A. Parandeh, S. Ashtari, Farshid Rahimi-Bashar, Keivan Gohari-Moghadam, A. vahedian-azimi
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis study was to estimate the pooled prevalence of burnout among health care workers (HCWs), who worked in health centers during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) Questionnaire. A comprehensive search based on specific terms was performed through the online studies of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest, until January 2022. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) tool. Data analysis was carried out through the random-effects model, and the heterogeneity was investigated by I-2 statistic using the software STATA Version 16. In total, seven articles with 5,022 participants were included in the final analysis. Four studies with 4,419 participants reported the prevalence of burnout as percent in moderate and severe types for all three components of burnout syndrome. Our results showed that the 45% of pooled moderate and 37% of severe levels of emotional exhaustion, 49% of pooled moderate and 18% of severe levels of depersonalization, 38% of pooled moderate and 51% of pooled severe levels of reduced personal accomplishment. Whereas six studies with 4,838 sample size reported the mean prevalence of MBI-based burnout syndrome and the mean pooled prevalence of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and accomplishment was 21.57, 7.47, and 33.48, respectively. Based on our findings, HCWs who worked in health centers during COVID-19 outbreak, experienced significant burnout. Therefore, it is necessary to design and implement programs to deal with burnout among this populations. Public Significance Statement What is the public health significance of this article? This study suggests that health care workers (HCWs) who worked in health centers during the outbreak of COVID-19 and were in direct and/or indirect contact with COVID-19 patients experienced significant burnout. Burnout among HCWs is an important issue because it not only has an impact on their quality of life, but it can potentially affect the quality of care provided, increase medical errors, reduce patient safety, and even the influence on the mental health of their families and society. Therefore, it is necessary to design and implement programs to deal with burnout among this populations.
本系统回顾和荟萃分析研究的目的是基于Maslach倦怠量表(MBI)问卷，估计冠状病毒病(COVID-19)爆发期间在卫生中心工作的卫生保健工作者(HCWs)的倦怠总患病率。基于特定术语的综合搜索通过Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science和ProQuest的在线研究进行，直到2022年1月。采用美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)工具评估纳入研究的方法学质量。采用随机效应模型进行数据分析，采用STATA Version 16软件进行I-2统计分析异质性。总共有7篇涉及5022名参与者的文章被纳入最终分析。有4,419名参与者参与的四项研究报告了倦怠综合征所有三种组成部分的中度和重度倦怠患病率的百分比。结果表明，45%的中度和37%的重度情绪耗竭者，49%的中度和18%的重度人格解体者，38%的中度和51%的重度情绪耗竭者存在个人成就感的降低。而6项研究共4838个样本量报告了基于mbi的倦怠综合征的平均患病率，以及情绪衰竭、人格解体和成就感的平均合并患病率分别为21.57、7.47和33.48。根据我们的研究结果，在COVID-19爆发期间在卫生中心工作的医护人员经历了严重的倦怠。因此，有必要设计和实施方案来处理这一人群的职业倦怠。这篇文章的公共卫生意义是什么?该研究表明，在COVID-19爆发期间在卫生中心工作并直接和/或间接接触COVID-19患者的卫生保健工作者(HCWs)经历了严重的倦怠。医护人员的职业倦怠是一个重要问题，因为它不仅影响他们的生活质量，而且可能潜在地影响所提供的护理质量，增加医疗差错，降低患者安全，甚至影响其家庭和社会的心理健康。因此，有必要设计和实施方案来处理这一人群的职业倦怠。
{"title":"Prevalence of burnout among health care workers during coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"A. Parandeh, S. Ashtari, Farshid Rahimi-Bashar, Keivan Gohari-Moghadam, A. vahedian-azimi","doi":"10.1037/pro0000483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000483","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis study was to estimate the pooled prevalence of burnout among health care workers (HCWs), who worked in health centers during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) Questionnaire. A comprehensive search based on specific terms was performed through the online studies of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest, until January 2022. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) tool. Data analysis was carried out through the random-effects model, and the heterogeneity was investigated by I-2 statistic using the software STATA Version 16. In total, seven articles with 5,022 participants were included in the final analysis. Four studies with 4,419 participants reported the prevalence of burnout as percent in moderate and severe types for all three components of burnout syndrome. Our results showed that the 45% of pooled moderate and 37% of severe levels of emotional exhaustion, 49% of pooled moderate and 18% of severe levels of depersonalization, 38% of pooled moderate and 51% of pooled severe levels of reduced personal accomplishment. Whereas six studies with 4,838 sample size reported the mean prevalence of MBI-based burnout syndrome and the mean pooled prevalence of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and accomplishment was 21.57, 7.47, and 33.48, respectively. Based on our findings, HCWs who worked in health centers during COVID-19 outbreak, experienced significant burnout. Therefore, it is necessary to design and implement programs to deal with burnout among this populations. Public Significance Statement What is the public health significance of this article? This study suggests that health care workers (HCWs) who worked in health centers during the outbreak of COVID-19 and were in direct and/or indirect contact with COVID-19 patients experienced significant burnout. Burnout among HCWs is an important issue because it not only has an impact on their quality of life, but it can potentially affect the quality of care provided, increase medical errors, reduce patient safety, and even the influence on the mental health of their families and society. Therefore, it is necessary to design and implement programs to deal with burnout among this populations.","PeriodicalId":48217,"journal":{"name":"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46914867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hee-sun Kim, Seowon Yoon, Gaeun Son, E. Hong, Amanda B. Clinton, C. Grus, David Murphy, A. Siegel, E. Karayianni, M. Ezenwa, G. Zara, Germán Gutiérrez, Daniel Balva, J. Chey, Kee-Hong Choi
