Table 5.
Factors influencing the symptom load of second victims.
| n = 170 | High Symptom Load of Second Victims n = 95 (56%) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent Variable | Final Model r2 = 0.131 1 | ||||
| ReCoB 2 | p | Odds Ratio 3 | 95%-CI 4 | ||
| Gender 5 | female (n = 133) | ||||
| male (n = 35) | −0.19 | 0.67 | 0.83 | 0.35–1.95 | |
| diverse (n = 2) | −0.77 | 0.61 | 0.46 | 0.03–8.52 | |
| Age 6 (years) | ≤31 (n = 47) | ||||
| 32–43 (n = 52) | 0.76 | 0.19 | 2.13 | 0.69–6.58 | |
| 44–66 (n = 71) | 0.28 | 0.70 | 1.32 | 0.33–5.32 | |
| Work experience 7 (years) | 0–7 (n = 50) | ||||
| 8–20 (n = 58) | −1.00 | 0.07 | 0.37 | 0.12–1.10 | |
| 21–46 (n = 62) | −0.49 | 0.51 | 0.61 | 0.14–2.63 | |
| Leading position 8 (n = 63) | −0.34 | 0.36 | 0.71 | 0.35–1.46 | |
| Workplace in acute care 9 (n = 57) | −0.23 | 0.54 | 0.80 | 0.39–1.64 | |
| Openness 10 | ≤3 (n = 67) | ||||
| 3.5–5 (n = 103) | 0.31 | 0.38 | 1.36 | 0.69–2.70 | |
| Conscientiousness 10 | ≤4 (n = 76) | ||||
| 4.5–5 (n = 94) | −0.23 | 0.51 | 0.80 | 0.41–1.57 | |
| Extraversion 10 | ≤3 (n = 67) | ||||
| 3.5–5 (n = 103) | −0.50 | 0.16 | 0.61 | 0.30–1.23 | |
| Agreeableness 10 | ≤3 (n = 83) | ||||
| 3.5–5 (n = 87) | −0.54 | 0.12 | 0.58 | 0.30–1.14 | |
| Neuroticism 10 | ≤2.5 (n = 81) | ||||
| 3–5 (n = 89) | 0.49 | 0.17 | 1.63 | 0.82–3.26 | |
For the construction of the symptom load score, see methods section. For this binary logistic regression model, the symptom score was split based on its median in two groups with lower (≤ 7 points) vs. higher (≥ 7.5 points) symptom load scores. 1 Nagelkerkes r2; 2 regression coefficient B; 3 exponentiation of the B coefficient (Exp(B)) or odds ratio; 4 confidence interval; 5 reference category (RC) is female sex; 6 RC is ≤31 years of age; 7 RC is 0–7 years of working experience; 8 RC is no leading position; 9 RC is not working in acute care (predominantly in ICU and/or emergency department); 10 RC are lower sum scores based on median splits.