Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2021 Dec 15;1(12):e0000083. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000083

Corona virus fear among health workers during the early phase of pandemic response in Nepal: A web-based cross-sectional study

Pratik Khanal 1, Kiran Paudel 1,2,*, Navin Devkota 3, Minakshi Dahal 4, Shiva Raj Mishra 5, Devavrat Joshi 3
Editor: Vaibhav Saria6
PMCID: PMC10022105  PMID: 36962105

Abstract

Health workers involved in the COVID-19 response might be at risk of developing fear and psychological distress. The study aimed to identify factors associated with COVID-19 fear among health workers in Nepal during the early phase of the pandemic. A web-based survey was conducted in April-May 2020 among 475 health workers directly involved in COVID-19 management. The Fear Scale of COVID 19 (FCV-19S) was used to measure the status of fear. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with COVID fear. The presence of COVID-19 fear was moderately correlated with anxiety and depression, and weakly correlated with insomnia. Nurses, health workers experiencing stigma, working in affected district, and presence of family members with chronic diseases were significantly associated with higher odds of developing COVID-19 fear. Based on the study findings, it is recommended to improve the work environment to reduce fear among health workers, employ stigma reduction interventions, and ensure personal and family support for those having family members with chronic diseases.

Introduction

The psychological implications as a result of disease outbreaks are often neglected by the health system [13], although studies have found that the proportion of mental health effects is higher than the effect of a particular disease during epidemics [4]. One of the emotions involved in mental health outcomes in people during disease outbreaks is fear. It is an adaptive defense mechanism which when become chronic can lead to adverse mental health effects [5, 6]. The progressive nature and scientific uncertainties related to infectious diseases create fear among people especially when the infection and death rate is alarming [7].

The onslaught of COVID 19 is currently burdening the health systems and paralyzing economies across the world. Nepal, a South-Asian country, ranking low in health security index (111 out of 195 countries) [8] is not an exception from the threat of COVID-19. The country reported its first case on January 23, 2020 [9, 10], and the total infection toll reached 8,13,011 cases along with 11416 deaths as of November 1, 2021 [11]. The increasing rate of infection is putting a strain on its already compromised health system [12]. Health care workers who are at the frontline of managing COVID 19 are prone to developing adverse mental health outcomes during this situation. They are likely to develop fear attributed to their close and longer interaction with suspected patients, a better understanding of disease development, and its progression [13]. Early evidence has shown increased work pressure, inadequate protective measures, risk of infection, and transmission of infection to family members, limited organizational support and exhaustion contributing to adverse mental outcomes including fear in health care workers [3, 1416]. Fear and stress experienced by health workers affect their work, behaviour and health outcomes [3, 17].

Nepal is a low-and middle-income country whose health system is constrained by inadequate human resources (0.7 doctor and 3.1 nurses per 1000 population) [18], low health system preparedness to disasters and health emergencies, weak coordination between the federal, province and local governments, limited diagnostic facilities, and lack of critical health care resources [19]. The limited health system capacity and poor quarantine management by local administration might have added burden on health workers including propagation of COVID-19 fear [20]. Further, Nepal’s health system in the recent past has been regularly affected by disasters such as Gorkha Earthquake 2015, Indo-Nepal border closure, outbreaks of infectious diseases, floods, and landslides among others. COVID-19 outbreak and its consequences including lockdown, loss of economy, disruption in regular health services, lack of critical resources including oxygen and protective equipment and inadequate financial motivation among health workers have further crippled the country’s health system capacity including its health workers [21].

The understanding of fear and other psychological outcomes among health workers has not received much attention during the early phase of the pandemic. Limited studies so far have investigated the mental health impact of COVID-19 among health workers in Nepal. In this regard, this study aims to assess the status of COVID-19 fear among health workers involved in the COVID-19 response in Nepal. In addition, this study aims to explore the relationship of COVID-19 fear with other mental health outcomes among health workers.

