“I Don’t Want to Go to Work”: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Healthcare Worker Experiences from the Front- and Side-Lines of COVID-19

Author:

Heavner Smith F.12,Stuenkel Mackenzie1,Russ Sellers Rebecca3,McCallus Rhiannon1,Dean Kendall D.2,Wilson Chloe4,Shuffler Marissa4,Britt Thomas W.4,Stark Taylor Shannon5ORCID,Benedum Molly6,Munk Niki7,Mayo Rachel1,Cartmell Kathleen Buford1,Griffin Sarah1,Kennedy Ann Blair2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA

2. Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville, Greenville, SC 29605, USA

3. Premier Neuro, Greer, SC 29650, USA

4. Department of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA

5. Center for Family Medicine, Department of Medicine, Prisma Health, Greenville, SC 29605, USA

6. AppFamily Medicine, Department of Medicine, Appalachian Regional Healthcare System, Boone, NC 28607, USA

7. Department of Health Sciences, School of Health & Human Sciences, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCW) were categorized as “essential” and “non-essential”, creating a division where some were “locked-in” a system with little ability to prepare for or control the oncoming crisis. Others were “locked-out” regardless of whether their skills might be useful. The purpose of this study was to systematically gather data over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic from HCW through an interprofessional lens to examine experiences of locked-out HCW. This convergent parallel mixed-methods study captured perspectives representing nearly two dozen professions through a survey, administered via social media, and video blogs. Analysis included logistic regression models of differences in outcome measures by professional category and Rapid Identification of Themes from Audio recordings (RITA) of video blogs. We collected 1299 baseline responses from 15 April 2020 to 16 March 2021. Of those responses, 12.1% reported no signs of burnout, while 21.9% reported four or more signs. Qualitative analysis identified four themes: (1) professional identity, (2) intrinsic stressors, (3) extrinsic factors, and (4) coping strategies. There are some differences in the experiences of locked-in and locked-out HCW. This did not always lead to differing reports of moral distress and burnout, and both groups struggled to cope with the realities of the pandemic.

Funder

Prisma Health

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3