Search

The phrase 'in it together' has been used liberally since the outbreak of COVID‐19, but the extent that frontline workers felt 'in it together' is not well understood. Here, we consider the factors that built (or eroded) solidarity while working through the pandemic, and how frontline workers navigated their lives through periods of disconnection. Semi‐structured interviews with 21 frontline workers, across all sectors, were conducted in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The qualitative data were analysed systematically using reflexive thematic analysis. The three themes identified in the data were: (1) Solidarity as central to frontline experiences; (2) Leadership as absent, shallow and divisive: highlighting 'us‐them' distinctions and (3) The rise of 'us' and 'we' among colleagues. Our research offers insights into how frontline workers make sense of their experiences of solidarity and discordance during the first year of the COVID‐19 pandemic, with relevance for government and organizational policy‐makers shaping future conditions for frontline workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frontline workers have shown extraordinary resilience and sustained efforts since the outbreak of COVID-19. The present study used semi-structured interviews with 38 frontline workers in the UK and Ireland to explore the psychological impact of working through COVID-19. The qualitative data were analysed systematically using thematic analysis. Four themes were interpreted: 1)) "I've stopped turning the telly on. I've had to because the news was making me ill": An ecosystem of influence; 2) "Dead, dead, dead": The emotional and psychological toll: 3) "It's shone a light on what we're failing on as well": Injustices, hierarchies and heroes: and 4) "I definitely think COVID happened for a reason to stop us in our tracks and to slow us down": Unexpected positives. This research offers insights into how frontline workers make sense of their experiences during periods of enormous societal and occupational stress. The learnings generated have relevance for government and organisational policy-makers who have opportunities to shape future conditions for frontline workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The context of Covid-19 has offered an unusual cultural landscape for examining how workers view their own position relative to others, and how individuals respond to prolonged exposure to workplace stress across different sectors and cultures. Through our recent work tracking the well-being of frontline workers in the UK and Ireland (the CV19 Heroes project), we have uncovered additional psychological factors that have not been accounted for in previous models of occupational stress or burnout. In recent months, frontline workers have worked to protect the community from the threat of SARS-CoV-2 and, simultaneously, have evaluated their perceptions of collective efforts of others as either congruent or incongruent with collective goals (e.g., lowered mortality and morbidity): we call this novel aspect solidarity appraisal. These frontline workers have been hailed as heroes, which we argue has led to the creation of an implicit psychological contract (the hero contract) between frontline workers and the public. Here, the heroes are willing to "go above and beyond" for the greater good, with the expectation that we (the public) do our part by adhering to public health guidelines. Where frontline workers perceive incongruence between the words and actions of others in working toward collective goals this drives negative affect and subsequent burnout. In this perspective article, we evaluate the cultural context of the pandemic in the UK and Ireland and suggest important socio-cultural factors that contribute to perceptions of solidarity, and how this may relate to burnout and worker welfare during and beyond the pandemic context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus pandemic has necessitated extraordinary human resilience in order to preserve and prolong life and social order. Risks to health and even life are being confronted by workers in health and social care, as well as those in roles previously never defined as "frontline," such as individuals working in community supply chain sectors. The strategy adopted by the United Kingdom (UK) government in facing the challenges of the pandemic was markedly different from other countries. The present study set out to examine what variables were associated with resilience, burnout, and wellbeing in all sectors of frontline workers, and whether or not these differed between the UK and Republic of Ireland (RoI). Individuals were eligible if they were a frontline worker (in health and social care, community supply chain, or other emergency services) in the UK or RoI during the pandemic. Part of a larger, longitudinal study, the participants completed an online survey to assess various aspects of their daily and working lives, along with their attitudes toward their government's handling of the crisis, and measurement of psychological variables associated with heroism (altruism, meaning in life, and resilient coping). A total of 1,305 participants (N = 869, 66.6% from the UK) provided sufficient data for analysis. UK-based workers reported lower wellbeing than the RoI-based participants. In multivariate models, both psychological and pandemic-related variables were associated with levels of resilience, burnout, and wellbeing in these workers, but which pandemic-related variables were associated with outcomes differed depending on the country. The judgment of lower timeliness in their government's response to the pandemic appeared to be a key driver of each outcome for the UK-based frontline workers. These findings provide initial evidence that the different strategies adopted by each country may be associated with the overall wellbeing of frontline workers, with higher detriment observed in the UK. The judgment of the relatively slow response of the UK government to instigate their pandemic measures appears to be associated with lower resilience, higher burnout, and lower wellbeing in frontline workers in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Arts for health interventions are an accepted option for medical management of mental wellbeing in health care. Updated findings are presented from a prospective longitudinal follow-up (observational) design study of an arts on referral programme in UK general practice, over a 7-year period (2009-2016). Methods: Primary care process and mental wellbeing outcomes were investigated, including progress through the intervention, changes in mental wellbeing, and factors associated with those outcomes. A total of n = 1297 patients were referred to an eight or 10-week intervention over a period from 2009 to 2016. Patient sociodemographic information was recorded at baseline, and patient progress (e.g. attendance) assessed throughout the intervention. Results: Of all referrals, 51.7% completed their course of prescribed art (the intervention). Of those that attended, 74.7% engaged with the intervention as rated by the artists leading the courses. A significant increase in wellbeing was observed from pre- to postintervention (t = -19.29, df = 523, P < 0.001, two-tailed) for those that completed and/or engaged. A sub sample (N= 103) of these referrals self-reported multi-morbidities. These multiple health care service users were majority completers (79.6%), and were rated as having engaged (81.0%). This group also had a significant increase in wellbeing, although this was smaller than for the group as a whole (t = -7.38, df=68, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Findings confirm that art interventions can be effective in the promotion of well-being for those that complete, including those referred with multi-morbidity, with significant changes in wellbeing evident across the intervention periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]