Materials and methods

Study design, participants, and procedures

A total of 475 health workers participated in the study. A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted among health workers directly involved in COVID-19 management between April 26 and May 12 in 2020. Social media groups of professional organizations were identified, and health workers were requested for their interest in participating in the study. Study objectives were explained in the google forms, and e-informed consent was taken from all the participants before the data collection. Those health workers who expressed interest were personally invited to fill up the Google forms. Health workers were required to provide their valid email address for quality control purposes. The inclusion criteria for the study were those aged 18 years and above, currently working in Nepal, and involved in the COVID-19 response. The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Review Board of the Nepal Health Research Council (Registration number: 2192; 315/2020). Details about the recruitment and the demographic details of the study participants have been mentioned in an article published elsewhere [22].

Measures

The fear scale of COVID 19 (FCV-19S) was used in the study to assess the fear among health workers. It is a relatively new scale developed in 2020 [3] and has been used in different countries including India [13], Bangladesh [23], Israel [24], Italy [25], Turkey [26] and Eastern Europe [27]. The FCV-19S has seven items and five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 to 5, with lower and higher values indicating strongly disagree and strongly agree, respectively. The total scores range between 7 and 35, and higher the score, higher the fear of COVID-19. Similarly, the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used for measuring anxiety (HADS-A, 7 items) and depression (HADS-D, 7 items), and the 7-item Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) was used for measuring insomnia.

Sociodemographic information included age (up to 40, >40 years), gender (male, female), ethnicity (Brahmin/Chhetri, Janajati and others), educational qualification (Intermediate and below, bachelor, and masters and above), marital status (single, ever married), family type (nuclear and joint), profession (doctors, nurses, others), living with children (yes, no), living with older adults (yes, no), presence of chronic disease among family members (yes, no) and history of medication for mental health problems (yes, no). Similarly, job-related variables included type of health facility (primary and, secondary and tertiary), work experience (up to 5 and >5 years), work role in COVID-19 response (frontline, second line), adequacy of precautionary measures in the work place, (not sufficient, sufficient), awareness of government incentives for health workers (yes, no), perceived stigma (yes, no, do not want to answer), working in the affected district (yes, no) working overtime (yes, no) and change in regular job duty during COVID-19 (yes, no). Working in the affected district was defined as a district with at least one case during the time of data collection.

Data analysis

The sociodemographic and job related characteristics, and itemwise response of the FCV-19S are presented as frequencies and percentages. The pattern of the relationship between FCV-19S and other psychometric tools (HADS-A, HADS-D and ISI) was explored by calculating the correlation coefficient (S2 Table). The outcome variable was not normally distributed so for analysis purposes, the median value obtained from FCV-19S was calculated and those having scored more than the median (>16) were categorized as the presence of fear and less than or equal to median as an absence of fear of COVID-19. A chi-square test was performed between categorical independent and categorical dependent variables (S3 Table) and those variables significant at the 10% significance level were fitted in the multivariable logistic regression model [28]. In the regression model, the effects of gender, ethnicity, profession, education, working in the affected district, family member with chronic disease, faced stigma, precautionary measures in the workplace, awareness about government incentive and history of medication for mental health problems were adjusted. Strength of the association was determined by an adjusted odd ratio (AOR) at 95% confidence interval (CI). One of the independent variables, history of medication for mental health problems was also fitted into the model although it was not significant in the bivariate analysis as it was supposed to alter psychological outcomes [29]. The variance inflation factor (VIF) was measured before conducting multivariable logistic regression analysis which did not detect multicollinearity (VIF value less than 1.3).

Results

Socio-demographic and job- related characteristics of health workers

Table 1 shows the sociodemographic and job-related characteristics of health workers. Among 475 health workers, 52.6% were female and 65.9% belonged to the Brahmin/Chhetri ethnic group. The professional category comprised of nurses (35.2%), doctors (33.9%), paramedics (17.9%) and other health professionals (13%). Likewise, 25.1% were living with children, 34.3% were living with an elderly, 54.5% had a family member with a chronic medical condition and 4.6% had a history of medication for mental health problems. The majority of the health workers in this study (82.3%) worked in either secondary or tertiary level health facilities. The proportion of health workers reporting insufficient precautionary measures in the workplace, facing stigma, awareness of government incentives for health workers, change in job duties during COVID-19 and working overtime was 78.9%, 53.7%, 56.8%, 70.3% and 49.1% respectively.

