Day to Day and Environmental Risk Factors for Psychological Distress Among Healthcare Workers: A Mixed Methods Analysis.
Kaitlyn Atkins, Erin E Cooney, Soim Park, Svea Closser, Pamela J Surkan, Hannah C Marker, Sarah Schneider-Firestone, Luther G Kalb, Johannes Thrul, Tener Goodwin Veenema
Author Information
Kaitlyn Atkins: From the Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland (K.A.); Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland (K.A., E.E.C., S.P., S.C., P.J.S., H.C.M.); Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland (S.S.-F.); Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (L.G.K., J.T.); Department of Neuropsychology, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland (L.G.K.); Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland (T.G.V.); and Center for Health Security, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (T.G.V.).
OBJECTIVE: Despite a growing literature on mental health among clinical staff during COVID-19, factors shaping distress for nonclinical staff are understudied and may be driven by inequalities at work. We aimed to discuss the role of workplace factors in shaping psychological distress for a diverse group of clinical, nonclinical, and other health and hospital workers (HHWs). METHODS: This convergent parallel mixed-methods study with HHWs in a US hospital system included an online survey ( n = 1127) and interviews ( n = 73) collected from August 2020 to January 2021. We thematically analyzed interviews; findings informed log binomial regression estimating risk factors for severe psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire - 4 item version [PHQ-4] scores of 9 or greater). RESULTS: Qualitatively, day-to-day stressors fostered fear and anxiety, and concerns about work environments manifest as betrayal and frustration with leadership. Distress was associated with burnout, financial concerns, and feeling betrayed or unsupported by the institution and leadership. Staff in service versus clinical roles had higher risk for severe distress (adjusted prevalence ratio = 2.04, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-2.66); HHWs receiving workplace mental health support had lower risk (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.52, 95% confidence interval = 0.29-0.92. CONCLUSIONS: Our mixed-methods study underscores how the pandemic brought inequalities to the surface to increase distress for vulnerable HHWs. Workplace mental health activities can support HHWs now and during future crises.
