Background Evidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the mental well-being of health and social care professionals. Symptoms of mental health problems commonly include depression, anxiety, stress, and additional cognitive and social problems; these can impact on function in the workplace. The mental health and resilience (ability to cope with the negative effects of stress) of frontline health and social care professionals ('frontline workers' in this review) could be supported during disease epidemics by workplace interventions, interventions to support basic daily needs, psychological support interventions, pharmacological interventions, or a combination of any or all of these. Objectives Objective 1: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Objective 2: to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Search methods On 28 May 2020 we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus databases and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing. We also searched ongoing trials registers and Google Scholar. We ran all searches from the year 2002 onwards, with no language restrictions. Selection criteria We included studies in which participants were health and social care professionals working at the front line during infectious disease outbreaks, categorised as epidemics or pandemics by WHO, from 2002 onwards. For objective 1 we included quantitative evidence from randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies, which investigated the effect of any intervention to support mental health or resilience, compared to no intervention, standard care, placebo or attention control intervention, or other active interventions. For objective 2 we included qualitative evidence from studies that described barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions. Outcomes critical to this review were general mental health and resilience. Additional outcomes included psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress; burnout; other mental health disorders; workplace staffing; and adverse events arising from interventions. Data collection and analysis Pairs of review authors independently applied selection criteria to abstracts and full papers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. One review author systematically extracted data, cross-checked by a second review author. For objective 1, we assessed risk of bias of studies of effectiveness using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For objective 2, we assessed methodological limitations using either the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) qualitative study tool, for qualitative studies, or WEIRD (Ways of Evaluating Important and Relevant Data) tool, for descriptive studies. We planned meta-analyses of pairwise comparisons for outcomes if direct evidence were available. Two review authors extracted evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to implementation, organised these around the domains of the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in each finding. We planned to produce an overarching synthesis, bringing quantitative and qualitative findings together. Main results We included 16 studies that reported implementation of an intervention aimed at supporting the resilience or mental health of frontline workers during disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): 2; Ebola: 9; Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): 1; COVID-19: 4). Interventions studied included workplace interventions, such as training, structure and communication (6 studies); psychological support interventions, such as counselling and psychology services (8 studies); and multifaceted interventions (2 studies). Objective 1: a mixed-methods study that incorporated a cluster-randomised trial, investigating the effect of a work-based intervention, provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of training frontline healthcare workers to deliver psychological first aid on a measure of burnout. Objective 2: we included all 16 studies in our qualitative evidence synthesis; we classified seven as qualitative and nine as descriptive studies. We identified 17 key findings from multiple barriers and facilitators reported in studies. We did not have high confidence in any of the findings; we had moderate confidence in six findings and low to very low confidence in 11 findings. We are moderately confident that the following two factors were barriers to intervention implementation: frontline workers, or the organisations in which they worked, not being fully aware of what they needed to support their mental well-being; and a lack of equipment, staff time or skills needed for an intervention. We are moderately confident that the following three factors were facilitators of intervention implementation: interventions that could be adapted for local needs; having effective communication, both formally and socially; and having positive, safe and supportive learning environments for frontline workers. We are moderately confident that the knowledge or beliefs, or both, that people have about an intervention can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementation of the intervention. Authors' conclusions There is a lack of both quantitative and qualitative evidence from studies carried out during or after disease epidemics and pandemics that can inform the selection of interventions that are beneficial to the resilience and mental health of frontline workers. Alternative sources of evidence (e.g. from other healthcare crises, and general evidence about interventions that support mental well-being) could therefore be used to inform decision making. When selecting interventions aimed at supporting frontline workers' mental health, organisational, social, personal, and psychological factors may all be important. Research to determine the effectiveness of interventions is a high priority. The COVID-19 pandemic provides unique opportunities for robust evaluation of interventions. Future studies must be developed with appropriately rigorous planning, including development, peer review and transparent reporting of research protocols, following guidance and standards for best practice, and with appropriate length of follow-up. Factors that may act as barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions should be considered during the planning of future research and when selecting interventions to deliver within local settings.

