participants (aβ[95%CI]= .15 [.03–.27). Also, Med Lab consultants increased the probability of the overall PD significantly compared with Med Lab Assistance (Table 3). An interesting disclosure from the analysis showed that the higher the number of involvements in COVID-19-related duties, the more likely the log counts, prevalence, and odds ratio increased (Table 2).

Table 2.

Association Between Medical Laboratory Professionals Involvement in COVID-19-Related Duties and Overall PD.

Variable	Natural Model	Artificial Model
	NBR	Poisson	Logistic	Probit
Univariate data analysis	β(95%CI)	PR (95%CI)	OR (95%CI)	β(95%CI)
Involved in COVID-19-related duties
No	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
1 duty	.12 (.05–.18)***	1.73 (.90–3.31)	1.76 (.90–3.43)	.25 (−.03–.53)
2+ duties	.18 (.10–.26)***	2.89 (1.66–5.00)***	3.04 (1.72–5.37)***	.50 (.25–.76)***

Multivariate data analysis	β^a (95%CI)	PR^a (95%CI)	OR^a (95%CI)	β^a (95%CI)
Involved in COVID-19-related duties
No	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
1 duty	.11 (−.02–.24)	1.58 (.74–3.36)	1.62 (.73–3.58)	.23 (−.16–.61)
2+ duties	.16 (.04–.28)**	2.34 (1.12–4.85)*	2.45 (1.13–5.34)*	.40 (.01–.79)*
Sex
Female	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Male	.09 (−.01–.20)	.63 (.32–1.23)	.60 (.29–1.24)	−.25 (−.55–.06)
Age group
≤29	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
30-39	−.03 (−.19–.13)	.40 (.22–.73)**	.38 (.19–.72)**	−.45 (−.75–−.15)**
40+	−.04 (-.19–.11)	.51 (.23–1.11)	.49 (.21–1.14)	−.34 (.78–.08)
Marital status
Single	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Married	.15 (.03–.27)*	2.09 (.61–7.14)	2.20 (.59–8.20)	.39 (-.19–.97)
Number of children
None	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
1-2	−.11 (-.23–.01)	.95 (.28–3.25)	.94 (.26–3.49)	−.01 (-.59–.58)
3+	−.07 (-.32–.17)	.87 (.14–5.45)	.86 (.12–6.11)	−.04 (-.88–.80)
Religion
Christian	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Islam	.07 (-.09–.23)	.56 (.10–3.10)	.55 (.09–3.20)	−.25 (-1.00–.50)
Ever experienced outbreak
No	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Yes	.01 (-.08–.09]	1.12 (.53–2.33)	1.12 (.51–2.46)	.06 (-.32–.43)
Professional Cadre
MLA	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
MLC	.20 (.03–.38]*	2.41 (1.03–5.67)*	2.55 (1.08–6.06)*	.42 (.10–.74)**
MLS	.06 (-.02–.33)	1.67 (.32–8.63)	1.71 (.31–9.56)	.23 (-.49–.96)
MLT	.04 (-.16–.23)	1.02 (.10–10.05)	1.03 (.09–11.09)	.03 (-.93–.99)

NOTE: Abbreviation: MLA=Medical Laboratory Assistant, MLC= Medical Laboratory Consultant, MLS= Medical Laboratory Scientist, MLT= Medical Laboratory Technician. NBR denote Negative Binomial Regression. CI denotes Confidence Interval. β, PR and OR symbolize normalized coefficient, Prevalence Ratio, and OR Odd Ratio, respectively. Superscript ^a symbolizes adjusted estimates of the statistical model. P-value notation; *p=value≤.05, **P value≤.01 and ***P-value≤.001.

The impact of MLPs involvement in COVID-19-related duties on the subscale of DASS-21 was also assessed. For the impact on the depression subscale, results showed that involvement in COVID-19 duties was insignificantly associated with the raw DASS-21 depression scores; however, involvement in two or more related duties increased the risk of depression among participants (Table 3).

Table 3.

Association of Medical Laboratory Professionals Involvement in COVID-19-Related Duties and DASS-21 Depressive Symptoms.

