Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objectives To compare psychological outcomes, experiences and sources of stress over the COVID-19 lockdown in New Zealand in essential workers (healthcare and ‘other’ essential workers) with that of workers in nonessential work roles.
Design Online cross-sectional survey.
Setting Conducted in New Zealand over level 4 lockdown in April/May 2020.
Participants Findings from employed participants (2495) are included in this report; 381 healthcare workers, 649 ‘other’ essential workers and 1465 nonessential workers.
Primary and secondary outcome measures Measures included psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7)), well-being (WHO-5), alcohol use, subjective experiences and sources of stress. Differences between work categories were quantified as risk ratios or χ2 tests.
Results After controlling for confounders that differed between groups of essential and nonessential workers, those in healthcare and those in ‘other’ essential work were at 71% (95% CI 1.29 to 2.27) and 59% (95% CI 1.25 to 2.02) greater risk respectively, of moderate levels of anxiety (GAD-7 ≥10), than those in nonessential work. Those in healthcare were at 19% (95% CI 1.02 to 1.39) greater risk of poor well-being (WHO-5 <13). There was no evidence of differences across work roles in risk for psychological distress (K10 ≥12) or increased alcohol use. Healthcare and ‘other’ essential workers reported increased workload (p<0.001) and less uncertainty about finances and employment than those in nonessential work (p<0.001). Healthcare and nonessential workers reported decreased social contact. No difference by work category in health concerns was reported; 15% had concerns about participants’ own health and 33% about other people’s health.
Conclusions During the pandemic lockdown, essential workers (those in healthcare and those providing ‘other’ essential work) were at increased risk of anxiety compared with those in nonessential work, with those in healthcare also being at increased risk of poor well-being. This highlights the need to recognise the challenges this vital workforce face in pandemics.
- mental health
- COVID-19
- public health
- epidemiology
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. De-identified participant data for participants from the three surveys analysed are available from [Caroline Bell; caroline.bell@otago.ac.nz]
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. De-identified participant data for participants from the three surveys analysed are available from [Caroline Bell; caroline.bell@otago.ac.nz]
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
Contributors CB roles methodology, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. JW roles data curation, formal analysis, writing—review and editing. BB roles methodology, writing—review and editing. JS roles data curation, formal analysis, resources, writing—review and editing. MJ roles conceptualisation, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. PG roles conceptualisation, investigation, methodology, supervision, writing—review and editing. CR roles methodology, writing—review and editing. SE-P roles conceptualisation, data curation, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, writing—review and editing
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.