Printer Friendly

Hospital workers' psychological resilience after the 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak.

The hospital is a highly demanding and stressful workplace for employees (Tucker, Harris, Pipe, & Stevens, 2010). An infectious disease outbreak is one exemplary situation where hospital workers expand their operations to meet suddenly and drastically increased health service demands (Sauer, McCarthy, Knebel, & Brewster, 2009). Workers who protect people by providing lifeline services during an infectious disease outbreak are especially vulnerable to disease risk (Chong et al., 2004), and the high stress levels and overwhelming negative emotions hospital workers experience in an outbreak are often prolonged and can cause trauma (Lin et al., 2007; Maunder, Hunter et al., 2003). In addition, unwillingness to work during an infectious disease outbreak after experiencing severe stress increases the likelihood of possible shortages of lifeline medical services during outbreaks (Gershon et al., 2007).

To respond successfully to an outbreak, hospital workers must be prepared in terms of knowledge, skills, and emotional capacity to deal with tremendous psychological distress (Mitroff, 2005). However, little research attention has been paid to the emotional disruption experienced by these workers during an infectious disease outbreak and its influences after an outbreak. Studies conducted in this context have been limited by a narrow focus on the risk factors of psychological disruption (e.g., heavy workload, health concerns, social isolation, and conflicting roles; Maunder, Hunter, et al., 2003; Maunder, Lancee, Rourke, et al., 2004; Nickell et al., 2004) experienced after the 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak, with the results being most relevant to clinical staff (doctors and nurses). In contrast, we evaluated the 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) outbreak in South Korea, and compared psychological resilience, appraisal of risk, emotional experience, and use of personal resources between health-care workers (HCW) and non-health-care workers (non-HCW).

Literature Review

Resilience as a Positive Adaptation in the Face of Crises

Over the past two decades resilience has become a popular research topic, especially regarding its role in policy and practice in various contexts related to the enhancement of health, well-being, and quality of life (G. E. Richardson, 2002; Windle, 2011). Human resource management is one such area where there has been interest in employee resilience after an organizational crisis. The resilience of hospital workers, especially nurses, has been evaluated with respect to chronic stress, high staff turnover, and resource shortages (Grafton, Gillespie, & Henderson, 2010; Hart, Brannan, & De Chesnay, 2014).

Resilience is diversely defined and conceptualized among research areas and scholars. Focusing on the core components of risk and positive adaptation, we defined resilience as showing signs of positive adaptation despite the presence of substantial risk (Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, & Klieger, 2016; Cowden & Meyer-Weitz, 2016; Masten & Narayan, 2012). Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker (2000) suggested that, if the risk is an acute (rather than chronic) traumatic event, indicators of resilience (i.e., positive adaptation) should capture psychiatric impairment after the event. Aligned with this recommendation, previous researchers of the psychological impact of an outbreak on hospital workers used psychiatric morbidities as primary outcomes (Chong et al., 2004; Maunder, 2004; Maunder, Lancee, Balderson et al., 2006). Therefore, we adopted the likelihood of developing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a representative indicator of resilience. Abandonment of occupational duty during an outbreak is another indicator of resilience after experiencing previous outbreaks (Balicer et al., 2010; DeSimone, 2009; Devnani, 2012). Therefore, we also included willingness to work during a future infectious disease outbreak to measure hospital workers' resilience after the MERS outbreak.

Coping Ability as a Personal Resource

Some scholars believe that a general set of characteristics enables individuals to demonstrate consistent positive adaptation across multiple contexts involving significant risk (Block & Block, 1980). Such personal characteristics can be understood as resilience itself; for example, Connor and Davidson (2003) defined resilience as the personal characteristics that allow an individual to thrive in the face of risk.

However, most scholars now perceive such personal characteristics as resources that should be evaluated to understand resilience, along with risk and positive adaptation. Masten (2001) found that resources have the opposite effect to that of risk and counteract its effect on resilience, and G. E. Richardson (2002) asserted that successfully identifying, accessing, and nurturing resources could lead to positive adaptation of risk (i.e., resilient reintegration). Other theorists have focused on how resources influence the different stages of the resilience process, such as risk appraisal, the emotional experience, and the selection of coping strategies (Fletcher & Fletcher, 2005; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013).

