Table 5.

Emotional Response to COVID-19 and Perceptions of Institutional Response by Geographic Region.

	Mds (IQR)
	Total (n = 133)	Northeast (n = 22)	South (n = 54)	Midwest (n = 26)	West (n = 31)
Emotional response (0 – 10 scale)
1. Overall distress/anxiety (n = 133)	6.0 (4.0–7.0)	7.0 (6.0–8.0)	5.0 (3.0–7.0)	5.5 (4.0–8.0)	6.0 (3.0–7.0)
2. Distress/anxiety about societal impacts (e.g., related to mental health, capacity of healthcare system to accommodate affected individuals, the economy; n = 133)	7.0 (5.0–8.5)	8.0 (6.0–9.0)	7.0 (5.0–8.3)	8.0 (5.0–9.0)	7.0 (5.0–8.0)
3. Distress/anxiety that you or someone you know will contract COVID-19 (n = 133)	6.0 (4.0–8.0)	7.5 (6.0–10.0)	6.0 (3.0–8.0)	6.0 (5.0–7.3)	5.0 (3.0–8.0)
4. Distress related to caregiving during COVID-19 (n = 50)	6.0 (4.8–9.0)	9.0 (5.8–10.0)	6.0 (3.5–8.0)	6.5 (3.8–7.8)	6.0 (5.0–7.0)
Emotional impact (1 – 5 scale)
4. How much has your anxiety/distress related to COVID-19 impacted your ability to provide services (n = 113)	4.0 (2.0–4.0)	4.0 (3.0–4.0)	3.0 (2.0–4.0)	3.0 (3.0–4.0)	4.0 (3.0–4.0)
“My institution/employer/practice…” (1 – 5 scale)
5. was adequately prepared to address concerns/changes arising from COVID-19” (n = 133)	3.0 (2.0–4.0)	3.0 (1.8–4.3)	3.0 (2.0–4.0)	3.0 (2.0–4.0)	4.0 (2.0–4.0)
6. is responding appropriately to COVID-19” (n = 133)	4.0 (2.0–5.0)	5.0 (2.0–5.0)	4.0 (2.0–5.0)	4.0 (4.0–5.0)	4.0 (2.8–5.0)
7. is providing a safe working environment during COVID-19” (n = 133)	4.0 (3.0–5.0)	4.0 (2.0–5.0)	4.0 (2.5–5.0)	4.0 (2.0–4.3)	4.5 (3.0–5.0)

Note. Questions 1–4: respondents selected a number (i.e., sliding scale from 0–10, higher number = more anxiety/distress); Question 5: scale based on 1–5 where 1 = no impact, 2 = very small impact, 3 = somewhat small impact, 4 = somewhat large impact, 5 = very large impact; Questions 6–8: respondents selected, 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = strongly agree.