Examining the Associations between Personal Protective Equipment, Training, Policy, and Acute Care Workers’ Psychological Distress during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated an association between low personal protective equipment (PPE) availability and high stress and anxiety among frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unclear how other factors, such as infection prevention and control (IPC) training and IPC policy support, correlate with workers’ distress. The current study explores these relationships. We conducted a secondary analysis of a public survey dataset from Statistics Canada. Acute care workers’ survey responses (n = 7379) were analyzed using structural equation modeling to examine relationships between features of the IPC work environment and acute care workers’ ratings of their stress and mental health. We found that PPE availability (β = −0.16), workplace supports (i.e., training, IPC policy compliance, and enforcement) (β = −0.16), and support for staying home when sick (β = −0.19) were all negatively correlated with distress. Together, these features explained 18.4% of the overall variability in workers’ distress. Among surveyed acute care workers, PPE availability was related to their distress; however, having workplace support and an emphasis on staying home when sick was also relevant. Overall, the results highlight that, in addition to PPE availability, workplace supports and emphasis on staying home are important. IPC professionals and healthcare leaders should consider these multiple features as they support acute care workers during future infectious disease 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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".