Psychosocial effects of SARS on hospital staff: survey of a large tertiary care institution

By L. Nickell, E. Crighton, C. Tracy, Hadi S. Alenazy, Yemisi Bolaji, Sagina Hanjrah, Ayesha Hussain, Samia Makhlouf, Ross Upshur. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2004

648 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Background: The outbreak of SARS in 2003 had a dramatic effect on the health care system in Toronto. The main objective of this study was to investigate the psychosocial effects associated with working in a hospital environment during this outbreak. Methods: Questionnaires were distributed to all willing employees of Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre between Apr. 10 and 22, 2003. The survey included questions regarding concern about SARS, precautionary measures, personal well-being and sociodemographic characteristics; a subsample also received the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Results: Of the 4283 questionnaires distributed, 2001 (47%) were returned, representing 27% of the total hospital employee population of 7474. The proportions of respondents who were allied health care professionals, nurses and doctors and who worked in areas other than patient care were representative of the hospital staff population as a whole. Of the 2001 questionnaires, 510 contained the GHQ-12. Two-thirds of the respondents reported SARS-related concern for their own or their family's health. A total of 148 respondents (29%) scored above the threshold point on the GHQ-12, indicating probable emotional distress; the rate among nurses was 45%. Masks were reported to be the most bothersome infection control precaution. Logistic regression analysis identified 4 factors as being significantly associated with increased levels of concern for personal or family health: perception of a greater risk of death from SARS (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 5.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6–9.6), living with children (adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.5–2.3), personal or family lifestyle affected by SARS outbreak (adjusted OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.5–4.3) and being treated differently by people because of working in a hospital (adjusted OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2–2.1). Four factors were identified as being significantly associated with the presence of emotional distress: being a nurse (adjusted OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.5–5.5), part-time employment status (adjusted OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2–5.4), lifestyle affected by SARS outbreak (adjusted OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4–3.5) and ability to do one's job affected by the precautionary measures (adjusted OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.9–4.6). Interpretation: Our findings indicate that the SARS outbreak had significant psychosocial effects on hospital staff. These effects differed with respect to occupation and risk perception. The effect on families and lifestyle was also substantial. These findings highlight the need for interventions to address psychosocial distress and concern and to provide support for employees during such crises.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, General Health Professions, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0c38fe15c61caf4e4ce64661dbd9e39ea28a780c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In General Health Professions

In Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

E. Bullmore

Citations in the corpus

Survey of Insomnia and Related Social Psychological Factors Among Medical Staff Involved in the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak (2020, result): “The total score can be categorized into four clinical levels according to the degree of symptoms and reactions: subclinical range (0-8), mild range (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) , moderate range (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (”
Long-term Psychological and Occupational Effects of Providing Hospital Healthcare during SARS Outbreak (2006, background): “Significant emotional distress was present in 18%–57% of HCWs (2–6) and was associated with quarantine (7), fear of contagion (6,8,9), concern for family (5,9,10), job stress (6,9), interpersonal isolation (6,9), perceived stigma (6,7,11), conscription of nonspecialists into infectious disease work ”
Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science (2020, background): “[18] [19] [20] Patients who survived severe and life-threatening illness were at risk of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.”
Psychological impact of the 2015 MERS outbreak on hospital workers and quarantined hemodialysis patients (2018, result): “The IES-R Korean version yields a total score (ranging from 0 to 88) and subscale scores which can be calculated for the hyperarousal (consisting of the following items: 4, 10, 14, 18, 19, 21) , avoidance (consisting of the following items: 5, 8, 11, 12, 17, 22) , intrusion (consisting of the follow”
Pandemics: Implications for research and practice in industrial and organizational psychology (2020, background): “Lack of adequate protection and low perceived organizational support are associated with strain symptoms and with concerns for one’s personal and family health (Maunder et al., 2006; Nickell et al., 2004).”