Table 4.
Descriptive data of common work-related variables and association with IES-R standardized factorial score.
| Healthcare Workers | Media Professionals | Grocery Workers | Protective Service Workers | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | M (SD) | t/F * | p | g/η2 | N (%) | M (SD) | t/F * | p | g/η2 | N (%) | M (SD) | t/F * | p | g/η2 | N (%) | M (SD) | t/F * | p | g/η2 | |
| Experience in Previous Crises | ||||||||||||||||||||
| No | 160 (59.5) | 0.27 (0.89) | −0.18 | 0.86 | 0.02 | 71 (67.6) | −0.23 (0.90) | −0.17 | 0.87 | 0.03 | 88 (98.9) | 0.17 (1.07) | 1 | 54 (65.1) | −0.78 (0.77) | 0.30 | 0.77 | 0.07 | ||
| Yes | 109 (40.5) | 0.29 (0.79) | 34 (32.4) | −0.20 (0.81) | 1 (1.1) | −1.34 | 29 (34.9) | −0.84 (0.96) | ||||||||||||
| Working Hours Per Week | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Less than 10 h | 12 (4.5) | 0.08 (1.09) | 1.55 | 0.19 | 0.02 | 8 (7.6) | 0.24 (0.76) | 3.43 | 0.01 2 | 0.12 | 8 (9.0) | −0.25 (1.17) | 1.19 | 0.32 | 0.05 | 4 (4.8) | −1.33 (0.51) | 1.34 | 0.26 | 0.06 |
| 10–20 h | 8 (3.0) | −0.19 (0.55) | 8 (7.6) | 0.16 (0.80) | 7 (7.9) | 0.63 (1.22) | 2 (2.4) | −0.69 (1.06) | ||||||||||||
| 20–30 h | 26 (9.7) | 0.53 (0.81) | 8 (7.6) | −0.82 (0.54) | 24 (27.0) | 0.42 (0.97) | 7 (8.4) | −0.86 (0.81) | ||||||||||||
| 30–40 h | 108 (40.2) | 0.23 (0.82) | 37 (35.2) | −0.48 (0.81) | 32 (36.0) | 0.01 (1.10) | 55 (66.3) | −0.86 (0.85) | ||||||||||||
| Over 40 h | 115 (42.8) | 0.33 (0.85) | 44 (41.9) | −0.05 (0.90) | 18 (20.2) | 0.04 (1.05) | 15 (18.1) | −0.41 (0.80) | ||||||||||||
| Availability of Personal Protection Equipment | ||||||||||||||||||||
| No | 7 (2.6) | 0.69 (0.59) a | 4.38 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 17 (16.2) | −0.04 (0.93) | 1.04 | 0.38 | 0.03 | 3 (3.4) | .14 (0.89) | 16 (19.3) | −0.64 (0.95) | 2.77 | 0.07 | 0.07 | |||
| Yes, but not enough | 184 (68.4) | 0.33 (0.79) a,b | 17 (16.2) | −1.4 (0.89) | 27 (30.3) | 0.46 (1.16) | 1.81 | 0.07 4 | 0.42 | 55 (66.3) | −0.73 (0.82) | |||||||||
| Yes, enough | 78 (29) | 0.11 (0.95) b | 16 (15.2) | −0.54 (0.75) | 59 (66.3) | 0.01 (1.02) | 12 (14.5) | −1.30 (0.55) | ||||||||||||
| I telework full-time | 55 (52.4) | −0.21 (0.87) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Overworking during COVID-19 Crisis | ||||||||||||||||||||
| No | 166 (61.7) | 0.20 (0.83) | −2.06 | 0.04 | 0.26 | 42 (40.0) | −0.46 (0.86) | −2.38 | 0.02 | 0.47 | 55 (61.8) | −0.05 (1.03) | −2.32 | 0.02 | 0.51 | 65 (78.3) | −0.84 (0.85) | −0.96 | 0.34 | 0.25 |
| Yes | 103 (38.3) | 0.42 (0.86) | 63 (60.0) | −0.06 (0.84) | 34 (38.2) | 0.48 (1.07) | 18 (21.7) | −0.63 (0.80) | ||||||||||||
| M (SD) | r/ρ ** | p | M (SD) | r/ρ ** | p | M (SD) | r/ρ ** | p | M (SD) | r/ρ ** | p | |||||||||
| Extra Hours Last Week | 11.64 (9.34) | 0.11 | 0.28 | 6.10 (4.28) | 0.25 | 0.06 | 7.80 (7.24) | −0.11 | 0.56 | 8.83 (7.09) | 0.17 | 0.50 | ||||||||
| Years of Experience | 14.87 (10.85) | 0.01 | 0.81 | 15.88 (10.97) | −0.27 | <0.01 | 13.44 (8.24) | −0.10 | 0.34 | 16.29 (11.39) | 0.01 | 0.96 | ||||||||
| Days Working during the Pandemic | 20.13 (20.73) | 0.04 | 0.55 | 13.18 (12.26) | 0.17 | 0.08 | 31.22 (20.53) | −0.23 | 0.03 | 12.35 (10.13) | 0.10 | 0.35 | ||||||||
| Days since Last Day Off | 2.42 (3.60) | 0.05 | 0.42 | 3.81 (4.06) | 0.14 | 0.16 | 2.66 (2.94) | −0.33 | < 0.01 | 1.84 (2.45) | −0.08 | 0.47 | ||||||||
| Working as a Team | 2.34 (0.77) | −0.02 | 0.80 | 2.03 (0.96) | −0.06 | 0.55 | 2.07 (0.88) | −0.24 | 0.02 | 2.21 (0.80) | −0.20 | 0.08 | ||||||||
| Time in Contact with People 3 | 2.11 (1.68) | 0.00 | 0.97 | 3.48 (1.19) | 0.03 | 0.83 | 3.47 (0.89) | 0.14 | 0.22 | |||||||||||
* Differences in mean level between categories of dichotomous variables were assessed via t-tests, and Hedges’ g effect size statistic was obtained (interpretation: negligible < 0.20 < small < 0.50 < medium < 0.80 < large). For multiple-category variables, one-way ANOVAs were used, and categories with a different superscript letter show a significant difference between them in the psychological impact variable’s mean. In these cases, the effect size was assessed via η2 (interpretation: negligible < 0.01 < small < 0.06 < medium < 0.14 < large). ** Correlations with ordinal variables (e.g., working as a team and time in contact with people) were computed via Spearman’s correlation (ρ). Correlations with continuous variables were computed via Pearson’s correlation (r). The obtained statistics are themselves measures of effect size (interpretation: negligible < 0.10 < small < 0.30 < medium < 0.50 < large). 1 Analysis not performed because one group had only one case. 2 Tukey post-hoc analyses revealed no differences. 3 In healthcare providers, this question was not included because it was assumed that they are necessarily in constant touch with others. 4 As the first group had only 3 participants, it was excluded from the analysis, and a t-test between the two remaining groups was carried out.