19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Digitalizing a Brief Intervention to Reduce Intrusive Memories of Psychological Trauma for Health Care Staff Working During COVID-19: Exploratory Pilot Study With Nurses

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Background

          The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the worldwide need for simple remotely delivered (digital) scalable interventions that can also be used preventatively to protect the mental health of health care staff exposed to psychologically traumatic events during their COVID-19–related work. We have developed a brief behavioral intervention that aims to reduce the number of intrusive memories of traumatic events but has only been delivered face-to-face so far. After digitalizing the intervention materials, the intervention was delivered digitally to target users (health care staff) for the first time. The adaption for staff’s working context in a hospital setting used a co-design approach.

          Objective

          The aims of this mixed method exploratory pilot study with health care staff who experienced working in the pandemic were to pilot the intervention that we have digitalized (for remote delivery and with remote support) and adapted for this target population (health care staff working clinically during a pandemic) to explore its ability to reduce the number of intrusive memories of traumatic events and improve related symptoms (eg, posttraumatic stress) and participant’s perception of their functioning, and to explore the feasibility and acceptability of both the digitalized intervention and digitalized data collection.

          Methods

          We worked closely with target users with lived experience of working clinically during the COVID-19 pandemic in a hospital context (registered nurses who experienced intrusive memories from traumatic events at work; N=3). We used a mixed method design and exploratory quantitative and qualitative analysis.

          Results

          After completing the digitalized intervention once with remote researcher support (approximately 25 minutes) and a brief follow-up check-in, participants learned to use the intervention independently. All 3 participants reported zero intrusive memories during week 5 (primary outcome: 100% digital data capture). Prior to study inclusion, two or more intrusions in the week were reported preintervention (assessed retrospectively). There was a general pattern of symptom reduction and improvement in perceived functioning (eg, concentration) at follow-up. The digitalized intervention and data collection were perceived as feasible and rated as acceptable (eg, all 3 participants would recommend it to a colleague). Participants were positive toward the digital intervention as a useful tool that could readily be incorporated into work life and repeated in the face of ongoing or repeated trauma exposure.

          Conclusions

          The intervention when delivered remotely and adapted for this population during the pandemic was well received by participants. Since it could be tailored around work and daily life and used preventatively, the intervention may hold promise for health care staff pending future evaluations of efficacy. Limitations include the small sample size, lack of daily intrusion frequency data in the week before the intervention, and lack of a control condition. Following this co-design process in adapting and improving intervention delivery and evaluation, the next step is to investigate the efficacy of the digitalized intervention in a randomized controlled trial.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Factors Associated With Mental Health Outcomes Among Health Care Workers Exposed to Coronavirus Disease 2019

          Key Points Question What factors are associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers in China who are treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 1257 health care workers in 34 hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 in multiple regions of China, a considerable proportion of health care workers reported experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress, especially women, nurses, those in Wuhan, and front-line health care workers directly engaged in diagnosing, treating, or providing nursing care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Meaning These findings suggest that, among Chinese health care workers exposed to COVID-19, women, nurses, those in Wuhan, and front-line health care workers have a high risk of developing unfavorable mental health outcomes and may need psychological support or interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

            Summary The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time. The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative. International collaboration and a global perspective will be beneficial. An immediate priority is collecting high-quality data on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the whole population and vulnerable groups, and on brain function, cognition, and mental health of patients with COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research to address how mental health consequences for vulnerable groups can be mitigated under pandemic conditions, and on the impact of repeated media consumption and health messaging around COVID-19. Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required. Rising to this challenge will require integration across disciplines and sectors, and should be done together with people with lived experience. New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure. This Position Paper provides a strategy that may be both adapted for, and integrated with, research efforts in other countries.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Mental Health and Psychosocial Problems of Medical Health Workers during the COVID-19 Epidemic in China

              Objective We explored whether medical health workers had more psychosocial problems than nonmedical health workers during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods An online survey was run from February 19 to March 6, 2020; a total of 2,182 Chinese subjects participated. Mental health variables were assessed via the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Symptom Check List-revised (SCL-90-R), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), which included a 2-item anxiety scale and a 2-item depression scale (PHQ-2). Results Compared with nonmedical health workers (n = 1,255), medical health workers (n = 927) had a higher prevalence of insomnia (38.4 vs. 30.5%, p < 0.01), anxiety (13.0 vs. 8.5%, p < 0.01), depression (12.2 vs. 9.5%; p< 0.04), somatization (1.6 vs. 0.4%; p < 0.01), and obsessive-compulsive symptoms (5.3 vs. 2.2%; p < 0.01). They also had higher total scores of ISI, GAD-2, PHQ-2, and SCL-90-R obsessive-compulsive symptoms (p ≤ 0.01). Among medical health workers, having organic disease was an independent factor for insomnia, anxiety, depression, somatization, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms (p < 0.05 or 0.01). Living in rural areas, being female, and being at risk of contact with COVID-19 patients were the most common risk factors for insomnia, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and depression (p < 0.01 or 0.05). Among nonmedical health workers, having organic disease was a risk factor for insomnia, depression, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms (p < 0.01 or 0.05). Conclusions During the COVID-19 outbreak, medical health workers had psychosocial problems and risk factors for developing them. They were in need of attention and recovery programs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Form Res
                JMIR Form Res
                JFR
                JMIR Formative Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2561-326X
                May 2021
                26 May 2021
                26 May 2021
                : 5
                : 5
                : e27473
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Psychology Uppsala University Uppsala Sweden
                [2 ] Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study Uppsala Sweden
                [3 ] Division of Psychology Department of Clinical Neuroscience Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden
                [4 ] Functional Area Medical Psychology Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm Sweden
                [5 ] Department for Health Promoting Science Sophiahemmet University Stockholm Sweden
                [6 ] Division of Nursing Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society Karolinska Institutet Huddinge Sweden
                [7 ] Samariten Ambulance Stockholm Sweden
                [8 ] Emergency and Reparative Medicine Theme Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm Sweden
                [9 ] Department of Medicine, Solna Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden
                [10 ] School of Education, Health and Social Studies Dalarna University Falun Sweden
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Laura Singh laura.singh@ 123456psyk.uu.se
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0148-7247
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2060-5288
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7680-4983
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2246-7894
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1386-3203
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7496-4150
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4062-4470
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6388-5155
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7319-3112
                Article
                v5i5e27473
                10.2196/27473
                8158532
                33886490
                a9025930-2b58-401b-a175-314960167e0c
                ©Laura Singh, Marie Kanstrup, Katherine Depa, Ann-Charlotte Falk, Veronica Lindström, Oili Dahl, Katarina E Göransson, Ann Rudman, Emily A Holmes. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 26.05.2021.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 27 January 2021
                : 19 February 2021
                : 1 March 2021
                : 17 March 2021
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                intrusive memories,psychological trauma,prevention,pilot trial,covid-19,digital intervention,remote delivery,cognitive science,person-based approach,mixed methods,co-design,health care staff

                Comments

                Comment on this article