Table 1. Sociodemographic and job-related characteristics of health workers.

Variables Category N (%) Variables Category N (%)
Age (years) Living with elderly (>60 years)
20–29 325 (68.4) Yes 163 (34.3)
30–39 124 (26.1) No 312 (65.7)
40–49 19 (4.0) Family member with a chronic medical condition
50 and above 7 (1.5) Yes 259 (54.5)
Mean age in years (±SD) 28.20 (±5.80) No 216 (45.5)
Sex History of medication for mental health
Male 225 (47.4) Yes 22 (4.6)
Female 250 (52.6) No 453 (95.4)
Ethnicity Type of health facility
Brahmin/Chhetri 313 (65.9) Primary 84 (17.7)
Janjati 110 (23.2) Secondary and tertiary 391 (82.3)
Madheshi 52 (6.1) Work role
Dalit 7 (1.5) Front line 215 (45.3)
Others 16 (3.4) Second line 260 (54.7)
Education Work experience (years)
Intermediate and below 94 (19.8) Up to 5 336 (70.7)
Bachelors 277 (58.3) >5 139 (29.3)
Masters and above 104 (21.9) Precautionary measures in the workplace
Position Sufficient 100 (21.1)
Nurse 167 (35.2) Not sufficient 375 (78.9)
Doctor 161 (33.9) Experience of stigma due to occupation
Paramedics 81 (17.1) Yes 255 (53.7)
Public health professional 32 (6.7) No 199 (41.9)
Laboratory staff 19 (4.0) Do not want to answer 21 (4.4)
Pharmacist 15 (3.2) Aware of government incentives for health workers
Marital status Yes 270 (56.8)
Single 299 (62.9) No 205 (43.2)
Ever married 176 (37.1) Change in regular job duties during COVID-19
Family type Yes 334 (70.3)
Nuclear 308 (64.8) No 141 (29.7)
Joint 167 (35.2) Working overtime during COVID-19
Living with children Yes 233 (49.1)
Yes 119 (25.1) No 242 (50.9)
No 356 (74.9)

Itemwise distribution of response of FCV-19S

Table 2 shows the itemwise distribution of response of FCV-19S. The proportion of health workers who either strongly agree or agree to the individual items of FCV-19S was highest (32.5%) for ‘When watching news and stories about corona on social media, I become nervous and anxious’ and lowest (7.3%) for ‘I cannot sleep because I am worrying about getting Corona’. The descriptive analysis of the items of the FCV-19S is shown in S1 Table.

Table 2. Itemwise distribution of responses.

Scale Items Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
FCV-19 S1 I am most afraid of corona virus disease-19 65 (13.7) 150 (31.6) 132 (27.8) 103 (21.7) 25 (5.3)
FCV-19 S2 It makes me uncomfortable to think about corona 80 (16.8) 177 (37.3) 84 (17.7) 122(25.7) 12 (2.5)
FCV-19 S2 My hands become clammy when I think about corona 159 (33.5) 196 (41.3) 74 (15.6) 40 (8.4) 6 (1.3)
FCV-19 S4 I am afraid of losing my life because of corona - 304 (64.0) 77 (16.2) 80 (16.8) 14 (2.9)
FCV-19 S5 When watching news and stories about corona on social media, I become nervous and anxious 87 (18.3) 150 (31.6) 84 (17.7) 129 (27.2) 25 (5.3)
FCV-19 S6 I cannot sleep because I am worrying about getting Corona - 372 (78.3) 68 (14.3) 31(6.5) 4 (0.8)
FCV-19 S7 My heart races or palpitates when I think about getting corona 147(30.9) 192 (40.4) 76 (16.0) 48 (10.1) 12 (2.5)

Correlation of FCV-19 S with HADS-A, HADS-D and ISI

The correlation analysis showed that FCV-19S was moderately correlated with HADS-A (r = 0.513, p<0.001) and HADS-D (r = 0.425, p<0.001) but weakly correlated with ISI (r = 0.367, p<0.001). The seven items of the FCV-19S were either weakly or moderately correlated with HADS-A, HADS-D and ISI (p<0.001) (S2 Table).

