User login
Identifying and preventing IPV: Are clinicians doing enough?
Violence against women remains a global dilemma in need of attention. Physical violence in particular, is the most prevalent type of violence across all genders, races, and nationalities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says more than 43 million women and 38 million men report experiencing psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Meanwhile, 11 million women and 5 million men report enduring sexual or physical violence and intimate partner violence (IPV), and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, according to the CDC.1
Women who have endured this kind of violence might present differently from men. Some studies, for example, show a more significant association between mutual violence, depression, and substance use among women than men.2 Studies on the phenomenon of IPV victims/survivors becoming perpetrators of abuse are limited, but that this happens in some cases.
Having a psychiatric disorder is associated with a higher likelihood of being physically violent with a partner.3,4 One recent study of 250 female psychiatric patients who were married and had no history of drug abuse found that almost 68% reported psychological abuse, 52% reported sexual abuse, 38% social abuse, 37% reported economic abuse, and 25% reported physical abuse.5
Given those statistics and trends, it is incumbent upon clinicians – including those in primary care, psychiatry, and emergency medicine – to learn to quickly identify IPV survivors, and to use available prognostic tools to monitor perpetrators and survivors.
COVID pandemic’s influence
Isolation tied to the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to increased IPV. A study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, suggested that extra stress experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic caused by income loss, and the inability to pay for housing and food exacerbated the prevalence of IPV early during the pandemic.6
That study, where researchers collected in surveys of nearly 400 adults in the beginning in April 2020 for 10 weeks, showed that more services and communication are needed so that frontline health care and food bank workers, for example, in addition to social workers, doctors, and therapists, can spot the signs and ask clients questions about potential IPV. They could then link survivors to pertinent assistance and resources.
Furthermore, multiple factors probably have played a pivotal role in increasing the prevalence of IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, disruption to usual health and social services as well as diminished access to support systems, such as shelters, and charity helplines negatively affected the reporting of domestic violence.
Long before the pandemic, over the past decade, international and national bodies have played a crucial role in terms of improving the awareness and response to domestic violence.7,8 In addition, several policies have been introduced in countries around the globe emphasizing the need to inquire routinely about domestic violence. Nevertheless, mental health services often fail to adequately address domestic violence in clinical encounters. A systematic review of domestic violence assessment screening performed in a variety of health care settings found that evidence was insufficient to conclude that routine inquiry improved morbidity and mortality among victims of IPV.9 So the question becomes: How can we get our patients to tell us about these experiences so we can intervene?
Gender differences in perpetuating IPV
Several studies have found that abuse can result in various mental illnesses, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Again, men have a disproportionately higher rate of perpetrating IPV, compared with women. This theory has been a source of debate in the academic community for years, but recent research has confirmed that women do perpetuate violence against their partners to some extent.10,11
Some members of the LGBTQ+ community also report experiencing violence from partners, so as clinicians, we also need to raise our awareness about the existence of violence among same-sex couples. In fact, a team of Italian researchers report more than 50% of gay men and almost 75% of lesbian women reported that they had been psychologically abused by a partner.12 More research into this area is needed.
Our role as health care professionals
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advises that all clinic visits include regular IPV screening.13 But these screenings are all too rare. In fact, a meta-analysis of 19 trials of more than 1,600 participants showed only 9%-40% of doctors routinely test for IPV.14 That research clearly shows how important it is for all clinicians to execute IPV screening. However, numerous challenges toward screening exist, including personal discomfort, limited time during appointments, insufficient resources, and inadequate training.
One ongoing debate revolves around which clinician should screen for IPV. Should the psychiatrist carry out this role – or perhaps the primary care physician, nurse, or social worker? These issues become even more fraught when clinicians worry about offending the patient – especially if the clinician is a male.15
The bottom line is that physicians should inquire about intimate partner violence, because research indicates that women are more likely to reveal abuse when prompted. In addition, during physician appointments, they can use the physician-patient therapeutic connection to conduct a domestic violence evaluation, give resources to victims, and provide ongoing care. Patients who exhibit treatment resistance, persistent pain, depression, sleeplessness, and headaches should prompt psychiatrists to conduct additional investigations into the likelihood of intimate partner violence and domestic abuse.
W also should be attentive when counseling patients about domestic violence when suggesting life-changing events such as pregnancy, employment loss, separation, or divorce. Similar to the recommendations of the USPSTF that all women and men should be screened for IPV, it is suggested that physicians be conscious of facilitating a conversation and not being overtly judgmental while observing body cues. Using the statements such as “we have been hearing a lot of violence in our community lately” could be a segue to introduce the subject.
Asking the question of whether you are being hit rather than being abused has allowed more women to open up more about domestic violence. While physicians are aware that most victims might recant and often go back to their abusers, victims need to be counseled that the abuse might intensify and lead to death.
For women who perpetuate IPV and survivors of IPV, safety is the priority. Physicians should provide safety options and be the facilitators. Studies have shown that fewer victims get the referral to the supporting agencies when IPV is indicated, which puts their safety at risk. In women who commit IPV, clinicians should assess the role of the individual in an IPV disclosure. There are various treatment modalities, whether the violence is performed through self-defense, bidirectionally, or because of aggression.
With the advancement of technology, web-based training on how to ask for IPV, documentation, acknowledgment, and structured referral increase physicians’ confidence when faced with an IPV disclosure than none.16 Treatment modalities should include medication reconciliation and cognitive-behavioral therapy – focusing on emotion regulation.
Using instruments such as the danger assessment tool can help physicians intervene early, reducing the risk of domestic violence and IPV recurrence instead of using clinical assessment alone.17 Physicians should convey empathy, validate victims, and help, especially when abuse is reported.
Also, it is important to evaluate survivors’ safety. Counseling can help people rebuild their self-esteem. Structured referrals for psychiatric help and support services are needed to help survivors on the long road to recovery.
Training all physicians, regardless of specialty, is essential to improve prompt IPV identification and bring awareness to resources available to survivors when IPV is disclosed. Although we described an association between IPV victims becoming possible perpetrators of IPV, more long-term studies are required to show the various processes that influence IPV perpetration rates, especially by survivors.
We would also like international and national regulatory bodies to increase the awareness of IPV and adequately address IPV with special emphasis on how mental health services should assess, identify, and respond to services for people who are survivors and perpetrators of IPV.
Dr. Kumari, Dr. Otite, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Alcera, and Dr. Doumas are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. They have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing intimate partner violence. 2020 Oct 9.
2. Yu R et al. PLOS Med. 16(12):e1002995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002995.
3. Oram S et al. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2014 Dec;23(4):361-76.
4. Munro OE and Sellbom M. Pers Ment Health. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1002/pmh.1480.
5. Sahraian A et al. Asian J Psychiatry. 2020 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102062.
6. Nikos-Rose K. “COVID-19 Isolation Linked to Increased Domestic Violence, Researchers Suggest.” 2021 Feb 24. University of California, Davis.
