13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Impact of SARS-CoV-2 on training and mental well-being of surgical gynecological oncology trainees

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic has caused a crisis disrupting health systems worldwide. While efforts are being made to determine the extent of the disruption, the impact on gynecological oncology trainees/training has not been explored. We conducted an international survey of the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on clinical practice, medical education, and mental well-being of surgical gynecological oncology trainees.

          Methods

          In our cross-sectional study, a customized web-based survey was circulated to surgical gynecological oncology trainees from national/international organizations from May to November 2020. Validated questionnaires assessed mental well-being. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Fisher’s exact test were used to analyse differences in means and proportions. Multiple linear regression was used to evaluate the effect of variables on psychological/mental well-being outcomes. Outcomes included clinical practice, medical education, anxiety and depression, distress, and mental well-being.

          Results

          A total of 127 trainees from 34 countries responded. Of these, 52% (66/127) were from countries with national training programs (UK/USA/Netherlands/Canada/Australia) and 48% (61/127) from countries with no national training programs. Altogether, 28% (35/125) had suspected/confirmed COVID-19, 28% (35/125) experienced a fall in household income, 20% (18/90) were self-isolated from households, 45% (57/126) had to re-use personal protective equipment, and 22% (28/126) purchased their own. In total, 32.3% (41/127) of trainees (16.6% (11/66) from countries with a national training program vs 49.1% (30/61) from countries with no national training program, p=0.02) perceived they would require additional time to complete their training fellowship. The additional training time anticipated did not differ between trainees from countries with or without national training programs (p=0.11) or trainees at the beginning or end of their fellowship (p=0.12). Surgical exposure was reduced for 50% of trainees. Departmental teaching continued throughout the pandemic for 69% (87/126) of trainees, although at reduced frequency for 16.1% (14/87), and virtually for 88.5% (77/87). Trainees reporting adequate pastoral support (defined as allocation of a dedicated mentor/access to occupational health support services) had better mental well-being with lower levels of anxiety/depression (p=0.02) and distress (p<0.001). Trainees from countries with a national training program experienced higher levels of distress (p=0.01). Mean (SD) pre-pandemic mental well-being scores were significantly higher than post-pandemic scores (8.3 (1.6) vs 7 (1.8); p<0.01).

          Conclusion

          SARS-CoV-2 has negatively impacted the surgical training, household income, and psychological/mental well-being of surgical gynecological oncology trainees. The overall clinical impact was worse for trainees in countries with no national training program than for those in countries with a national training program, although national training program trainees reported greater distress. COVID-19 sickness increased anxiety/depression. The recovery phase must focus on improving mental well-being and addressing lost training opportunities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Elective surgery cancellations due to the COVID ‐19 pandemic: global predictive modelling to inform surgical recovery plans

            Background The COVID‐19 pandemic has disrupted routine hospital services globally. This study estimated the total number of adult elective operations that would be cancelled worldwide during the 12 weeks of peak disruption due to COVID‐19. Methods A global expert‐response study was conducted to elicit projections for the proportion of elective surgery that would be cancelled or postponed during the 12 weeks of peak disruption. A Bayesian beta‐regression model was used to estimate 12‐week cancellation rates for 190 countries. Elective surgical case‐mix data, stratified by specialty and indication (cancer versus benign surgery), was determined. This case‐mix was applied to country‐level surgical volumes. The 12‐week cancellation rates were then applied to these figures to calculate total cancelled operations. Results The best estimate was that 28,404,603 operations would be cancelled or postponed during the peak 12 weeks of disruption due to COVID‐19 (2,367,050 operations per week). Most would be operations for benign disease (90.2%, 25,638,922/28,404,603). The overall 12‐week cancellation rate would be 72.3%. Globally, 81.7% (25,638,921/31,378,062) of benign surgery, 37.7% (2,324,069/6,162,311) of cancer surgery, and 25.4% (441,611/1,735,483) of elective Caesarean sections would be cancelled or postponed. If countries increase their normal surgical volume by 20% post‐pandemic, it would take a median 45 weeks to clear the backlog of operations resulting from COVID‐19 disruption. Conclusions A very large number of operations will be cancelled or postponed due to disruption caused by COVID‐19. Governments should mitigate against this major burden on patients by developing recovery plans and implementing strategies to safely restore surgical activity. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress.

              Clinical, field, and experimental studies of response to potentially stressful life events give concordant findings: there is a general human tendency to undergo episodes of intrusive thinking and periods of avoidance. A scale of current subjective distress, related to a specific event, was based on a list of items composed of commonly reported experiences of intrusion and avoidance. Responses of 66 persons admitted to an outpatient clinic for the treatment of stress response syndromes indicated that the scale had a useful degree of significance and homogeneity. Empirical clusters supported the concept of subscores for intrusions and avoidance responses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer
                Int J Gynecol Cancer
                BMJ
                1048-891X
                1525-1438
                September 06 2021
                September 2021
                September 2021
                July 29 2021
                : 31
                : 9
                : 1268-1277
                Article
                10.1136/ijgc-2021-002803
                34326158
                7cd831fd-852f-4146-953a-09554fdeee30
                © 2021

                Free to read

                https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article