Variable	Natural Model	Artificial Model
	NBR	Poisson	Logistic	Probit
Univariate data analysis	β(95%CI)	PR (95%CI)	OR (95%CI)	β(95%CI)
Involved in COVID-19-related duties
No	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
1 duty	.09 (−.04–.22)	.86 (.53–1.37)	.84 (.50–1.42)	−.87 (−.24–.18)
2+ duties	.16(−.04–.37)	1.28 (.80–2.04)	1.32 (.78–2.21)	.14 (−.12–.41)
Multivariate data analysis	Aβ(95%CI)	aPR (95%CI)	aOR (95%CI)	Aβ(95%CI)
Involved in COVID-19-related duties
No	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
1 duty	.13 (−.11–.37)	.94 (.49–1.80)	.93 (.45–1.95)	−.03 (−.40–.3)
2+ duties	.17 (−.15–.49)	1.24 (.62–1.24)	1.27 (.58–1.28)	.12 (−.29–.53)
Sex
Female	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Male	.31 (.13–.49)***	1.37 (.68–2.78)	1.42 (.65–3.09)	.17 (−.17–.51)
Age group
≤29	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
30-39	−.09 (−.43–.24)	.54 (.25–1.15)	.50 (.22–1.16)	−.36 (−.77–.06)
40+	−.11 (−.46–.24)	.53 (.17–1.63)	.50 (.15–1.70)	−.32 (−.88–.24)
Marital status
Single	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Married	.34 (.09–.58)**	1.69 (1.04–2.75)*	1.81 (1.02–3.19)*	.32 (.02–.61)*
Number of children
None	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
1-2	−.32 (−.51–−.11)**	.74 (.36–1.52)	.71 (.32–1.62)	−.19 (−.64–.25)
3+	−.22 (−.68–.24)	1.56 (.56–4.39)	1.64 (.51–5.22)	.22 (−.33–.78)
Religion
Christian	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Islam	.24 (−.01–.48)	1.73 (.73–4.07)	1.87 (.67–5.14)	.32 (−.20–.86)
Ever experienced outbreak
No	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Yes	−.07 (−.34–.21)	.97 (.56–1.70)	.97 (.52–1.83)	.01 (−.31–.32)
Professional cadre
MLA	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
MLC	.33 (−.15–.82)	1.14 (.46–2.85)	1.14 (.41–3.18)	.07 (−.44–.59)
MLS	.25 (−.07–.58)	1.54 (.66–3.59)	1.60 (.63–4.07)	.28 (−.15–.72)
MLT	.08 (−.35–.53)	1.49 (.64–3.47)	1.55 (.61–3.93)	.25 (−.18–.69)

NOTE: Abbreviation: MLA=Medical Laboratory Assistant, MLC= Medical Laboratory Consultant, MLS= Medical Laboratory Scientist, MLT= Medical Laboratory Technician. NBR and OLR denote Negative Binomial Regression and Ordered Logistic Regression, respectively. CI denotes Confidence Interval. β, PR, and OR symbolize normalized coefficient, Prevalence Ratio, and OR Odd Ratio, respectively. Superscript ^a symbolizes adjusted estimates of the statistical model. P-value notation; *P = value≤.05, **P-value≤.01 and ***P-value≤.001.

For anxiety symptoms as measured by DASS-21, both univariate and multivariate data analyses evinced a higher disadvantage among MLPs who were involved in COVID-19-related duties. Comparatively, involvement in COVID-19-related duties among MLPs significantly increased the log count of the DASS-21 anxiety score and showed a higher prevalence and odds ratio of anxiety symptoms. Our analysis revealed that the higher the involvement in COVID-19-related duties, the more likely the experience of anxiety symptoms (Table 4).

Table 4.

Association of Medical Laboratory Professionals Involvement in COVID-19-Related Duties and DASS-21 Anxiety Symptoms.