7. World Health Organization. “Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women.” WHO clinical policy guidelines. 2013.
8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. “Domestic violence and abuse: Multi-agency working.” PH50. 2014 Feb 26.
9. Feder GS et al. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(1):22-37.
10. Gondolf EW. Violence Against Women. 2014 Dec;20(12)1539-46.
11. Hamberger LK and Larsen SE. J Fam Violence. 2015;30(6):699-717.
12. Rollè L et al. Front Psychol. 21 Aug 2018. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506.
13. Paterno MT and Draughon JE. J Midwif Women Health. 2016;61(31):370-5.
14. Kalra N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 31;5(5)CD012423.
15. Larsen SE and Hamberger LK. J Fam Viol. 2015;30:1007-30.
16. Kalra N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb;2017(2):CD012423.
17. Campbell JC et al. J Interpers Violence. 2009;24(4):653-74.
Violence against women remains a global dilemma in need of attention. Physical violence in particular, is the most prevalent type of violence across all genders, races, and nationalities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says more than 43 million women and 38 million men report experiencing psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Meanwhile, 11 million women and 5 million men report enduring sexual or physical violence and intimate partner violence (IPV), and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, according to the CDC.1
Women who have endured this kind of violence might present differently from men. Some studies, for example, show a more significant association between mutual violence, depression, and substance use among women than men.2 Studies on the phenomenon of IPV victims/survivors becoming perpetrators of abuse are limited, but that this happens in some cases.
Having a psychiatric disorder is associated with a higher likelihood of being physically violent with a partner.3,4 One recent study of 250 female psychiatric patients who were married and had no history of drug abuse found that almost 68% reported psychological abuse, 52% reported sexual abuse, 38% social abuse, 37% reported economic abuse, and 25% reported physical abuse.5
Given those statistics and trends, it is incumbent upon clinicians – including those in primary care, psychiatry, and emergency medicine – to learn to quickly identify IPV survivors, and to use available prognostic tools to monitor perpetrators and survivors.
COVID pandemic’s influence
Isolation tied to the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to increased IPV. A study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, suggested that extra stress experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic caused by income loss, and the inability to pay for housing and food exacerbated the prevalence of IPV early during the pandemic.6
That study, where researchers collected in surveys of nearly 400 adults in the beginning in April 2020 for 10 weeks, showed that more services and communication are needed so that frontline health care and food bank workers, for example, in addition to social workers, doctors, and therapists, can spot the signs and ask clients questions about potential IPV. They could then link survivors to pertinent assistance and resources.
Furthermore, multiple factors probably have played a pivotal role in increasing the prevalence of IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, disruption to usual health and social services as well as diminished access to support systems, such as shelters, and charity helplines negatively affected the reporting of domestic violence.
Long before the pandemic, over the past decade, international and national bodies have played a crucial role in terms of improving the awareness and response to domestic violence.7,8 In addition, several policies have been introduced in countries around the globe emphasizing the need to inquire routinely about domestic violence. Nevertheless, mental health services often fail to adequately address domestic violence in clinical encounters. A systematic review of domestic violence assessment screening performed in a variety of health care settings found that evidence was insufficient to conclude that routine inquiry improved morbidity and mortality among victims of IPV.9 So the question becomes: How can we get our patients to tell us about these experiences so we can intervene?
Gender differences in perpetuating IPV
Several studies have found that abuse can result in various mental illnesses, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Again, men have a disproportionately higher rate of perpetrating IPV, compared with women. This theory has been a source of debate in the academic community for years, but recent research has confirmed that women do perpetuate violence against their partners to some extent.10,11
Some members of the LGBTQ+ community also report experiencing violence from partners, so as clinicians, we also need to raise our awareness about the existence of violence among same-sex couples. In fact, a team of Italian researchers report more than 50% of gay men and almost 75% of lesbian women reported that they had been psychologically abused by a partner.12 More research into this area is needed.
Our role as health care professionals
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advises that all clinic visits include regular IPV screening.13 But these screenings are all too rare. In fact, a meta-analysis of 19 trials of more than 1,600 participants showed only 9%-40% of doctors routinely test for IPV.14 That research clearly shows how important it is for all clinicians to execute IPV screening. However, numerous challenges toward screening exist, including personal discomfort, limited time during appointments, insufficient resources, and inadequate training.
One ongoing debate revolves around which clinician should screen for IPV. Should the psychiatrist carry out this role – or perhaps the primary care physician, nurse, or social worker? These issues become even more fraught when clinicians worry about offending the patient – especially if the clinician is a male.15
The bottom line is that physicians should inquire about intimate partner violence, because research indicates that women are more likely to reveal abuse when prompted. In addition, during physician appointments, they can use the physician-patient therapeutic connection to conduct a domestic violence evaluation, give resources to victims, and provide ongoing care. Patients who exhibit treatment resistance, persistent pain, depression, sleeplessness, and headaches should prompt psychiatrists to conduct additional investigations into the likelihood of intimate partner violence and domestic abuse.
W also should be attentive when counseling patients about domestic violence when suggesting life-changing events such as pregnancy, employment loss, separation, or divorce. Similar to the recommendations of the USPSTF that all women and men should be screened for IPV, it is suggested that physicians be conscious of facilitating a conversation and not being overtly judgmental while observing body cues. Using the statements such as “we have been hearing a lot of violence in our community lately” could be a segue to introduce the subject.
Asking the question of whether you are being hit rather than being abused has allowed more women to open up more about domestic violence. While physicians are aware that most victims might recant and often go back to their abusers, victims need to be counseled that the abuse might intensify and lead to death.
For women who perpetuate IPV and survivors of IPV, safety is the priority. Physicians should provide safety options and be the facilitators. Studies have shown that fewer victims get the referral to the supporting agencies when IPV is indicated, which puts their safety at risk. In women who commit IPV, clinicians should assess the role of the individual in an IPV disclosure. There are various treatment modalities, whether the violence is performed through self-defense, bidirectionally, or because of aggression.
With the advancement of technology, web-based training on how to ask for IPV, documentation, acknowledgment, and structured referral increase physicians’ confidence when faced with an IPV disclosure than none.16 Treatment modalities should include medication reconciliation and cognitive-behavioral therapy – focusing on emotion regulation.
Using instruments such as the danger assessment tool can help physicians intervene early, reducing the risk of domestic violence and IPV recurrence instead of using clinical assessment alone.17 Physicians should convey empathy, validate victims, and help, especially when abuse is reported.
