Changing Responses during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparison of Psychological Wellbeing and Work-Related Quality of Life of UK Health and Social Care Workers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Theoretical Framework
1.2. Aim of Study
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Study Sample
2.3. Ethical Considerations
2.4. Measures
Sociodemographic and Work-Related Variables
2.5. Outcome Scales
2.5.1. Quality of Working Life
2.5.2. Mental Wellbeing
2.5.3. Coping
2.6. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Sample Characteristics
3.2. Descriptive Statistics
3.3. Multivariate Analysis
4. Discussion
4.1. Main Messages
4.2. Limitations and Strengths
4.3. Implications
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Health Organisation. Available online: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 (accessed on 26 May 2023).
- World Health Organisation. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/ (accessed on 26 May 2023).
- World Health Organisation. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/gb (accessed on 26 May 2023).
- Panneer, S.; Kantamaneni, K.; Palaniswamy, U.; Bhat, L.; Pushparaj, R.R.B.; Nayar, K.R.; Soundari Manuel, H.; Flower, F.X.L.L.; Rice, L. Health, Economic and Social Development Challenges of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Strategies for Multiple and Interconnected Issues. Healthcare 2022, 10, 770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mould, O.; Cole, J.; Badger, A.; Brown, P. Solidarity, not charity: Learning the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic to reconceptualise the radicality of mutual aid. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2022, 47, 866–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, Y.; Li, H.; Zhang, R. Effects of pandemic outbreak on economies: Evidence from business history context. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 632043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filip, R.; Gheorghita Puscaselu, R.; Anchidin-Norocel, L.; Dimian, M.; Savage, W.K. Global Challenges to Public Health Care Systems during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review of Pandemic Measures and Problems. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schleicher, A. The Impact of COVID-19 on Education: Insights from “Education at a Glance 2020”; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-education-insights-education-at-a-glance-2020.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2023).
- The Kings Fund. Overview of the health and social care workforce. Available online: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/time-think-differently/trends-workforce-overview (accessed on 30 June 2023).
- Buzelli, L.; Cameron, C.; Gardner, T. Public Perceptions of the NHS and Social Care: Performance, Policy and Expectations. Available online: https://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/public-perceptions-performance-policy-and-expectations (accessed on 3 February 2022).
- Warner, M.; Zaranko, B. Pressures on the NHS 2021. Available online: https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/6-Pressures-on-the-NHS-.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Charlesworth, A.; Johnson, P.; Firth, Z.; Gershlick, B.; Watt, T.; Kelly, E.; Lee, T.; Stoye, G.; Zaranko, B. Securing the Future: Funding Health and Social. Care to the 2030s; The Institute for Fiscal Studies: London, UK, 2018; Available online: https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/R143.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Authority of the House of Lords. The Long-Term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care; Authority of the House of Lords: London, UK, 2017.
- Curtis, L.A.; Burns, A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2015; Report Number: 3; Personal Social Services Research Unit: Canterbury, UK, 2015; p. 274. ISBN 978-1-902671-96-3. [Google Scholar]
- Kinman, G.; Teoh, K.; Harriss, A. The Mental Health and Wellbeing of Nurses and Midwives in the United Kingdom 2020. Available online: https://www.som.org.uk/sites/som.org.uk/files/The_Mental_Health_and_Wellbeing_of_Nurses_and_Midwives_in_the_United_Kingdom.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2023).
- Ravalier, J.; Morton, R.; Russell, L.; Fidalgo, A.R. Zero-hour contracts and stress in UK domiciliary care workers. Health Soc. Care Community 2019, 27, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bardhan, R.; Byrd, T.; Boyd, J. Workforce Management during the Time of COVID-19—Lessons Learned and Future Measures. COVID 2023, 3, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz Tayri, T.M. On the frontlines: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social workers’ well-being. Soc. Work. 2023, 68, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- French, L.; Hanna, P.; Huckle, C. “If I die, they do not care”: UK National Health Service staff experiences of betrayal-based moral injury during COVID-19. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy 2022, 14, 516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borek, A.J.; Pilbeam, C.; Mableson, H.; Wanat, M.; Atkinson, P.; Sheard, S.; Tonkin-Crine, S. Experiences and concerns of health workers throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: A longitudinal qualitative interview study. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0264906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pappa, S.; Barnett, J.; Berges, I.; Sakkas, N. Tired, Worried and Burned Out, but Still Resilient: A Cross-Sectional Study of Mental Health Workers in the UK during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aughterson, H.; McKinlay, A.R.; Fancourt, D.; Burton, A. Psychosocial impact on frontline health and social care professionals in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative interview study. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e047353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- South Eastern Trust. Rebuild Plan. 2020. Available online: https://setrust.hscni.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/South-Eastern-Trust-Rebuild-plan-phase-1-June-2020-FINAL-VERSION.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2023).