Variable	Natural Model	Artificial Model
	NBR	Poisson	Logistic	Probit
Univariate data analysis	Aβ(95%CI)	aPR (95%CI)	aOR (95%CI)	Aβ(95%CI)
Involved in COVID-19-related duties
No	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
1 duty	.13 (.05–.20)***	1.39 (1.04–1.86)*	1.47 (1.05–2.07)*	.22 (.03–.40)*
2+ duties	.17 (.05–.28)**	1.42 (1.01–1.99)*	1.52 (1.02–2.28)*	.23 (.01–.45)*
Multivariate data analysis	Aβ(95%CI)	aPR (95%CI)	aOR (95%CI)	Aβ(95%CI)
Involved in COVID-19-related duties
No	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
1 duty	.12 (−.01–.25)	1.38 (.96–1.97(	1.49 (.95–2.28)	.22 (−.01–.45)
2+ duties	.16 (.02–.29)*	1.30 (1.00–1.69)*	1.37 (1.00–1.90)*	.16 (−.01–.34)
Sex
Female	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Male	.03 (−.06–.12)	1.61 (1.29–1.99)***	1.78 (1.37–2.29)***	.34 (.20–.48)***
Age group
≤29	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
30-39	−.04 (−.19–.11)	.76 (.44–1.33)	.72 (.36-1.41)	−.18 (−.55–.19)
40+	−.06 (−.19-.07)	.69 (.41–1.16)	.63 (.32–1.24)	−.25 (−.62–.12)
Marital status
Single	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Married	.12 (−.01–.24)	1.22 (.58–2.56)	1.28 (.51–3.18)	.14 (−.38–.64)
Number of children
None	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
1-2	−.07 (−.19–.05)	.88 (.35–2.20)	.85 (.28–2.59)	−.09 (−.71–.52)
3+	.01 (−.16–.18)	1.71 (.58–5.02)	1.99 (.52–7.59)	.39 (−.35–1.14)
Religion
Christian	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Islam	.04 (−.11–.18)	.79 (.26–2.45)	.75 (.20–2.85)	−.15 (−.85–.54)
Ever experienced outbreak
No	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Yes	.02 (−.06–.10)	.97 (.69–1.36)	.97 (.63–1.50)	−.03 (−.28–.22)
Professional Cadre
MLA	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
MLC	.17 (.03–.31)*	5.35 (1.56–18.33)**	6.36 (1.73–23.41)**	.99 (.43–1.55)***
MLS	.12 (−.07–.32)	5.12 (1.05–25.10)*	6.06 (1.08–34.00)*	.95 (.18–1.73–*
MLT	.08 (−.08–.25)	5.87 (1.89–18.27)**	7.19 (2.23–23.19)**	1.04 (.53–1.55)***

NOTE: Abbreviation: MLA = Medical Laboratory Assistant, MLC = Medical Laboratory Consultant, MLS = Medical Laboratory Scientist, MLT = Medical Laboratory Technician. NBR and OLR denote Negative Binomial Regression and Ordered Logistic Regression, respectively. CI denotes Confidence Interval. β, PR, and OR symbolize normalized coefficient, Prevalence Ratio, and OR Odd Ratio, respectively. Superscript ^a symbolizes adjusted estimates of the statistical model. P-value notation; *P = value≤.05, **P-value≤.01 and ***P-value≤.001.

Stress symptoms as measured by DASS-12 also depicted an intuitive result, where in our univariate and multivariate data analysis, MLPs who were involved in COVID-19-related duties significantly increased the log count of DASS-21 stress score. As the related COVID-19 duties increase, so was the prevalence of stress symptoms as measured by DASS-21 in both our natural and artificial models (Table 5). Other adjusted variables like professional cadre showed that MLPs who were consultants significantly increased the log counts of stress score as measured by DASS-21 and had higher odds of experiencing stress symptoms compared with MLA.

Table 5.

Association of Medical Laboratory Professionals Involvement in COVID-19-Related Duties and DASS-21 Stress Symptoms.

