Logo Medical Science Monitor

Call: +1.631.470.9640
Mon - Fri 10:00 am - 02:00 pm EST

Contact Us

Logo Medical Science Monitor Logo Medical Science Monitor Logo Medical Science Monitor

25 July 2020: Clinical Research  

Factors Influencing Anxiety of Health Care Workers in the Radiology Department with High Exposure Risk to COVID-19

Lei Huang12ACDEF, Yun Wang13AB*, Juan Liu13B, Pengfei Ye13B, Xijian Chen13AB, Huayan Xu13ABG, Haibo Qu13B, Gang Ning13B

DOI: 10.12659/MSM.926008

Med Sci Monit 2020; 26:e926008

0 Comments

Abstract

BACKGROUND: During the outbreak of COVID-19, health care workers in the radiology department frequently interact with suspected patients and face a higher risk of infection and sudden surges in workload. High anxiety levels seriously harm physical and mental health and affect work efficiency and patient safety. Therefore, it is critical to determine anxiety levels of health care workers and explore its risk factors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale were used to evaluate the anxiety and resilience of 364 health care workers with high exposure risk from the radiology departments of 32 public hospitals in Sichuan Province, China. Multivariate linear regression was used to analyze factors related to anxiety.

RESULTS: The mean anxiety score was 44.28±8.93 and 23.4% of our study participants reported mild (n=63), moderate (n=19), or severe (n=3) anxiety. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that age, job position, availability of protective materials, signs of suspected symptoms, and susceptibility to emotions and behaviors of people around them were identified as risk factors for anxiety, whereas psychological resilience was identified as a protective factor.

CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the anxiety level of health care workers in the radiology department with a high exposure risk to COVID-19 was high in the early stage of the outbreak, although the majority remained within normal limits. Timely assessment and effective intervention measures can improve the mental health of these at-risk populations.

Keywords: Anxiety, COVID-19, Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient, Nuclear Receptor Subfamily 4, Group A, Member 2, Radiology Department, Hospital, Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, China, Coronavirus Infections, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diagnostic Self Evaluation, Fear, Health Personnel, Hospitals, Public, Middle Aged, Occupational Exposure, Pandemics, Pneumonia, Viral, Resilience, Psychological, Risk Factors, SARS-CoV-2, Sampling Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Socioeconomic Factors, Stress, Psychological, Workload

Background

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China that caused a new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) [1,2]. At first, SARS-CoV-2 mainly spread in China [3]. However, as the epidemic has continued to develop, COVID-19 is now considered a worldwide public health emergency [4]. By April 13, 2020, there are 1 773 084 confirmed cases and 111 652 deaths worldwide [4]. Prevention and control of the epidemic is urgent. COVID-19 is mainly transmitted through air droplets, aerosols, and direct contact [5,6], and it has been reported that asymptomatic carriers are the main cause of the rapid spread [7]. Clinical symptoms of COVID-19 are similar to influenza [8] and include fever, dry cough, and bilateral ground-glass opacities on chest computed tomography (CT) scans [9,10], making it challenging to detect in a timely manner.

Although the Chinese government took urgent and stringent actions to deal with the epidemic and prevent its wider spread [11], COVID-19 still spread across the country in the early stages of the outbreak. This situation not only brought great threat to public safety, but also affected mental health [12,13]. Recent studies have shown that negative emotions such as depression or anxiety have increased [14] with 8.4% of the Chinese public suffering from severe anxiety [15].

As the main place for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, hospitals are undoubtedly conducive to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and health care workers are at an increased of risk of infection [16,17]. A recent study found that stress disorders in Chinese health care workers are at a high level during this outbreak, and as many as 23.0% of first-line health care staff show anxiety [18]. Other studies also have shown a high prevalence of anxiety among health care workers treating patients with COVID-19 in China [19–21]. Considering that early diagnosis and screening of COVID-19 relies on CT or other diagnostic radiology examinations [22,23], the front-line staff face huge work pressure and a high risk of infection brought by the sudden surge of patients, and these workers are more likely to have psychological symptoms such as anxiety and fear.

While anxiety levels can benefit from keeping people away from pathogens [24,25], long-term negative emotions may negatively impact the immune system and disturb the physiological balance [26]. At the same time, people with high-level anxiety tend to seek out health-related information and reassurance from multiple doctors. This behavior may lead to increased cross infection and a waste of medical resources [27]. In addition, anxiety and other psychological problems in health care workers may lead to erroneous decisions that can seriously affect the diagnosis and treatment of patients [28,29].