- Nyashanu, M.; Pfende, F.; Ekpenyong, M. Exploring the challenges faced by frontline workers in health and social care amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences of frontline workers in the English Midlands region, UK. J. Interprofessional Care 2020, 34, 655–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, T.; Xu, C.; Wang, C.; Sha, S.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, X.; Hu, D.; Liu, Y.; Tian, T.; et al. Burnout and well-being of healthcare workers in the post-pandemic period of COVID-19: A perspective from the job demands-resources model. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2022, 22, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hebles, M.; Trincado-Munoz, F.; Ortega, K. Stress and turnover intentions within healthcare teams: The mediating role of psychological safety, and the moderating effect of COVID-19 worry and supervisor support. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 6594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liberati, E.; Richards, N.; Willars, J.; Scott, D.; Boydell, N.; Parker, J.; Pinfold, V.; Martin, G.; Dixon-Woods, M.; Jones, P.B. A qualitative study of experiences of NHS mental healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychiatry 2021, 21, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavoie-Tremblay, M.; Gélinas, C.; Aubé, T.; Tchouaket, E.; Tremblay, D.; Gagnon, M.P.; Côté, J. Influence of caring for COVID-19 patients on nurse’s turnover, work satisfaction and quality of care. J. Nurs. Manag. 2022, 30, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasdovasilis, P.; Cook, N.; Montasem, A. UK healthcare support workers and the COVID-19 pandemic: An explorative analysis of lived experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Home Health Care Serv. Q. 2023, 42, 14–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, C.; Cheung, K.L. Knowledge, socio-cognitive perceptions and the practice of hand hygiene and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study of UK university students. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goniewicz, K.; Khorram-Manesh, A. Maintaining Social Distancing during the COVID-19 Outbreak. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, N.C.; Chi, H.; Tai, Y.L.; Peng, C.C.; Tseng, C.Y.; Chen, C.C.; Tan, B.F.; Lin, C.Y. Impact of wearing masks, hand hygiene, and social distancing on influenza, enterovirus, and all-cause pneumonia during the coronavirus pandemic: Retrospective national epidemiological surveillance study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e21257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Von Bavel, J.J.; Baicker, K.; Boggio, P.S.; Capraro, V.; Cichocka, A.; Cikara, M.; Crockett, M.J.; Crum, A.J.; Douglas, K.M.; Druckman, J.N.; et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020, 4, 460–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organisation. Responding to Community Spread of COVID-19. 7 March 2020. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331421/WHO-COVID-19-Community_Transmission-2020.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 30 May 2023).
- World Health Organization. Handwashing an Effective Tool to Prevent COVID-19, Other Diseases 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/southeastasia/news/detail/15-10-2020-handwashing-an-effective-tool-to-prevent-covid-19-therdiseases#:~{}:text=To%20stop%20the%20spread%20of,handling%20animals%20or%20animal%20waste (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- UK Health Security Agency. The Effectiveness of Face Coverings to Reduce Transmission of COVID-19 in Community Settings: A Rapid Review. 2021. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1033268/Respiratory_Evidence_Panel_Evidence_Overview.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2023).
- UK Government. Coronavirus. In Stay at Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives; 2020. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/885179/_Withdrawn__coronavirus-leaflet.pdf (accessed on 28 July 2020).
- UK Parliament. COVID-19 and International Approaches to Exiting Lockdown. 2020. Available online: https://post.parliament.uk/covid-19-and-international-approaches-to-exiting-lockdown/ (accessed on 30 June 2023).
- Huhtala, H.; Parzefall, M.R. Promotion of employee wellbeing and innovativeness: An opportunity for a mutual benefit. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2007, 16, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taris, T.W.; Schaufeli, W.B. The Job Demands-Resources Model. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Occupational Safety and Workplace Health; Clarke, S.P., Tahira, M., Guldenmund, F., Passmore, J., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 155–180. [Google Scholar]
- Zeegen, E.N.; Yates, A.J.; Jevsevar, D.S. After the COVID-19 pandemic: Returning to normalcy or returning to a new normal? J. Arthroplast. 2020, 35, S37–S41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Appleby, J.; Wellings, D. Public Satisfaction with NHS Dalls to a 25 Year Low. 2022. Available online: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/public-satisfaction-with-the-nhs-falls-to-a-25-year-low (accessed on 30 May 2023).
- Rathnayake, D.; Clarke, M.; Jayasinghe, V.I. Health system performance and health system preparedness for the post-pandemic impact of COVID-19: A review. Int. J. Healthc. Manag. 2021, 14, 250–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, P.; Neill, R.; Moriarty, J.; Gillen, P.; Mallett, J.; Manthorpe, J.; Currie, D.; Schroder, H.; Ravalier, J.; Nicholl, P.; et al. A cross-sectional examination of the mental wellbeing, coping and quality of working life in health and social care workers in the UK at two time points of the COVID-19 pandemic. Epidemiology 2021, 2, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McFadden, P.; Ross, J.; Moriarty, J.; Mallett, J.; Schröder, H.; Ravalier, J.; Manthorpe, J.; Currie, D.; Harron, J.; Gillen, P. The Role of Coping in the Wellbeing and Work-Related Quality of Life of UK Health and Social Care Workers during COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gillen, P.; Neill, R.D.; Manthorpe, J.; Mallett, J.; Schröder, H.; Nicholl, P.; Currie, D.; Moriarty, J.; Ravalier, J.; Mc Grory, S.; et al. Decreasing Wellbeing and Increasing Use of Negative Coping Strategies: The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the UK Health and Social Care Workforce. Epidemiologia 2022, 3, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Neill, R.D.; Gillen, P.; Moriarty, J.; Manthorpe, J.; Mallett, J.; Schroder, H.; Currie, D.; Nicholl, P.; Ravalier, J.; McGrory, S.; et al. Comparing Psychological Wellbeing and Work-Related Quality of Life between Professional Groups within Health and Social Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UK. Merits 2022, 2, 374–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mc Fadden, P.; Neill, R.; Mallett, J.; Manthorpe, J.; Gillen, P.; Moriarty, J.; Currie, D.; Schroder, H.; Ravalier, J.; Nicholl, P.; et al. Mental wellbeing and quality of working life in UK social workers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A propensity score matching study. Br. J. Soc. Work. 2022, 52, 2814–2833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravalier, J.; Neill, R.D.; Mc Fadden, P.; Manthorpe, J.; Gillen, P.; Mallett, J.; Nicholl, P.; Schroder, H.; Currie, D.; Moriarty, J. Working conditions and well-being in UK social care and social work during COVID-19. J. Soc. Work. 2023, 23, 165–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravalier, J.M.; McFadden, P.; Gillen, P.; Mallett, J.; Nicholl, P.; Neill, R.; Manthorpe, J.; Moriarty, J.; Schroder, H.; Curry, D. Working Conditions and Well-Being across the COVID Pandemic in UK Social (Care) Workers. Br. J. Soc. Work. 2022, 53, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manthorpe, J.; Iliffe, S.; Gillen, P.; Moriarty, J.; Mallett, J.; Schroder, H.; Currie, D.; Ravalier, J.; Mc Fadden, P. Clapping for Carers in the COVID-19 crisis: Carers’ reflections in a UK survey. Health Soc. Care Community 2022, 30, 1442–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gillen, P.; Neill, R.D.; Mallett, J.; Moriarty, J.; Manthorpe, J.; Schroder, H.; Currie, D.; McGrory, S.; Nicholl, P.; Ravalier, J.; et al. Wellbeing and coping of UK nurses, midwives and allied health professionals during COVID-19-a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0274036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McGrory, S.; Neill, R.D.; Gillen, P.; Mc Fadden, P.; Manthorpe, J.; Ravalier, J.; Mallett, J.; Schroder, H.; Currie, D.; Moriarty, J.; et al. Self-Reported Experiences of Midwives Working in the UK across Three Phases during COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Neill, R.D.; Wake, J.; Ohwa, M.; Manthorpe, J.; Gillen, P.; Mc Fadden, P. Comparing the Mental Wellbeing and Quality of Working Life among Nurses and Social Care Workers in the UK and Japan in Older Adults’ Care Services during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Psych 2022, 4, 843–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HSC Workforce Study Reports. Available online: https://www.hscworkforcestudy.co.uk/reports-publications (accessed on 27 October 2022).
