Immediate and Sustained Psychological Impact of an Emerging Infectious Disease Outbreak on Health Care Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the immediate and sustained psychological health of health care workers who were at high risk of exposure during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak. METHODS: At the peak of the 2003 SARS outbreak, we assessed health care workers in 2 acute care Hong Kong general hospitals with the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10). One year later, we reassessed these health care workers with the PSS-10, the 21-Item Depression and Anxiety Scale (DASS-21), and the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R). We recruited high-risk health care workers who practised respiratory medicine and compared them with nonrespiratory medicine workers, who formed the low-risk health care worker control group. RESULTS: In 2003, high-risk health care workers had elevated stress levels (PSS-10 score = 17.0) that were not significantly different from levels in low-risk health care worker control subjects (PSS-10 score = 15.9). More high-risk health care workers reported fatigue, poor sleep, worry about health, and fear of social contact, despite their confidence in infection-control measures. By 2004, however, stress levels in the high-risk group were not only higher (PSS-10 score = 18.6) but also significantly higher than scores among low-risk health care worker control subjects (PSS-10 score = 14.8, P < 0.05). In 2004, the perceived stress levels in the high-risk group were associated with higher depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress scores (P < 0.001). Posttraumatic stress scores were a partial mediator of the relation between the high risk of exposure to SARS and higher perceived stress. CONCLUSIONS: Health care workers who were at high risk of contracting SARS appear not only to have chronic stress but also higher levels of depression and anxiety. Front-line staff could benefit from stress management as part of preparation for future outbreaks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".