Next Article in Journal
Distinctive Tissue and Serum MicroRNA Profile of IgG4-Related Ophthalmic Disease and MALT Lymphoma
Next Article in Special Issue
The Interrelation of Neurological and Psychological Symptoms of COVID-19: Risks and Remedies
Previous Article in Journal
Treatment of Bone and Joint Tuberculosis in France: A Multicentre Retrospective Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Risk for Depressive Symptoms among Hospitalized Women in High-Risk Pregnancy Units during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Mental Health of Medical and Non-Medical Professionals during the Peak of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Nationwide Study

Department of Psychiatry, Wroclaw Medical University, Pasteura 10 Str., 50-367 Wroclaw, Poland
Department of Genetics, Wroclaw Medical University, Marcinkowskiego 1 Str., 50-368 Wroclaw, Poland
Practice of Family Doctors M.V. Domanscy, E. Gepperta 13 Str., 50-072 Wroclaw, Poland
Department of Emergency Medical Service, Wroclaw Medical University, Parkowa 34 Str., 51-616 Wroclaw, Poland
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9(8), 2527;
Submission received: 11 July 2020 / Revised: 30 July 2020 / Accepted: 3 August 2020 / Published: 5 August 2020


Background: The study aimed to compare psychopathological expressions during the COVID-19 (novel coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, as declared on March 11th 2020 by the World Health Organization, with respect to which institutional variables might distinguish the impact of COVID-19 in medical and non-medical professionals. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed nationwide between 16th March and the 26th April 2020 in Poland. A total of 2039 respondents representing all healthcare providers (59.8%) as well as other professionals filled in the sociodemographic section, the General Health Questionnaire-28 and the author’s questionnaire with questions related to exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, the availability of protective measures, quarantine, change of working hours and place of employment during the pandemic, as well as feelings associated with the state of the pandemic. Results: Medical professionals more often presented with relevant psychopathological symptoms (GHQ-28 (General Health Questionnaire-28) total score >24) than the non-medical group (60.8% vs. 48.0%, respectively) such as anxiety, insomnia and somatic symptoms even after adjustment for potential confounding factors. Male sex, older age and appropriate protective equipment were associated with significantly lower GHQ-28 total scores in medical professionals, whereas among non-medical professionals, male sex was associated with significantly lower GHQ-28 total scores. Conclusions: Somatic and anxiety symptoms as well as insomnia are more prevalent among medical staff than workers in other professions. Targeting the determinants of these differences should be included in interventions aimed at restoring psychological well-being in this specific population. Apparently, there are present gender differences in psychological responses that are independent of profession.

1. Introduction

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and attributed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Subsequently, a rapid transmission of COVID-19 occurred across China and affected other countries. Although epidemics of infectious diseases have always had their place in history, this time, globalization has facilitated the spread of SARS-CoV-2, causing a pandemic, which was announced on March 11, 2020, by the World Health Organization (WHO). In addition, the WHO has estimated the COVID-19 mortality rate to be 3.4% [1]. Epidemiological studies have provided further evidence that the mortality rate increases with age and is associated with comorbid physical health impairments, especially those related to the cardiovascular system. Although the pandemic has largely changed research priorities, specific treatments and vaccines are not available yet [2]. Consequently, the COVID-19 outbreak has emerged as a global medical, social and economic threat.
Apart from the direct consequences of COVID-19, it has been identified that the pandemic might have a great impact on mental health through various mechanisms. Firstly, it has been found that SARS-CoV-2 can impact the central nervous system, leading to acute psychiatric manifestations [3]. Secondly, social isolation and quarantine may trigger a number of maladaptive responses manifesting as post-traumatic stress symptoms, anxiety, fear, anger and confusion [4]. There is also evidence that quarantine conditions might have long-term effects on mental health [5]. It has been shown that individuals affected by the pandemic are struggling with the fear of uncertainty, death, loss of job, drastic changes of lifestyle, stigmatization, isolation, separation from family and beloved persons, disruption of the usual routine of life and grief [6]. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is also largely associated with the ongoing economic crisis, the loss of jobs and reduced revenues [7].
The severe psychological and physical impact on medical staff in terms of mental health outcomes has already been identified during previous epidemics [8,9,10]. Emerging evidence also indicates that medical staff might be particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic [11]. Indeed, medical professionals standing on the front lines have direct contact with patients suspected of being infected. Consequently, many medical professionals became infected and some of them died [12]. In light of the growing mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, long working time, a high level of uncertainty in the management of infected patients, healthcare workers are reporting increasing levels of anxiety associated with numerous clinical activities and present with symptoms of depression [13]. Although it has been observed that psychopathological expressions among medical professionals may differ from those observed in the general population, studies in this field have been performed with small samples and there is still a lack of nationwide studies [14]. In addition, several mechanisms underlying the specificity of psychopathological expressions among medical professionals need to be taken into consideration. These include various individual factors (e.g., age, sex and the presence of children) and institutional factors (e.g., the length of service, changes to working time and the availability of personal protective equipment).
Taking into account the limitations of previous studies and a number of research gaps, we aimed to compare psychopathological expressions during the COVID-19 pandemic in medical and non-medical professionals on the basis of a nationwide survey. Furthermore, we tested the hypothesis that there are various individual and institutional determinants of these responses that might distinguish the impact of COVID-19 on the psychological responses among two groups of professionals.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Data were collected through an online survey administered between 16th March 2020 and the 26th April 2020 in Poland. The study was initiated 12 days after the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection had been detected in Poland and covered the period of a rapid increase in the incidence of COVID-19 with subsequent social restrictions [15]. Participants over the age of 18 years were invited to participate in the survey that was distributed through social media and email addresses. The study was addressed to representatives of all medical professions as well as professions not related to healthcare. Participants representing the medical profession groups included doctors, nurses, paramedics, allied healthcare workers (pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and psychologists), technicians and administrators. Data analysis was limited to completed questionnaires. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee at the Wroclaw Medical University (Poland), and all participants provided written informed consent. The study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.2. Measures