- Easton, S.; Van Laar, D. User Manual for the Work-Related Quality of Life (WRQoL) Scale: A Measure of Quality of Working Life; University of Portsmouth: Portsmouth, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Stewart-Brown, S.; Tennant, A.; Tennant, R.; Platt, S.; Parkinson, J.; Weich, S. Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): A Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2009, 7, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, M.A.; Michel, J.S.; Early, R.J.; Baltes, B.B. Strategies for coping with work stressors and family stressors: Scale development and validation. J. Bus. Psychol. 2014, 29, 617–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carver, C.S. You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the brief cope. Int. J. Behav. Med. 1997, 4, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fat, L.N.; Scholes, S.; Boniface, S.; Mindell, J.; Stewart-Brown, S. Evaluating and establishing national norms for mental wellbeing using the short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): Findings from the Health Survey for England. Qual. Life Res. 2017, 26, 1129–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NHS. Health Survey for England 2011. Available online: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-survey-for-england/health-survey-for-england-2011-health-social-care-and-lifestyles (accessed on 18 July 2021).
- BMA. COVID Review. Available online: https://www.bma.org.uk/media/5816/bma-covid-review-report-3-june-2022.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2023).
- Curry, N.; Oung, C.; Hemmings, N.; Comas-Herrera, A.; Byrd, W. Building a Resilient Social Care System in England; Nuffield Trust: London, UK, 2023; Available online: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-05/Building%20a%20resilient%20social%20care%20system%20in%20England.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2023).
- Howie-Esquivel, J.; Do Byon, H.; Lewis, C.; Travis, A.; Cavanagh, C. Quality of work-life among advanced practice nurses who manage care for patients with heart failure: The effect of resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Heart Lung 2022, 55, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maclochlainn, J.; McFadden, P.; Mallett, J.; Schröder, H.; Ravalier, J.; Manthorpe, J.; Currie, D.; Mc Grory, S.; Ross, J.; Naylor, R.; et al. Health and Social Care Workers’ Quality of Working Life and Coping while Working during the COVID-19 Pandemic November 2022–January 2023. Available online: https://www.hscworkforcestudy.co.uk/_files/ugd/2749ea_85a85b66dd814fb08f5b823ac0a507dd.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2023).
- Makabe, S.; Takagai, J.; Asanuma, Y.; Ohtomo, K.; Kimura, Y. Impact of work-life imbalance on job satisfaction and quality of life among hospital nurses in Japan. Ind. Health 2015, 53, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pezaro, S.; Patterson, J.; Moncrieff, G.; Ghai, I. A systematic integrative review of the literature on midwives and student midwives engaged in problematic substance use. Midwifery 2020, 89, 102785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, X.; Cheng, Z. Cross-Sectional Studies: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations. Chest 2020, 158, S65–S71. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Levin, K.A. Study design III: Cross-sectional studies. Evid. Based Dent. 2006, 7, 24–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahajan, A. Limitations of cross-sectional studies. Neurol. India 2015, 63, 1006–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organisation. Available online: www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic (accessed on 6 June 2023).
- Andrade, C. The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive samples. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 2021, 43, 86–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jager, J.; Putnick, D.L.; Bornstein, M.H.I.I. More than just convenient: The scientific merits of homogeneous convenience samples. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 2017, 82, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Althubaiti, A. Information bias in health research: Definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J. Multidiscip. Heal. 2016, 9, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bornstein, M.H.; Jager, J.; Putnick, D.L. Sampling in developmental science: Situations, shortcomings, solutions, and standards. Dev. Rev. 2013, 33, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scriven, A.; Smith-Ferrier, S. The application of online surveys for workplace health research. J. R. Soc. Promot. Health 2003, 123, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UK Parliament. Women and the UK Economy. 2023. Available online: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06838/SN06838.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2023).
- Latkin, C.A.; Edwards, C.; Davey-Rothwell, M.A.; Tobin, K.E. The relationship between social desirability bias and self-reports of health, substance use, and social network factors among urban substance users in Baltimore, Maryland. Addict. Behav. 2017, 73, 133–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenman, R.; Tennekoon, V.; Hill, L.G. Measuring bias in self-reported data. Int. J. Behav. Healthc. Res. 2011, 2, 320–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Koning, R.; Egiz, A.; Kotecha, J.; Ciuculete, A.C.; Ooi, S.Z.Y.; Bankole, N.D.A.; Kanmounye, U.S. Survey fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of neurosurgery survey response rates. Front. Surg. 2021, 8, 690680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gnanapragasam, S.N.; Hodson, A.; Smith, L.E.; Greenberg, N.; Rubin, G.J.; Wessely, S. COVID-19 survey burden for healthcare workers: Literature review and audit. Public Health 2021, 6, 94–101. [Google Scholar]
- Patel, S.S.; Webster, R.K.; Greenberg, N.; Weston, D.; Brooks, S.K. Research fatigue in COVID-19 pandemic and post-disaster research: Causes, consequences and recommendations. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 2020, 29, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caughey, D.; Berinsky, A.J.; Chatfield, S.; Hartman, E.; Schickler, E.; Sekhon, J.S. Target Estimation and Adjustment Weighting for Survey Nonresponse and Sampling Bias; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Valliant, R.; Dever, J.A. Survey Weights: A Step-by-Step Guide to Calculation; Stata Press: College Station, TX, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Silarova, B.; Brookes, N.; Palmer, S.; Towers, A.M.; Hussein, S. Understanding and measuring the work-related quality of life among those working in adult social care: A scoping review. Health Soc. Care Community 2022, 30, 1637–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shembavnekar, N.; Kelly, E. Retaining NHS Nurses: What Do Trends in Staff Turnover Tell Us? Available online: https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/retaining-nhs-nurses-what-do-trends-in-staff-turnover-tell-us#:~:text=Overall%2C%20the%20staff%20leaver%20rate,from%209%25%20to%2011.5%25 (accessed on 30 May 2023).