Also, it is important to evaluate survivors’ safety. Counseling can help people rebuild their self-esteem. Structured referrals for psychiatric help and support services are needed to help survivors on the long road to recovery.
Training all physicians, regardless of specialty, is essential to improve prompt IPV identification and bring awareness to resources available to survivors when IPV is disclosed. Although we described an association between IPV victims becoming possible perpetrators of IPV, more long-term studies are required to show the various processes that influence IPV perpetration rates, especially by survivors.
We would also like international and national regulatory bodies to increase the awareness of IPV and adequately address IPV with special emphasis on how mental health services should assess, identify, and respond to services for people who are survivors and perpetrators of IPV.
Dr. Kumari, Dr. Otite, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Alcera, and Dr. Doumas are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. They have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing intimate partner violence. 2020 Oct 9.
2. Yu R et al. PLOS Med. 16(12):e1002995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002995.
3. Oram S et al. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2014 Dec;23(4):361-76.
4. Munro OE and Sellbom M. Pers Ment Health. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1002/pmh.1480.
5. Sahraian A et al. Asian J Psychiatry. 2020 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102062.
6. Nikos-Rose K. “COVID-19 Isolation Linked to Increased Domestic Violence, Researchers Suggest.” 2021 Feb 24. University of California, Davis.
7. World Health Organization. “Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women.” WHO clinical policy guidelines. 2013.
8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. “Domestic violence and abuse: Multi-agency working.” PH50. 2014 Feb 26.
9. Feder GS et al. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(1):22-37.
10. Gondolf EW. Violence Against Women. 2014 Dec;20(12)1539-46.
11. Hamberger LK and Larsen SE. J Fam Violence. 2015;30(6):699-717.
12. Rollè L et al. Front Psychol. 21 Aug 2018. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506.
13. Paterno MT and Draughon JE. J Midwif Women Health. 2016;61(31):370-5.
14. Kalra N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 31;5(5)CD012423.
15. Larsen SE and Hamberger LK. J Fam Viol. 2015;30:1007-30.
16. Kalra N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb;2017(2):CD012423.
17. Campbell JC et al. J Interpers Violence. 2009;24(4):653-74.
Violence against women remains a global dilemma in need of attention. Physical violence in particular, is the most prevalent type of violence across all genders, races, and nationalities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says more than 43 million women and 38 million men report experiencing psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Meanwhile, 11 million women and 5 million men report enduring sexual or physical violence and intimate partner violence (IPV), and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, according to the CDC.1
Women who have endured this kind of violence might present differently from men. Some studies, for example, show a more significant association between mutual violence, depression, and substance use among women than men.2 Studies on the phenomenon of IPV victims/survivors becoming perpetrators of abuse are limited, but that this happens in some cases.
Having a psychiatric disorder is associated with a higher likelihood of being physically violent with a partner.3,4 One recent study of 250 female psychiatric patients who were married and had no history of drug abuse found that almost 68% reported psychological abuse, 52% reported sexual abuse, 38% social abuse, 37% reported economic abuse, and 25% reported physical abuse.5
Given those statistics and trends, it is incumbent upon clinicians – including those in primary care, psychiatry, and emergency medicine – to learn to quickly identify IPV survivors, and to use available prognostic tools to monitor perpetrators and survivors.
COVID pandemic’s influence
Isolation tied to the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to increased IPV. A study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, suggested that extra stress experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic caused by income loss, and the inability to pay for housing and food exacerbated the prevalence of IPV early during the pandemic.6
That study, where researchers collected in surveys of nearly 400 adults in the beginning in April 2020 for 10 weeks, showed that more services and communication are needed so that frontline health care and food bank workers, for example, in addition to social workers, doctors, and therapists, can spot the signs and ask clients questions about potential IPV. They could then link survivors to pertinent assistance and resources.
Furthermore, multiple factors probably have played a pivotal role in increasing the prevalence of IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, disruption to usual health and social services as well as diminished access to support systems, such as shelters, and charity helplines negatively affected the reporting of domestic violence.
Long before the pandemic, over the past decade, international and national bodies have played a crucial role in terms of improving the awareness and response to domestic violence.7,8 In addition, several policies have been introduced in countries around the globe emphasizing the need to inquire routinely about domestic violence. Nevertheless, mental health services often fail to adequately address domestic violence in clinical encounters. A systematic review of domestic violence assessment screening performed in a variety of health care settings found that evidence was insufficient to conclude that routine inquiry improved morbidity and mortality among victims of IPV.9 So the question becomes: How can we get our patients to tell us about these experiences so we can intervene?
Gender differences in perpetuating IPV
Several studies have found that abuse can result in various mental illnesses, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Again, men have a disproportionately higher rate of perpetrating IPV, compared with women. This theory has been a source of debate in the academic community for years, but recent research has confirmed that women do perpetuate violence against their partners to some extent.10,11
Some members of the LGBTQ+ community also report experiencing violence from partners, so as clinicians, we also need to raise our awareness about the existence of violence among same-sex couples. In fact, a team of Italian researchers report more than 50% of gay men and almost 75% of lesbian women reported that they had been psychologically abused by a partner.12 More research into this area is needed.
Our role as health care professionals
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advises that all clinic visits include regular IPV screening.13 But these screenings are all too rare. In fact, a meta-analysis of 19 trials of more than 1,600 participants showed only 9%-40% of doctors routinely test for IPV.14 That research clearly shows how important it is for all clinicians to execute IPV screening. However, numerous challenges toward screening exist, including personal discomfort, limited time during appointments, insufficient resources, and inadequate training.
One ongoing debate revolves around which clinician should screen for IPV. Should the psychiatrist carry out this role – or perhaps the primary care physician, nurse, or social worker? These issues become even more fraught when clinicians worry about offending the patient – especially if the clinician is a male.15
The bottom line is that physicians should inquire about intimate partner violence, because research indicates that women are more likely to reveal abuse when prompted. In addition, during physician appointments, they can use the physician-patient therapeutic connection to conduct a domestic violence evaluation, give resources to victims, and provide ongoing care. Patients who exhibit treatment resistance, persistent pain, depression, sleeplessness, and headaches should prompt psychiatrists to conduct additional investigations into the likelihood of intimate partner violence and domestic abuse.
W also should be attentive when counseling patients about domestic violence when suggesting life-changing events such as pregnancy, employment loss, separation, or divorce. Similar to the recommendations of the USPSTF that all women and men should be screened for IPV, it is suggested that physicians be conscious of facilitating a conversation and not being overtly judgmental while observing body cues. Using the statements such as “we have been hearing a lot of violence in our community lately” could be a segue to introduce the subject.
Asking the question of whether you are being hit rather than being abused has allowed more women to open up more about domestic violence. While physicians are aware that most victims might recant and often go back to their abusers, victims need to be counseled that the abuse might intensify and lead to death.
