Search

Nurse, Midwives and Allied Health Professionals (AHPs), along with other health and social care colleagues are the backbone of healthcare services. They have played a key role in responding to the increased demands on healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper compares cross-sectional data on quality of working life, wellbeing, coping and burnout of nurses, midwives and AHPs in the United Kingdom (UK) at two time points during the COVID-19 pandemic. An anonymous online repeated cross-sectional survey was conducted at two timepoints, Phase 1 (7th May 2020-3rd July 2020); Phase 2 (17th November 2020-1st February 2021). The survey consisted of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale, the Work-Related Quality of Life Scale, and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (Phase 2 only) to measure wellbeing, quality of working life and burnout. The Brief COPE scale and Strategies for Coping with Work and Family Stressors scale assessed coping strategies. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regressions examined the effects of coping strategies and demographic and work-related variables on wellbeing and quality of working life. A total of 1839 nurses, midwives and AHPs responded to the first or second survey, with a final sample of 1410 respondents -586 from Phase 1; 824 from Phase 2, (422 nurses, 192 midwives and 796 AHPs). Wellbeing and quality of working life scores were significantly lower in the Phase 2 sample compared to respondents in Phase 1 (p<0.001). The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant effect on psychological wellbeing and quality of working life which decreased while the use of negative coping and burnout of these healthcare professionals increased. Health services are now trying to respond to the needs of patients with COVID-19 variants while rebuilding services and tackling the backlog of normal care provision. This workforce would benefit from additional support/services to prevent further deterioration in mental health and wellbeing and optimise workforce retention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on young people's (YP) mental health has been mixed. Systematic reviews to date have focused predominantly on quantitative studies and lacked involvement from YP with lived experience of mental health difficulties. Therefore, our primary aim was to conduct a qualitative systematic review to examine the perceived impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on YP's (aged 10–24) mental health and wellbeing across Europe. Methods and findings: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, MEDRXIV, OSF preprints, Google, and voluntary sector websites for studies published from 1st January 2020 to 15th November 2022. European studies were included if they reported qualitative data that could be extracted on YP's (aged 10–24) own perspectives of their experiences of Covid-19 and related disruptions to their mental health and wellbeing. Screening, data extraction and appraisal was conducted independently in duplicate by researchers and YP with lived experience of mental health difficulties (co-researchers). Confidence was assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) approach. We co-produced an adapted narrative thematic synthesis with co-researchers. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021251578. We found 82 publications and included 77 unique studies in our narrative synthesis. Most studies were from the UK (n = 50; 65%); and generated data during the first Covid-19 wave (March-May 2020; n = 33; 43%). Across the 79,491 participants, views, and experiences of YP minoritised by ethnicity and sexual orientation, and from marginalised or vulnerable YP were limited. Five synthesised themes were identified: negative impact of pandemic information and restrictions on wellbeing; education and learning on wellbeing; social connection to prevent loneliness and disconnection; emotional, lifestyle and behavioural changes; and mental health support. YP's mental health and wellbeing across Europe were reported to have fluctuated during the pandemic. Challenges were similar but coping strategies to manage the impact of these challenges on mental health varied across person, study, and country. Short-term impacts were related to the consequences of changing restrictions on social connection, day-to-day lifestyle, and education set-up. However, YP identified potential issues in these areas going forward, and therefore stressed the importance of ongoing long-term support in education, learning and mental health post-Covid-19. Conclusions: Our findings map onto the complex picture seen from quantitative systematic reviews regarding the impact of Covid-19 on YP's mental health. The comparatively little qualitative data found in our review means there is an urgent need for more high-quality qualitative research outside of the UK and/or about the experiences of minoritised groups to ensure all voices are heard and everyone is getting the support they need following the pandemic. YP's voices need to be prioritised in decision-making processes on education, self-care strategies, and mental health and wellbeing, to drive impactful, meaningful policy changes in anticipation of a future systemic crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In England (UK), at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic the public were required to reduce their physical contacts to slow the spread of COVID-19. We investigated the factors associated with children having: 1) close contact with family members from outside their household ('non-adherent behaviour'); and 2) low well-being (Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale). We conducted an online cross-sectional survey, completed at any location of the participant's choice between 8 and 11 June 2020 in parents (n = 2,010) who were aged eighteen years or over and had a school-aged child (4–18 years old). Parents reported that 15% (n = 309) of children had non-adherent contact and that 26% (n = 519) had low well-being. We used a series of binary logistic regressions to investigate associations between outcomes and child and parent characteristics. Children had higher odds of having non-household contact when they had special educational needs [adjusted odds ratio, 2.19 (95% CI, 1.47 to 3.27)], lower well-being [2.65 (95% CI, 2.03 to 3.46)], were vulnerable to COVID-19 [2.17 (95% CI, 1.45 to 3.25)], lived with someone who was over 70 years old [2.56 (95% CI, 1.55 to 4.24)] and their parent had low well-being [1.94 (95% CI, 1.45 to 2.58)]. Children had higher odds of lower well-being when they had special educational needs [4.13 (95% CI, 2.90 to 5.87)], were vulnerable to COVID-19 [3.06 (95% CI, 2.15 to 4.36)], lived with someone else who was vulnerable to COVID-19 [2.08 (95% CI, 1.64 to 2.64)], or lived with someone who was over 70 years old [2.41 (95% CI, 1.51 to 3.83)]. Many children came into contact with non-household family members, mainly for childcare. Factors relating to COVID-19, children's well-being and education were also important. If school closures are needed in future, addressing these issues may help reduce contact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]