The survey consisted of three sections: the sociodemographic section, the author’s questionnaire and the General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28). The sociodemographic questionnaire recorded data on general demographic characteristics such as age, sex, place of residence, marital status, education and profession. The author’s questionnaire was based on questions related to exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection, the availability of protective measures, quarantine, change of working hours and the place of employment during the pandemic, as well as feelings associated with the state of the pandemic.
The GHQ-28 is a 28-item questionnaire used to identify minor psychiatric disorders in the general population, divided into four subscales. These are somatic symptoms (items 1, 3, 4, 8, 12, 14 and 16), anxiety and insomnia (items 2, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17 and 18), social dysfunction (items 5, 10, 11, 25, 26, 27 and 28) and severe depression (items 6, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24) [16]. The GHQ-28 items are based on the 4-point Likert scale (0—not at all, 1—no more than usual, 2—rather more than usual, and 3—much more than usual). The total score ranges between 0 and 84, where higher scores refer to higher levels of distress. The cut-off for clinical relevance was set at 24 points as described elsewhere [17].

2.3. Study Outcomes

To evaluate the primary outcome variables, we measured the severity of psychopathological symptoms reported by the healthcare professionals and representatives of other professions during the survey administration period. Additionally, in order to obtain the secondary outcome variables, we investigated the association between individual and institutional factors and psychopathological outcomes assessed through the GHQ-28 score.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

The Mann-Whitney U test (for continuous variables) and chi-square or Fisher’s exact test (for qualitative variables) were used to compare groups. Due to multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni correction was applied to the level of significance. Taking into account 32 bivariate comparisons, the level of significance was finally set at 0.0016. Significant between-group differences in the levels of psychopathology after the Bonferroni correction were further tested using the analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA). The analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) was performed to investigate the differences in the levels of psychopathological manifestations between medical and non-medical professionals after co-varying for potential confounding factors. Additionally, a linear regression model was prepared with the backward stepwise selection algorithm based on the Akaike information criteria. The model included continuous variables such as age and length of service and qualitative variables such as gender, protection against infection, major changes in private life, fear for personal health, fear for the health of loved ones, impact of media reports on mental state, frustration, loneliness because of isolation, anger, use of alcohol and nicotine and contact with COVID-19 without protective measures. The results of the ANCOVA and linear regression analysis were considered significant if the p-value was less than 0.05. All analyses were performed in R R Core Team (version 3.5.3, 2019,