/pdf/interventions-to-support-the-resilience-and-mental-health-of-334vnzcq9s.pdf

Interventions to support the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic: a mixed methods systematic review

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may aggravate workplace conditions that impact health-care workers' mental health. However, it can also place other stresses on workers outside of their work. This study determines the effect of COVID-19 on symptoms of negative and positive mental health and the workforce's experience with various sources of support. Effect modification by demographic variables was also studied.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey study, conducted between 2 April and 4 May 2020 (two waves), led to a convenience sample of 4509 health-care workers in Flanders (Belgium), including paramedics (40.6%), nurses (33.4%), doctors (13.4%) and management staff (12.2%). About three in four were employed in university and acute hospitals (29.6%), primary care practices (25.7%), residential care centers (21.3%) or care sites for disabled and mental health care. In each of the two waves, participants were asked how frequently (on a scale of 0-10) they experienced positive and negative mental health symptoms during normal circumstances and during last week, referred to as before and during COVID-19, respectively. These symptoms were stress, hypervigilance, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, unable to relax, fear, irregular lifestyle, flashback, difficulty concentrating, feeling unhappy and dejected, failing to recognize their own emotional response, doubting knowledge and skills and feeling uncomfortable within the team. Associations between COVID-19 and mental health symptoms were estimated by cumulative logit models and reported as odds ratios. The needed support was our secondary outcome and was reported as the degree to which health-care workers relied on sources of support and how they experienced them.

Results: All symptoms were significantly more pronounced during versus before COVID-19. For hypervigilance, there was a 12-fold odds (odds ratio 12.24, 95% confidence interval 11.11-13.49) during versus before COVID-19. Positive professional symptoms such as the feeling that one can make a difference were less frequently experienced. The association between COVID-19 and mental health was generally strongest for the age group 30-49 years, females, nurses and residential care centers. Health-care workers reported to rely on support from relatives and peers. A considerable proportion, respectively, 18 and 27%, reported the need for professional guidance from psychologists and more support from their leadership.

Conclusions: The toll of the crisis has been heavy on health-care workers. Those who carry leadership positions at an organizational or system level should take this opportunity to develop targeted strategies to mitigate key stressors of health-care workers' mental well-being.

/pdf/covid-19-is-having-a-destructive-impact-on-health-care-1jfumf0em5.pdf

COVID-19 is having a destructive impact on health-care workers' mental well-being.

Objectives To explore the psychosocial well-being of health and social care professionals working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design This was a qualitative study deploying in-depth, individual interviews, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used for coding. Participants This study involved 25 participants from a range of frontline professions in health and social care. Setting Interviews were conducted over the phone or video call, depending on participant preference. Results From the analysis, we identified 5 overarching themes: communication challenges, work-related stressors, support structures, personal growth and individual resilience. The participants expressed difficulties such as communication challenges and changing work conditions, but also positive factors such as increased team unity at work, and a greater reflection on what matters in life. Conclusions This study provides evidence on the support needs of health and social care professionals amid continued and future disruptions caused by the pandemic. It also elucidates some of the successful strategies (such as mindfulness, hobbies, restricting news intake, virtual socialising activities) deployed by health and social care professionals that can support their resilience and well-being and be used to guide future interventions.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/11/2/e047353.full.pdf

Psychosocial impact on frontline health and social care professionals in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study.

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed health workers to a diverse set of hazards impacting their physical, psychological and social wellbeing. This review aims to provide an overview of the categories of the psychosocial risk factors and hazards affecting HCWs during the Covid-19 pandemic and the recommendations for prevention. We used the scoping review methodology to collate categories of psychosocial risks, the related health outcomes, interventions, and data gaps. The review was conducted on global peer-reviewed academic and authoritative grey literature, published between 1. January-26. October 2020; in total, 220 articles were included into the review and the subsequent analysis. Analysis of the extracted data found PSRs related to four sources: personal protective equipment (PPE), job content, work organisation, and social context. is. Women health workers and nurses reported worst health outcomes. Majority of the research to date concerns health workers in secondary care, while data on psychosocial risks at primary and community-based settings are scarce. However, the emerging research implies that the pandemic creates psychosocial risks also to non-clinical health workers. The intervention and mitigation measures address individual and organisational levels. Preventative and mitigating measures for social and societal risks-such as staff shortages, intersecting inequalities, and financial stressors require further research.

A Scoping Review of Psychosocial Risks to Health Workers during the Covid-19 Pandemic.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused global disruption to health care. Non-urgent elective surgical cases have been cancelled, outpatient clinics have reduced and there has been a reduction in the number of patients presenting as an emergency. These factors will drastically affect the training opportunities of surgical trainees. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the impact of COVID-19 on surgical training globally. The review was performed in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF). Medline, EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. The searches identified 499 articles, 29 of which were included in the review. This contained data from more than 20 countries with 5260 trainees and 339 programme directors. Redeployment to non-surgical roles varied across studies from 6% to 35.1%. According to all of the studies, operative experience has been reduced. Knowledge learning had been switched to online platforms across 17 of the studies and 7 reported trainees had increased time to devote to educational/academic activities. All of the studies reporting on mental health report negative associations with increased stress, ranging from 54.9% to 91.6% of trainees. The impact of COVID-19 on surgical trainees has been experienced globally and across all specialities. Negative effects are not limited to operative and clinical experience, but also the mental health and wellbeing of trainees. Delivery of surgical training will need to move away from traditional models of learning to ensure trainees are competent and well supported.

/pdf/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-surgical-training-a-systematic-136l3efh9k.pdf

The impact of COVID-19 on surgical training: a systematic review.

Unprecedented times call for extraordinary measures. While surgeons across the globe try to comprehend the evolving facade of the COVID-19 pandemic and improvise surgical practice to the best of their ability, the psychological impact of the stress on their own mental health and well-being has been underestimated. This paper aims to review the indirect and overt factors that may affect the mental health of a surgeon in the present circumstances. Furthermore, it will aim to highlight key coping mechanisms at an individual and institutional level, so as to mitigate the negative psychological impact on surgeons.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hed.26291

Impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of surgeons and coping strategies.

Management of laryngeal dysplasia often poses a clinical conundrum, especially so with its unpredictable propensity for malignant transformation. The wide heterogeneity in published results and the dearth of level I evidence makes it challenging to arrive at a consensus or best practice guidelines. In 2010, ENT UK had developed such a guideline based on critical analysis of previously published data and professional opinion. This article examines the available evidence, and attempts to highlight the best possible modalities in investigation and management strategies as objectively as possible. Balasubramanian A, Paleri V. Laryngeal Dysplasia: What does the Evidence Tell Us? International Journal of Head and Neck Surgery, 2018;9(2):87-93.

/pdf/laryngeal-dysplasia-what-does-the-evidence-tell-us-zhym1m1dbj.pdf

Laryngeal Dysplasia: What does the Evidence Tell Us?

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) screening is aimed at population-based or community/family-based levels. Targeted screening is relevant in first degree-relatives of a patient, especially if the patient in concern has an aggressive form of the disease or hails from a high-risk endemic area. Screening modalities involve serology testing for elevated antibody levels against Epstein Barr virus (EBV), testing for EBV DNA load in plasma, and nasendoscopy procedure. A combination of immunoglobulin A/viral capsid antigen (Ig A/VCA) and early antigen (Ig A/EA) provides a sensitivity and specificity rate exceeding 90% to detect EBV presence. EBV DNA load rises with elevated antibody titre levels, making it a better tool to identify select persons who will be at risk of subsequently developing NPC. The old adage ‘prevention is better than cure’ would certainly be applicable in the context of NPC. Countries like China and Taiwan, which have a prevalence of the disease have structured prevention programmes in place. These incorporate the active participation of the general public, various targeted activities, screening within the structured programme, as well as awareness on not only the effects of the disease and its subsequent treatment effects, but also awareness on the ill-effects of tobacco smoking and over consumption of salted foods on general health and well-being.

Anusha Balasubramanian

Papers

Impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of surgeons and coping strategies.

Laryngeal Dysplasia: What does the Evidence Tell Us?

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma screening and prevention programs