The lack of consensus as to the most relevant factors and measures to use when conducting resilience research (G. E. Richardson, 2002) led Connor and Davidson (2003) to develop the Connor--Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), which is composed of various personal resource factors that protect individuals from the impact of risk and increase the possibility of positive adaptation. Because we defined resilience as the demonstration of positive adaptation, as indicated by the likelihood of PTSD and willingness to work, personal resources measured using the CD-RISC should not be labeled as resilience. Instead, we adopted the term coping ability, as Connor and Davidson (2003) also viewed measured personal characteristics as indicating individuals' stress-coping ability.

Risk Appraisal

Risk is a core component of resilience, as resilience is the demonstration of positive adaption in the presence of risk (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000). In early studies of resilience in which those who achieved social and personal success despite obvious life risks were compared with those who did not, the role of risk was limited to a preceding condition of resilience (Benson, 1997; Garmezy, 1991; Rutter, 1985). However, this approach neglects the key psychological component that links risk and response: cognitive appraisal. According to Gill (1994), risk appraisal takes place simultaneously with risk, and, without appraisal, there is no risk because risk by itself does not raise a response. Fletcher and Sarkar (2012) further proposed that how people appraise risk influences their subsequent emotive, cognitive, and behavioral responses and the resulting outcomes from these responses--that is, risk appraisal not only initiates but also influences the entire resilience process. In addition, the psychological factors that represent the ability to utilize personal resources (e.g., positivity and confidence) affect the appraisal activity.

There are few empirical investigations of the role of risk appraisal in the resilience process in crisis or disaster contexts. Lopez-Vazquez and Marvan (2003) found that, in a catastrophic risk situation, individuals perceived risk as the highest priority and exposure to that risk generated a high level of stress. Likewise, hospital workers' perception of various types of risks (e.g., influenza pandemic, natural disaster, radiation) can explain their willingness to work during a disaster related to the risk (Devnani, 2012). We focused on how hospital workers perceived the risk of the MERS infectious disease outbreak and how this affected their resilience postoutbreak.

Emotional Disruption in the Resilience Process

Emotion is a direct product of risk appraisal, and it motivates the subsequent cognitive and behavioral coping that allows individuals to adapt to a risky situation. In this sense, emotion mediates risk (or risk appraisal) and adaptation (Izard, 2010). According to G. E. Richardson (2002), disruption carries negative emotional experiences (e.g., hurt, fear, and confusion), motivating people to identify, access, and use resources to cope with the situation, achieving resilience when successful or experiencing loss and despair when unable to cope.

Few researchers have highlighted emotions as a key theoretical factor in understanding resilience. Montpetit, Bergeman, Deboeck, Tiberio, and Boker (2010) proposed a novel way to conceptualize resilience by evaluating how people encounter stress without engaging negative emotions, and how quickly they recover from stress-induced negative emotions. Galatzer-Levy et al. (2013) evaluated police officers who had a high risk of exposure to potentially traumatic events and found that lower levels of negative emotions during academy training predicted resilience.

The importance of emotions is more prominent in a crisis situation, where the magnitude of risk exceeds the usual capacity for problem solving, thereby causing emotional turmoil (Miller, 2002). As the intensity of emotional disruption rises, the quantity of personal resources required for resilience rises as well, and those with limited access to sufficient resources are unlikely to be successful in achieving a state of resilience. In a crisis caused by an infectious disease outbreak, hospital workers present intensive negative emotional responses, such as fear, anxiety, anger, and frustration (Maunder, Hunter et al., 2003). We evaluated the emotional experience of hospital workers during the MERS outbreak in the context of resilience.

The Current Study

When infectious disease risk with a traumatic impact arises, hospital workers appraise its impact as being most likely beyond their usual tactics of problem solving, experience emotional disruption, and process the risk in various ways. We hypothesized that workers' likelihood of experiencing PTSD would decrease their willingness to work during a future outbreak. Although direct evidence of this relationship is rare, it has been found that past experience of damage from a certain risk increases the intention to avoid the risk (B. Richardson, Sorensen, & Soderstrom, 1987; Zaleskiewicz, Piskorz, & Borkowska, 2002). Further, to avoid the unrealistic assumption of complete mediation by hospital workers' negative emotional experience and the likelihood of PTSD, we hypothesized that there would be indirect paths from perceived risk through the likelihood of PTSD to willingness to work, and from perceived risk through negative emotional experience to willingness to work.

