Inadequate preparedness for response to COVID-19 is associated with stress and burnout among healthcare workers in Ghana

Context

Ghana recorded its first two cases of COVID-19 on March 12^th, 2020. Since then, the epidemic in Ghana has grown exponentially, with 41,212 cases and 215 deaths as of August 10^th, 2020, making it the country with the third highest number of cases in Africa and 51^st globally.^1,29 Ghana has a constrained health system, with a population of approximately 30 million, an estimated 1.8 medical doctors and 42 nurses and midwives per 10,000 population, and less than one hospital bed per 1,000 people.^23,34–36 The increasing number of cases within an overburdened healthcare infrastructure is, therefore, a major source of concern for many HCWs. In addition, HCWs have expressed fear of coronavirus infection due to concerns about inadequate PPE and testing, sparking threats of industrial strike actions by nurses and doctors in Ghana.^37,38 New data on the high number of COVID-19 cases among HCWs, including six deaths, has elevated this fear and, raised renewed concerns about the potential catastrophic effects of a weak health system and lack of HCW preparedness.^39,40

Data collection

This is a cross-sectional study conducted with HCWs in Ghana (i.e., nurses, physicians, and allied health workers) from April 17^th, 2020 to May 31^st, 2020. We used a convenience sampling approach to recruit HCWs virtually through advertising on diverse online and social media platforms (WhatsApp, Facebook, and direct messaging), and invited them to complete a self-administered online survey through a link in the ad. To maximize representativeness in our sample, we disseminated survey links to Facebook and WhatsApp pages of different professional groups, graduation year groups, and regional groups of HCWs, as well as to leaders of professional organizations and Ghana Health Service directors to share with members of their groups. No incentives were provided, and respondents had the option of skipping questions. The survey included questions on demographics, perceived preparedness, stress, burnout, and other questions relevant to the pandemic response. Providers consented to the study by completing the survey. Additional study methods can be found elsewhere.⁴¹

Ethical approval was obtained from the University of California, San Francisco (#20-30656) and the Navrongo Health Research Centre (#NHRCIRB374).

Patient and public involvement

Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. HCWs however contributed to the development of the survey questions.

Measures

Analysis

The analytic sample is 414 and 409 for the stress and burnout analysis, respectively, representing respondents who answered all questions on stress and burnout and relevant predictors. We examined the distribution of variables using descriptive statistics and created summative scores for stress, burnout, and preparedness. Factor analysis showed all three scales had good construct validity with all items in each scale loading on one dominant factor with eigen-values greater than three. The scales also had good internal consistency with Cronbach alpha of 0.79 for stress, 0.94 for burnout, and 0.91 for preparedness. Before creating summative scores, items were recoded such that higher scores indicate higher stress, burnout, and preparedness. For the preparedness score, we coded response options to range from 0 to 3 by recoding 4(I don’t know about this) to 0(not at all prepared) and 5(not applicable to my role) to 2(prepared). Stress scores range from 0 to 40. Scores of 0-13 are considered low stress, 14-26 moderate stress, and 27-40 high stress.⁴² Burnout scores range from 14-98—rescaled to 1-7 by dividing by total number of items for ease of comparison with sub-domains. Scores of ≥ 2.0 are considered no burnout, 2-3.74 moderate burnout, and ≤ 3.75 as high burnout.⁴⁴ We used the same cutoffs for burnout domains. Preparedness scores range from 0-45. We categorized scores less than 15 as “not at all prepared”; scores 15 to 29 as “somewhat prepared,” and ≥ 30 as “prepared”.⁴¹

We used the continuous scores for the outcomes in linear regressions with robust standard errors to examine the associations with various predictors. The burnout score was slightly skewed to the right, which was corrected with a log transformation. For ease of interpretation, we used the untransformed variable for the main analysis and conducted sensitivity analysis with the log transformed variable. We built multivariate models by gradually adding demographic and other independent variables that were significant in the bivariate analysis and testing for model fit and collinearity. Finally, we examined if the relationships between perceived preparedness and both stress and burnout were mediated by fear of infection using the difference of coefficients (c-c’) method. The mediated or indirect effect is the difference in the coefficients in the model without the mediator (total effect: c) and that in the model with the mediator (direct effect: c’). The proportion mediated is ((c-c’)/c).^45,46 We also examined if the associations were moderated by type of health provider, appreciation from management, and family support. In additional analysis, we ran the models with preparedness as a continuous variable and with the outcomes as binary variables.