3. Results

3.1. Participants

The general characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1. Out of 2039 participants, 1216 (59.6%) individuals represented medical professions while 823 (40.4%) pursued non-medical occupations. The vast majority of respondents, regardless of career, were women (80.0% among medical professionals and 74.4% among non-medical professionals). Data were collected from respondents representing all administrative regions in Poland, and the majority of them (63.2%) represented very big cities (>300,000 inhabitants). The medical professionals included physicians (47.3%), nurses (16.5%), pharmacists (7.3%), laboratory diagnosticians (5.9%), dentists (5.3%), paramedics (4.9%), clinical psychologists or psychotherapists (3.5%), physiotherapists (3.3%), midwives (2%), secretaries or medical recorders (1.4%), occupational medical technicians (1.4%), dental assistants (0.7%), care assistants (0.4%), medical interns (0.1%) and occupational therapists (0.1%). The non-medical professionals included administrative staff and accountants (16.6%), teachers and lecturers (14.3%), service and trade workers (12.4%), Information Technology employees (11.7%), engineers and other highly qualified employees (9.7%), entrepreneurs (3.5%), people in managerial positions (3.4), manual workers (2.4%), scientists (1.9%), journalists (1.6%), social workers (1.3%), non-clinical psychologists or psychotherapists (1.3%), technical workers (1.2%), employees of uniformed services (0.5%) and others (18.2%). The number of females was significantly higher among the medical professionals. This group of participants was more likely to report an urban place of residence, caring for a disabled person, major changes in private life, working on a shift schedule, contact with a COVID-19 patient without personal protective equipment, contact with COVID-19 patients at work, work experience of death due to COVID-19 and too few employees compared to the workload. They were also less likely to report having children, work location change during the pandemic and appropriate protection against infection. Finally, medical professionals had significantly higher weekly working time and length of service.

3.2. Psychopathological Outcomes

Medical professionals more often met the criterion for the presence of relevant psychopathological symptoms (a GHQ-28 total score > 24) than the non-medical group (60.8% vs. 48.0%, respectively). Moreover, they had also significantly higher GHQ-28 scores (all subscales and the total score) than the other participants (Table 2). The observed statistical power for detecting between-group differences in the GHQ-28 scores was as follows: 64.8% for severe depression, 100% for somatic symptoms, 100% for anxiety and insomnia, 64.5% for social dysfunction and 100% for the GHQ-28 total score. The ANCOVA revealed a significant effect of group (medical vs. non-medical professionals) on the level of somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia as well as the GHQ-28 total score after co-varying for the effects of potential confounding factors (Table 3). There were significant independent effects of sex in all the ANCOVA models. The effect of age appeared to be significant in the ANCOVA model testing that included the GHQ-28 total score, the anxiety and insomnia domain and the depression domain as a dependent variable. In turn, the effect of having children was independently negatively associated with the depression score, while the reports of caring for a disabled person were significantly associated with the GHQ-28 score for somatic symptoms. There was also a significant and independent effect of shift work on the score for the somatic symptoms domain. Finally, the effect of group appeared to be non-significant in the ANCOVA models that included the GHQ-28 scores for social dysfunction and depression.

3.3. Determinants of Psychopathological Outcomes in Medical and Non-Medical Professionals

The results of the linear regression analysis testing for the factors related to the GHQ-28 total scores in the medical and non-medical professionals are shown in Table 4. Male sex, older age and appropriate protection against infection were associated with significantly lower GHQ-28 total scores in medical professionals. In turn, fear for the health of loved ones was associated with significantly higher GHQ-28 total scores in this group of participants. Among both groups, major changes in private life, fear for personal health, following media reports, frustration, loneliness, anger and increased use of alcohol and nicotine were also significantly associated with higher GHQ-28 total scores. In non-medical professionals, contact with a COVID-19 patient without personal protection equipment was correlated with significantly higher GHQ-28 total scores. Male sex was associated with significantly lower GHQ-28 total scores in participants involved in non-medical professions.

