Author: Teng, Ziwei; Su, Yuhan; Chen, Jindong; Wu, Renrong; Tang, Hui; Wu, Haishan; Liu, Xuming; Ling, Heqiao; Yuan, Hui; Huang, Jing
Title: Sex Differences in Psychological Status and Fatigue of Frontline Staff After the COVID-19 Outbreak in China: A Cross-Sectional Study Cord-id: tbjojw58 Document date: 2021_9_8
ID: tbjojw58
Snippet: Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spreading globally, and it is significant to pay attention to the mental health of frontline staff in this pandemic. This study is aimed to explore the sex difference among the frontline staff in demographics, characteristics of mental state, and the potential relationship between them. Method: A total of 2,614 Chinese frontline staff were recruited. The Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) were used
Document: Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spreading globally, and it is significant to pay attention to the mental health of frontline staff in this pandemic. This study is aimed to explore the sex difference among the frontline staff in demographics, characteristics of mental state, and the potential relationship between them. Method: A total of 2,614 Chinese frontline staff were recruited. The Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) were used for assessing the mental status of frontline staff, and the Fatigue Self-Assessment Scale (FSAS) was used for detecting fatigue. Result: The prevalence rate of anxiety for female frontline staff is higher than that of male (P = 0.003), and the prevalence rate of depression is similar between them (P = 0.091). After comparing the risk factors of unhealthy mental state between different sexes, it is found that family income below 100,000 [depression: odds ratio (OR) 1.37; 95% CI, 1.08–1.73; anxiety: OR 1.99; 95% CI, 1.44–2.75], unsupported of family (depression: OR 10.94; 95% CI, 1.39–85.79; anxiety: OR 11.92; 95% CI, 3.80–37.36), and marriage (depression: OR 1.67; 95% CI, 1.15–2.43) are risk factors for male, and total fatigue (depression: OR 2.96; 95% CI, 1.46–6.02) is risk factor for female. Conclusions: This study found that depression and anxiety are widespread among the frontline staff of COVID-19, and anxiety showed a higher prevalence rate among female frontline staff. From the sex difference in risk factors, the focus of psychological interventions may differ between genders. Men with low family income, unsupported by family or marriage, and women with a high score of total fatigue required particular attention to their psychological status.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- acute sars cov respiratory syndrome coronavirus and local government: 1, 2
- acute sars cov respiratory syndrome coronavirus and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72
- acute sars cov respiratory syndrome coronavirus and logistic regression analysis: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72
- acute sars cov respiratory syndrome coronavirus and low education level: 1, 2, 3
- acute sars cov respiratory syndrome coronavirus and low family: 1
- acute sars cov respiratory syndrome coronavirus and lower score: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
- adolescence impact and logistic regression: 1
- adolescence impact and logistic regression analysis: 1
- local government and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
- local government and logistic regression analysis: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- logistic regression analysis and low education level: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
- logistic regression analysis and low family: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- logistic regression analysis and low family income: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- logistic regression analysis and lower score: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
- logistic regression and low education level: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
- logistic regression and low family: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
- logistic regression and low family income: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
- logistic regression and lower score: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72
- low family and lower score: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date