Abstract
Background
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we launched the Penn Medicine Coping First Aid program to provide psychosocial supports to our health system community. Our approach leveraged lay health worker volunteers trained in principles of Psychological First Aid to deliver coaching services through a centralized virtual platform.
Methods
We emailed all (n = 408) first year housestaff (i.e., residents and fellows) with an invitation to schedule a session with a resilience coach. We compared the mental health concerns, symptoms, and Psychological First Aid techniques recorded in (n = 67) first year housestaff sessions with (n = 91) sessions of other employees in the health system.
Results
Between June and November 2020, forty-six first year housestaff attended at least one resilience coaching session. First year housestaff most commonly presented with feelings of anxiety and sadness and shared concerns related to the availability of social support. Resilience coaches most frequently provided practical assistance and ensured safety and comfort to first year housestaff. First year housestaff reported fewer physical or mental health symptoms and held shorter sessions with resilience coaches than non-housestaff.
Conclusions
This work offers insights on how to address psychosocial functioning through low-intensity interventions delivered by lay personnel. More research is needed to understand the efficacy of this program and how best to engage housestaff in wellness and resilience programs throughout training, both during and beyond COVID-19.
Keywords: Resident wellness, COVID-19, Psychological first aid, Resiliency
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated negative mental health outcomes among first responders, medical students, and frontline healthcare staff across the globe [1–3]. Physician residents and fellows (henceforth housestaff), who are already at risk for chronic stress and lower well-being than the general public, faced compounding challenges while in training during COVID-19 [4]. Housestaff surveyed from March 2020 to December 2021 reported high anxiety, mental distress, and various concerns related to the well-being of their patients, loved-ones, and themselves [5, 6]. The personal impact of COVID-19 may be particularly significant for first year residents and fellows due to the lack of traditional supports, the sudden reassignment to emergency departments, and increased isolation or financial stress [7].
In the last decade, many healthcare organizations have implemented wellness interventions to reduce occupational burnout, a chronic form of work-related stress [8]. A review of these interventions found that work hour limits, self-care training, and meditation practice significantly reduced depersonalization and emotional exhaustion among resident physicians [9]. Promisingly, as of 2017, most hospitals in the United States reported offering some form of a stress-management program to their employees [10]. The onset of COVID-19 introduced a barrage of acute stressors that necessitated the provision of more responsive supports to frontline staff. Since March 2020, many healthcare institutions have strengthened their staff wellness infrastructure and introduced resilience-building programs previously employed in disaster situations [5, 11]. The Penn Medicine Coping First Aid (CFA) program is one such support service that was developed between March and June 2020 and made available to all 44,254 Penn Medicine employees, including 1,475 housestaff. Existing wellness programs were already implemented as part of the residency curricula; however the CFA program was specifically designed to provide coping resources to protect against the distress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
The CFA program was informed by Psychological First Aid (PFA) techniques, which include the provision of non-intrusive support, a thorough needs evaluation, and linkages to further care. Although psychosocial interventions modeled on PFA have been employed in a range of disaster contexts and populations (Bisson and Lewis 2009), including frontline healthcare workers (Hooper et al. 2021), evidence for its general effectiveness is not yet established [12]. Despite this, PFA was a suitable framework for the COVID-19 response for its ability to be administered remotely [13], be rapidly deployed by trained lay-persons [14], and be adaptable to the shifting context of the crisis [15].
Preliminary results show that those who engaged with the CFA program were highly satisfied and found the services they received beneficial [16]. In the current study, we describe session data from the cohort of housestaff who entered residency or fellowship in June 2020. We report the rate of program uptake, the most commonly recorded concerns, symptoms, and PFA techniques used in sessions, and where individuals were referred. In an effort to iteratively improve and tailor the CFA program to better support the specific needs and concerns of first year housestaff, we compare session characteristics of first year housestaff and other Penn Medicine personnel.
Methods
In the present intervention, volunteer Penn Medicine employees were trained in therapeutic micro-skills based on PFA [17] and readied to provide a number of therapeutic strategies in virtual, one-on-one virtual sessions, including, active listening and emotional support, promoting client self-efficacy, and improving problem-solving abilities. Volunteers were trained with self-paced online webinars, role-playing sessions with feedback, and session guides. These lay mental health providers (henceforth resilience coaches) followed standard protocols for managing emergency situations and linking individuals to appropriate supports. After each session, resilience coaches systematically tracked participant concerns (e.g., sleep difficulties, loneliness, fear of contracting COVID-19), symptoms (e.g., behavioral, emotional, physical, cognitive), and techniques employed during that session (e.g. relaxation techniques, developing an action plan, ensuring physical safety). Items on these tracking sheets were adapted from established PFA checklists available through the World Health Organization [18, 19]. Session data was directly recorded into REDCap, a secure, web-based electronic data capture and management platform developed by the REDCap Consortium [20]. Licensed mental health professionals reviewed session data, provided feedback, and ensured protocol fidelity during weekly meetings with resilience coaches.