For women who perpetuate IPV and survivors of IPV, safety is the priority. Physicians should provide safety options and be the facilitators. Studies have shown that fewer victims get the referral to the supporting agencies when IPV is indicated, which puts their safety at risk. In women who commit IPV, clinicians should assess the role of the individual in an IPV disclosure. There are various treatment modalities, whether the violence is performed through self-defense, bidirectionally, or because of aggression.
With the advancement of technology, web-based training on how to ask for IPV, documentation, acknowledgment, and structured referral increase physicians’ confidence when faced with an IPV disclosure than none.16 Treatment modalities should include medication reconciliation and cognitive-behavioral therapy – focusing on emotion regulation.
Using instruments such as the danger assessment tool can help physicians intervene early, reducing the risk of domestic violence and IPV recurrence instead of using clinical assessment alone.17 Physicians should convey empathy, validate victims, and help, especially when abuse is reported.
Also, it is important to evaluate survivors’ safety. Counseling can help people rebuild their self-esteem. Structured referrals for psychiatric help and support services are needed to help survivors on the long road to recovery.
Training all physicians, regardless of specialty, is essential to improve prompt IPV identification and bring awareness to resources available to survivors when IPV is disclosed. Although we described an association between IPV victims becoming possible perpetrators of IPV, more long-term studies are required to show the various processes that influence IPV perpetration rates, especially by survivors.
We would also like international and national regulatory bodies to increase the awareness of IPV and adequately address IPV with special emphasis on how mental health services should assess, identify, and respond to services for people who are survivors and perpetrators of IPV.
Dr. Kumari, Dr. Otite, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Alcera, and Dr. Doumas are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. They have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing intimate partner violence. 2020 Oct 9.
2. Yu R et al. PLOS Med. 16(12):e1002995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002995.
3. Oram S et al. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2014 Dec;23(4):361-76.
4. Munro OE and Sellbom M. Pers Ment Health. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1002/pmh.1480.
5. Sahraian A et al. Asian J Psychiatry. 2020 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102062.
6. Nikos-Rose K. “COVID-19 Isolation Linked to Increased Domestic Violence, Researchers Suggest.” 2021 Feb 24. University of California, Davis.
7. World Health Organization. “Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women.” WHO clinical policy guidelines. 2013.
8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. “Domestic violence and abuse: Multi-agency working.” PH50. 2014 Feb 26.
9. Feder GS et al. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(1):22-37.
10. Gondolf EW. Violence Against Women. 2014 Dec;20(12)1539-46.
11. Hamberger LK and Larsen SE. J Fam Violence. 2015;30(6):699-717.
12. Rollè L et al. Front Psychol. 21 Aug 2018. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506.
13. Paterno MT and Draughon JE. J Midwif Women Health. 2016;61(31):370-5.
14. Kalra N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 31;5(5)CD012423.
15. Larsen SE and Hamberger LK. J Fam Viol. 2015;30:1007-30.
16. Kalra N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb;2017(2):CD012423.
17. Campbell JC et al. J Interpers Violence. 2009;24(4):653-74.
COVID-19: Addressing the mental health needs of clinicians
SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, continues to spread around the world with a devastating social and economic impact. Undoubtedly, health care workers are essential to overcoming this crisis. If these issues are left unaddressed, low morale, burnout, or absenteeism could lead to the collapse of health care systems.
Historically, the health care industry has been one of the most hazardous environments in which to work. Employees in this industry are constantly exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards.
Particularly, risks from biological exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and currently COVID-19 are taking a considerable toll on health care workers’ health and well-being. Health care workers are leaving their families to work extra shifts, dealing with limited resources, and navigating the chaos. On top of all that, they are sacrificing their lives through these uncertain times.
Despite their resilience, health care workers – like the general population – can have strong psychological reactions of anxiety and fear during a pandemic. Still, they are required to continue their work amid uncertainty and danger.
Current research studies on COVID-19
Several studies have identified the impact of working in this type of environment during previous pandemics and disasters. In a study of hospital employees in China during the SARS epidemic (2002-2003), Ping Wu, PhD, and colleagues found that 10% of the participants experienced high levels of posttraumatic stress.1 In a similar study in Taiwan, researchers found that 17.3% of employees had developed significant mental health symptoms during the SARS outbreak.2
The impact of COVID-19 on health care workers seems to be much worse. A recent study from China indicates that 50.4% of hospital employees showed signs of depression, 44.6% had anxiety, and 34% had insomnia.3
Another recent cross-sectional study conducted by Lijun Kang, PhD, and associates evaluated the impact on mental health among health care workers in Wuhan, China, during the COVID-19 outbreak. This was the first study on the mental health of health care workers. This study recruited health care workers in Wuhan to participate in the survey from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4, 2020. The data were collected online with an anonymous, self-rated questionnaire that was distributed to all workstations. All subjects provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the survey.
The survey questionnaire was made up of six components: primary demographic data, mental health assessment, risks of direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19, mental health care services accessed, psychological needs, and self-perceived health status, compared with that before the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 994 health care workers responded to this survey, and the results are fascinating: 36.9% had subthreshold mental health distress (mean Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score, 2.4), 34.4% reported mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9, 5.4), 22.4% had moderate (mean PHQ-9, 9.0), and 6.2% reported severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9, 15.1). In this study, young women experienced more significant psychological distress. Regarding access to mental health services, 36.3% reported access to psychological materials, such as books on mental health; 50.4% used psychological resources available through media, such as online self-help coping methods; and 17.5% participated in counseling or psychotherapy.4
These findings emphasize the importance of being equipped to ensure the health and safety of health care workers through mental health interventions, both at work and in the community during this time of anxiety and uncertainty.
Future studies will become more critical in addressing this issue.
Risks to clinicians, families prevail
According to a recent report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 9,000 health care workers across the United States had contracted COVID-19 as of mid-April, and 27 had died since the start of the pandemic.5
Health care workers are at risk around the globe, not only by the nature of their jobs but also by the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, the scarcity of N95 masks, respirators, and COVID-19 testing programs is causing the virus to spread among health care workers all over the world.
A study published recently by Celso Arango, MD, PhD, reported that 18% of staff at a hospital in Madrid had been infected with COVID-19. Dr. Arango speculated that transmission might be attributable to interactions with colleagues rather than with patients.6 We know, for example, that large proportions of people in China reportedly carried the virus while being asymptomatic.7 Those findings might not be generalizable, but they do suggest that an asymptomatic person could be a cause of contagion among professionals. Therefore, early screening and testing are critical – and should be priorities in health care settings.
Another problem clinicians can encounter is that, when they are called on to deal with very agitated patients, they might not get enough time to put on PPE. In addition, PPE can easily break and tear during the physical restraint process.