There is no known information on the psychological anxiety of health care workers in radiology departments during the peak of the COVID-19 epidemic. Compared with other health care workers, the normal daily work load of radiology staff is relatively low with adequate work/rest balance and reduced chance of burnout due to anxiety [30,31]. Therefore, health care workers in the radiology department are a suitable population to observe the effect of the epidemic on anxiety symptoms. Our study represents the first psychological impact survey conducted in health care workers with a high exposure risk in radiology departments during the beginning of the outbreak in China. We aimed to understand the prevalence of psychological anxiety and identify risk and protective factors contributing to anxiety. A previous study showed that before effective approaches to support the mental health of health care professionals can be developed, it is critical to understand their specific sources of anxiety [32]. In addition, previous research showed that having good resilience can help medical health workers alleviate adverse effects brought on by various stresses [33], which is also conducive to coping with new difficulties and challenges in work and in daily life, and to having more positive expectations for the future [34]. Psychological resilience can play an important role, especially during serious epidemic and other emergencies. We also hope to determine the influence of a positive personality on anxiety by evaluating psychological resilience during the outbreak of COVID-19. This study may assist government agencies and health authorities in efforts to reduce the incidence of mental illness and safeguard the psychological well-being of health care workers at the front line, who work in radiology departments.

Material and Methods

ETHICAL APPROVAL:

The study research protocol was approved by the biomedical ethics committee of West China Hospital, Sichuan University. The online questionnaires in this study were anonymous. Participants gave informed consent before starting the online survey.

STUDY PARTICIPANTS:

From February 7, 2020 to February 9, 2020, 377 health care workers were randomly selected from the radiology departments of 32 public hospitals in Sichuan province to participate in our multicenter cross-sectional survey. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age of 18 years or older, (2) nurses and technicians working in the radiology departments, and (3) informed of the study and willing to participate in the survey. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) past substance abuse/dependence, (2) history of mental illness according to the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders version 3 (CCMD-3) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition (DSM-IV) [35], and (3) current brain lesion or serious physical disease. Participants were eliminated from the study when the online questionnaire was (1) filled out in a short time period (less than 2 minutes) and (2) there were obvious inconsistencies with the actual situation (the questionnaires were considered invalid if all the items of the SAS scale or the CD-RISD scale were presented with the highest or lowest scores). We included 364 health care workers in the final study population. The research was approved by the ethics committee of the corresponding research institutes and the online questionnaires in this study were anonymous. We used the Kendall’s sample size calculation formula: the number of independent variables * (15–20)=[16+(4+3)]*(15–20)=23*(15–20)=345–460; we added 10% of the sample size to reduce experimental error caused by a loss of sample size, so we set the minimum sample size required as 380. There were 377 cases finally enrolled in the study according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included 364 health care workers in the final study population after the invalid questionnaires were eliminated.

STUDY DESIGN:

An observational and cross-sectional study was conducted using the self-reported questionnaires. Demographic and social data from the health care workers were obtained. Levels of anxiety and resilience were measured using validated questionnaires and scoring systems. Mobile devices with the WeChat app were used to fill in the online questionnaire. All questionnaires were completed anonymously by the 377 participating health care workers. After completion of the survey, it was automatically checked for missing data and time spent, and screened for errors. The data were then checked by the research team and entered into the database.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL DATA:

Demographic and social data from the study participants included gender, age, work experience, education, marital status, job function, hospital classification, residence status, presence of suspected symptoms in the participant or family members, contact with confirmed/suspected patients at work, degree of knowledge about COVID-19, availability of adequate protective materials, susceptibility to emotions and behaviors of people around them, and fear of an uncontrollable epidemic and inability to pay rent or mortgage.

THE SELF-RATING ANXIETY SCALE (SAS):

The Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) [36] was used to measure the levels of anxiety of the health care workers. The SAS questionnaire contained 20 items consisting of 4 dimensions, with questions based on feelings of anxiety in the previous 7 days. All item scores were added together to obtain a rough score. The rough score was multiplied by 1.25, and the integer part was the standard score. The total score ranged from 25 to 100 points. Higher scores indicated higher levels of anxiety. The scores were grouped into the following 4 categories: no anxiety (<50 score); mild anxiety (50 to 59 score); moderate anxiety (60 to 69 score), and severe anxiety (≥70 score) [36]. In our study, Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.839.