Descriptive results

About 20% were doctors, 62% nurses (including midwives and medical/physician assistants) and 18% other professionals, including medical laboratory professionals, disease control officers, nutritionists and other allied health care workers (Table 1a). About 26% worked in teaching hospitals, 59% in other public hospitals (e.g., regional and district hospitals and health centers), and 15% in private facilities. Approximately 23% work in the Greater Accra and Ashanti regions (the initial epicenters), 23% from Northern region, and the rest from other regions. There were at least 10 respondents from each the 16 regions of the country, except for the Bono and Ahafo regions, which had less than five respondents. The average age of respondents was 34.2 years (SD = 6.0), with 8.2 years of professional experience (SD = 5.6). About half were female.

The average stress score was 16.3 (SD = 5.9) (Table 1b), with 64% having moderate stress and 4% high stress. Average burnout score was 37.4 (SD = 15.5), with 47% having low burnout and 20% high burnout. About 33%, 15%, and 23%, respectively, had high values for physical exhaustion, emotional exhaustion, and cognitive weariness. Average preparedness score was 24 (SD = 8.8), with 56.9% somewhat prepared and 27.5% prepared (Table 1). About 44% perceived management was appreciative or very appreciative of their efforts and 55% perceived communication from management was good or very good. Additionally, 46% were fearful or very fearful of contracting COVID-19 and only 20% were confident or very confident that they would be adequately cared for in their facility if they got infected. About 67% felt their families were supportive or very supportive of their work, and 33% were certain of a place to isolate at home without exposing their family if they were infected. Distribution of other variables shown in Table 1.

Bivariate results

In the bivariate analysis (Table 2), higher perceived preparedness was associated with lower perceived stress and burnout. The average stress and burnout scores among those who felt prepared was 14 (SD = 5.1) and 33 (SD = 13.5), respectively, compared to 19 (SD = 6.1) and 47 (SD = 15.3), respectively, for those who did not feel at all prepared. Burnout scores among other HCWs were lower than that of doctors and nurses. HCWs in Northern region had lower stress than those in Greater Accra and Ashanti regions and HCWs in other southern regions had lower burnout than those in Greater Accra and Ashanti regions. Other factors significantly associated with lower stress and burnout included appreciation, support, and communication from management; family support; confidence in being cared for if infected; training on COVID-19; availability of PPE, isolation ward, and COVID-19 guidelines; and confidence in being able to manage COVID-19 patients. Fear of infection and being female were associated with higher stress and burnout.

Multivariate analysis

In the multivariate analysis (Tables 3a and 3b), the associations between perceived preparedness with both stress and burnout were still significant. When accounting for only the demographic variables (model 1 of Table 3a), providers who felt somewhat prepared and prepared had about 3- and 5-points lower stress scores respectively compared to those who did not feel at all prepared. This decreased to about 2 and 3 points, respectively, with the addition of appreciation from management and family support in model 2. In model 3, which includes fear of infection, the coefficients for somewhat prepared and prepared decreased further (β = −1.89, 95% CI:−3.49 to −0.30 and β = −2.66, 95%CI:−4.48 to −0.84) by 17% and 16% from model 2, suggesting fear of infection partially mediates the relationship between perceived preparedness and stress.