- UK Parliament. Available online: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7281/ (accessed on 30 May 2023).
- McMurray, S. The Impact of COVID on the Health and Social Care Workforce. Available online: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/raise/publications/2017-2022/2020/health/3420.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2023).
- UK Parliament. Available online: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0059/ (accessed on 30 May 2023).
- Towers, A.M.; Palmer, S.; Brookes, N.; Salisbury, H.; Silarova, B.; Makela, P.; Hussein, S. Quality of Life at Work: What it Means for the Adult Social Care Workforce in England and Recommendations for Actions. Available online: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/97867/ (accessed on 30 May 2023).
- Weyman, A.; Glendinning, R.; O’Hara, R.; Coster, J.; Roy, D.; Nolan, P. Should I Stay or Should I Go. Available online: https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-nhs-staff-retention-in-the-post-covid-19-world/attachments/NHS-staff-retention-IPR-report.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2023).
- Maben, J.; Conolly, A.; Abrams, R.; Rowland, E.; Harris, R.; Kelly, D.; Kent, B.; Couper, K. ‘You can’t walk through water without getting wet’ UK nurses’ distress and psychological health needs during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal interview study. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2022, 131, 104242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cole, C.L.; Barry, C.; Saunders, R.; Billings, J.; Stott, J.; Buckman, J.E.; Greene, T.; Cirkovik, M.; Pilling, S.; Wheatley, J. A service evaluation of phased-and stepped-care psychological support for health and social care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. BJPsych Open 2023, 9, e95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan, J.A.; Shannon, C.; Browne, D.; Carroll, E.; Maguire, J.; Kerrigan, K.; Hannan, S.; McCarthy, T.; Tully, M.A.; Mulholland, C.; et al. COVID-19 Staff Wellbeing Survey: Longitudinal survey of psychological well-being among health and social care staff in Northern Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic. BJPsych Open 2021, 7, e159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Royal College of Nursing. Facing Covid. Available online: https://www.rcn.org.uk/Professional-Development/publications/facing-covid-19-rcn-reps-share-stories-of-the-pandemic-uk-pub-009-933 (accessed on 30 May 2023).