Predictors of COVID-19 fear among health workers

In the adjusted analysis, profession, stigma experience, working in the affected district and having family members with chronic diseases were significantly associated with COVID fear. Compared to other health workers, nurses (AOR = 2.29; 95% CI: 1.23–4.26) had significantly higher odds of having COVID fear. Similarly, health workers working in the affected district (AOR = 1.76; 95% CI: 1.12–2.77), those having family members with chronic diseases (AOR = 1.50; 95% CI: 1.01–2.25), and those who faced stigma (AOR = 1.83; 95% CI: 1.12–2.73) had significantly higher odds of having COVID fear compared to those not working in affected district, not having a family member with chronic disease, and those not facing stigma respectively. Gender, ethnicity, education, precautionary measures, awareness about government incentives, and history of medication for mental health problems were however not statistically significant with COVID fear (Table 3).

Table 3. Factors associated with COVID related fear among health workers (n = 475).
Variables Categories Fear N (%) Unadjusted OR (95% CI) Adjusted OR (95% CI)
Gender
Male 83 (37.9) Ref Ref
Female 136 (62.1) 2.04 (1.41–2.95)* 1.15 (0.66–1.99)
Ethnicity
Brahmin/Chhetri 129 (58.9) Ref Ref
Janajati 68 (31.1) 2.02 (1.31–3.12)* 1.56 (0.97–2.51)
Madheshi 11 (5.0) 0.87 (0.40–1.91) 1.04 (0.45–2.39)
Others 11 (5.0) 2.62 (0.94–7.25) 1.84 (0.61–5.49)
Profession
Doctor 55 (25.1) 0.78 (0.49–1.24) 0.78 (0.46–1.32)
Nurses 106 (48.4) 2.64 (1.67–4.17)* 2.29 (1.23–4.26)*
Others 58 (26.5) Ref Ref
Education
Intermediate and below 53 (24.2) Ref
Bachelor 128 (58.4) 0.67 (0.42–1.06) 0.83 (0.49–1.41)
Masters and above 38 (17.4) 0.45 (0.25–0.79) * 0.77 (0.39–1.52)
Affected district
Yes 174 (79.5) 1.76 (1.15–2.68)* 1.76 (1.12–2.77)*
No 45 (20.5) Ref Ref
Family member with chronic disease
Yes 132 (60.3) 1.54 (1.07–2.22)* 1.50 (1.01–2.25)*
No 87 (39.7) Ref Ref
Precautionary measures
Sufficient 37 (16.9) Ref Ref
Insufficient 182 (83.1) 1.61 (1.02–2.53) * 1.49 (0.91–2.45)
Faced stigma
Yes 136 (62.1) 1.89 (1.31–2.72) * 1.83 (1.12–2.73)*
No 83 (37.9) Ref Ref
Aware about government incentive
Yes 112 (51.1) 0.65 (0.45–0.94)* 0.79 (0.53–1.19)
No 107 (48.9) Ref Ref
History of medication
Yes 7 (3.2) 0.53 (0.21–1.33) 0.60 (0.23–1.58)
No 212 (96.8) Ref Ref

*Statistically significant at p<0.05.

