Acute Stress Response Profiles in Health Workers Facing SARS-CoV-2

Luca Moderato; Davide Lazzeroni; Annalisa Oppo; Francesco Dell'Orco; Paolo Moderato; Giovambattista Presti

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660156

Acute Stress Response Profiles in Health Workers Facing SARS-CoV-2

Front Psychol. 2021 May 31:12:660156. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660156. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Luca Moderato¹, Davide Lazzeroni², Annalisa Oppo³, Francesco Dell'Orco⁴, Paolo Moderato^{4

5}, Giovambattista Presti^{4

6}

Affiliations

¹ Guglielmo da Saliceto Hospital, Piacenza, Italy.
² IRCCS Fondazione Don Gnocchi, Florence, Italy.
³ Department of Psychology, Sigmund Freud University, Milan, Italy.
⁴ Istituto Europeo per lo Studio del Comportamento Umano, ONLUS, Parma, Italy.
⁵ Department BLEC, Libera Università di Lingue e Comunicazione IULM, Milan, Italy.
⁶ Department of Human and Social Sciences, Kore University of Enna, Enna, Italy.

Abstract

Objective: The study is an explorative investigation aimed to assess the differences in acute stress response patterns of health workers facing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during Italy's first lockdown.

Methods: A cross-sectional investigation using convenience sampling method was conducted in Italy during April 2020. Eight hundred fifty-eight health workers participated in the research filling out self-report measures including Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R).

Results: Moderate/severe depression was found in 28.9% (95% CI, 25.8-32.04), moderate/severe anxiety in 55.4% (95% CI, 51.9-58.8), insomnia in 15% (95% CI, 12.5-17.5), and distress in 52.5% (95% CI, 48.5%-56.6) of participants. The 3% of health workers reported frequent suicidal thoughts. Female sex, working for >15 h/week in a COVID-19 unit, and living apart from family were associated with a significantly higher risk of distress, anxiety, insomnia, depression, and functional impairment. Four profiles were identified on the basis of psychopathological measures: Profile_0 included 44% (N = 270); Profile_1, 25.6% (N = 157); Profile_2, 19.1% (N = 117); and Profile_3, 11.3% (N = 69) of participants. Results showed a significant effect for Profiles X IES-R (η² = 0.079; f = 0.29), indicating that in all profiles, except for Profile_0, avoidance scale is lower than hyperarousal and intrusion symptoms scales of the IES-R. This characteristic could be a probable index of the control exerted by the responders to not fly away from their job.

Conclusion: The identification of specific profiles could help psychiatrists and emergency psychologists to build specific interventions in terms of both primary and secondary prevention to face future waves of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Keywords: COVID-19; Italy; PTSD profiles; SARS-CoV-2; descriptive survey study; distress symptoms; health workers; lockdown.