- Abrams, R.; Conolly, A.; Rowland, E.; Harris, R.; Kent, B.; Kelly, D.; Couper, K.; Maben, J. Speaking up during the COVID-19 pandemic: Nurses’ experiences of organizational disregard and silence. J. Adv. Nurs. 2023, 79, 2189–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacLochlainn, J.; Manthorpe, J.; Mallett, J.; McGrory, S.; Ravalier, J.M.; Nicholl, P.; Schroder, H.; Currie, D.; McFadden, P. The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on UK older people’s social workers: A mixed-methods study. Br. J. Soc. Work. 2023, 30, bcad139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Phase 1 | Phase 2 | Phase 3 | Phase 4 | Phase 5 | Phase 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sex | ||||||
Female | 2221 (87.2%) | 2441 (88.3%) | 1970 (88.2%) | 1280 (89.4%) | 1150 (84.7%) | 1040 (84.0%) |
Male | 325 (12.8%) | 325 (11.7%) | 263 (11.8%) | 152 (10.6%) | 208 (15.3%) | 198 (16.0%) |
Age | ||||||
16–29 | 303 (11.9%) | 307 (11.9%) | 190 (8.5%) | 136 (9.5%) | 150 (11.0%) | 82 (6.6%) |
30–39 | 539 (21.2%) | 639 (23.1%) | 415 (18.6%) | 295 (20.6%) | 287 (21.1%) | 233 (18.8%) |
40–49 | 753 (29.6%) | 729 (26.4%) | 602 (27.0%) | 426 (29.7%) | 377 (27.8%) | 348 (28.1%) |
50–59 | 755 (29.7%) | 825 (29.9%) | 790 (35.4%) | 454 (31.7%) | 421 (31.0%) | 425 (34.3%) |
60+ | 195 (7.7%) | 265 (9.6%) | 234 (10.5%) | 121 (8.4%) | 123 (9.1%) | 150 (12.1%) |
Ethnic background | ||||||
White | 2395 (94.2%) | 2654 (96.1%) | 2150 (96.4%) | 1386 (96.9%) | 1319 (97.3%) | 1207 (97.7%) |
Black | 74 (2.9%) | 40 (1.4%) | 30 (1.3%) | 13 (0.9%) | 18 (1.3%) | 12 (1.0%) |
Asian | 29 (1.1%) | 26 (0.9%) | 19 (0.9%) | 11 (0.8%) | 6 (0.4%) | 8 (0.6%) |
Mixed | 44 (1.7%) | 41 (1.5%) | 31 (1.4%) | 20 (1.4%) | 13 (1.0%) | 9 (0.7%) |
Country of work | ||||||
England | 908 (35.7%) | 641 (23.2%) | 439 (19.7%) | 306 (21.4%) | 168 (12.4%) | 171 (13.8%) |
Scotland | 109 (4.3%) | 358 (12.9%) | 615 (27.5%) | 414 (28.9%) | 111 (8.2%) | 286 (23.1%) |
Wales | 145 (5.7%) | 856 (30.9%) | 77 (5.4%) | 77 (5.4%) | 72 (5.3%) | 85 (6.9%) |
Northern Ireland | 1384 (54.4%) | 911 (32.9%) | 635 (44.3%) | 635 (44.3%) | 1007 (74.2%) | 696 (56.2%) |
Occupational group | ||||||
Nursing | 142 (5.6%) | 290 (10.5%) | 464 (20.8%) | 304 (21.2%) | 182 (13.4%) | 183 (14.8%) |
Midwifery | 139 (5.5%) | 59 (2.1%) | 137 (6.1%) | 111 (7.8%) | 70 (5.2%) | 25 (2.0%) |
Allied health professionals | 311 (12.2%) | 500 (18.1%) | 314 (14.1%) | 474 (33.1%) | 241 (17.7%) | 200 (16.2%) |
Social care workers | 919 (36.1%) | 961 (34.7%) | 681 (30.5%) | 256 (17.9%) | 552 (40.6%) | 461 (37.2%) |
Social workers | 1035 (40.7%) | 956 (34.6%) | 637 (28.5%) | 287 (20.0%) | 313 (23.0%) | 369 (29.8%) |
Number of years of work experience | ||||||
Less than 2 years | 211 (8.3%) | 184 (6.7%) | 117 (5.2%) | 60 (4.2%) | 60 (4.4%) | 20 (1.6%) |
2–5 years | 373 (14.7%) | 379 (13.7%) | 286 (12.8%) | 159 (11.1%) | 198 (14.6%) | 142 (11.5%) |
6–10 years | 407 (16.0%) | 453 (16.4%) | 307 (13.8%) | 193 (13.5%) | 208 (15.3%) | 212 (17.1%) |
11–20 years | 688 (27.0%) | 842 (30.4%) | 601 (26.9%) | 393 (27.5%) | 383 (28.2%) | 356 (28.8%) |
21–30 years | 572 (22.5%) | 557 (20.1%) | 491 (22.0%) | 347 (24.3%) | 322 (23.7%) | 291 (23.5%) |