Participants
In June 2020, 408 first year housestaff were introduced to the CFA program during orientation and sent an electronic letter with information about the program and a link to confirm an appointment. In an effort to increase engagement, housestaff were automatically scheduled appointments with resilience coaches and had to opt-out. CFA sessions were scheduled and administered via a secure telemedicine platform which automatically recorded audio, session length, and session type (i.e. new or follow-up). The length of telehealth visits has been used as a proxy for service engagement and included in exploratory analyses in other contexts [21, 22]. We analyzed sessions held between June and November 2020. All other Penn Medicine employees encountered the CFA program through general internal messaging. We used a convenience sample of 91 sessions attended by these personnel during the same timeframe to compare housestaff and non-housestaff sessions. Data were deidentified and procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Pennsylvania.
Data analysis
We describe session length, number of follow-up sessions, endorsed concerns and symptoms, techniques utilized by coaches in sessions, and referral destinations for housestaff and non-housestaff sessions. We use two-way ANOVA and a series of chi-square analyses to compare session characteristics across client types. Given the number of these exploratory analyses, we apply a conservative α level of 0.001.
Results
Participants and sessions
Of the 408 first year housestaff contacted in June 2020, 46 (11.27%) made an appointment with a resilience coach and attended 67 sessions for an average of 34.44 min. The duration of first year housestaff sessions were significantly shorter than non-housestaff sessions (F = 26.93, 34.25 vs. 47.33 min, p < 0.001). In addition, the group of non-housestaff were composed of more follow-up patients relative to the first year housestaff group (X2 = 22.30, 27% vs. 67%, p < 0.001).
Participant concerns
Most first year housestaff reported concerns about availability of social support (58.97%). A portion of first year housestaff expressed concerns about finances (6.41%), history of prior trauma and loss (6.41%) and past or preexisting trauma (incl. psychological problems and substance abuse problems; 6.41%). There were no significant differences in presenting concerns between the first year housestaff and other personnel (see Table 1 for the full list of presenting concerns).
Table 1.
Presenting concerns, symptoms, and techniques employed during CFA sessions
| First Year Housestaff (N = 67) | Other personnel (N = 91) | χ | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concern | ||||
| Availability of social support | 58.97% | 48.60% | 1.555 | .2123 |
| History of prior trauma and loss | 6.41% | 10.28% | 0.436 | .5093 |
| Past or preexisting trauma/psychological problems/substance abuse problems | 6.41% | 5.61% | 0.000 | 1 |
| Financial concerns | 6.41% | 0.00% | 4.823 | .0281 |
| Concerns about ongoing threat | 3.85% | 17.76% | 7.057 | .0079 |
| Concerns about safety of loved one(s) | 3.85% | 12.15% | 2.956 | .0856 |
| Extreme guilt or shame | 3.85% | 11.21% | 2.373 | .1234 |
| Nature and severity of disaster experiences | 3.85% | 8.41% | 0.889 | .3458 |
| Other specific concerns | 3.85% | 7.48% | 0.513 | .4738 |
| Loved one(s) diagnosed or hospitalized with COVID-19 or dead | 3.85% | 0.00% | 2.120 | .1454 |
| Physical/mental health illness and medication(s) | 2.56% | 16.82% | 8.091 | .0044 |
| Living arrangements | 2.56% | 2.80% | 0.000 | 1 |
| Other concerns | 1.28% | 3.74% | 0.312 | .5766 |
| Has been diagnosed with COVID-19 | 1.28% | 0.00% | 0.025 | .8736 |
| Prior alcohol or drug use | 1.28% | 0.00% | 0.025 | .8736 |
| Death of a family member or friend | 0.00% | 5.61% | 2.910 | .0880 |
| Thoughts of harming self or others | 0.00% | 3.74% | 1.475 | .2245 |
| Concerns about child/adolescent | 0.00% | 1.87% | 0.244 | .6212 |
| Spiritual concerns | 0.00% | 1.87% | 0.244 | .6212 |
| Displaced from home | 0.00% | 0.93% | 0.000 | 1 |
| Lost job or school | 0.00% | 0.93% | 0.000 | 1 |
| Assisted with rescue/recovery | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| At risk of losing own life | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Concerns over developmental impact | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Disaster-related losses | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Has physical/emotional disability | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Medication stabilization | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Symptom | ||||
| Behavioral | ||||
| Isolation/withdrawal | 2.56% | 3.74% | 0.001 | .9801 |