Variable	Natural Model		Artificial Model
	NBR	Poisson	Logistic	Probit
Univariate data analysis	β(95%CI)	PR (95%CI)	OR (95%CI)	β(95%CI)
Involved in COVID-19-related duties
No	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
1 duty	.12 (.06–.18)***	1.70 (.74–3.87)	1.75 (.74–4.15)	.26 (−.13–.64)
2+ duties	.20 (.14–.25)***	2.82 (1.04–7.60)*	3.06 (1.07–8.80)*	.54 (.05–1.04)*
Multivariate data analysis	Aβ(95%CI)	aPR (95%CI)	aOR (95%CI)	Aβ(95%CI)
Involved in COVID-19-related duties
No	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
1 duty	.11 (.00–.22)*	2.09 (.89–4.86)	2.23 (.92–5.43)	.40 (.01–.79)*
2+ duties	.17 (.09–.24)***	2.98 (1.12–7.89)*	3.35 (1.18–9.52)*	.58 (.08–1.09)*
Sex
Female	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Male	.05 (−.06–.15)	.81 (.51–1.28)	.78 (.46–1.33)_	−.12 (−.36-–12)
Age group
≤29	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
30-39	.01 (−.12–.13)	.90 (.41–1.96)	.88 (.37–2.08)	−.02 (−.42–.37)
40+	.11 (−.12–.13)	1.20 (.46–3.15)	1.23 (.42–3.64)	.13 (−.41–.66)
Marital status
Single	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Married	.11 (−.02–.24)	1.41 (.33–6.05)	1.46 (.29–7.37)	.21(−.54–.96)
Number of children
None	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
1-2	−.05 (−.22–.13)	.85 (.23–3.09)	.83 (.20–3.52)	−.11 (−.79–.56)
3+	−.09 (−.34–.16)	.73 (.16–3.36)	.70 (.13–3.93)	−.21 (−1.02–.60)
Religion
Christian	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Islam	.001 (−.15–.15)	.84 (.17–4.09)	.83 (.15–4.62)	−.10 (−.89–.68)
Ever experienced outbreak
No	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Yes	.03 (−.05–.11)	.91 (.46–1.80)	.90 (.41–1.97)	−.05 (−.44–.33)
Professional Cadre
MLA	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
MLC	.20 (.06–.33)**	3.15 (2.43–9.07)***	5.92 (.99–35.41)*	.89 (.01–1.77)*
MLS	.16 (.03–.28)**	1.96 (1.02–6.17)***	3.40 (1.04–11.12)*	.56 (.06–1.06)*
MLT	−.01 (−.15–.14)	6.22 (.72–11.19)	-	-

NOTE: Abbreviation: MLA = Medical Laboratory Assistant, MLC = Medical Laboratory Consultant, MLS = Medical Laboratory Scientist, MLT= Medical Laboratory Technician. NBR and OLR denote Negative Binomial Regression and Ordered Logistic Regression, respectively. CI denotes Confidence Interval. β, PR, and OR symbolize normalized coefficient, Prevalence Ratio, and OR Odd Ratio, respectively. Superscript symbolizes adjusted estimates of the statistical model. P-value notation; *P = value≤.05, **P-value≤.01 and ***P-value≤.001.

Discussion

The emergence and re-emergence of infectious diseases have further underscored the vital role the medical laboratory professionals continue to play in the healthcare system. As part of forefront workers, their role comes along with extreme workload, greater risk of exposure to the virus,^26,27 and more susceptibility to psychological distress (PD) as this study has established. Our analysis demonstrated that, there was elevated PD among MLPs and that, the involvement in COVID-19-related activities was significantly associated with PD. The overall PD ranged from asymptomatic to 41 points symptomatically distressed as estimated using the DASS-21. Studies have been conducted to quantify the presence of mental health outcomes among health professionals during COVID-19.^13,22,28-30 However, none reported mental health outcomes specifically among MLPs during this pandemic.

Interestingly, DASS-21 showed the prevalence of PD was high among MLPs who were involved in COVID-19-related duties compared with their counterparts who were not. Indeed, as expected, involvement in COVID-19-related duties comes with many responsibilities and risks.^26,27 Ayanian (2020) reported that HCWs directly involved in frontline COVID-19 patient care reported higher levels of severe mental health symptoms across all measures than those in secondary roles.³¹ The risk posed by working with little personal protective equipment (PPE) while having to sample suspected and confirmed cases as well as the trauma associated with taking samples from deceased individuals. These are compounded by the multiple job roles required of the MLPs including the exhausting task of responding to regular sampling calls from various units within the health facilities as well as the community, the extended hours in hazmat suits, and the laborious processes involved from the reception of samples to the generation of COVID-19 test results. These roles and responsibilities happen on constant basis, as the fight against the pandemic rages on.