Working long hours is also putting a significant strain on health care workers and exposes them to the risk of infection. Also, health care workers not only worry about their safety but also fear bringing the virus to their families. They can also feel guilty about their conflicting feelings about exposing themselves and their families to risk. It is quite possible that, during this COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers will face a “care paradox,” in which they must choose between patients’ safety and their own. This care paradox can significantly contribute to a feeling of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Ultimately, this pandemic could lead to attrition from the field at a time when we most need all hands on deck.8
Further, according to a World Health Organization report on mental health and psychosocial consideration during the COVID-19 outbreak, some health care workers, unfortunately, experience avoidance by their family members or communities because of stigma, fear, and anxiety. This avoidance threatens to make an already challenging situation far worse for health care workers by increasing isolation.
Even after acute outbreak are over, the effects on health care workers can persist for years. In a follow-up study 13-26 months after the SARS outbreak, Robert G. Maunder, MD, and associates found that Toronto-area health care workers reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic stress. They were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours, and to have avoided behavioral consequences of stress.9 Exposure to stressful work conditions during a pandemic also might put hospital employees at a much higher risk of alcohol and substance use disorders.10
Potential solutions for improving care
COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the mental health of health care workers around the globe. Fortunately, there are evidence-based strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of this pandemic on health care workers. Fostering self-efficacy and optimism has been shown to improve coping and efficiency during disasters.9 Higher perceived workplace safety is associated with a lower risk of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress among health care workers, while a lack of social support has been linked to adverse behavioral outcomes.10
A recent study found that, among Chinese physicians who cared for COVID-19 victims, more significant social support was associated with better sleep quality, greater self-effectiveness, and less psychological distress.11 Positive leadership and a professional culture of trust, and openness with unambiguous communication have been shown to improve the engagement of the medical workforce.12,13 Psychiatrists must advocate for the adoption of these practices in the workplace. Assessing and addressing mental health needs, in addition to the physical health of the health care workforce, is of utmost importance.
We can accomplish this in many ways, but we have to access our health care workers. Similar to our patient population, health care workers also experience stigma and anxiety tied to the disclosure of mental health challenges. This was reported in a study conducted in China, in which a specific psychological intervention using a hotline program was used for the medical team.14 This program provided psychological interventions/group activities aimed at releasing stress and anxiety. However, initially, the implementation of psychological interventions encountered obstacles.
For example, some members of the medical staff declined to participate in group or individual psychological interventions. Moreover, nurses showed irritability, unwillingness to join, and some staff refused, stating that “they did not have any problems.” Finally, psychological counselors regularly visited the facility to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff participated and reported feeling better.15
Currently, several U.S. universities/institutes have implemented programs aimed at protecting the health and well-being of their staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Hackensack Meridian Health has put comprehensive system programs in place for at 16 affiliated medical centers and other patient care facilities to provide support during the COVID-19 crisis. A 24/7 team member support hotline connecting team members with a behavioral health specialist has become available when needed. This hotline is backed up by social workers, who provide mental health resources. In addition, another service called “Coping with COVID Talks” is available. This service is a virtual psychoeducational group facilitated by psychologists focusing on building coping skills and resilience.
Also, the consultation-liaison psychiatrists in the medical centers provide daily support to clinicians working in ICUs. These efforts have led to paradoxical benefits for employers, further leading to less commuting, more safety, and enhanced productivity for the clinician, according to Ramon Solhkhah, MD, MBA, chairman of the psychiatry department.16
Some universities, such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have created mental health/telehealth support for health care workers, where they are conducting webinars on coping with uncertainty tied to COVID-19.17 The University of California, San Francisco, also has been a leader in this effort. That institution has employed its psychiatric workforce as volunteers – encouraging health care workers to use digital health apps and referral resources. Also, these volunteers provide peer counseling, phone support, and spiritual counseling to their health care workers.18
These approaches are crucial in this uncertain, challenging time. Our mental health system is deeply flawed, understaffed, and not well prepared to manage the mental health issues among health care workers. Psychiatric institutes/facilities should follow comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Several preventive measures can be considered in coping with this pandemic, such as stress reduction, mindfulness, and disseminating educational materials. Also, increased use of technology, such as in-the-moment measures, development of hotlines, crisis support, and treatment telepsychiatry for therapy and medication, should play a pivotal role in addressing the mental health needs of health care workers.
In addition, it is expected that, as a nation, we will see a surge of mental health needs for illnesses such as depression and PTSD, just as we do after “natural disasters” caused by a variety of reasons, including economic downturns. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, health care workers showed symptoms of PTSD. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a similar impact.
The severity of mental health challenges among clinicians cannot be predicted at this time, but we can speculate that the traumatic impact of COVID-19 will prove long lasting, particularly among clinicians who served vulnerable populations and witnessed suffering, misery, and deaths. The long-term consequences might range from stress and anxiety to fear, depression, and PTSD. Implementation of mental health programs/psychological interventions/support will reduce the impact of mental health issues among these clinicians.
We must think about the best ways to optimize mental health among health care workers while also come up with innovative ways to target this at-risk group. The mental health of people who are saving lives – our frontline heroes – should be taken into consideration seriously around the globe. We also must prioritize the mental health of these workers during this unprecedented, challenging, and anxiety-provoking time.
Dr. Malik and Mr. Van Wert are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Kumari, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Doumas, and Dr. Solhkhah are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. All six authors disclosed having no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Vinay Kumar for his assistance with the literature review and for proofreading and editing this article.
References
1. Wu P et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-11.
2. Lu YC et al. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(6):370-5.
3. Lai J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e203976.
4. Kang L et al. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-81.
6. Arango C. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.04.003.
7. Day M. BMJ. 2020 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1375.
8. Kirsch T. “Coronavirus, COVID-19: What happens if health care workers stop showing up?” The Atlantic. 2020 Mar 24.
9. Maunder RG et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924-32.
10. Wu P et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):706-12.
11. Brooks SK et al. BMC Psychol. 2016 Apr 26;4:18.
12. Smith BW et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:371-80.
13. Chen Q et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;7(14):PE15-6.
14. Xiao H et al. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549.
15. Bergus GR et al. Acad Med. 2001;76:1148-52.
16. Bergeron T. “Working from home will be stressful. Here’s how employees (and employers) can handle it.” roi-nj.com. 2020 Mar 23.
17. UNChealthcare.org. “Mental Health/Emotional Support Resources for Coworkers and Providers Coping with COVID-19.”
18. Psych.ucsf.edu/coronoavirus. “Resources to Support Your Mental Health During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”
SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, continues to spread around the world with a devastating social and economic impact. Undoubtedly, health care workers are essential to overcoming this crisis. If these issues are left unaddressed, low morale, burnout, or absenteeism could lead to the collapse of health care systems.