| Maladaptive coping | 1.28% | 6.54% | 1.879 | .1704 |
| Other behavioral | 1.28% | 2.80% | 0.036 | .8486 |
| Excessive drug, alcohol, or prescription drug use | 1.28% | 0.00% | 0.025 | .8736 |
| Separation anxiety | 0.00% | 0.93% | 0.000 | 1 |
| Extreme disorientation | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| High risk behavior | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Regressive behavior | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Violent behavior | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Cognitive | ||||
| Difficulty concentrating | 2.56% | 10.28% | 3.015 | .0825 |
| Intrusive thoughts or images | 2.56% | 8.41% | 1.812 | .1783 |
| Other cognitive | 0.00% | 2.80% | 0.813 | .3673 |
| Difficulty making decisions | 0.00% | 1.87% | 0.244 | .6212 |
| Distressing dreams or nightmares | 0.00% | 0.93% | 0.000 | 1 |
| Difficulty remembering | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Inability to accept/cope with death of loved one(s) | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Preoccupation with death/ destruction | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Emotional | ||||
| Feeling anxious, fearful | 16.67% | 41.12% | 11.535 | .0007* |
| Sadness, tearful | 6.41% | 20.56% | 6.156 | .0131 |
| Feelings of guilt or shame | 5.13% | 16.82% | 4.825 | .0281 |
| Acute stress reactions | 5.13% | 12.15% | 1.890 | .1692 |
| Other emotion | 3.85% | 8.41% | 0.889 | .3458 |
| Despair, hopeless | 0.00% | 13.08% | 9.250 | .0024 |
| Irritability, anger | 0.00% | 5.61% | 2.910 | .0880 |
| Feeling emotionally numb, disconnected | 0.00% | 2.80% | 0.813 | .3673 |
| Acute grief reactions | 0.00% | 1.87% | 0.244 | .6212 |
| Physical | ||||
| Sleep difficulties | 5.13% | 24.30% | 10.833 | .0010* |
| Fatigue/exhaustion | 3.85% | 9.35% | 1.332 | .2485 |
| Difficulty eating | 1.28% | 6.54% | 1.879 | .1704 |
| Other physical symptom | 0.00% | 4.67% | 2.180 | .1398 |
| Headaches | 0.00% | 3.74% | 1.475 | .2245 |
| Stomachaches | 0.00% | 3.74% | 1.475 | .2245 |
| Worsening of health conditions | 0.00% | 1.87% | 0.244 | .6212 |
| Chronic agitation | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Technique | ||||
| Safety and Comfort | ||||
| Asked about immediate needs | 48.72% | 50.47% | 0.007 | .9314 |
| Encouraged social engagement | 41.03% | 31.78% | 1.303 | .2536 |
| Took steps to ensure immediate physical safety | 26.92% | 38.32% | 2.142 | .1433 |
| Attended to physical comfort | 14.10% | 11.21% | 0.131 | .7172 |
| Assisted with concern over separation from loved one | 12.82% | 7.48% | 0.921 | .3371 |
| Attended to traumatic grief | 2.56% | 1.87% | 0.000 | 1 |
| Gave information about the disaster/risks | 2.56% | 1.87% | 0.000 | 1 |
| Assisted with acute grief reactions | 1.28% | 3.74% | 0.312 | .5766 |
| Attended to spiritual issues regarding death | 0.00% | 0.93% | 0.000 | 1 |
| Assisted after death of loved one | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Helped with confirmation of death to child | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Helped with talking to children about death | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Provided information about funeral issues | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Practical Assistance | ||||
| Helped to develop an action plan | 61.54% | 76.64% | 4.226 | .0398 |
| Helped to identify most immediate need(s) | 60.26% | 66.36% | 0.486 | .4856 |
| Helped to clarify need(s) | 56.41% | 65.42% | 1.191 | .2751 |
| Helped with action to address the need | 38.46% | 57.94% | 6.092 | .0136 |
| Connection with Social Supports | ||||
| Discussed support seeking and giving | 30.77% | 50.47% | 6.393 | .0115 |
| Helped problem-solve obtaining/giving social support | 23.08% | 42.06% | 6.416 | .0113 |
| Modeled supportive behavior | 14.10% | 26.17% | 3.256 | .0712 |
| Facilitated access to primary support persons | 3.85% | 20.56% | 9.401 | .0022 |
| Engaged youth in activities | 0.00% | 0.00% | – | – |
| Stabilization | ||||
| Used grounding or relaxation technique | 5.13% | 9.35% | 0.624 | .4297 |
| Gathered information for referral for stabilization | 2.56% | 4.67% | 0.124 | .7247 |
| Helped with stabilization | 0.00% | 11.21% | 7.597 | .0058 |
*Significant at .001 level
Participant symptoms
First year housestaff reported feelings of anxiety (16.67%) and sadness (6.41%) during their resilience coach sessions. A number of first year housestaff reported sleep difficulties (5.13%) and fatigue or exhaustion (3.85%). Relative to non-housestaff, first year housestaff had fewer reports of anxiety and fearfulness (X2 = 14.22, 17% vs. 41%, p < 0.001) and sleep difficulties (X2 = 10.83, 5% vs. 24%, p = 0.001) during sessions (see Table 1 for the full list of reported symptoms).