In consequence, the physical and mental exhaustion among care providers in the context of COVID-19 fight has been compelling, with HCWs functioning under extreme conditions.²⁷ In addition, these risks of physical and mental exhaustion is particularly pronounced in settings of low-to-middle income, increased workload due to staff shortages, extended working hours with short breaks, stigmatization, concerns about personal safety, and anxiety of passing on the infection to families due to limited PPE amongst many others.²⁶ Thus the observation of relatively high prevalence of PD among MLPs in Ghana, a rate higher compared with what was conducted among HCWs in Singapore (depression 8.1%, anxiety 10.8%, and stress 6.4%).³² Similarly, the rate was higher compared to that found in China, where 55.1% of HCWs experienced PD.³² It is important to note, these other studies on PD during the COVID-19 pandemic have been conducted among health workers in general as compared with our participants; only MLPs.^32-36

Our analysis further showed that PD was not solely as a result of the involvement of duties but also involvement in multiple duties. As the number of involvements increased, so was the risk of experiencing overall PD among the MLPs. The subscale of our outcome variables significantly puts participants who were involved in COVID-19-related duties at a disadvantage. The analysis depicts a high prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms with varying ratings. Approximately three-quarters of the aforementioned outcomes occurred among MLPs who were involved in related duties, with the highest occurring among MLPs from southern parts of Ghana. The southern part of the country has experienced relatively higher numbers of persons infected with COVID-19, and may potentially explain the increased work demand and related stressors among the MLPs.

Median scores for depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms were significantly higher among MLPs who were involved in COVID-19-related duties (sampling, testing, and surveillance). Intuitively, as compared with the overall distress, more than three-quarters of the participants involved in COVID-19-related duties were depressed, anxious, or stressed. The observations from this nationwide survey conform with a study conducted in Singapore, which indicated healthcare workers engaged in the direct diagnosis, treatment, and care of patients with COVID-19 were associated with a higher risk of symptoms of depression.¹³ Our analysis also showed higher values of depression, anxiety, and stress as compared with research conducted in New York by Shechter and colleagues. Their results established 48%, 33%, and 57% of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms, respectively.³⁶ Furthermore, Elbay et al established similar findings, albeit less, compared with our results (64.7%, 51%, and 41.2% for depression, anxiety, and stress, respectively).³⁴

Other significant factors associated with PD were age group, marital status, professional cadre, sex, and the number of children. We found that participants aged 30 years or more have a lesser risk of experiencing overall PD, whereas variables such as male sex, marriage, and Medical Laboratory consultant role significantly increased the probability of experiencing overall PD. This could be that the older professionals ( $\geq$ 30 years) were probably more experienced, have a better coping skill, and best adapted to functioning in similar stressful circumstances.

On the other hand, the fear of passing on an infection to spouses, children, and family members could explain the experiences seen in married participants. Contrary to this, Shacham and colleagues reported that being in a committed relationship and having higher self-efficacy were associated with lower PD among dentists.³⁷ Again Xiong and colleagues in a systematic review reported that high levels of loneliness, being divorced/widowed, and being single rather were predictive factors for symptoms of depression among the general population.²⁸

Male participants having an increased probability of overall PD would not be surprising in a profession where approximately 80% of the participants were males. This however contradicts with findings of Zhu and colleagues which indicated that being male was a protective factor for depression.¹² The variance can be explained as this current finding considered PD wholistically and not merely depression. It is not surprising that Medical laboratory consultants/Specialists with much more responsibility would report an increased probability of overall PD.

Interestingly, MLPs with no children were found to have a high risk of experiencing depression as measured by DASS-21. Intriguing as this is, it could be partly due to their “no dependent status” (ie, no burden of fear of transmitting infections to spouses and dependents) motivating them to take up multiple responsibilities that put them at risk of experiencing depressive symptoms. This observation, however, contradicts what was established among health workers by Elbay and colleagues. They found that participants who were married had a higher risk of overall PD and participants with at least a child also showing the same trend.³⁴

Limitations of the Study

The DASS 21 is a self-rated measure, hence highly susceptible to participants responding in a manner that is socially desirable. The method of data collection could have been a challenge for some in areas without internet connectivity or smartphones. The design nature of this study does not allow for cause-and-effect analysis. However, the study adapted higher inferential analysis to establish the findings.