We constructed an analytic path model to investigate hospital workers' resilience after an infectious disease outbreak (see Figure 1). In this model we evaluated the effect of perceived risk and resources (indicated by coping ability) on resilience, as mediated by emotional disruption. Therefore, we examined 12 indirect-effect pathways starting from either perceived risk or coping ability and ending with either of the two indicators of resilience: one pathway starting from perceived risk and ending with the likelihood of PTSD (a1a3); three pathways starting from perceived risk and ending with willingness to work (a1a3a5, a1a4, a2a5); three pathways starting from coping ability and ending with the likelihood of PTSD (b1a1a3, b1a2, b2a3); and six pathways starting from coping ability and ending with willingness to work (b1a1a3a5, b1a1b4, b1a2a5, b2a3a5, b2a4, b3a5). Direct and indirect effects of precedent factors on resilience were also examined; then we analyzed and compared the role of each factor of the resilience process between HCW) and non-HCW groups.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Voluntary participants were 280 hospital workers from a hospital affected by the 2015 MERS outbreak in South Korea. Referring to Imai et al. (2010), we included clinical staff (doctors and nurses), clinical technical/support staff (e.g., radiological technologists, clinical laboratory technicians), and nonclinical staff (office workers) as participants. All participants were directly or indirectly involved in the crisis at the hospital during the MERS outbreak. Clinical staff were categorized as HCW and others as non-HCW. The data were collected using a survey from late August to early September, approximately 1 month after the de facto end of the outbreak announced by the public health authority (July 28, 2015). We acquired ethical approval from the institutional review board of Myongji Hospital (IRB File MJH 2017-12-005). The informed consent form was waived because of the anonymity of the data. Participants' demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Measures

The likelihood of PTSD. The likelihood of PTSD was measured using the Korean version (Lim et al., 2009) of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (Weiss & Marmar, 1997). The scale comprises 22 items ([alpha] = .93) divided across four dimensions: hyperarousal (six items), numbness/dissociation (five items), avoidance (six items), and intrusion (five items). Responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much).

Willingness to work. Previous researchers measured hospital workers' willingness to work during a crisis using a single question rated using either a dichotomous response option (yes/no; DeSimone, 2009; Imai et al., 2010), or a Likert scale (Balicer et al., 2010). We adopted the latter. Accordingly, participants responded to the statement "I would take for granted my task when an outbreak of an infectious disease, such as MERS, occurs," using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Coping ability. We assessed coping ability with the Korean version (Baek, Lee, Joo, Lee, & Choi, 2010) of the CD-RISC (Connor & Davidson, 2003). The scale comprises 25 items ([alpha] = .93) divided across five dimensions: personal competence, high standards, and tenacity (eight items); trust in one's instincts, tolerance of a negative effect, and strengthening effects of stress (seven items); positive acceptance of change and secure relationships (five items); control (three items); and spiritual influences (two items). Participants respond using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Perceived risk. It is commonly accepted that risk perception has two components: the probability of occurrence of the adverse event and the seriousness/fatality of the consequence (Yeung & Morris, 2001). Following this approach, we asked participants to respond to two statements assessing the perceived risk of the infectious disease: "I might get infected by MERS," and "If I get infected by MERS, I might die." Responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all likely) to 5 (very likely).

Negative emotional experience. We assessed negative and positive emotions based on the procedure used in previous studies of the effect of emotion on resilience (Galatzer-Levy et al., 2013). Responses to the question "What emotion did you experience the most during the MERS outbreak?" were made on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (negative) to 9 (positive).

Data Analysis

We used structural equation modeling with maximum likelihood estimation to test the analytic path model. First, the goodness of fit of the model was evaluated using the chi-square statistic ([chi square]), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Then, we tested between-group (HCW vs. non-HCW) differences in structural coefficients in the path model. Next, we compared the goodness of fit of the model without constraints on the structural coefficients (Model 1: hypothesizing between-group differences in the coefficients) and the model with constraints on the structural coefficients (Model 2: hypothesizing no between-group differences in the coefficients). The significance of the difference in the goodness of fit between Models 1 and 2 was tested using the likelihood ratio test. When significant differences between the groups were confirmed, we tested the goodness of fit and reported the results separately by occupational group.

The mean scores of the two components of perceived risk were calculated (Kuttschreuter, 2006), with the emotional experience score reversed so that a high score represented a more negative emotion for a more intuitive interpretation of the result. The diagnostic cutoff value of the likelihood of PTSD was set at 22, as proposed by Lim et al. (2009), for which the diagnostic efficiency was .87, with .95 sensitivity and .80 specificity. To test the indirect effects we adopted nonparametric bootstrapping estimation. According to the recommendation by Mallinckrodt, Abraham, Wei, and Russell (2006), we used 10,000 iterations and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the analysis. All analyses were performed using Stata IC 13.

Results

Descriptive Results

The descriptive analysis results are shown in Table 2. The score for likelihood of PTSD was M = 11.1, SD = 0.82, [alpha] = .97. When applying the cutoff value of 22, 18.6% of the participants were at risk of having PTSD. The total score and subscores for each component of PTSD were higher in the HCW group compared to the non-HCW group. The mean score for willingness to work during future outbreaks exceeded the midpoint of 3 (M = 3.75, SD = 0.05), indicating that the participants, particularly those in the non-HCW group, tended to be willing to work during future outbreaks. The coping ability score was M = 63.2, SD = 14.32, [alpha] = .96, and the total score and subscores for each component were higher in the non-HCW group than in the HCW group. The perceived risk was close to the midpoint of 3 ( M = 3.02, SD = 1.01, [alpha] = .67). Discrepancy was observed between the perceived possibility of occurrence (getting infected; M = 3.39, SD = 1.05) and the perceived severity of the consequence (health impact of the disease; M = 2.65, SD = 1.27), indicating that participants tended to perceive that they were likely to get infected by MERS but that it would not be fatal; scores on both subscales were higher in the HCW group than in the non-HCW group. The score for emotional experience was M = 5.6, SD = 0.11, which indicates that most participants experienced negative emotions, and the HCW group expressed a more negative emotional experience compared to the non-HCW group.

Model Estimation

We tested the analytic path model regarding the relationships between risk appraisal, emotional disruption, coping ability, and resilience indicators (the likelihood of PTSD and the willingness to work) with all participants. The model fit indices indicated that the path model was acceptable, [chi square] = 0.45, p = .501; CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000, 90% CI [0.000, 0.138]. To determine whether there were differences between occupational groups in terms of structural coefficients, we compared the model without constraints on the coefficients (Model 1: between-group differences) and the model with constraints on the coefficients (Model 2: no between-group differences). The goodness of fit of Model 1, [chi square] = 0.54, p = .762; CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000, 90% CI [0.000, 0.113], was superior compared to that of Model 2, [chi square] = 20.69, p = .037; CFI = .925, RMSEA = .079, 90% CI [0.019, 0.131]. These results indicate that the HCW and non-HCW groups differed in terms of structural coefficients in the path model, and a likelihood ratio test indicated that the difference was significant, [chi square] = 20.2, p = .017. Therefore, the goodness-of-fit test was stratified according to occupational group. In both groups, the model fits were acceptable: HCW group, [chi square] = 0.01, p = .932; CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000, 90% CI [0.000, 0.064]; non-HCW group, [chi square] = 0.54, p = .464; CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000, 90% CI [0.000, 0.210].

Path Analysis Results

Estimation by occupational group yielded similarities between groups (see Figures 2 and 3). In terms of the direct effect of the precedent factors (perceived risk, coping ability, and negative emotional experience) on resilience, a high level of perceived risk and a more negative emotional experience lowered resilience in both HCW and non-HCW groups. Specifically, the likelihood of PTSD was greater when there was a high level of perceived risk (HCW group: [beta] = .42, p < .01; non-HCW group: [beta] = .17, p < .01) and a more negative emotional experience (HCW group: [beta] = .17, p < .01; non-HCW group: [beta] = .30; p < .05), and willingness to work was reduced by negative emotional experience (HCW group: [beta] = -.21, p < .05; non-HCW group: [beta] = -.21, p < .05).

