PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Kuhlmann, Ellen
AU  - Behrens, Georg M. N.
AU  - Cossmann, Anne
AU  - Homann, Stefanie
AU  - Happle, Christine
AU  - Dopfer-Jablonka, Alexandra
TI  - Healthcare workers’ perceptions and medically approved COVID-19 infection risk: understanding the mental health dimension of the pandemic. A German hospital case study
AID  - 10.1101/2022.03.28.22273029
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.03.28.22273029
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/30/2022.03.28.22273029.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/30/2022.03.28.22273029.full
AB  - Introduction This study analyses how healthcare workers (HCWs) perceived risks, protection and preventive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to medically approved risks and organisational measures. The aim is to explore ‘blind spots’ of pandemic protection and make mental health needs of HCWs visible.Methods We have chosen an ‘optimal-case’ scenario of a high-income country with a well-resourced hospital sector and low HCW infection rate at the organisational level to explore governance gaps in HCW protection. A German multi-method hospital study at Hannover Medical School served as empirical case; document analysis, expert information and survey data (n=1163) were collected as part of a clinical study into SARS-CoV-2 serology testing during the second wave of the pandemic (November 2020-February 2021). Selected survey items included perceptions of risks, protection and preventive measures. Descriptive statistical analysis and regression were undertaken for gender, profession and COVID-19 patient care.Results The results reveal a low risk of 1% medically approved infections among participants, but a much higher mean personal risk estimate of 15%. The majority (68.4%) expressed ‘some’ to ‘very strong’ fear of acquiring infection at the workplace. Individual protective behaviour and compliance with protective workplace measures were estimated as very high. Yet only about half of the respondents felt strongly protected by the employer; 12% even perceived ‘no’ or ‘little’ protection. Gender and contact with COVID-19 patients had no significant effect on the estimations of infection risks and protective workplace behaviour, but nursing was correlated with higher levels of personal risk estimations and fear of infection.Conclusions A strong mismatch between low medically approved risk and personal risk perceptions of HCWs brings stressors and threats into view, that may be preventable through better information and risk communication and through investment in mental health and inclusion in pandemic preparedness plans.Competing Interest StatementAD-J, GB, CH received an investigator-driven research grant from Novartis; AD-J, EK received grants from Novartis, not related to this project; AC and SH declare that they have no financial interest.Funding StatementThis case study did not receive any specific funding; for information on funding of the CoCo Study, see, Protocol for longitudinal assessment of SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses in healthcare professionals in Hannover, Germany: the prospective, longitudinal, observational COVID-19 Contact (CoCo) Study; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.02.20242479.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics committee/IRB of Hannover Medical School gave ethical approval for this work: 8973_BO_K_2020.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors