4.2 Article

Posttraumatic stress symptoms of health care workers during the corona virus disease 2019

期刊

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY & PSYCHOTHERAPY
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 384-395

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cpp.2477

关键词

COVID-19; health care workers (HCWs); psychological guidance; PTSD; sleep quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has attracted worldwide attention. The COVID-19 outbreak is unique in its rapid transmission and results in heavy stress for the front-line health care workers (HCWs). The current study aimed to exam posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSSs) of HCWs fighting for the COVID-19 and to evaluate their sleep quality after 1-month stressful suffering. Three hundred seventy-seven HCWs working in different provinces of China participated in the survey between February 1 and 5. The demographic information was collected first. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) were selected to measure PTSSs and sleep quality. Results showed that 1 month after the outbreak, the prevalence of PTSSs was 3.8% in HCWs. Female HCWs were more vulnerable to PTSSs with hazard ratio of 2.136 (95% CI = 1.388-3.286). HCWs with higher exposure level also significantly rated more hyperarousal symptoms (hazard ratio = 4.026, 95% CI = 1.233-13.140). There was a significant difference of sleep quality between participants with and without PTSSs (z value = 6.014, p < .001) and among different groups with various contact frequencies (chi-square = 7.307, p = .026). Path analysis showed that there was a significant indirect effect from exposure level to PTSSs through sleep quality (coefficient = 1.750, 95% CI of Boostroop test = 0.543-2.998). In summary, targeted interventions on sleep contribute to the mental recovery during the outbreak of COVID-19. Understanding the mental health response after a public health emergency might help HCWs and communities prepare for a population's response to disaster.

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

4.2
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