Discussion

This study documents the factors associated with the presence of fear related to COVID-19 among health workers in Nepal in the early phase of the pandemic. The study identified profession, working in the affected region, presence of family member with chronic disease and stigma faced by health workers as significant factors contributing to the presence of COVID fear among health workers. In this study, nurses had significantly higher odds of having COVID fear than other health workers. This might be because of their role in providing patient care more closely, frequently and for a longer duration compared to other health workers. The chance of being infected and transmitting infection to others, dealing with highly infective disease and uniqueness of the cases might have led to increased fear among nurses. Similar findings were noted in studies conducted in other countries that have reported COVID-19 cases and countries that have handled epidemics such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in the past [14, 2932]. Effective strategies to reduce fear with a focus on nurses are thus required to avert COVID fear and psychological distress which might include support from the management especially with incentives, job rotation, and working hours, family and social support, psychological first aid, adequate personal protective equipment, and regular capacity building activities among others [3234].In our study, more than half of the health workers experienced stigma during COVID-19 pandemic. Stigma faced by health workers was also significantly associated with higher odds of the presence of fear of COVID-19. Already vulnerable due to exposure to possible infections, emotional exhaustion due to increasing workload, deployment to newer settings such as fever clinics and lack of adequate PPEs, health workers are more likely to face stigma either internalized or from public, which will impair their performance in the COVID-19 response [35]. Stigma reduction strategies should thus be employed for educating the public through mass media and community engagement activities [36, 37]. Equally important is to identify the underlying causes of stigma experienced by health works during the epidemic.

Working in the affected district was significantly associated with the presence of fear among health workers. This is obvious as they need to directly deal with COVID-19 patients or those at risk of infection. Health workers in Hubei Province of China [14] during the COVID pandemic and health workers directly involved in the care of patients in Canada [38] during the SARS epidemic also faced more psychological distress compared to those not involved in the direct care of COVID patients or less affected areas. As fear among health workers reflects psychological wellbeing, health workers working in risk districts should be supported emotionally and due attention is required on their workload and safety needs.

In this study, the presence of family members with chronic diseases had higher odds of the presence of COVID-19 fear. The fear of transmission to family members and the vulnerability posed by chronic disease conditions might have resulted in a higher degree of COVID fear among health workers. This finding is similar to the study from China [39] where health workers were concerned with the infection of their family members. Personal and family support is thus required for health workers having family members with chronic diseases.

Conclusion

Our study findings showed that COVID fear was moderately correlated with anxiety and depression, suggesting a detrimental effect of COVID fear on psychological well-being. Perhaps, symptoms of anxiety and depression were a consequence of working in a fearful environment for an extended period. Health facility managers need to monitor the psychological well-being of their staff and ensure proper psychological intervention measures are adopted in a timely and precise manner. In this study, only one out of five health workers mentioned protective measures in their workplace as sufficient. Similarly, just over half of health workers were aware of the government incentives entitled to them during COVID-19. This reflects the need to improve organizational and policy aspects for boosting the work morale of health workers to reduce fear and psychological distress among health workers involved in the COVID-19 response.

Strength and limitation

Our study has some limitations to be noted. This study was conducted during the early phase of the pandemic in Nepal when fewer than 300 COVID-19 cases were reported. The status of fear thus might have altered thereafter. Further follow-up studies might be required among health workers to understand the changes in psychological outcome such as fear. Similarly, participation in this study required internet access and survey was administered in English language. This might have left out health workers who did not have internet access and had difficulty in comprehending English language. Likewise, health workers who were in fear due to COVID-19 pandemic might not have participated in the study. Also, the results might have been affected by the subjective response. Despite limitations, this study identifies those at risk of developing fear using a new scale. The evidence generated can be useful to those at the decision-making level and health facility managers for designing appropriate interventions to enhance psychological well-being among health workers in current and similar epidemics in the future.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Descriptive analysis of the items of the English version FCV-19S.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Correlation of FCV-19 S with HADS-A, HADS-D and ISI (N = 475).

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Fear of COVID-19 and its associated factors.