THE CHINESE CONNOR-DAVIDSON RESILIENCE SCALE (CD-RISC):

The Chinese Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) [37] was used to assess the levels of resilience among health care workers. The CD-RISC questionnaire contains 3 dimensions with a total of 25 entries according to the feelings of the respondents in the past week. The frequency of symptoms was mainly evaluated for this study. The total score ranged from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating a higher resilience level [37]. In our study, Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.961.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

All analyses were performed in statistical software package (SPSS) 19.0 for Windows. According to the normal test, the total score of anxiety accorded with the normal distribution which was presented by mean±standard deviation (SD) or percentage, whereas age and work experience did not conform to normal distribution which is presented by median with interquartile range. Mean±SD and median with interquartile range were used to describe the continuous data, and percentage was used to describe the categorical variables. We used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) or the independent sample t tests for between-group comparisons. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to assess the effects of each variable in the anxiety scores. All the influencing factors with significant differences in the univariate analysis were used for further analysis in the multiple linear regression analysis. A P-value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS:

A total of 377 questionnaires were completed and the final data set included 364 valid questionnaires (96.6%). Among the 364 valid participants, the median age was 32 years (27–40 years) with a median work experience of 10 years (5–19 years); 150 participants were male (41%) and 214 participants were female (59%), and most participants were married (72.8%). The majority of health care workers had bachelor’s degree (66.5%) and lived with their families (78.0%). Despite working at the front line of the epidemic, 36.0% reported insufficient knowledge about COVID-19. Furthermore, 86.8% of the health care workers expressed concerns about the uncontrollable situation. Table 1 lists the demographic details of our study population.

The mean anxiety score measured by SAS was 44.28±8.93 and 23.4% of our study participants reported mild (n=63), moderate (n=19), or severe (n=3) anxiety (Table 2).

UNIVARIATE ANALYSES OF THE FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ANXIETY:

We conducted univariate analysis to study the demographic data listed in Table 1. The results revealed a significant difference in age (t=−2.554, P=0.011), gender (t=−2.937, P=0.004), job function (t=3.214, P=0.001), availability of adequate protective materials (F=5.874, P=0.001), presence of suspected symptoms in the participant (t=4.503, P<0.001), degree of knowledge about COVID-19 (t=1.978, P=0.049), susceptibility to emotions and behaviors of people around them (t=3.068, P=0.002), fear of an uncontrollable epidemic (t=2.382, P=0.018), and psychological resilience to anxiety (t=7.429, P<0.001) (Table 3). In addition, the results showed that compared with other groups, the anxiety level of health care workers who reported an extreme lack of protective materials was significantly higher.

MULTIVARIATE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF ANXIETY:

We defined anxiety level as the dependent variable; the significant variables from the univariate analysis in Table 3 were used as independent variables. Our analysis revealed that age older than 30 years (β=0.105, P=0.030), a nursing role (β=−0.110, P=0.021), a lack of protective materials (β=−0.122, P=0.011), presence of suspected symptoms in the participant (β=−0.208, P<0.001), and high susceptibility to emotions and behaviors of people around them (β=0.128, P=0.007) were identified as risk factors for anxiety, whereas psychological resilience (β=−0.349, P<0.001) was protective for the development of anxiety (Table 4).

Discussion

Our study revealed that the level of anxiety among health care workers in the radiology departments was high. In comparison, our study population showed higher anxiety than previous reports of other Chinese health care workers during this outbreak [18] and a great deal higher than the average in China [37]. However, other studies have shown that at an earlier stage of the outbreak, Chinese health care workers in fever clinics or intensive care units reported average anxiety scores as high as 55.26 [38]. This may be related to the fact that the daily basic anxiety level of medical workers in radiology departments is lower than that of those working in wards, which are characterized by higher work intensity and irregular cycles of work and rest. In addition, our study also revealed that even if anxiety develops, it is usually mild to moderate. The relatively low incidence and low severity of anxiety disorders in this study could be explained by the abruptness of the COVID-19 outbreak compared to other stressors. However, the passage of time and the development of the epidemic could lead to continuous exposure to stressors and more serious anxiety symptoms. Therefore, we should maintain our vigilance on reviewing the psychological health of front-line health care workers.

In contrast to previous studies that have found a lower risk of anxiety in people older than 40 years of age [3], our study found that with an increase in age, the anxiety level of medical workers at high risk of radiation exposure also increased. A survey of medical workers fighting the Ebola epidemic also supports our findings [39]. This may reveal that older individuals who undertake greater family responsibilities and who are more likely to make risk-based empirical estimates have a higher risk of anxiety in the face of a threat to survival. Hence, more psychological attention should be paid to health care workers older than 30 years of age.