Session protocol
Resilience coaches most commonly offered practical assistance to first year housestaff, such as: helping to develop an action plan (61.54%), helping to identify their immediate needs (60.26%) and helping to clarify their needs (56.41%). First-year housestaff were also commonly asked about their immediate needs (48.72%), encouraged to have social engagement (41.03%) and had steps taken to ensure their physical safety (26.92%). There were no significant differences in techniques used by resilience coaches in sessions with first year housestaff and non-housestaff (See Table 1 for the full list of session techniques).
Referrals
Approximately half (53.73%) of first year housestaff were connected with other services. Among those referred, resilience coaches most commonly (77.77%) connected them to internal resources (e.g. other services on Penn COBALT, Penn Medicine Together) and external professional mental health services (33.33%). We did not find any significant differences in the rate of referral or where individuals were referred between first year housestaff and non-housestaff.
Discussion
The Penn Medicine CFA program was developed and implemented in a large urban health system within 90 days of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., providing free, timely psychosocial support to all Penn Medicine employees. We find that most of the cohort of first year housestaff that we solicited did not engage with the program: only one in ten made an appointment with a resilience coach. We find that housestaff who attended a resilience coach session presented with only slight differences in emotional symptoms from the comparison group of non-housestaff. This finding suggests that universal wellness initiatives in healthcare systems may be appropriate, and that perhaps only minimal tailoring is needed to target housestaff. Resilience coaches recorded fewer physical or mental health symptoms and held shorter sessions with first year housestaff compared to non-housestaff. It is unclear whether first year housestaff experienced fewer symptoms prior to beginning training despite COVID-19 or if they felt uncomfortable reporting symptomology in an employer-provided program, despite assurances of confidentiality. To account for these possibilities, resilience coaches were given explicit guides to facilitate sessions with individuals that did not present with specific concerns in the following year’s cohort. This refinement shifted the emphasis to proactive tactics, such as a guided exploration of the wellness services in the organization and sharing psychoeducational resources.
The Penn CFA program is among a number of supportive initiatives that sought to improve the wellbeing of healthcare workers at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic [23, 24]. Many studies detailing the efficacy of these interventions (or lack thereof) are still forthcoming. Nonetheless, multiple reports continue to document the staggering rates of psychological distress among healthcare workers during COVID-19. A recent meta-review reports that the prevalence of psychophysiological stress among healthcare workers globally to be 37.7%, a rate significantly higher than the general public [25]. In North America, rates of anxiety and depressive symptoms among healthcare workers are as high as 14.8% and 18.7%, respectively, nearly four times the rate among the public before the pandemic [26]. We echo the call for more rigorous research of wellness initiatives for healthcare workers to counteract these effects [27].