Historically, the health care industry has been one of the most hazardous environments in which to work. Employees in this industry are constantly exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards.
Particularly, risks from biological exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and currently COVID-19 are taking a considerable toll on health care workers’ health and well-being. Health care workers are leaving their families to work extra shifts, dealing with limited resources, and navigating the chaos. On top of all that, they are sacrificing their lives through these uncertain times.
Despite their resilience, health care workers – like the general population – can have strong psychological reactions of anxiety and fear during a pandemic. Still, they are required to continue their work amid uncertainty and danger.
Current research studies on COVID-19
Several studies have identified the impact of working in this type of environment during previous pandemics and disasters. In a study of hospital employees in China during the SARS epidemic (2002-2003), Ping Wu, PhD, and colleagues found that 10% of the participants experienced high levels of posttraumatic stress.1 In a similar study in Taiwan, researchers found that 17.3% of employees had developed significant mental health symptoms during the SARS outbreak.2
The impact of COVID-19 on health care workers seems to be much worse. A recent study from China indicates that 50.4% of hospital employees showed signs of depression, 44.6% had anxiety, and 34% had insomnia.3
Another recent cross-sectional study conducted by Lijun Kang, PhD, and associates evaluated the impact on mental health among health care workers in Wuhan, China, during the COVID-19 outbreak. This was the first study on the mental health of health care workers. This study recruited health care workers in Wuhan to participate in the survey from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4, 2020. The data were collected online with an anonymous, self-rated questionnaire that was distributed to all workstations. All subjects provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the survey.
The survey questionnaire was made up of six components: primary demographic data, mental health assessment, risks of direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19, mental health care services accessed, psychological needs, and self-perceived health status, compared with that before the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 994 health care workers responded to this survey, and the results are fascinating: 36.9% had subthreshold mental health distress (mean Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score, 2.4), 34.4% reported mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9, 5.4), 22.4% had moderate (mean PHQ-9, 9.0), and 6.2% reported severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9, 15.1). In this study, young women experienced more significant psychological distress. Regarding access to mental health services, 36.3% reported access to psychological materials, such as books on mental health; 50.4% used psychological resources available through media, such as online self-help coping methods; and 17.5% participated in counseling or psychotherapy.4
These findings emphasize the importance of being equipped to ensure the health and safety of health care workers through mental health interventions, both at work and in the community during this time of anxiety and uncertainty.
Future studies will become more critical in addressing this issue.
Risks to clinicians, families prevail
According to a recent report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 9,000 health care workers across the United States had contracted COVID-19 as of mid-April, and 27 had died since the start of the pandemic.5
Health care workers are at risk around the globe, not only by the nature of their jobs but also by the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, the scarcity of N95 masks, respirators, and COVID-19 testing programs is causing the virus to spread among health care workers all over the world.
A study published recently by Celso Arango, MD, PhD, reported that 18% of staff at a hospital in Madrid had been infected with COVID-19. Dr. Arango speculated that transmission might be attributable to interactions with colleagues rather than with patients.6 We know, for example, that large proportions of people in China reportedly carried the virus while being asymptomatic.7 Those findings might not be generalizable, but they do suggest that an asymptomatic person could be a cause of contagion among professionals. Therefore, early screening and testing are critical – and should be priorities in health care settings.
Another problem clinicians can encounter is that, when they are called on to deal with very agitated patients, they might not get enough time to put on PPE. In addition, PPE can easily break and tear during the physical restraint process.
Working long hours is also putting a significant strain on health care workers and exposes them to the risk of infection. Also, health care workers not only worry about their safety but also fear bringing the virus to their families. They can also feel guilty about their conflicting feelings about exposing themselves and their families to risk. It is quite possible that, during this COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers will face a “care paradox,” in which they must choose between patients’ safety and their own. This care paradox can significantly contribute to a feeling of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Ultimately, this pandemic could lead to attrition from the field at a time when we most need all hands on deck.8
Further, according to a World Health Organization report on mental health and psychosocial consideration during the COVID-19 outbreak, some health care workers, unfortunately, experience avoidance by their family members or communities because of stigma, fear, and anxiety. This avoidance threatens to make an already challenging situation far worse for health care workers by increasing isolation.
Even after acute outbreak are over, the effects on health care workers can persist for years. In a follow-up study 13-26 months after the SARS outbreak, Robert G. Maunder, MD, and associates found that Toronto-area health care workers reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic stress. They were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours, and to have avoided behavioral consequences of stress.9 Exposure to stressful work conditions during a pandemic also might put hospital employees at a much higher risk of alcohol and substance use disorders.10
Potential solutions for improving care
COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the mental health of health care workers around the globe. Fortunately, there are evidence-based strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of this pandemic on health care workers. Fostering self-efficacy and optimism has been shown to improve coping and efficiency during disasters.9 Higher perceived workplace safety is associated with a lower risk of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress among health care workers, while a lack of social support has been linked to adverse behavioral outcomes.10
A recent study found that, among Chinese physicians who cared for COVID-19 victims, more significant social support was associated with better sleep quality, greater self-effectiveness, and less psychological distress.11 Positive leadership and a professional culture of trust, and openness with unambiguous communication have been shown to improve the engagement of the medical workforce.12,13 Psychiatrists must advocate for the adoption of these practices in the workplace. Assessing and addressing mental health needs, in addition to the physical health of the health care workforce, is of utmost importance.
We can accomplish this in many ways, but we have to access our health care workers. Similar to our patient population, health care workers also experience stigma and anxiety tied to the disclosure of mental health challenges. This was reported in a study conducted in China, in which a specific psychological intervention using a hotline program was used for the medical team.14 This program provided psychological interventions/group activities aimed at releasing stress and anxiety. However, initially, the implementation of psychological interventions encountered obstacles.
For example, some members of the medical staff declined to participate in group or individual psychological interventions. Moreover, nurses showed irritability, unwillingness to join, and some staff refused, stating that “they did not have any problems.” Finally, psychological counselors regularly visited the facility to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff participated and reported feeling better.15
Currently, several U.S. universities/institutes have implemented programs aimed at protecting the health and well-being of their staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Hackensack Meridian Health has put comprehensive system programs in place for at 16 affiliated medical centers and other patient care facilities to provide support during the COVID-19 crisis. A 24/7 team member support hotline connecting team members with a behavioral health specialist has become available when needed. This hotline is backed up by social workers, who provide mental health resources. In addition, another service called “Coping with COVID Talks” is available. This service is a virtual psychoeducational group facilitated by psychologists focusing on building coping skills and resilience.