(DOCX)

Abbreviations

AOR

adjusted odds ratio

CI

confidence interval

COVID-19

Corona virus 2019

FCV-19S

Fear of COVID-19 Scale

HADS

Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale

ISI

Insomnia severity index

PPE

personal protective equipment

SARS

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

Data Availability

The raw data in the form of tables has been uploaded as supporting information.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Tucci V, Moukaddam N, Meadows J, Shah S, Galwankar SC, Kapur GB. The Forgotten Plague: Psychiatric Manifestations of Ebola, Zika, and Emerging Infectious Diseases. J Glob Infect Dis. 2017;9: 151–156. doi: 10.4103/jgid.jgid_66_17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Torales J, O’Higgins M, Castaldelli-Maia JM, Ventriglio A. The outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact on global mental health. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2020;66: 317–320. doi: 10.1177/0020764020915212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ahorsu DK, Lin C-Y, Imani V, Saffari M, Griffiths MD, Pakpour AH. The Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Development and Initial Validation. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction.: 1. doi: 10.1007/s11469-020-00270-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Reardon S. Ebola’s mental-health wounds linger in Africa. Nature. 2015;519: 13–14. doi: 10.1038/519013a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Garcia R. Neurobiology of fear and specific phobias. Learn Mem. 2017;24: 462–471. doi: 10.1101/lm.044115.116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shin LM, Liberzon I. The Neurocircuitry of Fear, Stress, and Anxiety Disorders. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2010;35: 169–191. doi: 10.1038/npp.2009.83 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Person B, Sy F, Holton K, Govert B, Liang A, Garza B, et al. Fear and Stigma: The Epidemic within the SARS Outbreak. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10: 358–363. doi: 10.3201/eid1002.030750 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Global Health Security Index. In: The Nuclear Threat Initiative [Internet]. [cited 29 Oct 2021]. Available: https://www.nti.org/about/programs-projects/project/global-health-security-index/
  • 9.Shrestha R, Shrestha S, Khanal P, Kc B. Nepal’s first case of COVID-19 and public health response. J Travel Med. 2020;27: taaa024. doi: 10.1093/jtm/taaa024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Paudel K, Bhandari P, Joshi YP. Situation analysis of novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) cases in Nepal. Applied Science and Technology Annals. 2020;1: 9–14. doi: 10.3126/asta.v1i1.30267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.CoVid19-Dashboard. [Nov 1 Nov 2021]. Available: https://covid19.mohp.gov.np/
  • 12.Bhattarai S, Dhungana J, Ensor T, Shrestha UB. Assessment of service availability and Infection prevention measures in hospitals of Nepal during the transition phase of COVID-19 case surge. 2020. May p. 2020.05.13.20097675. doi: 10.1101/2020.05.13.20097675 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Doshi D, Karunakar P, Sukhabogi JR, Prasanna JS, Mahajan SV. Assessing Coronavirus Fear in Indian Population Using the Fear of COVID-19 Scale. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2020; 1–9. doi: 10.1007/s11469-020-00332-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lai J, Ma S, Wang Y, Cai Z, Hu J, Wei N, et al. Factors Associated With Mental Health Outcomes Among Health Care Workers Exposed to Coronavirus Disease 2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3: e203976. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kang L, Li Y, Hu S, Chen M, Yang C, Yang BX, et al. The mental health of medical workers in Wuhan, China dealing with the 2019 novel coronavirus. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7: e14. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30047-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kumar J, Katto MS, Siddiqui AA, Sahito B, Ahmed B, Jamil M, et al. Predictive Factors Associated With Fear Faced by Healthcare Workers During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Questionnaire-Based Study. Cureus. 12: e9741. doi: 10.7759/cureus.9741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chong M-Y, Wang W-C, Hsieh W-C, Lee C-Y, Chiu N-M, Yeh W-C, et al. Psychological impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on health workers in a tertiary hospital. Br J Psychiatry. 2004;185: 127–133. doi: 10.1192/bjp.185.2.127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Physicians (per 1,000 people)—Nepal | Data. [cited 29 Oct 2021]. Available: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.PHYS.ZS?locations=NP