4. Discussion

Our study indicates the occurrence of maladaptive psychological responses to the COVID-19 pandemic among medical workers in comparison to that in people performing other professions in Poland. The findings from this survey imply that healthcare professionals present with higher levels of psychopathological symptoms in terms of anxiety, insomnia and somatic symptoms than those representing other professions, even after adjustment for potential confounding factors. To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing medical and non-medical professionals in terms of psychopathological manifestation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Over 60% of medical professionals and 48% of individuals working in non-medical professions from the study sample presented clinically relevant psychopathological symptoms. These findings are similar to those reported by a recent population-based study in China that reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, distress and insomnia in 34.0–71.5% of medical workers [18]. Similarly, another study reported that 63% of medical workers in Wuhan, China, demonstrated various psychopathological symptoms [19]. However, a lower prevalence of psychopathological symptoms compared to in our study was observed by the authors of the recent cross-sectional survey study based on over 4000 healthcare workers from Wuhan in which 39.1% of the study participants had psychological distress [20]. Lai et al. suggested that nurses, women, frontline medical workers and those working in Wuhan, China, were more likely to report various psychopathological symptoms [18], which is consistent with our findings in the relation to female sex. The vast majority of our results confirm observations from Asian countries during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic [2,21]. Recently, there have been only a few reports defining the role of factors affecting the development of psychiatric symptoms in the pandemic [19,22,23,24]. However, there is still a lack of research identifying institutional and individual risk and protective factors affecting the mental health of healthcare workers and other citizens during the pandemic.
This study emphasizes that one of the most important institutional factors that affects mental health is the provision to medical workers of a sense of security in the workplace. The results point to the importance of appropriate protection against infection as the main mental-health-related factor during the pandemic that affects all the domains. This is in accordance with recent studies related to medical staff, which identify access to personal protective equipment as an independent predictor of a lower level of mental distress [25,26] as well as one of the main concerns of healthcare workers [20]. It seems that these results are not revealing; however, at the same time, our findings show that the vast majority of staff deem the institution’s activities in providing security to be insufficient. This is likely not unique to Poland, as recent studies have also found a lack of personal protective equipment being reported by medical health workers across other countries [27,28,29]. Furthermore, the present study highlights that the sense of security could be considered from different perspectives. Both groups of medical and non-medical professionals revealed anxiety about the state of their health. This is consistent with the cross-sectional study performed in China in which the authors suggested the fear of being infected to be a risk factor for mental distress [30]. However, this study highlights another important factor, which is the fear for loved ones, that was visible only among medical professions. Medical workers remain with an internal dilemma related, on the one hand, to a sense of loyalty to the profession and their patients and, on the other hand, to the responsibility for their families [31]. This is confirmed by the recent study from Wuhan in which the authors demonstrated that the majority of healthcare workers were concerned about the infection of family members [20]. This kind of long-lasting internal emotional tension might be manifested in psychopathological symptoms among most medical workers during a pandemic, which has already been observed in 2003 during the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) [32] and in 2014–2015 during the Ebola outbreak [33]. Despite the discussed fear regarding the infection of family members among medical professionals on the one hand, we emphasized the protective effect of having children on the development of depressive symptoms and, on the other hand, the relationship between care for an elderly person and the severity of psychopathological symptoms. From an individual-level perspective, this study indicates that men were less prone to the presence of psychopathological symptoms. In our study, male sex appeared to be negatively associated with total GHQ-28 scores, which was observed among both medical and non-medical professionals. These reports are similar to the results of recent studies performed in China in which being female was considered a significant risk factor for the development of severe depressive and anxiety symptoms, and distress [18,22].
We emphasized that following media reports was a risk factor for developing psychopathological symptoms among both groups. Our results correspond with another Wuhan online survey study [34] where spending over 2 h checking COVID-19-related information via social media was correlated with anxiety and depressive symptoms. The issue of the impact of excessive searching for COVID-19 news on mental health is particularly up to date according to recent studies, which confirm that the pandemic affected the content searched on the internet [35,36].
We observed that medical professionals more often than other respondents suffered from somatic symptoms as well as anxiety and insomnia. A higher prevalence of somatic symptoms during stressful situations, such as work in outbreak conditions, can be considered a physiological reaction caused by increased activity of the autonomic nervous system. Although a short-term hyperactivity of the sympathetic nervous system does not lead to any serious health-related consequences, the prolonged hyperactivity of the stress-related hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis might lead to fatigue, depression, and other health-related outcomes [37,38,39]. As demonstrated by studies on previous outbreaks [40,41], some of the medical workers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic may be at risk for post-traumatic stress disorder, which also appears to be connected with prolonged hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis overactivity [42,43]. From a psychodynamic perspective, prolonged emotional tension can lead medical workers to channel difficult emotional experiences into somatic symptoms and insomnia, which are easier for them to accept than developing depressive symptoms that may lead to an occupational dysfunction and could be understood as the effect of defense mechanisms.
There are some limitations of this study that need to be discussed. Firstly, we did not record the initial number of individuals approached for participation and the reasons for non-participation were not recorded. Therefore, the representativeness of the sample is limited. Another point is that the assessment of psychopathological symptoms was limited to the use of GHQ-28, and thus, we were not able to record specific diagnoses. It should also be noted that our survey was not administered longitudinally. In this regard, the temporal patterns of psychopathological expressions were not addressed. Another limitation is response bias due to the online form of the questionnaire distribution.
In summary, our study provides evidence that medical professionals are more vulnerable to developing anxiety, insomnia and somatic symptoms in response to the pandemic. In addition, the determinants of psychopathological expressions in these two groups differ in terms of age, care for an elderly or disabled person, contact with COVID-19 at work and contact with COVID-19 without protection measures. Apparently, there are present gender differences in psychological responses that are independent of the profession.
Nevertheless, these findings create grounds for personalizing interventions that aim to restore psychological wellbeing in medical and non-medical professionals as well as emphasizing key factors affecting the greater susceptibility for a negative psychological response during the pandemic, some of which are modifiable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.M. and M.C.; methodology, B.M. and D.S.; software, B.M.; validation, D.S. and J.R.; formal analysis, J.R.; investigation, J.M., M.C., B.M., D.S. and J.R.; resources, M.C., D.L., K.F.-W., T.W. and P.G.; data curation, B.M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.M., D.S. and B.M.; writing—review and editing, J.R., D.S. and B.M.; visualization, K.F.-W. and P.G.; supervision, J.R.; project administration, J.R.; funding acquisition, J.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was funded by Wroclaw Medical University, grant number ST.C230.18.014 and the article processing charge was financed from the funds granted by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in the „Regional Initiative of Excellence” programme for the years 2019–2022, project number 016/RID/2018/19.