This study aimed to examine legal regulations on psychologists worldwide, such as those related to professional status and training models. An online survey was conducted by the Global Psychology Alliance and Asia Pacific Psychology Alliance members. The survey included information on the legal status of psychologists in 55 countries. Representatives of 28 countries provided their responses, whereas the information for 27 European countries’ legal status was obtained from research data reported by the European Commission in 2016. We found that 82% of the 55 countries included in this study regulated professions in the field of psychology by law. Regarding the title of the profession, 55% of included countries regulated the general “psychologist” profession. Results pertaining to educational requirements indicated that a master’s degree or higher was required in terms of education and training methods for general psychologists, amounting to an average period of 5.6 years. The professions regulated varied by continent-and country-specific circumstances and needs. Given the general overview of the worldwide legal statuses and training models investigated in this study, most countries in North America and Europe already have governmental regulation of the practice and title of psychologists, whereas other regions of the world are in the process of developing their own standards for education and training and may not have achieved legal regulation of psychologists yet.
{"title":"Regulations governing psychologists: An international survey.","authors":"Hee-sun Kim, Seowon Yoon, Gaeun Son, E. Hong, Amanda B. Clinton, C. Grus, David Murphy, A. Siegel, E. Karayianni, M. Ezenwa, G. Zara, Germán Gutiérrez, Daniel Balva, J. Chey, Kee-Hong Choi","doi":"10.1037/pro0000470","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000470","url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to examine legal regulations on psychologists worldwide, such as those related to professional status and training models. An online survey was conducted by the Global Psychology Alliance and Asia Pacific Psychology Alliance members. The survey included information on the legal status of psychologists in 55 countries. Representatives of 28 countries provided their responses, whereas the information for 27 European countries’ legal status was obtained from research data reported by the European Commission in 2016. We found that 82% of the 55 countries included in this study regulated professions in the field of psychology by law. Regarding the title of the profession, 55% of included countries regulated the general “psychologist” profession. Results pertaining to educational requirements indicated that a master’s degree or higher was required in terms of education and training methods for general psychologists, amounting to an average period of 5.6 years. The professions regulated varied by continent-and country-specific circumstances and needs. Given the general overview of the worldwide legal statuses and training models investigated in this study, most countries in North America and Europe already have governmental regulation of the practice and title of psychologists, whereas other regions of the world are in the process of developing their own standards for education and training and may not have achieved legal regulation of psychologists yet.","PeriodicalId":48217,"journal":{"name":"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45100980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Supplemental Material for Prevalence of Burnout Among Health Care Workers During Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/pro0000483.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000483.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48217,"journal":{"name":"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41677337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
L. Lind, Rachel N. Ward, Savannah G. Rose, L. Brown
Public Significance Statement The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the provision of mental health services in long-term care (LTC) settings, resulting in negative impacts not only for LTC residents who had previously been receiving mental health services but also the clinicians providing the services. This study examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health providers' ability to provide mental health services in LTC settings, patient functioning, and providers' personal well-being and professional functioning. The authors hope that information within this article will assist in elucidating critical insights that can serve as a guide for policymakers, administrators, employers, and mental health clinicians regarding the provision of mental health services to residents in LTC settings during future pandemics. Due to the rapid spread of COVID-19 in long-term care (LTC) settings and the subsequent mandatory visitor restrictions that were put in place, the provision of behavioral health services in LTC settings was impacted. To