  • 19.Shrestha N, Mishra SR, Ghimire S, Gyawali B, Marahatta SB, Maskey S, et al. Health System Preparedness for COVID-19 and Its Impacts on Frontline Health-Care Workers in Nepal: A Qualitative Study Among Frontline Health-Care Workers and Policy-Makers. Disaster Med Public Health Prep.: 1–9. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2021.204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Singh DR, Sunuwar DR, Shah SK, Karki K, Sah LK, Adhikari B, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on health services utilization in Province-2 of Nepal: a qualitative study among community members and stakeholders. BMC Health Services Research. 2021;21: 174. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06176-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Adhikari B, Ozaki A, Marahatta SB, Rijal KR, Mishra SR. Earthquake rebuilding and response to COVID-19 in Nepal, a country nestled in multiple crises. J Glob Health. 10: 020367. doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.020367 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Khanal P, Devkota N, Dahal M, Paudel K, Joshi D. Mental health impacts among health workers during COVID-19 in a low resource setting: a cross-sectional survey from Nepal. Globalization and Health. 2020;16: 89. doi: 10.1186/s12992-020-00621-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sakib N, Bhuiyan AKMI, Hossain S, Al Mamun F, Hosen I, Abdullah AH, et al. Psychometric Validation of the Bangla Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Rasch Analysis. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2020; 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11469-020-00289-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tzur Bitan D, Grossman-Giron A, Bloch Y, Mayer Y, Shiffman N, Mendlovic S. Fear of COVID-19 scale: Psychometric characteristics, reliability and validity in the Israeli population. Psychiatry Res. 2020;289: 113100. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Soraci P, Ferrari A, Abbiati FA, Del Fante E, De Pace R, Urso A, et al. Validation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Italian Version of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2020; 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s11469-020-00277-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Satici B, Gocet-Tekin E, Deniz ME, Satici SA. Adaptation of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Its Association with Psychological Distress and Life Satisfaction in Turkey. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2020; 1–9. doi: 10.1007/s11469-020-00294-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Reznik A, Gritsenko V, Konstantinov V, Khamenka N, Isralowitz R. COVID-19 Fear in Eastern Europe: Validation of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2020; 1–6. doi: 10.1007/s11469-020-00283-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code for Biology and Medicine. 2008;3: 17. doi: 10.1186/1751-0473-3-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhu Z, Xu S, Wang H, Liu Z, Wu J, Li G, et al. COVID-19 in Wuhan: Sociodemographic characteristics and hospital support measures associated with the immediate psychological impact on healthcare workers. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;24. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Maunder RG, Lancee WJ, Rourke S, Hunter JJ, Goldbloom D, Balderson K, et al. Factors associated with the psychological impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on nurses and other hospital workers in Toronto. Psychosom Med. 2004;66: 938–942. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000145673.84698.18 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Maben J, Bridges J. Covid-19: Supporting nurses’ psychological and mental health. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29: 2742–2750. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shanafelt T, Ripp J, Trockel M. Understanding and Addressing Sources of Anxiety Among Health Care Professionals During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA. 2020;323: 2133–2134. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.5893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Stress and Coping. 6 Aug 2021 [cited 29 Oct 2021]. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/stress-coping/index.html
  • 34.Alnazly E, Khraisat OM, Al-Bashaireh AM, Bryant CL. Anxiety, depression, stress, fear and social support during COVID-19 pandemic among Jordanian healthcare workers. PLoS One. 2021;16: e0247679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247679 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ramaci T, Barattucci M, Ledda C, Rapisarda V. Social Stigma during COVID-19 and its Impact on HCWs Outcomes. Sustainability. 2020;12: 3834. doi: 10.3390/su12093834 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bruns DP, Kraguljac NV, Bruns TR. COVID-19: Facts, Cultural Considerations, and Risk of Stigmatization. J Transcult Nurs. 2020;31: 326–332. doi: 10.1177/1043659620917724 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Logie CH, Turan JM. How Do We Balance Tensions Between COVID-19 Public Health Responses and Stigma Mitigation? Learning from HIV Research. AIDS Behav. 2020; 1–4. doi: 10.1007/s10461-019-02470-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Nickell LA, Crighton EJ, Tracy CS, Al-Enazy H, Bolaji Y, Hanjrah S, et al. Psychosocial effects of SARS on hospital staff: survey of a large tertiary care institution. CMAJ. 2004;170: 793–798. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1031077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Dai Y, Hu G, Xiong H, Qiu H, Yuan X. Psychological impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on healthcare workers in China. 2020. Mar p. 2020.03.03.20030874. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.03.20030874 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000083.r001