This study was supported by the Wroclaw Medical University grant (No. ST.C230.18.014).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.


  1. World Health Organization. WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19. 3 March 2020. Available online: (accessed on 17 May 2020).
  2. Zhang, C.; Yang, L.; Liu, S.; Ma, S.; Wang, Y.; Cai, Z.; Du, H.; Li, R.; Kang, L.; Su, M.; et al. Survey of Insomnia and Related Social Psychological Factors Among Medical Staff Involved in the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Troyer, E.A.; Kohn, J.N.; Hong, S. Are we facing a crashing wave of neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19? Neuropsychiatric symptoms and potential immunologic mechanisms. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 87, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Brooks, S.K.; Webster, R.K.; Smith, L.E.; Woodland, L. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 2020, 395, 912–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Lei, L.; Huang, X.; Zhang, S.; Yang, J.; Yang, L.; Xu, M. Comparison of Prevalence and Associated Factors of Anxiety and Depression Among People Affected by versus People Unaffected by Quarantine During the COVID-19 Epidemic in Southwestern China. Med. Sci. Monit. 2020, 26, e924609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Schwerdtle, P.; Morphet, J.; Hall, H. A scoping review of mentorship of health personnel to improve the quality of health care in low and middle-income countries. Glob. Health 2017, 13, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Nicola, M.; Alsafi, Z.; Sohrabi, C.; Kerwan, A.; Al-Jabir, A.; Iosifidis, C.; Agha, M.; Agha, R. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 78, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Straus, S.E.; Wilson, K.; Rambaldini, G.; Rath, D.; Lin, Y.; Gold, W. Severe acute respiratory syndrome and its impact on professionalism: Qualitative study of physicians’ behaviour during an emerging healthcare crisis. BMJ 2004, 29, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Lin, C.Y.; Peng, Y.C.; Wu, Y.H.; Chang, J.; Chan, C.H.; Yang, D.Y. The psychological effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome on emergency department staff. Emerg. Med. J. 2007, 24, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Goulia, P.; Mantas, C.; Dimitroula, D.; Mantis, D.; Hyphantis, T. General hospital staff worries, perceived sufficiency of information and associated psychological distress during the A/H1N1 influenza pandemic. BMC Infect. Dis. 2010, 10, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Williamson, V.; Murphy, D.; Greenberg, N. COVID-19 and experiences of moral injury in front-line key workers. Occup. Med. 2020, kqaa052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Wu, J.T.; Leung, K.; Bushman, M.; Kishore, N.; Niehus, R.; De Salazar, P.M.; Cowling, B.J.; Lipsitch, M.; Leung, G.M. Estimating clinical severity of COVID-19 from the transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China. Nat. Med. 2020, 26, 506–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Neto, M.L.R.; Almeida, H.G.; Esmeraldo, J.D.; Nobre, C.B.; Pinheiro, W.R.; De Oliveira, C.R.T.; Sousa, I.D.C.; Lima, O.M.M.L.; Lima, N.N.R.; Moreira, M.M.; et al. When health professionals look death in the eye: The mental health of professionals who deal daily with the 2019 coronavirus outbreak. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 288, 112972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Neto, M.L.R.; Almeida, H.G.; Esmeraldo, J.D.; Nobre, C.B.; Pinheiro, W.R.; De Oliveira, C.R.T.; Sousa, I.D.C.; Lima, O.M.M.L.; Lima, N.N.R.; Moreira, M.M.; et al. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pinkas, J.; Jankowski, M.; Szumowski, Ł.; Lusawa, A.; Zgliczyński, W.S.; Raciborski, F. Public Health Interventions to Mitigate Early Spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Poland. Med. Sci. Monit. 2020, 26, e924730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Goldberg, D.; Hillier, V.F. A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychol. Med. 1979, 9, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Makowska, Z.; Merecz, D. Polish adaptation of David Goldberg’s general health questionnaire: GHQ-12, GHQ-28. In Mental Health Evaluation Based on D. Goldberg’s Questionnaires, 1st ed.; Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine: Lodz, Poland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lai, J.; Ma, S.; Wang, Y.; Cai, Z.; Hu, J.; Wei, N. Factors Associated with Mental Health Outcomes Among Health Care Workers Exposed to Coronavirus Disease 2019. JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e203976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kang, L.; Ma, S.; Chen, M.; Yang, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, R.; Yao, L.; Bai, H.; Cai, Z.; Yang, B.X.; et al. Impact on mental health and perceptions of psychological care among medical and nursing staff in Wuhan during the 2019 novel coronavirus disease outbreak: A cross-sectional study. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 87, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rangachari, P.L.; Woods, J. Preserving Organizational Resilience, Patient Safety, and Staff Retention during COVID-19 Requires a Holistic Consideration of the Psychological Safety of Healthcare Workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tan, B.Y.; Chew, N.W.; Lee, G.K.; Jing, M.; Goh, Y.; Yeo, L.L.; Zhang, K.; Chin, H.-K.; Ahmad, A.; Khan, F.A.; et al. Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers in Singapore. Ann. Intern. Med. 2020, 20, 1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Wang, C.; Pan, R.; Wan, X.; Tan, Y.; Xu, L.; Ho, C.S.; Ho, R.C. Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors During the Initial Stage of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Epidemic Among the General Population in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Li, Z.; Ge, J.; Yang, M.; Feng, J.; Qiao, M.; Jiang, R.; Bi, J.; Zhan, G.; Xu, X.; Wang, L.; et al. Vicarious traumatization in the general public, members, and non-members of medical teams aiding in COVID-19 control. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 88, 916–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sasangohar, F.; Jones, S.L.; Masud, F.N.; Vahidy, F.S.; Kash, B.A. Provider Burnout and Fatigue during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned from a High-Volume Intensive Care Unit. Anesth. Analg. 2020, 131, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zhang, S.X.; Liu, J.; Jahanshahi, A.A.; Nawaser, K.; Yousefi, A.; Li, J.; Sun, S. At the height of the storm: Healthcare staff’s health conditions and job satisfaction and their associated predictors during the epidemic peak of COVID-19. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 87, 144–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Amerio, A.; Bianchi, D.; Santi, F.; Costantini, L.; Odone, A.; Signorelli, C.; Costanza, A.; Serafini, G.; Amore, M.; Aguglia, A. Covid-19 pandemic impact on mental health: A web-based cross-sectional survey on a sample of Italian general practitioners. Acta Biomed. 2020, 91, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Raurell-Torredà, M.; Martínez-Estalella, G.; Frade-Mera, M.J.; Carrasco Rodríguez-Rey, L.F.; Romero de San Pío, E. Reflections Arising From the COVID-19 Pandemic. Enferm. Intensiva 2020, 31, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ranney, M.L.; Griffeth, V.; Jha, A.K. Critical Supply Shortages—The Need for Ventilators and Personal Protective Equipment during the Covid-19 Pandemic. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, e41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Delgado, D.; Quintana, F.W.; Perez, G.; Liprandi, A.S.; Ponte-Negretti, C.; Mendoza, I.; Baranchuk, A. Personal Safety during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Realities and Perspectives of Healthcare Workers in Latin America. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Lu, W.; Wang, H.; Lin, Y.; Li, L. Psychological status of medical work force during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectionalstudy. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 288, 112936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Walton, M.; Murray, E.; Christian, M.D. Mental health care for medical staff and affiliated healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. Heart J. Acute Cardiovasc. Care 2020, 9, 241–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Maunder, R.G.; Lancee, W.J.; Balderson, K.E.; Bennett, J.P.; Borgundvaag, B.; Evans, S.; Fernandes, C.M.; Goldbloom, D.S.; Gupta, M.; Hunter, J.J.; et al. Long-term psychological and occupational effects of providing hospital healthcare during SARS outbreak. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2006, 12, 1924–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ji, D.; Ji, Y.-J.; Duan, X.-Z.; Li, W.-G.; Sun, Z.-Q.; Song, X.-A.; Meng, Y.-H.; Tang, H.-M.; Chu, F.; Niu, X.-X.; et al. Prevalence of psychological symptoms among Ebola survivors and health care workers during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone: A cross-sectional study. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 12784–12791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Ni, M.Y.; Yang, L.; Leung, C.M.C.; Li, N.; Yao, X.I.; Wang, Y.; Leung, G.; Cowling, B.J.; Liao, Q.; Da Silva, E.; et al. Mental Health, Risk Factors, and Social Media Use During the COVID-19 Epidemic and Cordon Sanitaire among the Community and Health Professionals in Wuhan, China: Cross-Sectional Survey. JMIR Ment. Health 2020, 7, e19009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Effenberger, M.; Kronbichler, A.; Shin, J.I.; Mayer, G.; Tilg, H.; Perco, P. Association of the COVID-19 pandemic with Internet Search Volumes: A Google TrendsTM Analysis. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 95, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Misiak, B.; Szcześniak, D.; Koczanowicz, L.; Rymaszewska, J. The COVID-19 outbreak and Google searches: Is it really the time to worry about global mental health? Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 87, 126–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Adam, E.K.; Quinn, M.E.; Tavernier, R.; McQuillan, M.T.; Dahlke, K.A.; Gilbert, K.E. Diurnal cortisol slopes and mental and physical health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2017, 83, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Stetler, C.; Miller, G.E. Depression and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activation: A quantitative summary of four decades of research. Psychosom. Med. 2011, 73, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Juruena, M.F.; Eror, F.; Cleare, A.J.; Young, A.H. The Role of Early Life Stress in HPA Axis and Anxiety. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2020, 1191, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wu, K.K.; Chan, S.K.; Ma, T.M. Posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). J. Trauma. Stress 2005, 18, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jalloh, M.F.; Li, W.; Bunnell, R.E.; Ethier, K.A.; O’Leary, A.; Hageman, K.M.; Sengeh, P.; Jalloh, M.B.; Morgan, O.; Hersey, S.; et al. Impact of Ebola experiences and risk perceptions on mental health in Sierra Leone, July 2015. BMJ Glob. Health 2018, 3, e000471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Klaassens, E.R.; Giltay, E.J.; Cuijpers, P.; Zitman, F.G. Adulthood trauma and HPA-axis functioning in healthy subjects and PTSD patients: A meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2019, 37, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schumacher, S.; Niemeyer, H.; Engel, S.; Cwik, J.C.; Laufer, S.; Klusmann, H.; Knaevelsrud, C. HPA axis regulation in posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis focusing on potential moderators. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2019, 100, 35–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. General characteristics of medical professionals and individuals representing non-medical professionals.
Table 1. General characteristics of medical professionals and individuals representing non-medical professionals.
Medical Professionals,
n = 1216
Non-Medical Professionals,
n = 823
Sex, females973 (80.0%)612 (74.4%)0.003
Age, years39.23 (12.26)40.4 (13.24)0.093
Urban place of residence1177 (96.79%)756(91.86%)<0.001
In relationship or married934 (76.8%)619 (75.2%)0.437
Having children622 (51.2%)468 (56.9%)0.013
Caring for a disabled person219 (18.1%)100 (12.2%)<0.001
Major changes in private life229 (24.1%)115(18%)0.011
Working time (hours per week)44.89 (14.27)39.15 (11.18)<0.001
Length of service (years)14.59 (12.53)18.84 (11.94)<0.001
Work location change during the COVID-19 pandemic359 (29.9%)418 (62.1%)<0.001
Increase in working time218 (19.7%)157 (25.7%)0.041
Work in a shift system507 (42.4%)56 (8.4%)<0.001
Contact with the COVID-19 patient without personal protective equipment207 (17%)41 (5%)<0.001
Confirmed COVID-19 infection12 (1%)3 (0.4%)0.121
Contact with the COVID-19 patients at work289 (24.1%)9 (1.3%)<0.001
Work experience of death due to COVID-1941 (3.4%)7 (1%)0.003
Appropriate protection against infection356 (29.7%)522 (77.9%)<0.001
Too few employees compared to the workload798 (66.4%)236 (35.5%)<0.001
COVID-19, novel coronavirus disease 2019. Data expressed as n (%) or mean (SD).
Table 2. Measures of psychopathology in medical professionals and individuals representing non-medical professions.
Table 2. Measures of psychopathology in medical professionals and individuals representing non-medical professions.
n =1216
n =823
GHQ-28—total score29.7 (14.9)26.1 (14.8)<0.001
GHQ-28—positive scoring739 (60.8%)395(48.0%)< 0.001
GHQ-28—somatic symptoms7.7 (4.6)6.5 (4.5)<0.001
GHQ-28—anxiety and insomnia10.0 (5.4)8.2 (5.3)<0.001
GHQ-28—social dysfunction8.5 (3.5)8.2 (3.5)0.037
GHQ-28—severe depression3.5 (3.9)3.2 (3.9)0.036
The use of sedatives177(14.8%)85 (12.7%)0.234
Fear for personal health679 (55.9%)328 (39.9%)<0.001
Fear for the health of loved ones714 (58.7%)426 (51.8%)<0.001
Worsening of mental health due to media reports811 (66.7%)482 (58.5%)<0.001
Frustration990 (81.4%)612 (74.4%)<0.001