This study is limited by the lack of systematic information on the composition of the non-housestaff group. Session notes reveal that this group may be composed of administrators, human resources staff, clinical nurse managers, intake specialists, second-year residents, and medical students, however due to confidentiality protocols, most individuals did not disclose their position within the organization. Unlike the first year housestaff, individuals in the non-housestaff group were not directly solicited and instead encountered the CFA program passively through internal messaging, potentially leading to sample bias. The results suggest that the non-housestaff group was composed of individuals in more severe distress than the group of first year housestaff given their higher incidence of symptoms, longer session length, and higher follow-up rate. In addition, we did not collect information from housestaff who opted out of their resilience coach session, so reasons for declining to participate are unknown. The rate of reported symptoms and concerns is that among housestaff who participated in the program, not from the cohort as a whole. Future research on the CFA program should measure psychological wellbeing before and after the intervention period and employ follow-up surveys to track subsequent service utilization in the entire cohort. Of note, the CFA program was and continues to be staffed by volunteers. Consequently, it is unclear how such a program would scale in other settings as implementation support of new interventions can vary across organizational cultures and communities [28, 29]. Subsequent programming should explore non-volunteer models, such as peer support models, which have shown promise in healthcare settings [11, 30].
Although we are unable to gauge the program’s effectiveness, the data described in this study informed ongoing resilience coach training and better equipped coaches to support subsequent cohorts of residents. In line with guidelines described elsewhere [16], we recommend that other organizations who seek to develop initiatives like CFA take a similar approach of iterative testing and refinement to best support healthcare workers during COVID-19 and beyond.
Conclusions
This study is one of the first to document the physical and psychological well-being of a cohort of first year housestaff and the implementation of a low-intensity interventions delivered by lay personnel in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Although future research will need to evaluate the outcomes of this program, Penn Coping First Aid shows promise as a flexible model for delivering psychosocial support to healthcare workers during times of crisis.
Acknowledgements
We thank all of the Penn Medicine Coping First Aid resilience coaches and supervisors who volunteered their efforts. We would also like to thank Avanti Rangnekar, Grace Kinkler, Jennifer Nguyen, Lauren Callahan, and Ronald Andujar for providing operational support to the program.
Abbreviations
- CFA
Coping First Aid
- PFA
Psychological First Aid
Authors’ contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and methodology: RS, KW, CW, EBH; data collection: RS, NK; analysis and interpretation of results: KW, NC, LB; draft manuscript preparation: RS, CW, CL, KK, EBH; manuscript revision and proofing, NC, RS. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Based on the Declaration of Helsinki for medical research, informed consent was obtained at the beginning of sessions and all data were de-identified. All study procedures were approved by the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board (protocol #844318).
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.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(3):e203976. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rossi R, Socci V, Pacitti F, Di Lorenzo G, Di Marco A, Siracusano A, et al. Mental Health Outcomes Among Frontline and Second-Line Health Care Workers During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic in Italy. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(5):e2010185. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.10185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Sheraton M, Deo N, Dutt T, Surani S, Hall-Flavin D, Kashyap R. Psychological effects of the COVID 19 pandemic on healthcare workers globally: A systematic review. Psychiatry Res. 2020;1(292):113360. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Jalili M, Niroomand M, Hadavand F, Zeinali K, Fotouhi A. Burnout among healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2021. Cited 2021 May 25. Available from: 10.1007/s00420-021-01695-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 5.Croll L, Kurzweil A, Hasanaj L, Serrano L, Balcer LJ, Galetta SL. The psychosocial implications of COVID-19 for a neurology program in a pandemic epicenter. J Neurol Sci. 2020;416:117034. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2020.117034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Grewal US, Premnath N, Bhardwaj N, Sheth AR, Garikipati SC, Gaddam SJ, et al. Analysis of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on house-staff in the USA: addressing the ripple effects. J Community Hospital Intern Med Perspect. 2021;11(4):476–479. doi: 10.1080/20009666.2021.1920663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kaplan CA, Chan CC, Feingold JH, Kaye-Kauderer H, Pietrzak RH, Peccoralo L, et al. Psychological Consequences Among Residents and Fellows During the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York City: Implications for Targeted Interventions. Acad Med. 2021;96(12):1722–1731. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.De Hert S. Burnout in Healthcare Workers: Prevalence Impact and Preventative Strategies. LRA. 2020;13:171–183. doi: 10.2147/LRA.S240564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Busireddy KR, Miller JA, Ellison K, Ren V, Qayyum R, Panda M. Efficacy of Interventions to Reduce Resident Physician Burnout: A Systematic Review. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9(3):294–301. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-16-00372.