Interestingly, we also found that the anxiety level of nurses was significantly higher than that of technicians in the radiology department. This is consistent with previous studies showing higher anxiety levels in nurses than other health care workers [18,40]. This could be due to a higher frequency of contact with patients by nurses than technicians, as nurses need to administer drugs to patients, manage patients, and disinfect the environment and equipment, whereas technicians only interact with patients during the imaging examinations.

One study showed that participants with suspected symptoms showed higher anxiety that was likely related to the fear of infection as a result of viral nucleic acid tests that could not be carried out rapidly [31]. A previous study also revealed that specific physical symptoms (e.g., myalgia, dizziness, and coryza) were significantly associated with higher levels of anxiety during the outbreak of COVID-19 [15]. In this study, the mean anxiety score of the group of participant with suspected symptoms was above the normal limit indicating that the occurrence of these symptoms had a significant effect on anxiety. Therefore, timely screening for SARS-CoV-2 in health care workers with suspected symptoms may be beneficial to relieve psychological pressure and anxiety. Moreover, it is critical for all health care workers to have a more accurate understanding of the symptoms of COVID-19.

Sufficient supply of protective materials is important to ensure the safety of health care workers during the outbreak of COVID-19 [41]. We demonstrated that a lack of protective materials in the hospital greatly increase the anxiety level. If health care workers cannot guarantee their own safety, then their work enthusiasm and efficiency will inevitably be low, in addition to the threat to their physical and mental health. Therefore, each hospital should strive to ensure the supply of protective materials is adequate, especially in local hospitals, in order to adequately protect staff and to alleviate their anxiety.

In the current study, we found that health care workers with a high susceptibility to the emotions and behaviors of people around them, that this trait may affect their stress experience. A previous study showed that emotions between people can be transferred, and susceptible individuals tend to more easily catch negative emotions from others [42]. Another study reported that husbands and wives more easily transferred anxiety to each other [43]. In addition, alternative/past trauma can have an important psychological impact on human interaction, which could increase anxiety [11]. Hence, health care workers should distance themselves from personal emotion in this exceptional situation and contact people with positive emotions and optimistic attitudes.

Our study also showed that psychological resilience has a protective effect on anxiety level. Resilience allows humans to maintain adaptability in the face of life adversities, threats, or other major stressful events [44]. Current research suggests that having good resilience can help health care workers alleviate the adverse effects brought on by negative emotions such as anxiety, anger, and frustration [45]. Therefore, resilience training for health care workers who have a high exposure risk can enhance their adaptability and resistance to difficulties and should be routinely emphasized and strengthened.

Our study had the following limitations. First, this study investigated health care workers from the province of Sichuan, and further study is needed to conduct supplementary surveys in other provinces in China to extend our findings. Second, we only surveyed the radiology staff and the results of our study may not be directly extrapolated to other health care workers as there could be differences between the radiology department and other departments. Third, our study analyzed the general information of health care workers and did not consider the impact of their environment and family support, which may affect the interpretation of our data. Fourth, this study used self-application surveys and the diagnosis of psychological condition among health care workers may be fragile. Finally, this was a cross-sectional study and no follow-up was conducted. Anxiety likely changes over time and the effectiveness of different coping strategies need to be further investigated.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, the anxiety level was high in health care workers who had a high exposure risk in the radiology departments, but the vast majority of the workers had anxiety that remained within normal limits. Timely assessment and effective measures to improve mental health should be taken for those health care workers who are more likely to surpass normal anxiety levels.

References

1. Wang C, Horby PW, Hayden FG, Gao GF, A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern: Lancet, 2020; 395(10223); 470-73

2. Yi Y, Lagniton PNP, Ye S, COVID-19: what has been learned and to be learned about the novel coronavirus disease: Int J Biol Sci, 2020; 16(10); 1753-66

3. Wang Y, Di Y, Ye J, Wei W, Study on the public psychological states and its related factors during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some regions of China: Psychol Health Med, 2020; 3(30); 1-10

4. World Health Organization (WHO): Situation report – 84, World Health Organization https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200413-sitrep-84-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=44f511ab_2

5. Singhal T, A review of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): Indian J Pediatr, 2020; 87(4); 281-86

6. Peng X, Xu X, Li Y, Transmission routes of 2019-nCoV and controls in dental practice: Int J Oral Sci, 2020; 12(1); 9

7. Cohen J, Normile D, New SARS-like virus in China triggers alarm: Science, 2020; 367(6475); 234-35

8. Ding Q, Lu P, Fan Y, The clinical characteristics of pneumonia patients coinfected with 2019 novel coronavirus and influenza virus in Wuhan, China: J Med Virol, 2020 [Online ahead of print

9. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China: Lancet, 2020; 395(10223); 497-506

10. Yang S, Shi Y, Lu H, Clinical and CT features of early-stage patients with COVID-19: A retrospective analysis of imported cases in Shanghai, China: Eur Respir J, 2020; 55(4) 2000407

11. Li Z, Ge J, Yang M, Vicarious traumatization in the general public, members, and non-members of medical teams aiding in COVID-19 control: Brain Behav Immun, 2020 [Online ahead of print]

12. Qiu J, Shen B, Zhao M, A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations: Gen Psychiatr, 2020; 33(2); e100213

13. Duan L, Zhu G, Psychological interventions for people affected by the COVID-19 epidemic: Lancet Psychiatry, 2020; 7(4); 300-2

14. Li S, Wang Y, Xue J, The Impact of COVID-19 epidemic declaration on psychological consequences: A study on active Weibo users: Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020; 17(6); 2302

15. Wang C, Pan R, Wan X, Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China: Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020; 17(5); 1729

16. Wu P, Fang Y, Guan Z, The psychological impact of the SARS epidemic on hospital employees in China: Exposure, risk perception, and altruistic acceptance of risk: Can J Psychiatry, 2009; 54(5); 302-11

17. Zhou P, Huang Z, Xiao Y, Protecting Chinese healthcare workers while combating the 2019 novel coronavirus: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2020; 5; 1-4

18. Huang JZ, Han MF, Luo TDMental health survey of 230 medical staff in a tertiary infectious disease hospital for COVID-19: Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi, 2020; 38(3); 192-95 [in Chinese]

19. Prasad K, Wahner-Roedler DL, Cha SS, Sood A, Effect of a single-session meditation training to reduce stress and improve quality of life among health care professionals: A “dose-ranging” feasibility study: Altern Ther Health Med, 2011; 17(3); 46-49

20. Cai W, Lian B, Song X, A cross-sectional study on mental health among health care workers during the outbreak of corona virus disease 2019: Asian J of Psychiatr, 2020; 51; 102111

21. Chou R, Dana T, Buckley DI, Epidemiology of and risk factors for coronavirus infection in health care workers: Ann Intern Med, 2020 [Online ahead of print]

22. Mossa-Basha M, Meltzer CC, Kim DC, Radiology department preparedness for COVID-19: Radiology scientific expert panel: Radiology, 2020 [Online ahead of print]

23. Salehi S, Abedi A, Balakrishnan S, Gholamrezanezhad A, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review of imaging findings in 919 patients: Am J Roentgenol, 2020; 215(1); 87-93

24. Norris FH, Friedman MJ, Watson PJ, 60,000 disaster victims speak: Part II. summary and implications of the disaster mental health research: Psychiatry, 2002; 65(3); 240-60

25. Slovic P, Perception of Risk: Science, 1987; 236(4799); 280-85

26. Kiecolt-Glaser JK, McGuire L, Robles TF, Glaser R, Emotions, morbidity, and mortality: New perspectives from psychoneuroimmunology: Annu Rev Psychol, 2002; 53; 83-107

27. Asmundson GJG, Taylor S, How health anxiety influences responses to viral outbreaks like COVID-19: What all decision-makers, health authorities, and health care professionals need to know: J Anxiety Disord, 2020; 71; 102211

28. Raghunathan R, Pham MT, All negative moods are not equal: Motivational influences of anxiety and sadness on decision making: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1999; 79(1); 56-77

29. Maner JK, Richey JA, Cromer K, Dispositional anxiety and risk-avoidant decision-making: Personality and Individual Differences, 2007; 42(4); 665-75

30. Albini E, Zoni S, Parrinello G, An integrated model for the assessment of stress-related risk factors in health care professionals: Ind Health, 2011; 49(1); 15-23

31. Shi Y, Guo H, Zhang S, Impact of workplace incivility against new nurses on job burn-out: A cross-sectional study in China: BMJ Open, 2018; 8(4); e020461

32. Shanafelt T, Ripp J, Trockel M, Understanding and addressing sources of anxiety among health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: JAMA, 2020 [Online ahead of print]