examine the pandemic's effect on the provision of psychological services in this setting and its impact on clinicians and their patients, we surveyed 126 licensed mental health clinicians working in LTC settings during the pandemic. The sample consisted of psychologists, social workers, and psychiatry mid-level practitioners from 31 states who had provided mental health care services in LTC settings during the initial 7 months after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency. This exploratory study revealed that the pandemic significantly impacted the availability and use of mental health services in LTC settings. Although there was a reported increase in the use of telehealth services compared to prepandemic frequency, it was noted that LTC residents went long periods of time without access to mental health services. Government-imposed visitor restrictions and pandemic-related restrictions were perceived as negatively impacting the emotional well-being, loneliness, and quality of life of LTC residents. Perceived factors contributing to the financial and emotional impact of COVID-19 on clinicians were explored, and it was noted that more than half of the sample reported experiencing burnout and nearly one third of surveyed clinicians believed they had experienced trauma by providing mental health services in LTC settings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding this impact has implications for providing mental health services during the current and future pandemics.
{"title":"The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychological service provision, mental health practitioners, and patients in long-term care settings: Results from a rapid response survey.","authors":"L. Lind, Rachel N. Ward, Savannah G. Rose, L. Brown","doi":"10.1037/pro0000486","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000486","url":null,"abstract":"Public Significance Statement The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the provision of mental health services in long-term care (LTC) settings, resulting in negative impacts not only for LTC residents who had previously been receiving mental health services but also the clinicians providing the services. This study examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health providers' ability to provide mental health services in LTC settings, patient functioning, and providers' personal well-being and professional functioning. The authors hope that information within this article will assist in elucidating critical insights that can serve as a guide for policymakers, administrators, employers, and mental health clinicians regarding the provision of mental health services to residents in LTC settings during future pandemics. Due to the rapid spread of COVID-19 in long-term care (LTC) settings and the subsequent mandatory visitor restrictions that were put in place, the provision of behavioral health services in LTC settings was impacted. To examine the pandemic's effect on the provision of psychological services in this setting and its impact on clinicians and their patients, we surveyed 126 licensed mental health clinicians working in LTC settings during the pandemic. The sample consisted of psychologists, social workers, and psychiatry mid-level practitioners from 31 states who had provided mental health care services in LTC settings during the initial 7 months after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a national emergency. This exploratory study revealed that the pandemic significantly impacted the availability and use of mental health services in LTC settings. Although there was a reported increase in the use of telehealth services compared to prepandemic frequency, it was noted that LTC residents went long periods of time without access to mental health services. Government-imposed visitor restrictions and pandemic-related restrictions were perceived as negatively impacting the emotional well-being, loneliness, and quality of life of LTC residents. Perceived factors contributing to the financial and emotional impact of COVID-19 on clinicians were explored, and it was noted that more than half of the sample reported experiencing burnout and nearly one third of surveyed clinicians believed they had experienced trauma by providing mental health services in LTC settings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding this impact has implications for providing mental health services during the current and future pandemics.","PeriodicalId":48217,"journal":{"name":"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48494540","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Karin Dangermond, R. Weewer, J. Duyndam, A. Machielse
{"title":"“The profession is just different”: Why noncareer and career firefighters have different experiences with critical incidents, and the role of informal peer support in processing them.","authors":"Karin Dangermond, R. Weewer, J. Duyndam, A. Machielse","doi":"10.1037/pro0000484","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000484","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48217,"journal":{"name":"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47976890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Melanie M. Wilcox, Stephanie Winkeljohn Black, Joanna M Drinane, Ingrid Morales-Ramirez, Zainab Akef, Karen W Tao, C. DeBlaere, J. Hook, Don E. Davis, C. Watkins, Jesse Owen