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Linnan LA, Cluff L, Lang JE, Penne M, Leff MS. Results of the Workplace Health in America Survey. Am J Health Promot. 2019;33(5):652–665. doi: 10.1177/0890117119842047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Albott CS, Wozniak JR, McGlinch BP, Wall MH, Gold BS, Vinogradov S. Battle Buddies: Rapid Deployment of a Psychological Resilience Intervention for Health Care Workers During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic. Anesth Analg. 2020. Cited 2021 Feb 8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199769/. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 12.Fox JH, Burkle FM, Bass J, Pia FA, Epstein JL, Markenson D. The Effectiveness of Psychological First Aid as a Disaster Intervention Tool: Research Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Literature From 1990–2010. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2012;6(3):247–252. doi: 10.1001/dmp.2012.39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Sulaiman AH, Ahmad Sabki Z, Jaafa MJ, Francis B, Razali KA, Juares Rizal A, et al. Development of a Remote Psychological First Aid Protocol for Healthcare Workers Following the COVID-19 Pandemic in a University Teaching Hospital, Malaysia. Healthcare. 2020;8(3):228. doi: 10.3390/healthcare8030228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Everly GS, Lee McCabe O, Semon NL, Thompson CB, Links JM. The Development of a Model of Psychological First Aid for Non-Mental Health Trained Public Health Personnel: The Johns Hopkins RAPID-PFA. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2014;20(Supplement 5):S24–S29. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sim T, Wang A. Contextualization of Psychological First Aid: An Integrative Literature Review. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2021;53(2):189–197. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Arnold KT, Becker-Haimes EM, Wislocki K, Bellini L, Livesey C, Kugler K, et al. Increasing access to mental health supports for healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond through a novel coaching program. Front Psychiatry. 2022;22(13):1073639. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1073639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Levitt DH. Active Listening and Counselor Self-Efficacy. Clin Superv. 2002;20(2):101–115. doi: 10.1300/J001v20n02_09. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Brymer M, Layne C, Jacobs A, Pynoos R, Ruzek J, Steinberg A, et al. Psychological First Aid Field Operations Guide. 2nd Edition. National Child Traumatic Stress Network; 2006. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED542874.
- 19.World Health Organization, War Trauma Foundation, World Vision International. Psychological first aid: facilitator’s manual for orienting field workers. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. Cited 2023 Jun 8. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/102380.
- 20.Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Stephenson R, Metheny N, Sharma A, Sullivan S, Riley E. Providing Home-Based HIV Testing and Counseling for Transgender Youth (Project Moxie): Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2017;6(11):e237. doi: 10.2196/resprot.8562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Cramer SC, Dodakian L, Le V, See J, Augsburger R, McKenzie A, et al. Efficacy of Home-Based Telerehabilitation vs In-Clinic Therapy for Adults After Stroke: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol. 2019;76(9):1079. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Zaçe D, Hoxhaj I, Orfino A, Viteritti AM, Janiri L, Di Pietro ML. Interventions to address mental health issues in healthcare workers during infectious disease outbreaks: A systematic review. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;136:319–333. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.02.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Buselli R, Corsi M, Veltri A, Baldanzi S, Chiumiento M, Lupo ED, et al. Mental health of Health Care Workers (HCWs): a review of organizational interventions put in place by local institutions to cope with new psychosocial challenges resulting from COVID-19. Psychiatry Res. 2021;299:113847. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113847. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sousa GM de, Tavares VD de O, de MeirozGrilo MLP, Coelho MLG, Lima-Araújo GL de, Schuch FB, et al. Mental Health in COVID-19 Pandemic: A Meta-Review of Prevalence Meta-Analyses. Front Psychol. 2021;12:703838. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.703838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Li Y, Scherer N, Felix L, Kuper H. Prevalence of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder in health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pietschnig J, editor. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(3):e0246454. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Eskander J, Rajaguru PP, Greenberg PB. Evaluating Wellness Interventions for Resident Physicians: A Systematic Review. J Grad Med Educ. 2021;13(1):58–69. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-20-00359.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Williams NJ, Ehrhart MG, Aarons GA, Marcus SC, Beidas RS. Linking molar organizational climate and strategic implementation climate to clinicians’ use of evidence-based psychotherapy techniques: cross-sectional and lagged analyses from a 2-year observational study. Implementation Sci. 2018;13(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0781-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Gaber J, Datta J, Clark R, Lamarche L, Parascandalo F, Di Pelino S, et al. Understanding how context and culture in six communities can shape implementation of a complex intervention: a comparative case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):221. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07615-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Bernstein CA, Bhattacharyya S, Adler S, Alpert JE. Staff Emotional Support at Montefiore Medical Center During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2021;47(3):185–189. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.11.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.