Conclusion

The dearth of research on PD among MLPs specifically exists. The findings of this study suggest that MLPs involved in COVID-19-related duties have a high tendency of experiencing significant psychological distress. The key findings were that the higher the number of involvements in COVID-19-related duties, the more likely the experience of PD. Psychological support should be extended to MLPs to limit the effect of these negative emotions on their cognitive and social behavior as well as job performance. The need for regular screening for PD and the provision of mental health support services for MLPs are crucial.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-inq-10.1177_00469580211067479 – Supplemental Material for Psychological Distress Amongst Medical Laboratory Professionals Involved in COVID-19-Related Duties: A Nationally Stratified Cross-Sectional Survey, Ghana

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-inq-10.1177_00469580211067479 for Psychological Distress Amongst Medical Laboratory Professionals Involved in COVID-19-Related Duties: A Nationally Stratified Cross-Sectional Survey, Ghana by Swithin M. Swaray, John Tetteh, George Ekem-Ferguson, Ignatius A. N. Awinibuno, Dennis Adu-Gyasi, Franklyn Acheampong, and Alfred Edwin Yawson in INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all MLPs who were involved in the study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital Ethical and Scientific Review Board. Permission with clearance to conduct the study was sought from the Ghana Medical Laboratory Professionals. All participants consented to participate in the survey and provided informed consent.

ORCID iDs

Swithin M. Swaray

John Tetteh

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

GHS. COVID-19 Updates | Ghana . https://ghanahealthservice.org/covid19/. https://ghanahealthservice.org/covid19/. (Accessed July 30, 2020). Published June 30, 2020.

Hopkins

. Mortality analyses. 2020. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality. (Accessed July 30, 2020). Published June 30

Lippi

Plebani

. Laboratory medicine resilience during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Advances in Laboratory Medicine/Avances en Medicina de Laboratorio. 2020;1(2). doi:10.1515/almed-2020-0035

Henry

de Oliveira

MHS

Benoit

Plebani

Lippi

. Hematologic, biochemical and immune biomarker abnormalities associated with severe illness and mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020;58(7):1021-1028. doi:10.1515/cclm-2020-0369

Chen

Liang

, et al. Mental health care for medical staff in China during the COVID-19 outbreak. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(4):e15-e16. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30078-X

Sorbello

El‐Boghdadly

Di Giacinto

, et al. The Italian coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak: recommendations from clinical practice. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(6):724-732. doi:10.1111/anae.15049

Feng

L-s.

Dongjiao

Z-J

Yan

R-Y

, et al. Psychological distress in the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic: preliminary development of an assessment scale. Psychiatr Res. 2020;291:113202. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113202

Rajkumar

. COVID-19 and mental health: a review of the existing literature. Asian Journal of Psychiatry. 2020;52:102066. doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102066

Spoorthy

Pratapa

Mahant

. Mental health problems faced by healthcare workers due to the COVID-19 pandemic-A review. Asian Journal of Psychiatry. 2020;51:102119. doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102119

10.

Shanafelt

Ripp

Trockel

. Understanding and addressing sources of anxiety among health care professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Am Med Assoc. 2020;323(21):2133-2134. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.5893

11.

Luo

Guo

Jiang

Wang

. The psychological and mental impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on medical staff and general public - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatr Res. 2020;291:113190. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113190

12.

Zhu

Sun

Zhang

, et al. Prevalence and influencing factors of anxiety and depression symptoms in the first-line medical staff fighting against COVID-19 in Gansu. Front Psychiatr. 2020;11:386. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00386

13.

Lai

Wang

, et al. Factors associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019. JAMA Network Open. 2020;3(3):e203976. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3976

14.

Mijiritsky

Hamama-Raz

Liu

, et al. Subjective overload and psychological distress among dentists during COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2020;17(14):5074. doi:10.3390/ijerph17145074

15.

Adler

McLaughlin

Rogers

Chang

Lapitsky

Lerner

. Job performance deficits due to depression. Am J Psychiatr. 2006;163(9):1569-1576. doi:10.1176/ajp.2006.163.9.1569

16.

Gao

Y-Q

Pan

B-C

Sun

Wang

J-N

Wang

. Depressive symptoms among Chinese nurses: prevalence and the associated factors. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(5):1166-1175. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05832.x

17.

Blake

Bermingham

Johnson

Tabner

. Mitigating the psychological impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers: a digital learning package. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2020;17(9):2997. doi:10.3390/ijerph17092997

18.

Lovibond

. The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behav Res Ther. 1995;33(3):335-343.

