Search

Background: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) appear to be effective for improving the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs). However, the effectiveness of MBIs on extreme psychological trauma caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is largely unknown. The aim of this paper was to systematically review empirical studies of MBIs for HCPs carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic, to evaluate them and their effectiveness in different areas of mental health. Methods: The electronic databases searched were Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and PsycINFO. The date when each database was last searched was September 15, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs), and non-randomized non-controlled trials (NRNCTs) focused on MBIs for health care staff who were working in healthcare centers during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. All of them employed standardized measures of mental health. The review followed the best practices and reported using PRISMA guidelines. A data collection form, adapted from the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, was used to extract and synthesize the results. The methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies were the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the ROBINS-I Tool. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was moderate. The results showed the effectiveness of MBIs in improving levels of stress, mindfulness, and mental well-being. However, no conclusive results were found regarding the effectiveness of MBIs in improving the levels of burnout, anxiety, depression, sleep quality, and resilience of HCPs. Conclusions: The MBIs for HCPs carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly contributed to improving stress, mindfulness, and mental well-being at a time of serious health emergency. However, more robust studies at a methodological level would have been desirable. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021267621 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare facility characteristics, such as ownership, size, and location, have been associated with patient outcomes. However, it is not known whether the outcomes of healthcare workers are associated with the characteristics of their employing healthcare facilities, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This was an analysis of a nationwide registry of healthcare workers (the Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO) registry). Participants were surveyed on their personal, employment, and medical characteristics, as well as our primary study outcomes of COVID-19 infection, access to personal protective equipment, and burnout. Participants from healthcare sites with at least ten respondents were included, and these sites were linked to American Hospital Association data to extract information about sites, including number of beds, teaching status, urban/rural location, and for-profit status. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate linear regression models for the unadjusted and adjusted associations between healthcare facility characteristics and outcomes. Results: A total of 8,941 healthcare workers from 97 clinical sites were included in the study. After adjustment for participant demographics, healthcare role, and medical comorbidities, facility for-profit status was associated with greater odds of COVID-19 diagnosis (aOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.02–3.03, p =.042). Micropolitan location was associated with decreased odds of COVID-19 infection after adjustment (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.24, 0.71, p =.002. For-profit facility status was associated with decreased odds of burnout after adjustment (aOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.29–0.98), p =.044). Conclusions: For-profit status of employing healthcare facilities was associated with greater odds of COVID-19 diagnosis but decreased odds of burnout after adjustment for demographics, healthcare role, and medical comorbidities. Future research to understand the relationship between facility ownership status and healthcare outcomes is needed to promote wellbeing in the healthcare workforce. Trial registration: The registry was prospectively registered: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (trial registration number) NCT04342806, submitted April 8, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nurses have faced significant personal and professional stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic that have contributed to increased rates of burnout, intention to leave, and poorer work engagement. Resilience has been identified as a critical factor influencing job outcomes; however, the dynamics of this association have not yet been investigated within the context of the Thai workforce. The study objective was to determine the associations between resilience and job outcomes, including burnout, intention to leave, and work engagement among nurses working in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This cross-sectional study gathered data from a sample of 394 registered nurses employed across 12 hospitals. The research instruments comprised the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Health Services Survey (MBI-HSS), a questionnaire assessing the intention to leave the job, and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). To determine the associations among the measured variables, multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: One-third of nurses experienced emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and about half experienced reduced personal accomplishment; one-tenth of nurses intended to leave their job. Nurses who exhibited higher levels of resilience were found to have a significantly reduced likelihood of experiencing high emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a diminished sense of personal accomplishment. Conversely, these nurses were more likely to report higher levels of work engagement than their less resilience. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic offers important lessons learned about promoting the well-being of the nursing workforce and protecting against adverse job outcomes. While we identified resilience as a significant predictor of several nurse outcomes, other work environment factors should be considered. Government and hospital administrations should allocate resources for individual and organizational-level interventions to promote resilience among frontline nurses so that hospitals will be better prepared for the next public health emergency and patient and nurse outcomes can be optimized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]