Coping strategies, resilience and quality of life: reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic among Romanian physicians.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-05-07 DOI:10.1186/s12960-024-00909-w
Cătălina Angela Crișan, Răzvan Pop, Roland Stretea, Zaki Milhem, Alina-Ioana Forray
{"title":"Coping strategies, resilience and quality of life: reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic among Romanian physicians.","authors":"Cătălina Angela Crișan, Răzvan Pop, Roland Stretea, Zaki Milhem, Alina-Ioana Forray","doi":"10.1186/s12960-024-00909-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic has presented multiple psychological challenges for healthcare workers, such as anxiety, depression, burnout, and substance use disorders. In this research, we investigate the different ways Romanian physicians dealt with the difficult period of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also analyze how positive and negative stress-reducing strategies, as well as demographic variables, affect their psychological resilience and quality of life. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive overview of how physicians coped with the unprecedented global health challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out a national cross-sectional study of 265 physicians in Romania between January 2021 and January 2022 using a web-based questionnaire. The study employed a web-based questionnaire to assess coping mechanisms using the COPE inventory, resilience through the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 25 (CD-RISC 25), and quality of life via the WHOQOL-BREF scale. The COPE inventory, consisting of 60 items across 15 subscales, categorizes coping strategies into problem-focused, emotion-focused, and dysfunctional types, with each item rated on a 4-point scale. The CD-RISC 25 measures resilience on a 5-point Likert scale, with total scores ranging from 0 to 100. WHOQOL-BREF assesses quality of life through 26 items in 4 domains: physical, mental, social relations, and environmental, scored from 1 to 5 and converted to a 0-100 scale for domain scores. Univariate and multivariate linear regression models were employed to discern the intricate relationships between coping strategies, resilience levels, quality of life dimensions, and pertinent demographic factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average CD-RISC score among participants was 66.2. The mean scores for the values for the QOL subscales were 64.0 for physical well-being, 61.7 for psychological well-being, 61.2 for social relationships, and 64.7 for environment. Individuals tend to use problem-focused and emotion-focused coping more than dysfunctional mechanisms, according to the COPE inventory. Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping are positively correlated with resilience, while dysfunctional coping is negatively correlated. Resilience is significantly influenced by gender and professional status, with males and senior specialists reporting higher levels while younger physicians and residents reporting lower levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our data points to specific protective characteristics and some detrimental factors on physicians' resilience and quality of life during the pandemic.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11075254/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-024-00909-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented multiple psychological challenges for healthcare workers, such as anxiety, depression, burnout, and substance use disorders. In this research, we investigate the different ways Romanian physicians dealt with the difficult period of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also analyze how positive and negative stress-reducing strategies, as well as demographic variables, affect their psychological resilience and quality of life. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive overview of how physicians coped with the unprecedented global health challenges.

Methods: We carried out a national cross-sectional study of 265 physicians in Romania between January 2021 and January 2022 using a web-based questionnaire. The study employed a web-based questionnaire to assess coping mechanisms using the COPE inventory, resilience through the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 25 (CD-RISC 25), and quality of life via the WHOQOL-BREF scale. The COPE inventory, consisting of 60 items across 15 subscales, categorizes coping strategies into problem-focused, emotion-focused, and dysfunctional types, with each item rated on a 4-point scale. The CD-RISC 25 measures resilience on a 5-point Likert scale, with total scores ranging from 0 to 100. WHOQOL-BREF assesses quality of life through 26 items in 4 domains: physical, mental, social relations, and environmental, scored from 1 to 5 and converted to a 0-100 scale for domain scores. Univariate and multivariate linear regression models were employed to discern the intricate relationships between coping strategies, resilience levels, quality of life dimensions, and pertinent demographic factors.

Results: The average CD-RISC score among participants was 66.2. The mean scores for the values for the QOL subscales were 64.0 for physical well-being, 61.7 for psychological well-being, 61.2 for social relationships, and 64.7 for environment. Individuals tend to use problem-focused and emotion-focused coping more than dysfunctional mechanisms, according to the COPE inventory. Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping are positively correlated with resilience, while dysfunctional coping is negatively correlated. Resilience is significantly influenced by gender and professional status, with males and senior specialists reporting higher levels while younger physicians and residents reporting lower levels.

Conclusions: Our data points to specific protective characteristics and some detrimental factors on physicians' resilience and quality of life during the pandemic.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应对策略、复原力和生活质量:罗马尼亚医生对 COVID-19 大流行的反应。
背景:COVID-19 大流行给医护人员带来了多重心理挑战,如焦虑、抑郁、职业倦怠和药物使用障碍。在本研究中,我们调查了罗马尼亚医生应对 COVID-19 大流行这一困难时期的不同方式。我们还分析了积极和消极的减压策略以及人口统计学变量如何影响他们的心理复原力和生活质量。我们的目标是全面概述医生如何应对前所未有的全球健康挑战:我们在 2021 年 1 月至 2022 年 1 月期间使用网络问卷对罗马尼亚的 265 名医生进行了一项全国性横断面研究。研究采用网络问卷,通过 COPE 清单评估应对机制,通过 Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 25 (CD-RISC 25) 评估复原力,通过 WHOQOL-BREF 量表评估生活质量。COPE 量表由 15 个分量表的 60 个项目组成,将应对策略分为问题型、情绪型和功能失调型,每个项目采用 4 分制评分。CD-RISC 25 采用李克特(Likert)5 点量表来测量抗逆力,总分从 0 到 100 分不等。WHOQOL-BREF 通过身体、精神、社会关系和环境 4 个领域的 26 个项目来评估生活质量,分值从 1 到 5,并转换成 0-100 的领域分数。我们采用了单变量和多变量线性回归模型来分析应对策略、复原力水平、生活质量维度和相关人口学因素之间的复杂关系:参与者的 CD-RISC 平均分为 66.2 分。QOL 子量表的平均值为:身体健康 64.0 分,心理健康 61.7 分,社会关系 61.2 分,环境 64.7 分。根据 COPE 清单,与功能失调机制相比,个人更倾向于使用以问题为中心和以情绪为中心的应对机制。注重问题和情感的应对方式与复原力呈正相关,而功能障碍应对方式与复原力呈负相关。复原力受性别和职业地位的影响很大,男性和资深专家的复原力较高,而年轻医生和住院医生的复原力较低:我们的数据表明,在大流行期间,医生的复原力和生活质量具有特定的保护特征和一些不利因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
期刊最新文献
Hyperbaric oxygen treatment promotes tendon-bone interface healing in a rabbit model of rotator cuff tears. Oxygen-ozone therapy for myocardial ischemic stroke and cardiovascular disorders. Comparative study on the anti-inflammatory and protective effects of different oxygen therapy regimens on lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury in mice. Heme oxygenase/carbon monoxide system and development of the heart. Hyperbaric oxygen for moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury: outcomes 5-8 years after injury.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1