{"title":"Supplemental Material for A Brief Qualitative Examination of Multicultural Orientation in Clinical Supervision","authors":"Melanie M. Wilcox, Stephanie Winkeljohn Black, Joanna M Drinane, Ingrid Morales-Ramirez, Zainab Akef, Karen W Tao, C. DeBlaere, J. Hook, Don E. Davis, C. Watkins, Jesse Owen","doi":"10.1037/pro0000477.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000477.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48217,"journal":{"name":"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43208501","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Supplemental Material for Psychological Assessment Reports for Linguistically Minoritized Clients: Considerations for Ethical and Professional Practice","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/pro0000462.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000462.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48217,"journal":{"name":"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47049646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
interventions to utilization of social cognitive perspectives in promoting biodiversity conservation. Abstract A survey of psychologist s’ attitudes toward the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and its alternatives was conducted. Almost 90% of psychologists reported regularly consulting DSM-5, despite dissatisfaction with it. However, opinions varied by theoretical orientation. Cognitive-behavioral psychologists held positive attitudes about DSM, whereas psychodynamic and humanistic/constructivist/systems psychologists were negatively inclined toward it. Integrative/eclectic psychologists were in between. Diagnostic codes and identifying pathology were seen as DSM-5 ’s biggest advantages, and the medicalization of psychosocial problems and obscuring individual differences as its biggest disadvantages. Psychologists supported developing alternatives to DSM-5, but when asked about six alternatives — International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual 2 (PDM), Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD), Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), and Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF) — they were generally unfamiliar with them except for ICD. Although not wishing to abandon the medical model, psychologists (except for cognitive-behaviorists) said DSM-5 relies too much on medical semantics and questioned whether mental disorders should be considered a subset of medical disorders. Overall, psychologists use DSM for practical reasons (diagnostic categories and codes) more than scientific ones (validity and reliability). This finding affirms something remarkable: Despite ongoing attention to revising and improving DSM over the past four decades, psychologists remain lukewarm toward it and strongly interested in alternatives. However, until alternatives are better known and provide the necessary practical advantages, psychologists will likely continue to use DSM despite their mixed feelings about it.
{"title":"Psychologist attitudes toward DSM-5 and its alternatives.","authors":"J. Raskin, D. Maynard, Michael C. Gayle","doi":"10.1037/pro0000480","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000480","url":null,"abstract":"interventions to utilization of social cognitive perspectives in promoting biodiversity conservation. Abstract A survey of psychologist s’ attitudes toward the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and its alternatives was conducted. Almost 90% of psychologists reported regularly consulting DSM-5, despite dissatisfaction with it. However, opinions varied by theoretical orientation. Cognitive-behavioral psychologists held positive attitudes about DSM, whereas psychodynamic and humanistic/constructivist/systems psychologists were negatively inclined toward it. Integrative/eclectic psychologists were in between. Diagnostic codes and identifying pathology were seen as DSM-5 ’s biggest advantages, and the medicalization of psychosocial problems and obscuring individual differences as its biggest disadvantages. Psychologists supported developing alternatives to DSM-5, but when asked about six alternatives — International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual 2 (PDM), Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD), Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), and Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF) — they were generally unfamiliar with them except for ICD. Although not wishing to abandon the medical model, psychologists (except for cognitive-behaviorists) said DSM-5 relies too much on medical semantics and questioned whether mental disorders should be considered a subset of medical disorders. Overall, psychologists use DSM for practical reasons (diagnostic categories and codes) more than scientific ones (validity and reliability). This finding affirms something remarkable: Despite ongoing attention to revising and improving DSM over the past four decades, psychologists remain lukewarm toward it and strongly interested in alternatives. However, until alternatives are better known and provide the necessary practical advantages, psychologists will likely continue to use DSM despite their mixed feelings about it.","PeriodicalId":48217,"journal":{"name":"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43596369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Luona Lin, K. Stamm, Krag S Ferenz, C. V. Wright, Sophie Bethune, Jessica Conroy
