Psychological Reactions of Hospital Workers to a Pandemic: A Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and SARS in 2003

Epidemic viral infections, including the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and SARS-CoV-2 in 2019, have brought tremendous loss to people across the nations. The aim of this study was to compare the psychological impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 2020 and the SARS pandemic in 2003 on hospital workers. Hospital workers at a medical center in Southern Taiwan (n = 1816) were invited to complete questionnaires (SARS-CoV-2 Exposure Experience, the Impact of Event Scale, the Chinese Health Questionnaire, and the Distress Thermometer). The current data were compared to the data collected from hospital workers (n = 1257) at the same medical center during the SARS pandemic in 2003. We found the psychological impact on hospital workers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was significantly lower than that during the previous SARS period. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic period, hospital workers with SARS experience were more accepting of the risk, felt a greater responsibility to take care of the SARS-CoV-2 patients, and were more likely to perceive the danger of becoming infected. The associated factors of psychiatric morbidity in hospital workers with SARS experience were being female, the degree of intrusion severity, and severity of psychological distress. Proper management strategies and lessons learned from the SARS experience might have led to low psychiatric morbidity during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Sleep-Wake Pattern, Sleep Quality and Daytime Status in Fixed Day-Shift Hospital Workers

Objectives: Sleep issues are more prevalent in healthcare workers compared to workers in other industries. This study investigated sleep-wake pattern, sleep quality, and daytime status in hospital workers using a Galaxy Watch3 (GW3), a wrist-worn device that uses an accelerometer and heart rate sensor to distinguish sleep and wakefulness.Methods: Multiple sleep parameters including total sleep time (TST) were obtained using a GW3. The Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), insomnia severity index (ISI), Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI), and bedtime procrastination scale (BPS) were used to assess participants’ status.Results: A total of 70 daytime hospital workers (male, 45.7%; mean age, 35.66±7.79 yr) participated in the monitoring of their sleep-wake patterns for 30 consecutive days. Participants had a mean ESS of 8.14±3.62, ISI of 6.13±3.83, and PSQI of 4.86±2.14. The mean TST was 5.75±0.74 hr (range: 3.42–6.88) during workdays and 5.92±0.92 hr (range: 2.87–8.25) during free days. Chronotype (mid-sleep on freedays corrected for sleep debt accumulated over the work week) was 3.60±1.03 clock hr (range: 1.84–6.69). BPS was negatively correlated with age (rho=-0.27, p=0.022), TST of workdays (rho=-0.53, p<0.001), and TST of free days (rho=-0.43, p<0.001). A higher BPS was associated with larger social jetlag (rho=0.28, p=0.018) and later chronotype (rho=0.41, p<0.001).Conclusions: In this study, 91.5% of daytime hospital workers suffered from chronic sleep insufficiency (<7 hr during both workdays and free days) although their daytime sleepiness or subjective sleep were not poor. Individuals with a later chronotype had poorer sleep quality and worse sleep procrastination behavior.

Factors Associated with Adverse Reactions to BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine in a Cohort of 3969 Hospital Workers

Factors associated with adverse reactions to BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine reported by hospital workers are unclear. Our aim was to collect all reported adverse events in a cohort of hospital workers and to analyze the factors associated with their presence. We conducted an observational longitudinal study on all hospital workers of our center who received COVID-19 vaccination from 27 December 2020 to 1 September 2021. Information on adverse events was reported telephonically and confirmed through clinical records. Chi-square and t tests as well as multivariate logistic regression models were used. Cluster analysis was designed to explore associations between reactions. A total of 3969 hospital workers were included in the sample. Of the total sample, 182 workers (4.6%) reported adverse events. The most frequent symptoms were general malaise (n = 95), fever (n = 92), arthromyalgia (n = 80), and headache (n = 47). The factors associated with adverse events in adjusted analyses were an antecedent of COVID-19 infection (OR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.47–2.98), female sex (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.03–2.20), and professional category (OR for physicians = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21–0.80). We report a low frequency of adverse events in hospital workers after COVID-19 vaccination and no severe reaction. Men and physicians underreported their symptoms. These data should guide future strategies for recording adverse events and future research on COVID-19 vaccination safety.

The Effectiveness of Post-Vaccination and Post-Infection Protection in the Hospital Staff of Three Prague Hospitals: A Cohort Study of 8-Month Follow-Up from the Start of the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign (COVANESS)

Continuous assessment of the effectiveness of approved COVID-19 vaccines is crucial to gain an insight into the longer-term impact on health outcomes, and eventually boosting public confidence. For this reason, we conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study using data on infection and vaccination rates among employees of three Prague hospitals in the period between 27 December 2020 and 31 August 2021. The post-vaccination and post-infection protectiveness were assessed in a total of 11,443 hospital workers who were followed up for more than 14 days either after their Comirnaty vaccination or study enrolment, depending on their previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The effectiveness of full vaccination against any SARS-CoV-2 infection achieved 88.3% (83.2–91.8%) over the eight months of follow-up, a figure not much different from the 92.5% (76.5–97.6%) level of protection built by a previous infection. Despite this, the post-vaccination level of protection declined to about 65% between June and August. No case of breakthrough infection was registered among hospital workers having received one or two vaccine doses more than three months after previous infection. The eight-month effectiveness of the Comirnaty vaccine exhibited a declining trend requiring a new booster dose. The need for vaccination in the previously infected employees was not demonstrated conclusively in this study.

Investigating Adherence to COVID-19 Vaccination and Serum Antibody Concentration among Hospital Workers—The Experience of an Italian Private Hospital

SARS-CoV-2 transmission has been high, especially among healthcare workers worldwide during the first wave. Vaccination is recognized as the most effective approach to combat the pandemic, but hesitation to get vaccinated represents an obstacle. Another important issue is the duration of protection after administration of the full vaccination cycle. Based on these premises, we conducted a study to evaluate vaccination adherence and the anti-S antibodies levels among hospital workers, from January to March, 2021. To assess adherence, an anonymous questionnaire was used. Anti-S antibody levels were obtained from the monitoring serological sample database. In total, 56.2% of the unvaccinated people did not report a previous infection from COVID-19. Among those who have not been vaccinated, 12.5% showed distrust against the vaccine, 8.3% stated to have received contraindications to the vaccination, and 6.3% did not report any choice. Analyzing anti-S antibody levels, only one person was found to have a value below the lower cut-off, two weeks, and three months after receiving their second dose. One was below the cut-off after two weeks, and then above the same cut-off after three months. The results of our survey should be seen as a stimulus to further sensitize hospital staff to the importance of vaccination and pay attention to anti-S antibody levels monitoring.