Also, the consultation-liaison psychiatrists in the medical centers provide daily support to clinicians working in ICUs. These efforts have led to paradoxical benefits for employers, further leading to less commuting, more safety, and enhanced productivity for the clinician, according to Ramon Solhkhah, MD, MBA, chairman of the psychiatry department.16
Some universities, such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have created mental health/telehealth support for health care workers, where they are conducting webinars on coping with uncertainty tied to COVID-19.17 The University of California, San Francisco, also has been a leader in this effort. That institution has employed its psychiatric workforce as volunteers – encouraging health care workers to use digital health apps and referral resources. Also, these volunteers provide peer counseling, phone support, and spiritual counseling to their health care workers.18
These approaches are crucial in this uncertain, challenging time. Our mental health system is deeply flawed, understaffed, and not well prepared to manage the mental health issues among health care workers. Psychiatric institutes/facilities should follow comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Several preventive measures can be considered in coping with this pandemic, such as stress reduction, mindfulness, and disseminating educational materials. Also, increased use of technology, such as in-the-moment measures, development of hotlines, crisis support, and treatment telepsychiatry for therapy and medication, should play a pivotal role in addressing the mental health needs of health care workers.
In addition, it is expected that, as a nation, we will see a surge of mental health needs for illnesses such as depression and PTSD, just as we do after “natural disasters” caused by a variety of reasons, including economic downturns. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, health care workers showed symptoms of PTSD. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a similar impact.
The severity of mental health challenges among clinicians cannot be predicted at this time, but we can speculate that the traumatic impact of COVID-19 will prove long lasting, particularly among clinicians who served vulnerable populations and witnessed suffering, misery, and deaths. The long-term consequences might range from stress and anxiety to fear, depression, and PTSD. Implementation of mental health programs/psychological interventions/support will reduce the impact of mental health issues among these clinicians.
We must think about the best ways to optimize mental health among health care workers while also come up with innovative ways to target this at-risk group. The mental health of people who are saving lives – our frontline heroes – should be taken into consideration seriously around the globe. We also must prioritize the mental health of these workers during this unprecedented, challenging, and anxiety-provoking time.
Dr. Malik and Mr. Van Wert are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Kumari, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Doumas, and Dr. Solhkhah are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. All six authors disclosed having no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Vinay Kumar for his assistance with the literature review and for proofreading and editing this article.
References
1. Wu P et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-11.
2. Lu YC et al. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(6):370-5.
3. Lai J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e203976.
4. Kang L et al. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-81.
6. Arango C. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.04.003.
7. Day M. BMJ. 2020 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1375.
8. Kirsch T. “Coronavirus, COVID-19: What happens if health care workers stop showing up?” The Atlantic. 2020 Mar 24.
9. Maunder RG et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924-32.
10. Wu P et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):706-12.
11. Brooks SK et al. BMC Psychol. 2016 Apr 26;4:18.
12. Smith BW et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:371-80.
13. Chen Q et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;7(14):PE15-6.
14. Xiao H et al. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549.
15. Bergus GR et al. Acad Med. 2001;76:1148-52.
16. Bergeron T. “Working from home will be stressful. Here’s how employees (and employers) can handle it.” roi-nj.com. 2020 Mar 23.
17. UNChealthcare.org. “Mental Health/Emotional Support Resources for Coworkers and Providers Coping with COVID-19.”
18. Psych.ucsf.edu/coronoavirus. “Resources to Support Your Mental Health During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”
SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, continues to spread around the world with a devastating social and economic impact. Undoubtedly, health care workers are essential to overcoming this crisis. If these issues are left unaddressed, low morale, burnout, or absenteeism could lead to the collapse of health care systems.
Historically, the health care industry has been one of the most hazardous environments in which to work. Employees in this industry are constantly exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards.
Particularly, risks from biological exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and currently COVID-19 are taking a considerable toll on health care workers’ health and well-being. Health care workers are leaving their families to work extra shifts, dealing with limited resources, and navigating the chaos. On top of all that, they are sacrificing their lives through these uncertain times.
Despite their resilience, health care workers – like the general population – can have strong psychological reactions of anxiety and fear during a pandemic. Still, they are required to continue their work amid uncertainty and danger.
Current research studies on COVID-19
Several studies have identified the impact of working in this type of environment during previous pandemics and disasters. In a study of hospital employees in China during the SARS epidemic (2002-2003), Ping Wu, PhD, and colleagues found that 10% of the participants experienced high levels of posttraumatic stress.1 In a similar study in Taiwan, researchers found that 17.3% of employees had developed significant mental health symptoms during the SARS outbreak.2
The impact of COVID-19 on health care workers seems to be much worse. A recent study from China indicates that 50.4% of hospital employees showed signs of depression, 44.6% had anxiety, and 34% had insomnia.3
Another recent cross-sectional study conducted by Lijun Kang, PhD, and associates evaluated the impact on mental health among health care workers in Wuhan, China, during the COVID-19 outbreak. This was the first study on the mental health of health care workers. This study recruited health care workers in Wuhan to participate in the survey from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4, 2020. The data were collected online with an anonymous, self-rated questionnaire that was distributed to all workstations. All subjects provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the survey.
The survey questionnaire was made up of six components: primary demographic data, mental health assessment, risks of direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19, mental health care services accessed, psychological needs, and self-perceived health status, compared with that before the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 994 health care workers responded to this survey, and the results are fascinating: 36.9% had subthreshold mental health distress (mean Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score, 2.4), 34.4% reported mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9, 5.4), 22.4% had moderate (mean PHQ-9, 9.0), and 6.2% reported severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9, 15.1). In this study, young women experienced more significant psychological distress. Regarding access to mental health services, 36.3% reported access to psychological materials, such as books on mental health; 50.4% used psychological resources available through media, such as online self-help coping methods; and 17.5% participated in counseling or psychotherapy.4
These findings emphasize the importance of being equipped to ensure the health and safety of health care workers through mental health interventions, both at work and in the community during this time of anxiety and uncertainty.
Future studies will become more critical in addressing this issue.
Risks to clinicians, families prevail
According to a recent report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 9,000 health care workers across the United States had contracted COVID-19 as of mid-April, and 27 had died since the start of the pandemic.5
Health care workers are at risk around the globe, not only by the nature of their jobs but also by the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, the scarcity of N95 masks, respirators, and COVID-19 testing programs is causing the virus to spread among health care workers all over the world.
A study published recently by Celso Arango, MD, PhD, reported that 18% of staff at a hospital in Madrid had been infected with COVID-19. Dr. Arango speculated that transmission might be attributable to interactions with colleagues rather than with patients.6 We know, for example, that large proportions of people in China reportedly carried the virus while being asymptomatic.7 Those findings might not be generalizable, but they do suggest that an asymptomatic person could be a cause of contagion among professionals. Therefore, early screening and testing are critical – and should be priorities in health care settings.