Loneliness because of isolation754 (62%)501 (60.9%)0.138
Anger919 (75.6%)521 (63.3%)<0.001
Increased alcohol or nicotine intake305 (25.1%)145 (17.6%)0.002
GHQ-28, General Health Questionnaire-28. Data expressed as n (%) or mean (SD).
Table 3. Psychopathological expressions in medical and non-medical professionals after adjustment for potential confounding factors.
Table 3. Psychopathological expressions in medical and non-medical professionals after adjustment for potential confounding factors.
Total Score
Somatic Symptoms
GHQ-28 Anxiety and
Medical/non-medical profession13.877<0.00112.678<0.00125.988<0.001
Place of residence0.6750.4112.7200.0990.6660.415
Caring for a disabled person3.3960.0664.4480.0352.5150.113
Change in working time1.4060.2361.0030.3170.6130.434
Shift work3.2250.0735.2790.0223.1220.077
Significant effects (p < 0.05) are marked in bold.
Table 4. Factors related to the GHQ-28 total scores in medical and non-medical professionals (results of linear regression analysis).
Table 4. Factors related to the GHQ-28 total scores in medical and non-medical professionals (results of linear regression analysis).
Group of ParticipantsVariableBetap-ValueVIF95% CI
Medical professionalsmale sex−4.789<0.0001.11−6.520–3.058
urban place of residence2.2660.2391.03−1.507–6.039
in relationship or married−0.1960.8161.12−1.851–1.459
having children−0.8120.3751.84−2.607–0.983
caring for a disabled person1.3790.1361.12−0.435–3.193
professional inactivity0.4280.8611.08−4.365–5.220
contact with COVID-19 without protective measures0.7980.3951.11−1.042–2.639
confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection3.9950.2561.08−2.908–10.897
confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among family or friends−1.5610.2351.07−4.142–1.019
death due to COVID-19 among family or friends−0.4290.9291.02−9.857–8.998
contact with people with COVID-19 at work1.0750.2021.14−0.578–2.727
experience of death from COVID-19 in the workplace0.7160.7121.10−3.092–4.524
appropriate protection against infection−1.7420.0291.18−3.309–0.174
major changes in private life2.916<0.0001.101.284–4.547
fear for my health6.290<0.0001.464.681–7.899
fear for the health of loved ones2.926<0.0001.411.332–4.521
media reports worsen mental state3.224<0.0001.481.522–4.927
loneliness because of isolation2.841<0.0001.241.323–4.359
increased alcohol of nicotine intake6.127<0.0001.084.549–7.706
Non-medical professionsmale sex−2.5830.0181.11−4.718–0.448
urban place of residence−1.2970.4681.02−4.804–2.210
in relationship or married−1.5090.2091.20−3.866–0.849
having children−0.9280.4531.70−3.359–1.502
caring for a disabled person−1.5550.2631.09−4.281–1.171
professional inactivity−5.1060.1421.11−11.935–1.722
contact with COVID-19 without protective measures4.6370.0291.100.472–8.802
confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection12.5550.1501.09−4.554–29.663
confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among family or friends1.1490.5741.10−2.859–5.157
death due to COVID-19 among family or friends1.6820.7601.08−9.128–12.491
contact with people with COVID-19 at work−0.7550.8521.04−8.677–7.167
experience of death from COVID-19 in the workplace−8.5930.0631.06−17.658–0.473
appropriate protection against infection−0.1360.9061.10−2.404–2.131
major changes in private life4.0140.0031.181.381–6.646
fear for my health7.371<0.0001.585.075–9.666
fear for the health of loved ones1.2500.2451.38-0.862–3.362
media reports worsen mental state3.8270.0011.401.667–5.988
loneliness because of isolation3.6730.0011.331.552–5.794
increased alcohol of nicotine intake5.3240.0001.043.016–7.632
SARS-CoV-2, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Maciaszek, J.; Ciulkowicz, M.; Misiak, B.; Szczesniak, D.; Luc, D.; Wieczorek, T.; Fila-Witecka, K.; Gawlowski, P.; Rymaszewska, J. Mental Health of Medical and Non-Medical Professionals during the Peak of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Nationwide Study. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2527.

AMA Style

Maciaszek J, Ciulkowicz M, Misiak B, Szczesniak D, Luc D, Wieczorek T, Fila-Witecka K, Gawlowski P, Rymaszewska J. Mental Health of Medical and Non-Medical Professionals during the Peak of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Nationwide Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9(8):2527.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Maciaszek, Julian, Marta Ciulkowicz, Blazej Misiak, Dorota Szczesniak, Dorota Luc, Tomasz Wieczorek, Karolina Fila-Witecka, Pawel Gawlowski, and Joanna Rymaszewska. 2020. "Mental Health of Medical and Non-Medical Professionals during the Peak of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Nationwide Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 8: 2527.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop