Data_Sheet_1_Coping Strategies and Psychopathological Responses Among Medical and Non-medical Professionals – a Cross-Sectional Online Survey.docx

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was announced on March 11th, 2020, due to a surge of newly confirmed cases that significantly impacted populations worldwide, both directly and indirectly. Based on past epidemics research, the mental health implications of introduced restrictions should be expected and adequately addressed irrespective of the practiced profession.
Objective: The study aimed to explore psychopathological responses, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), concerning coping strategy clusters during the COVID-19 pandemic among medical and non-medical workers.
Methods: A cross-sectional web survey of the general population of internet users was performed from March 16th to April 26th, 2020, in Poland during the first peak of COVID-19 cases. A sample of 1,831 professionally active respondents, 64.0% of which pursuing a medical career, filled out General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28), The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and MiniCOPE, along with the socio-demographic questionnaire exploring personal as well as the work-related possibility of direct exposure to contagion and availability of proper protection, contact with the infected without accurate protective measures as well as the adequacy of workers when compared settings.
Results: Individuals labeled with specific clusters had significantly different psychopathological manifestations. Irrespective of performed job maladaptive cluster was associated with significantly higher GHQ-28 and IES-R scores on total subscales and all subscales compared to those representing the non-specific and adaptive cluster. Similar findings were observed concerning the frequency of the GHQ-28 positive score. Moreover, the non-specific cluster was associated with significantly higher GHQ-28 total scores among medical professionals. However, GHQ-28 positive scores were significantly more frequent in medical workers using adaptive clusters when compared to non-specific. Such relations were not observed in the non-medical group.
IES-R total and subscales' scores did not significantly vary within medical and non-medical groups when adaptive and non-specific clusters were compared. Pursuing a non-medical career was found to be a determinant of lower scores, while female sex was observed to be determinant of higher scores in both GHQ-28 and IES-R scales.
Conclusions: Positive screening for psychopathological and PTSD symptoms was expected regardless of the analyzed groups' coping strategies. Given the dramatically developing situation of the COVID-19 pandemic, support initiatives grounded in research evidence may be essential for maintaining the mental well-being and resilience of both the medical and non-medical workforce.

背景：2020年3月11日，严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2型（SARS-CoV-2）引发的新型冠状病毒肺炎（COVID-19）疫情被宣布为全球大流行，彼时新增确诊病例数激增，对全球各国民众造成了直接与间接的显著冲击。既往流行病研究表明，无论从业者所属职业为何，防疫限制措施对民众心理健康造成的影响均应被纳入考量并得到妥善应对。
研究目的：本研究旨在探讨新型冠状病毒肺炎（COVID-19）大流行期间，医疗与非医疗从业者的应对策略分型相关的精神病理反应，包括创伤后应激障碍（post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD）。
研究方法：本研究于2020年3月16日至4月26日，即波兰新型冠状病毒肺炎（COVID-19）疫情第一波暴发期间，针对普通互联网用户群体开展了横断面网络调查。最终纳入1831名在职受访者，其中64.0%为医疗从业者。所有受访者均填写了一般健康问卷-28（General Health Questionnaire-28, GHQ-28）、事件影响量表修订版（The Impact of Event Scale-Revised, IES-R）、MiniCOPE量表，以及社会人口学问卷，后者用于收集受访者个人及工作相关的直接暴露于感染风险的可能性、是否获得适当防护、未采取有效防护措施接触感染者的情况，以及不同场景下从业者的适配性相关信息。
研究结果：不同应对策略分型的个体，其精神病理表现存在显著差异。与非特异性分型及适应性分型的受访者相比，无论从事何种职业，适应不良分型的受访者在一般健康问卷-28（GHQ-28）及事件影响量表修订版（IES-R）的总量表及所有分量表上的得分均显著更高。在一般健康问卷-28（GHQ-28）阳性筛查率方面也观察到了相似的结果。此外，在医疗从业者群体中，非特异性分型受访者的一般健康问卷-28（GHQ-28）总得分显著更高。然而，与非特异性分型相比，采用适应性分型应对策略的医疗从业者的一般健康问卷-28（GHQ-28）阳性筛查率显著更高；这一关联在非医疗从业者群体中并未观察到。在适应性分型与非特异性分型的受访者中，医疗与非医疗群体的事件影响量表修订版（IES-R）总量表及各分量表得分均无显著差异。研究发现，从事非医疗职业是较低量表得分的独立影响因素，而女性性别则是两种量表得分较高的独立影响因素。
研究结论：无论研究群体所采用的应对策略如何，精神病理症状及创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）阳性筛查均较为常见。鉴于新型冠状病毒肺炎（COVID-19）大流行的形势持续严峻，基于研究证据制定的支持性干预措施，对于维护医疗与非医疗从业者的心理健康及心理韧性至关重要。