More than 30 years | 295 (11.6%) | 350 (12.7%) | 429 (19.2%) | 278 (19.4%) | 187 (13.8%) | 217 (17.5%) |
Place of work | ||||||
Hospital | 250 (9.8%) | 310 (11.2%) | 462 (20.7%) | 414 (28.9%) | 198 (14.6%) | 228 (18.4%) |
Community | 1446 (56.9%) | 1296 (47.0%) | 1000 (44.8%) | 511 (35.7%) | 704 (51.9%) | 648 (52.3%) |
General-practice-based | 12 (0.5%) | 46 (1.7%) | 31 (1.4%) | 40 (2.8%) | 34 (2.5%) | 28 (2.3%) |
Care home | 303 (11.9%) | 271 (9.8%) | 201 (9.0%) | 94 (6.6%) | 158 (11.6%) | 117 (9.5%) |
Day care | 47 (1.8%) | 97 (3.5%) | 62 (2.8%) | 45 (3.1%) | 50 (3.7%) | 47 (3.8%) |
Other | 484 (19.0%) | 739 (26.8%) | 473 (21.2%) | 328 (22.9%) | 213 (15.7%) | 170 (13.7%) |
Main area of practice | ||||||
Children | 531 (20.9%) | 724 (26.2%) | 391 (17.5%) | 242 (16.9%) | 242 (17.8%) | 255 (20.6%) |
Midwifery | 138 (5.4%) | 57 (2.1%) | 138 (6.2%) | 108 (7.5%) | 67 (4.9%) | 25 (2.0%) |
Adults | 485 (19.1%) | 607 (21.9%) | 561 (25.1%) | 216 (15.1%) | 135 (9.9%) | 138 (10.3%) |
Physical disability | 50 (2.0%) | 51 (1.8%) | 36 (1.6%) | 43 (3.0%) | 22 (1.6%) | 33 (2.7%) |
Learning disability | 285 (11.2%) | 300 (10.8%) | 236 (10.6%) | 110 (7.7%) | 157 (11.6%) | 145 (11.7%) |
Older people | 602 (23.7%) | 543 (19.6%) | 473 (21.2%) | 353 (24.7%) | 433 (31.9%) | 339 (27.4%) |
Mental health | 216 (8.5%) | 276 (10.0%) | 221 (9.9%) | 106 (7.4%) | 113 (8.3%) | 111 (9.0%) |
Other | 238 (9.4%) | 208 (7.5%) | 177 (7.9%) | 254 (17.7%) | 189 (13.9%) | 202 (16.3%) |
Disability status | ||||||
Yes | 222 (8.7%) | 275 (9.9%) | 287 (12.9%) | 151 (10.5%) | 164 (12.1%) | 192 (15.5%) |
No | 2268 (89.1%) | 2428 (87.8%) | 1882 (84.3%) | 1253 (87.5%) | 1145 (84.3%) | 992 (80.1%) |
Unsure | 56 (2.2%) | 62 (2.2%) | 63 (2.8%) | 28 (2.0%) | 49 (3.6%) | 54 (4.4%) |
Variables | Occupation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Social Work | Social Care | AHP | Midwifery | Nursing | |
WRQoL | |||||
Phase 1 | 80.66 (13.58) | 79.15 (15.63) | 82.06 (12.42) | 77.43 (15.28) | 75.11 (18.64) |
Phase 2 | 73.77 (15.29) | 73.37 (16.33) | 74.34 (16.12) | 66.82 (16.17) | 71.20 (14.42) |
Phase 3 | 69.87 (15.90) | 70.69 (15.73) | 75.03 (18.19) | 64.81 (12.82) | 73.54 (15.24) |
Phase 4 | 69.79 (15.64) | 72.96 (18.47) | 74.01 (16.50) | 65.36 (15.25) | 78.80 (14.55) |
Phase 5 | 66.73 (16.20) | 75.51 (16.30) | 74.92 (16.59) | 65.53 (19.10) | 73.76 (19.32) |
Phase 6 | 68.56 (15.98) | 72.25 (16.45) | 75.31 (14.30) | 72.16 (11.28) | >78.82 (17.03) |
Wellbeing | |||||
Phase 1 | 21.32 (3.34) | 20.90 (3.92) | 21.32 (3.32) | 20.87 (3.24) | 21.15 (3.68) |
Phase 2 | 20.07 (3.19) | 20.05 (3.60) | 20.64 (3.36) | 19.87 (2.46) | 20.42 (3.16) |
Phase 3 | 19.83 (3.23) | 19.82 (3.89) | 20.73 (3.36) | 19.28 (3.08) | 20.58 (3.46) |
Phase 4 | 19.80 (3.36) | 20.36 (3.04) | 20.73 (3.52) | 19.60 (3.43) | 21.69 (4.11) |
Phase 5 | 20.31 (3.60) | 21.20 (3.40) | 21.49 (3.73) | 19.67 (2.78) | 20.37 (4.46) |
Phase 6 | 19.65 (3.19) | 20.68 (3.58) | 20.66 (2.97) | 19.83 (2.15) | 21.63 (4.04) |
Variable | Phase 1 | Phase 2 | Phase 3 | Phase 4 | Phase 5 | Phase 6 | Phase Comparison |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M (SD) | p-Value | ||||||
Wellbeing | 20.96 (3.78) | 20.21 (3.36) | 20.18 (3.79) | 20.91 (3.55) | 20.81 (3.76) | 20.34 (3.43) | <0.001 |