Decision Letter 0

Vaibhav Saria, Julia Robinson

23 Sep 2021

 PGPH-D-21-00428 Corona virus fear among health workers during the early phase of pandemic response in Nepal: a web-based cross-sectional study PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Paudel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

============================== We require that you address the concerns of reviewer 2 before we proceed with a final decision.  

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 29 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: 

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

 

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vaibhav Saria, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: 

a) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, 

b) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, and 

c) a more detailed description of how participants were recruited.

2. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works:

https://www.grin.com/document/1007212

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text and cite your sources.

3. Thank you for providing consent information for your study. However, we note that you have not provided ethical approval information. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an "Other" file.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that "Data can be make available after asking with first and corresponding author in reasonable request.". All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

5. We have noticed that you have uploaded supporting information but you have not included a list of legends.  Please add a full list of legends for all supporting information files (including figures, table and data files) after the references list.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for your submission, we are very glad to invite you to resubmit your revised manuscript after it addresses the questions raised by the reviewers. In particular, please address the concern of the reviewer regarding PLOS's Data availability statement you can find here- https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/data-availability.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I don't know

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Author

The topic seems to be relevant with the current pandemic situation. It may be helpful for policy implication and reference for future research. However, abstract and introduction seems to have little information. Could you please add some references for this article? Other factors remain excellent.

Thank you

Reviewer #2: - Perhaps consider bulking up your introduction with additional Nepal-specific information: have there been anything else in the literature regarding fear not necessarily due to COVID but due to other crises, other infectious diseases? Being able to make that comparison (recognizing that COVID-19 is of much much larger proportion), might allow us to make some inference (even if not causal) on the magnitude of fear this time around.

- You might want to consider using a multi-pronged approach for your recruitment methods (for next time). For example, people who are anxious or depressed or very fearful might be taking some time off social media - this limits the people who are responding to your survey to those who might not be feeling the extreme side of things. How else could you reach them? You can keep it web-based, but perhaps finding a listserv of emails from the professional organizations and sending them emails might be another opportunity to reach a wider range of people. (And people might be more willing to participate on a survey vs social media.)

- How did you calculate your sample size? Why 475? What did the 475 participants represent in terms of representativeness of the country as a whole - were they working in urban/rural settings, were they older/younger, what type of facility? Who do these 475 participants represent? How did you classify “being involved in the COVID-19 response” - working directly with COVID-19 patients? Or working in a hospital in other departments? Working in research regarding the COVID-19 response?

- Something else to think about in terms of your population is that some might be triggered given their ongoing experience with COVID-19 and might not want to participate in this study - these limitations should be mentioned.

- For your logistic regression - it’s not necessary to rely on significance level (is there a reasoning for the 10%?) to create your model (in fact, it’s not recommended). Instead, you should use the literature to determine which variables should be included and accounted for. For example, has “awareness of government incentives” shown to determine fear? If so, based on your expertise and the literature, then yes, including it is great, if not, you might want to rethink its inclusion.

- In terms of health care workers, are community health care workers not included?

- You briefly mentioned this in the conclusion, but talking a bit more about the health system shortages in Nepal (lack of PPE, lack of widely available vaccines etc.) could also have contributed to the fear.

- You also mentioned “effective strategies to reduce fear with a focus on nurses” - what are some potential recommendations (based on the literature) of strategies that can be helpful here?

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000083.r003

Decision Letter 1

Vaibhav Saria, Julia Robinson

22 Nov 2021

Corona virus fear among health workers during the early phase of pandemic response in Nepal: a web-based cross-sectional study

PGPH-D-21-00428R1

Dear Dr. Paudel,

We're pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you'll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you'll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vaibhav Saria, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Descriptive analysis of the items of the English version FCV-19S.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Correlation of FCV-19 S with HADS-A, HADS-D and ISI (N = 475).

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Fear of COVID-19 and its associated factors.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviwers reply_fear.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The raw data in the form of tables has been uploaded as supporting information.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES