OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the extent and identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study across 17 countries during Jun-2020 to Jan-2021. Levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale), and coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale) were assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 8,559 people participated; mean age (±SD) was 33(±13) years, 64% were females and 40% self-identified as frontline workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (1.56 [1.29-1.90]), comorbidity with mental health conditions (3.02 [1.20-7.60]) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress and fear. Doctors had higher psychological distress (1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (1.30 [1.03-1.65]).
CONCLUSIONS: The extent of psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping varied by country; however, we identified few higher risk groups who were more vulnerable than others. There is an urgent need to prioritise health and well-being of those people through well-designed intervention that may need to be tailored to meet country specific requirements.
METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional study was conducted in 2023 with staff at HE institutions across 16 countries. Job insecurity was measured using the Job Insecurity Scale (JIS), burnout using the Perceived Burnout measure question, psychological distress using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), and coping using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Multivariable logistic regression with a stepwise variable selection method was used to identify associations.
RESULTS: A total of 2,353 staff participated; the mean age (± SD) was 43(± 10) years and 61% were females. Most staff (85%) did not feel job insecurity, one-third (29%) perceived burnout in their jobs, more than two-thirds (73%) experienced moderate to very high levels of psychological distress, and more than half (58%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping. Perceived job insecurity was associated with staff working part-time [Adjusted Odds Ratio 1.53 (95% Confidence Intervals 1.15-2.02)], having an academic appointment [2.45 (1.78-3.27)], having multiple co-morbidities [1.86 (1.41-2.48)], perceived burnout [1.99 (1.54-2.56)] and moderate to very high level of psychological distress [1.68 (1.18-2.39)]. Perceived burnout was associated with being female [1.35 (1.12-1.63)], having multiple co-morbidities [1.53 (1.20-1.97)], perceived job insecurity [1.99 (1.55-2.57)], and moderate to very high levels of psychological distress [3.23 (2.42-4.30)]. Staff with multiple co-morbidities [1.46 (1.11-1.92)], mental health issues [2.73 (1.79-4.15)], perceived job insecurity [1.61 (1.13-2.30)], and perceived burnout [3.22 (2.41-4.31)] were associated with moderate to very high levels of psychological distress. Staff who perceived their mental health as good to excellent [3.36 (2.69-4.19)] were more likely to have medium to high resilient coping.
CONCLUSIONS: Factors identified in this study should be considered in reviewing and updating current support strategies for staff at HE institutions across all countries to reduce stress and burnout and improve wellbeing.