Quality of working life | 78.09 (17.51) | 72.56 (15.93) | 71.98 (15.79) | 75.64 (16.26) | 74.39 (17.52) | 71.99 (16.64) | <0.001 |
Coping strategies | |||||||
Active coping | 6.00 (1.64) | 5.48 (1.71) | 5.29 (1.84) | 5.39 (1.77) | 5.59 (1.62) | 5.27 (1.89) | |
Planning | 5.81 (1.81) | 5.52 (1.86) | 5.53 (1.77) | 5.41 (1.82) | 5.54 (1.72) | 5.34 (1.97) | <0.001 |
Positive reframing | 5.85 (1.65) | 5.57 (1.70) | 5.35 (1.69) | 5.60 (1.65) | 5.52 (1.69) | 5.23 (1.86) | <0.001 |
Acceptance | 6.39 (1.53) | 6.18 (1.51) | 5.99 (1.48) | 6.08 (1.47) | 5.90 (1.51) | 5.86 (1.67) | <0.001 |
Use of emotional support | 4.93 (1.76) | 4.74 (1.83) | 4.67 (1.77) | 5.03 (1.71) | 4.95 (1.73) | 4.46 (1.84) | <0.001 |
Use of instrumental support | 4.34 (1.83) | 4.29 (1.79) | 4.09 (1.74) | 4.80 (1.77) | 4.39 (1.75) | 4.20 (1.71) | <0.001 |
Venting | 3.51 (1.43) | 4.15 (1.64) | 4.06 (1.60) | 4.24 (1.68) | 4.17 (1.50) | 4.03 (1.73) | <0.001 |
Substance use | 2.75 (1.41) | 2.81 (1.44) | 2.97 (1.56) | 2.97 (1.46) | 2.99 (1.50) | 2.89 (1.52) | <0.001 |
Behavioural disengagement | 2.72 (1.25) | 2.72 (1.25) | 3.00 (1.38) | 2.82 (1.41) | 3.02 (1.58) | 3.00 (1.39) | <0.001 |
Self-blame | 3.42 (1.81) | 4.00 (1.87) | 4.22 (1.87) | 4.00 (1.62) | 4.24 (1.72) | 4.07 (2.03) | <0.001 |
Family–work segmentation | 5.13 (0.83) | 5.12 (0.84) | 5.12 (0.86) | 4.97 (0.82) | 4.74 (1.00) | 5.07 (0.88) | <0.001 |
Work–family segmentation | 4.66 (1.05) | 4.58 (1.06) | 4.43 (1.25) | 4.44 (1.02) | 4.37 (1.13) | 4.53 (1.13) | <0.001 |
Working to improve skills/efficiency | 4.49 (1.09) | 4.18 (1.15) | 4.19 (1.14) | 4.36 (1.11) | 4.30 (1.07) | 4.13 (1.23) | <0.001 |
Recreation and relaxation | 3.75 (1.23) | 3.55 (1.31) | 3.45 (1.23) | 3.49 (1.27) | 3.47 (1.23) | 3.40 (1.20) | <0.001 |
Exercise | 3.98 (1.41) | 3.65 (1.38) | 3.34 (1.40) | 3.62 (1.35) | 3.41 (1.40) | 3.48 (1.45) | <0.001 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Neill, R.D.; McFadden, P.; Manthorpe, J.; Mallett, J.; Currie, D.; Schroder, H.; Ravalier, J.; Nicholl, P.; Moriarty, J.; McGrory, S.; et al. Changing Responses during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparison of Psychological Wellbeing and Work-Related Quality of Life of UK Health and Social Care Workers. BioMed 2023, 3, 369-386. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomed3030030
Neill RD, McFadden P, Manthorpe J, Mallett J, Currie D, Schroder H, Ravalier J, Nicholl P, Moriarty J, McGrory S, et al. Changing Responses during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparison of Psychological Wellbeing and Work-Related Quality of Life of UK Health and Social Care Workers. BioMed. 2023; 3(3):369-386. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomed3030030
Chicago/Turabian StyleNeill, Ruth D., Paula McFadden, Jill Manthorpe, John Mallett, Denise Currie, Heike Schroder, Jermaine Ravalier, Patricia Nicholl, John Moriarty, Susan McGrory, and et al. 2023. "Changing Responses during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparison of Psychological Wellbeing and Work-Related Quality of Life of UK Health and Social Care Workers" BioMed 3, no. 3: 369-386. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomed3030030