High coping ability generally increased resilience. Willingness to work was increased by high coping ability in both the HCW group ([beta] = .24, p < .01) and the non-HCW group ([beta] = .41, p < .01). Negative emotional experience had an indirect mediating effect on the relationship between perceived risk and resilience in both groups. In the HCW group, high perceived risk increased negative emotional experience and, consequently, willingness to work in a future outbreak was reduced, a1a4: [beta] = -.05, p < .05; 95% CI [0.099, -0.001]. In the non-HCW group, high perceived risk increased negative emotional experience and this, in turn, increased the likelihood of PTSD, a1a3: [beta] = .08, p < .05; 95% CI [0.015, 0.145].

Differences between the groups were also identified (see Figures 2 and 3). The magnitude of the direct effect of perceived risk and emotional experience differed in terms of likelihood of PTSD. Specifically, the HCW group was significantly more affected by perceived risk (HCW group: [beta] = .42, p < .05; non-HCW group: [beta] = .17, p < .05), whereas the non-HCW group was significantly more affected by negative emotional experience (HCW group: [beta] = .17, p < .01; non-HCW group: [beta] = .30, p < .05).

Differences between the groups were also observed with regard to coping ability. In the non-HCW group coping ability reduced perceived risk ([beta] = -.22, p < .05) and the likelihood of PTSD ([beta] = -.18, p < .05) and increased willingness to work ([beta] = .41, p < .01), whereas in the HCW group coping ability affected only the willingness to work ([beta] = .24, p < .01). Further, the effect size was smaller in the HCW group compared to the non-HCW group.

For indirect effects, perceived risk and negative emotional experience mediated the effect of coping ability on resilience in the non-HCW group only. Although the effects of each pathway on coping ability (b1a1a3, b1a2, b2a3) were not significant, the total indirect effect was significant, [beta] = -.08, p < .05; 95% CI [-0.153, -0.008], that is, coping ability decreased the likelihood of PTSD indirectly through low perceived risk and low negative emotional experience.

Discussion

We empirically evaluated the role and position of risk appraisal, emotional disruption, and coping ability as personal resources in the resilience process during an infectious disease outbreak. Path modeling results were compared between HCW and non-HCW groups. In both groups, high risk appraisal impaired resilience whereas personal resources facilitated resilience, which is consistent with previous findings (Masten, 2001). A high perception of risk was both directly and indirectly associated with low resilience, as indicated by a higher likelihood of PTSD and lower willingness to work during a future outbreak. In contrast, coping ability as a personal resource was both directly and indirectly associated with high resilience. However, coping ability did not decrease emotional disruption in both groups, indicating that even hospital workers with a strong coping ability could experience severe emotional disruption during an outbreak. Because MERS is an emerging disease that is characterized as unknown and uncontrollable (Lagadec, 2007), the risk might have been more influential than individuals' ability to cope. In addition, emotional disruption was directly associated with low resilience and also mediated the effect of perceived risk on resilience in both groups.

In terms of between-group differences, the role of emotional experience was more pronounced in the non-HCW group, particularly in explaining the likelihood of PTSD. In the non-HCW group, emotional experience had the largest direct effect and mediated the effect of perceived risk and coping ability. In the HCW group, emotional experience also directly affected the likelihood of PTSD; however, perceived risk was more influential. The influence of coping ability was also more pronounced in the non-HCW group than in the HCW group and affected multiple stages of the resilience process, including perceived risk, the likelihood of PTSD, and willingness to work. In the HCW group, willingness to work was the only variable affected by coping ability.

All precedent factors (perceived risk, emotional disruption, and coping ability) affected the resilience of both HCW and non-HCW, but we identified specific factors that could help each group. Our results indicate that overstatement of the degree of risk in facing an infectious disease outbreak would be especially harmful for HCW. Therefore, in the face of a highly threatening disease, protection (e.g., vaccines, protective clothing) should be provided so that the risk level in the workplace remains acceptable (Maunder, 2004; Maunder, Hunter et al., 2003; O'Boyle, Robertson, & Secor-Turner, 2006). In addition, resilience-building programs that are focused on facilitating individuals' ability to cope with crises might be more beneficial for non-HCW than for HCW. Further, our results indicate that, for non-HCW, priority should be placed on relieving the intensity of the negative emotions experienced during an outbreak, along with developing strategies for adjusting the perceived level of risk.

