4.7 Article

Relationship Between Acute Stress Responses and Quality of Life in Chinese Health Care Workers During the COVID-19 Outbreak

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.599136

关键词

acute stress; coronavirus; health care workers; quality of life; China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found a negative correlation between acute stress and quality of life among healthcare workers. Factors such as age, physical activity, work status, perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, and the duration of the pandemic were identified as influencing acute stress. A younger age, lack of physical activity, frontline medical staff status, and higher acute stress scores were associated with poorer quality of life. It is important for authorities to prioritize the mental health of healthcare workers and provide them with timely support and protection during the pandemic.
This study aimed to determine the relationship between acute stress and quality of life and explore their influencing factors on health care workers. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted, and a sample of 525 health care workers was recruited from 15 hospitals through a convenient sampling method. Participants completed an online self-report questionnaire to assess their acute stress and quality of life. Descriptive and multiple linear regression statistics were used for this analysis. The results regarding acute stress responses varied significantly among the differences in marital status, physical activity, work status, perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, and the expected duration of the pandemic. Moreover, a younger age, lack of physical activity, being a front-line medical staff, and higher acute stress scores indicated a worse quality of life. Healthcare workers' acute stress was negatively correlated with their quality of life. Therefore, the authorities should pay special attention to health care workers' mental health and provide them with timely protection during the pandemic.

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

4.7
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