Public Significance Statement This study is among the first in examining the relationship between challenges with the use of telehealth and psychologists' response during the coronavirus pandemic, highlighting the need to address both provider and patient barriers to telehealth that influence provider well-being. Allowing flexibility in policies, regulations, and format of service delivery and making telehealth training opportunities and resources available are key to ensure a healthy behavioral workforce and the continued delivery of health care services. The coronavirus pandemic drastically altered the landscape of mental health care delivery as psychologists pivoted to telehealth and grappled with increasing population mental health care needs. Despite the rapid shift to telehealth, many challenges on both the provider and patient sides remain. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between challenges with the use of telehealth and psychologists' response during the pandemic. The study used survey data from 1,679 doctoral-level licensed psychologists who provided services via telehealth during September-October 2020. Results from ordered logistic and ordinary least squares regressions suggest that the degree of telehealth challenge psychologists experienced was not statistically associated with workload, patient load, or ability to meet patient demand during the pandemic. However, the degree of telehealth challenge patients experienced was significantly associated with these outcomes. The fewer patients who experienced telehealth challenges, the more psychologists were able to maintain or increase their workload and patient load and meet patient demand. Telehealth challenges experienced by both psychologists and their patients were associated with psychologists' mental health. Psychologists experiencing fewer telehealth challenges, and having fewer patients experiencing telehealth challenges, were more likely to report lower stress levels, be able to practice self-care and maintain positive work-life balance, and less likely to experience burnout. Findings of this study have clear policy implications to encourage continued telehealth after the public health emergency ends and address barriers to effectively utilize telehealth. These measures are critical to supporting the health service psychologist workforce and maintaining the continuity of mental health care.
{"title":"Relationship between challenges with the use of telehealth and psychologists’ response during the coronavirus pandemic.","authors":"Luona Lin, K. Stamm, Krag S Ferenz, C. V. Wright, Sophie Bethune, Jessica Conroy","doi":"10.1037/pro0000481","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000481","url":null,"abstract":"Public Significance Statement This study is among the first in examining the relationship between challenges with the use of telehealth and psychologists' response during the coronavirus pandemic, highlighting the need to address both provider and patient barriers to telehealth that influence provider well-being. Allowing flexibility in policies, regulations, and format of service delivery and making telehealth training opportunities and resources available are key to ensure a healthy behavioral workforce and the continued delivery of health care services. The coronavirus pandemic drastically altered the landscape of mental health care delivery as psychologists pivoted to telehealth and grappled with increasing population mental health care needs. Despite the rapid shift to telehealth, many challenges on both the provider and patient sides remain. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between challenges with the use of telehealth and psychologists' response during the pandemic. The study used survey data from 1,679 doctoral-level licensed psychologists who provided services via telehealth during September-October 2020. Results from ordered logistic and ordinary least squares regressions suggest that the degree of telehealth challenge psychologists experienced was not statistically associated with workload, patient load, or ability to meet patient demand during the pandemic. However, the degree of telehealth challenge patients experienced was significantly associated with these outcomes. The fewer patients who experienced telehealth challenges, the more psychologists were able to maintain or increase their workload and patient load and meet patient demand. Telehealth challenges experienced by both psychologists and their patients were associated with psychologists' mental health. Psychologists experiencing fewer telehealth challenges, and having fewer patients experiencing telehealth challenges, were more likely to report lower stress levels, be able to practice self-care and maintain positive work-life balance, and less likely to experience burnout. Findings of this study have clear policy implications to encourage continued telehealth after the public health emergency ends and address barriers to effectively utilize telehealth. These measures are critical to supporting the health service psychologist workforce and maintaining the continuity of mental health care.","PeriodicalId":48217,"journal":{"name":"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41886420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Supplemental Material for Relationship Between Challenges With the Use of Telehealth and Psychologists’ Response During the Coronavirus Pandemic","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/pro0000481.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000481.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48217,"journal":{"name":"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44247400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：