For burnout, when accounting for only the demographic variables (Table 3b, model 1), providers who felt somewhat prepared and prepared had about 10 points and 14 points lower burnout scores, respectively, compared to those who did not feel at all prepared. This decreased to about 9 and 10 points, respectively, with the addition of appreciation from management and family support in model 2. In model 3, which includes fear of infection, the coefficients for somewhat prepared and prepared decreased to about 8 and 9 points (β = –7.74, 95%CI:-11.8 to −3.64 and β = −9.25, 95%CI:-14.1 to –4.41)—a 10% decrease from model 2, suggesting potential partial mediation by fear of infection. The mediated effect with the categorical preparedness variable was not significant, but it was significant with the continuous preparedness variable with the proportion of the mediated effect at 16% (table 4).

Providers in the Northern region had about 3 points lower stress scores than those in Greater Accra and Ashanti regions (the COVID-19 epicenters). Females also had about 3 points higher burnout scores than males, and married providers had about 5 points lower burnout scores than unmarried providers. Perceived appreciation from management and family support were associated with about 2 points lower stress scores and about 5 points lower burnout scores, while fear of infection was associated with about 2 points higher stress scores and 4 points higher burnout scores.

Sensitivity results

The interactions between preparedness with type of provider, appreciation from management and family support were not significant for neither stress nor burnout, suggesting the absence of conditional effects. The results obtained from using the log of burnout as the outcome, as well as that from using preparedness as a continuous variable, were consistent with the results of the untransformed burnout variable and the categorical preparedness variables respectively in their significance, direction, and magnitude of the associations. Results from the binary logistic regression based on the dichotomized stress and burnout scores were also generally consistent with the results of the continuous variables, with minor variations depending on how the variable was dichotomized (Appendix 2).

Limitations and strengths

There are some limitations to the study. First, the use of an online survey with a volunteer sample limits the generalizability of findings to all HCWs in Ghana. This was, however, the best option available for rapid data collection as the country was in partial lock-down due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To address this limitation, we recruited from diverse platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp pages of different professional groups, graduation year groups, and regional groups of HCWs. Survey links were also emailed to leaders of professional organizations and Ghana Health Service directors to share with members of their groups. Thus, our sample is diverse in terms of gender, age, years of experience, region, and facility type as shown in the sample distribution—which increases the representativeness of the findings. Moreover, our study sets the stage for future research to examine these issues in a more representative sample under circumstances that allow for probability sampling. Additionally, as with all self-reported data, social desirability and recall bias are potential limitations. The use of composite scores from validated psychosocial measures, however, helps to address this limitation. Finally, this was a cross-sectional study, thus, associations described are not causal. Despite these limitations, this is the first study to our knowledge assessing perceived preparedness for COVID-19 and psychological well-being among HCWs in Africa and contributes critical findings that can help address emerging issues and challenges in the current pandemic response. It also provides a baseline for future studies in Ghana, Africa, and globally.

Conclusions

HCWs in Ghana reported low perceived preparedness to respond to COVID-19, which was associated with increased stress and burnout. The effect of inadequate preparation on both stress and burnout is partially mediated by fear of infection. This finding is likely replicable in other low-resource settings, and potentially globally, and highlights the need for interventions to increase providers’ preparedness. The government of Ghana has demonstrated commitment to addressing the needs of HCWs; however, more efforts are needed. Government and other stakeholders must institute necessary trainings, protections, and incentives to improve HCWs’ psychological wellbeing and ability to respond to the pandemic. With HCW shortage in Africa, a high number of cases among these frontline workers, inadequate PPE and preparedness, and growing work demands, such interventions are critically needed to retain them and maintain the quality of care in already strained health systems. Studies in different settings examining the impact of these factors on health care quality and outcomes in the context of the pandemic are also needed. For Africa, stress and burnout have far reaching implications for the COVID-19 response. Given warnings that the continent could witness the loss of millions of lives, immediate actions are needed to strengthen health systems, train HCWs, and provide support and encouragement to boost morale.