4.3 Article

Symptoms in Health Care Workers during the COVID-19 Epidemic. A Cross-Sectional Survey

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17145218

关键词

occupational epidemiology; anosmia; dysgeusia; occupational stress; occupational disease; organizational justice; effort; reward imbalance; anxiety; depression; sleep quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In March-April 2020, the Corona Virus Disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic suddenly hit Italian healthcare facilities and in some of them many staff members became infected. In this work 595 health care workers from a public company were tested for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (82 positive) and asked to complete a questionnaire on early COVID-19 symptoms. Respiratory symptoms were present in 56.1% of cases. Anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19 cases were found to have an odds ratio (OR) = 100.7 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 26.5-382.6) and an OR = 51.8 (95%CI 16.6-161.9), respectively. About one in three of the cases (29.3%) never manifested symptoms. Anxiety was reported by 16.6% of COVID-19 cases and depression by 20.3%, with a significant increase in the estimated risk (OR = 4.3; 95%CI = 2.4-7.4 for anxiety, OR = 3.5; 95%CI = 2.0-6.0 for depression). In cases, sleep was a significant moderating factor in the relationship between occupational stress, or organizational justice, and anxiety. The early diagnosis of COVID-19 in health care workers, must consider, in addition to respiratory disorders and fever, anosmia, dysgeusia, exhaustion, myalgias and enteric disorders. The frequency of anxiety and depression disorders in the population examined was not higher than that commonly recorded in the same company during periodic checks in the years preceding the epidemic. In COVID-19 cases there was a significant risk of anxiety, especially in those who had low sleep quality. Mental health support and improvement interventions must mainly concern workers with positive tests and should also tend to improve sleep quality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据