33. Brennan EJ, Towards resilience and wellbeing in nurses: Br J Nurs, 2017; 26(1); 43-47

34. Huang L, Wang Y, Liu J, Factors associated with resilience among medical staff in radiology departments during the outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A cross-sectional study: Med Sci Monit, 2020; 26; e925669

35. Zhang T, Wang L, Good M-JD, Prevalence of personality disorders using two diagnostic systems in psychiatric outpatients in Shanghai, China: A comparison of uni-axial and multi-axial formulation: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 2012; 47(9); 1409-17

36. Liu XC, Tang MQ, Peng XG, Factor analysis of Self-Rating Anxiety Scale: Chin J Nervous Mental Dis, 1995; 21(6); 359-60

37. Yu XN, Zhang JX, Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) with Chinese people: Social Behavior And Personality, 2007; 35(1); 19-30

38. Xiao H, Zhang Y, Kong D, The effects of social support on sleep quality of medical staff treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in January and February 2020 in China: Med Sci Monit, 2020; 26; e923549

39. Yang GY, Yan L, Wang WX, Zhao MX, Longitudinal investigation on mental health of army men sent to Liberia against Ebola: China Journal of Health Psychology, 2015; 37(22); 2229-36

40. Lai J, Ma S, Wang Y, Factors associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019: JAMA Netw Open, 2020; 3(3); e203976

41. Fang Y, Nie Y, Penny M, Transmission dynamics of the COVID-19 outbreak and effectiveness of government interventions: A data-driven analysis: J Med Virol, 2020; 92(6); 645-59

42. Dijk C, Fischer AH, Morina N, Effects of social anxiety on emotional mimicry and contagion: feeling negative, but smiling politely: J Nonverbal Behav, 2018; 42(1); 81-99

43. Stokes JE, Mutual influence and older married adults’ anxiety symptoms: Results from the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing: Gerontologist, 2017; 57(3); 529-39

44. American Psychology Association: The road to resilience [EB/OL] http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/road-resilience.aspx

45. Son H, Lee WJ, Kim HS, Hospital workers’ psychological resilience after the 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak: Soc Behav Pers, 2019; 47(2); 13

SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

09 December 2022 : Database Analysis  

A Retrospective Population Study of 385 191 Positive Real-Time Reverse Transcription–Polymerase Chain React...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.938872  

10 December 2022 : Clinical Research  

Retrospective Study to Identify Risk Factors for Severe Disease and Mortality Using the Modified Early Warn...

Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e938647

07 December 2022 : Clinical Research  

A Prospective Questionnaire-Based Study to Evaluate Factors Affecting the Decision to Receive COVID-19 Vacc...

Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e938665

In Press

09 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research  

Factors for In-Hospital Mortality in 145 Male Patients with Fournier’s Gangrene: A 10-Year Observational St...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.938578  

09 Dec 2022 : Database Analysis  

A Retrospective Population Study of 385 191 Positive Real-Time Reverse Transcription–Polymerase Chain React...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.938872  

09 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research  

Analysis of Serum Inflammatory Markers in Infants Under 6 Months of Age with Non-Syndromic Moderate and Sev...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.938165  

09 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research  

Analysis of Risk Factors of Potentially Difficult Endotracheal Intubation: A Retrospective Observational St...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.937965  

Most Viewed Current Articles

13 Nov 2021 : Clinical Research  

Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination and Its Associated Factors Among Cancer Patients Attending the Oncology ...

DOI :10.12659/MSM.932788

Med Sci Monit 2021; 27:e932788

30 Dec 2021 : Clinical Research  

Retrospective Study of Outcomes and Hospitalization Rates of Patients in Italy with a Confirmed Diagnosis o...

DOI :10.12659/MSM.935379

Med Sci Monit 2021; 27:e935379

01 Nov 2020 : Review article  

Long-Term Respiratory and Neurological Sequelae of COVID-19

DOI :10.12659/MSM.928996

Med Sci Monit 2020; 26:e928996

08 Mar 2022 : Review article  

A Review of the Potential Roles of Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Pharmacological Approaches for the Man...

DOI :10.12659/MSM.936292

Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e936292

Your Privacy

We use cookies to ensure the functionality of our website, to personalize content and advertising, to provide social media features, and to analyze our traffic. If you allow us to do so, we also inform our social media, advertising and analysis partners about your use of our website, You can decise for yourself which categories you you want to deny or allow. Please note that based on your settings not all functionalities of the site are available. View our privacy policy.

Medical Science Monitor eISSN: 1643-3750
Medical Science Monitor eISSN: 1643-3750