Another problem clinicians can encounter is that, when they are called on to deal with very agitated patients, they might not get enough time to put on PPE. In addition, PPE can easily break and tear during the physical restraint process.
Working long hours is also putting a significant strain on health care workers and exposes them to the risk of infection. Also, health care workers not only worry about their safety but also fear bringing the virus to their families. They can also feel guilty about their conflicting feelings about exposing themselves and their families to risk. It is quite possible that, during this COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers will face a “care paradox,” in which they must choose between patients’ safety and their own. This care paradox can significantly contribute to a feeling of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Ultimately, this pandemic could lead to attrition from the field at a time when we most need all hands on deck.8
Further, according to a World Health Organization report on mental health and psychosocial consideration during the COVID-19 outbreak, some health care workers, unfortunately, experience avoidance by their family members or communities because of stigma, fear, and anxiety. This avoidance threatens to make an already challenging situation far worse for health care workers by increasing isolation.
Even after acute outbreak are over, the effects on health care workers can persist for years. In a follow-up study 13-26 months after the SARS outbreak, Robert G. Maunder, MD, and associates found that Toronto-area health care workers reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic stress. They were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours, and to have avoided behavioral consequences of stress.9 Exposure to stressful work conditions during a pandemic also might put hospital employees at a much higher risk of alcohol and substance use disorders.10
Potential solutions for improving care
COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the mental health of health care workers around the globe. Fortunately, there are evidence-based strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of this pandemic on health care workers. Fostering self-efficacy and optimism has been shown to improve coping and efficiency during disasters.9 Higher perceived workplace safety is associated with a lower risk of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress among health care workers, while a lack of social support has been linked to adverse behavioral outcomes.10
A recent study found that, among Chinese physicians who cared for COVID-19 victims, more significant social support was associated with better sleep quality, greater self-effectiveness, and less psychological distress.11 Positive leadership and a professional culture of trust, and openness with unambiguous communication have been shown to improve the engagement of the medical workforce.12,13 Psychiatrists must advocate for the adoption of these practices in the workplace. Assessing and addressing mental health needs, in addition to the physical health of the health care workforce, is of utmost importance.
We can accomplish this in many ways, but we have to access our health care workers. Similar to our patient population, health care workers also experience stigma and anxiety tied to the disclosure of mental health challenges. This was reported in a study conducted in China, in which a specific psychological intervention using a hotline program was used for the medical team.14 This program provided psychological interventions/group activities aimed at releasing stress and anxiety. However, initially, the implementation of psychological interventions encountered obstacles.
For example, some members of the medical staff declined to participate in group or individual psychological interventions. Moreover, nurses showed irritability, unwillingness to join, and some staff refused, stating that “they did not have any problems.” Finally, psychological counselors regularly visited the facility to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff participated and reported feeling better.15
Currently, several U.S. universities/institutes have implemented programs aimed at protecting the health and well-being of their staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Hackensack Meridian Health has put comprehensive system programs in place for at 16 affiliated medical centers and other patient care facilities to provide support during the COVID-19 crisis. A 24/7 team member support hotline connecting team members with a behavioral health specialist has become available when needed. This hotline is backed up by social workers, who provide mental health resources. In addition, another service called “Coping with COVID Talks” is available. This service is a virtual psychoeducational group facilitated by psychologists focusing on building coping skills and resilience.
Also, the consultation-liaison psychiatrists in the medical centers provide daily support to clinicians working in ICUs. These efforts have led to paradoxical benefits for employers, further leading to less commuting, more safety, and enhanced productivity for the clinician, according to Ramon Solhkhah, MD, MBA, chairman of the psychiatry department.16
Some universities, such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have created mental health/telehealth support for health care workers, where they are conducting webinars on coping with uncertainty tied to COVID-19.17 The University of California, San Francisco, also has been a leader in this effort. That institution has employed its psychiatric workforce as volunteers – encouraging health care workers to use digital health apps and referral resources. Also, these volunteers provide peer counseling, phone support, and spiritual counseling to their health care workers.18
These approaches are crucial in this uncertain, challenging time. Our mental health system is deeply flawed, understaffed, and not well prepared to manage the mental health issues among health care workers. Psychiatric institutes/facilities should follow comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Several preventive measures can be considered in coping with this pandemic, such as stress reduction, mindfulness, and disseminating educational materials. Also, increased use of technology, such as in-the-moment measures, development of hotlines, crisis support, and treatment telepsychiatry for therapy and medication, should play a pivotal role in addressing the mental health needs of health care workers.
In addition, it is expected that, as a nation, we will see a surge of mental health needs for illnesses such as depression and PTSD, just as we do after “natural disasters” caused by a variety of reasons, including economic downturns. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, health care workers showed symptoms of PTSD. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a similar impact.
The severity of mental health challenges among clinicians cannot be predicted at this time, but we can speculate that the traumatic impact of COVID-19 will prove long lasting, particularly among clinicians who served vulnerable populations and witnessed suffering, misery, and deaths. The long-term consequences might range from stress and anxiety to fear, depression, and PTSD. Implementation of mental health programs/psychological interventions/support will reduce the impact of mental health issues among these clinicians.
We must think about the best ways to optimize mental health among health care workers while also come up with innovative ways to target this at-risk group. The mental health of people who are saving lives – our frontline heroes – should be taken into consideration seriously around the globe. We also must prioritize the mental health of these workers during this unprecedented, challenging, and anxiety-provoking time.
Dr. Malik and Mr. Van Wert are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Kumari, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Doumas, and Dr. Solhkhah are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. All six authors disclosed having no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Vinay Kumar for his assistance with the literature review and for proofreading and editing this article.
References
1. Wu P et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-11.
2. Lu YC et al. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(6):370-5.
3. Lai J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e203976.
4. Kang L et al. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-81.
6. Arango C. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.04.003.
7. Day M. BMJ. 2020 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1375.
8. Kirsch T. “Coronavirus, COVID-19: What happens if health care workers stop showing up?” The Atlantic. 2020 Mar 24.
9. Maunder RG et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924-32.
10. Wu P et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):706-12.
11. Brooks SK et al. BMC Psychol. 2016 Apr 26;4:18.
12. Smith BW et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:371-80.
13. Chen Q et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;7(14):PE15-6.
14. Xiao H et al. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549.
15. Bergus GR et al. Acad Med. 2001;76:1148-52.
16. Bergeron T. “Working from home will be stressful. Here’s how employees (and employers) can handle it.” roi-nj.com. 2020 Mar 23.
17. UNChealthcare.org. “Mental Health/Emotional Support Resources for Coworkers and Providers Coping with COVID-19.”
18. Psych.ucsf.edu/coronoavirus. “Resources to Support Your Mental Health During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”