19.

Gomez

A guide to the depression, anxiety and stress scale (DASS 21). (Accessed August 12, 2020). file:///Users/mac/Dropbox/My%20Mac%20(macs-Air.mshome.net)/Downloads/A_Guide_to_the_Depression_Anxiety_and_St.pdf

20.

Beaufort

De Weert-Van Oene

Buwalda

VAJ

de Leeuw

JRJ

Goudriaan

. The depression, anxiety and stress scale (dass-21) as a screener for depression in substance use disorder inpatients: a pilot study. Eur Addiction Res. 2017;23(5):260-268. doi:10.1159/000485182

21.

Tran

Fisher

. Validation of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) 21 as a screening instrument for depression and anxiety in a rural community-based cohort of northern vietnamese women. BMC Psychiatr. 2013;13:24. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-13-24

22.

Alshekaili

Hassan

Al Said

, et al. Factors associated with mental health outcomes across healthcare settings in Oman during COVID-19: frontline versus non-frontline healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e042030. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042030

23.

Tetteh

Kogi

Yawson

Mensah

Biritwum

Yawson

. Effect of self-rated health status on functioning difficulties among older adults in Ghana: coarsened exact matching method of analysis of the world health organization's study on global AGEing and adult health, wave 2. PLoS One. 2019;14(11):e0224327. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0224327

24.

Chen

Qian

Shi

Franklin

. Comparing performance between log-binomial and robust poisson regression models for estimating risk ratios under model misspecification. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):63. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0519-5

25.

Vandenbroucke

von Elm

Altman

, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297

26.

Chatterjee

Kagwe

. Health workers are the frontline soldiers against COVID-19. let’s protect them. Africa renewal. https://www.un.org/africarenewal/web-features/coronavirus/health-workers-are-frontline-soldiers-against-covid-19-let%E2%80%99s-protect-them. https://www.un.org/africarenewal/web-features/coronavirus/health-workers-are-frontline-soldiers-against-covid-19-let%E2%80%99s-protect-them. (Accessed August 12, 2020). Published March 24, 2020.

27.

and De Angelis

. COVID-19: protecting health-care workers. Lancet 2020;395(10228):922. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30644-9.

28.

Xiong

Lipsitz

, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2020;277:55-64. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001

29.

Nguépy Keubo

Mboua

Djifack Tadongfack

, et al. Psychological distress among health care professionals of the three COVID-19 most affected regions in cameroon: prevalence and associated factors. Ann Med-Psychol Rev Psychiatr. 2021;179(2):141-146. doi:10.1016/j.amp.2020.08.012

30.

Hajure

Dibaba

Shemsu

Desalegn

Reshad

Mohammedhussein

. Psychological distress among health care workers in health facilities of mettu town during COVID-19 outbreak, South West Ethiopia, 2020. Front Psychiatr. 2021;12:574671. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.574671

31.

Ayanian

. Mental health needs of health care workers providing frontline COVID-19 care. JAMA Health Forum. 2020;1(4):e200397. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.0397

32.

Tan

BYQ

Chew

NWS

Lee

GKH

, et al. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care workers in Singapore. [Published online] Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/M20-1083

33.

Xiao

Zhu

Xiao

. Psychological impact of healthcare workers in China during COVID-19 pneumonia epidemic: a multi-center cross-sectional survey investigation. J Affect Disord. 2020;274:405-410. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.081

34.

Elbay

Kurtulmuş

Arpacıoğlu

Karadere

. Depression, anxiety, stress levels of physicians and associated factors in Covid-19 pandemics. Psychiatr Res. 2020;290:113130. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113130

35.

Giusti

, Pedroli

, D’Aniello

, et al. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on health professionals: a cross-sectional study. Front Psychol 2020;11:1684. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01684.

36.

Shechter

Diaz

Moise

, et al. Psychological distress, coping behaviors, and preferences for support among New York healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gen Hosp Psychiatr. 2020;66:1-8. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2020.06.007

37.

Shacham

Hamama-Raz

Kolerman

Mijiritsky

Ben-Ezra

Mijiritsky

. COVID-19 factors and psychological factors associated with elevated psychological distress among dentists and dental hygienists in Israel. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2020;17(8):2900. doi:10.3390/ijerph17082900

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.24 MB