Overall, the observed variance in the indicators of resilience (the likelihood of PTSD and willingness to work) was somewhat low. Additional resources from various sources could not only enhance the understanding of hospital workers' resilience but could also provide leads for differentiated support for hospital workers by occupational group. In a similar vein, Hart et al. (2014) proposed resilience-building strategies for nurses from multilevel resources for support, such as, debriefing sessions for those involved in stressful situations, organizational/hospital level (e.g., interdisciplinary effective communication), and individual level (e.g., maintaining positivity). Similarly, in the employee resilience literature, resources from diverse sources are categorized as individual resources (e.g., ability), unit resources (e.g., cohesion), family resources (e.g., close connection), and community resources (e.g., connection; Britt et al., 2016).

This study has some limitations. We collected data from a single hospital; as such, caution is recommended when generalizing the implications of our results to other populations. Furthermore, the level of close contact with patients during an outbreak may vary within the HCW and non-HCW groups, which could differentiate their perception and/or experience of an infectious disease outbreak. Further, factors such as the availability of resources from a hospital or community may enhance hospital workers' resilience, and we recommend that these factors are considered in future research.

Acknowledgements

The data for this research were collected and provided by Myongji Hospital. This work was supported by the Institute of Health and Environment and the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (No. 21B20151213037).

References

Baek, H.-S., Lee, K.-U., Joo, E.-J., Lee, M.-Y., & Choi, K.-S. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Connor--Davidson Resilience Scale. Psychiatry Investigation, 7, 109-115. https://doi.org/d6nhx6

Balicer, R. D., Barnett, D. J., Thompson, C. B., Hsu, E. B., Catlett, C. L., Watson, C. M.,... Links, J. M. (2010). Characterizing hospital workers' willingness to report to duty in an influenza pandemic through threat- and efficacy-based assessment. BMC Public Health, 10, 436. https://doi.org/bqk4v5

Benson, P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Development of cognition, affect, and social relations: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 49-112). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Britt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R., & Klieger, D. M. (2016). How much do we really know about employee resilience? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9, 378-404. https://doi.org/f9f879

Chong, M.-Y., Wang, W.-C., Hsieh, W.-C., Lee, C.-Y., Chiu, N.-M., Yeh, W.-C.,... Chen, C.-L. (2004). Psychological impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on health workers in a tertiary hospital. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 185, 127-133. https://doi.org/b4m3k9

Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76-82. https://doi.org/ffwnjs

Cowden, R. G., & Meyer-Weitz, A. (2016). Self-reflection and self-insight predict resilience and stress in competitive tennis. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 44, 1133-1149. https://doi.org/f8zgx3

DeSimone, C. L. (2009). Response of public health workers to various emergencies. Workplace Health & Safety, 57, 17-23. https://doi.org/fw723v

Devnani, M. (2012). Factors associated with the willingness of health care personnel to work during an influenza public health emergency: An integrative review. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 27, 551-566. https://doi.org/crbt

Fletcher, D., & Fletcher, J. (2005). A meta-model of stress, emotions and performance: Conceptual foundations, theoretical framework, and research directions. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 157-158.

Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2012). A grounded theory of psychological resilience in Olympic champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 669-678. https://doi.org/bcg4

Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory. European Psychologist, 18, 12-23. https://doi.org/bwr7

Galatzer-Levy, I. R., Brown, A. D., Henn-Haase, C., Metzler, T. J., Neylan, T. C., & Marmar, C. R. (2013). Positive and negative emotions prospectively predict trajectories of resilience and distress among high-exposure police officers. Emotion, 13, 545-553. https://doi.org/f48ggr

Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 416-430. https://doi.org/cxm3kt

Gershon, R., Qureshi, K., Stone, P., Pogorzelska, M., Silver, A., Damsky, M.,... Raveis, V. (2007). Home health care challenges and avian influenza. Home Health Care Management & Practice, 20, 58-69. https://doi.org/cq8nfj

Gill, D. L. (1994). A sport and exercise psychology perspective on stress. Quest, 46, 20-27. https://doi.org/crbx

Grafton, E., Gillespie, B., & Henderson, S. (2010). Resilience: The power within. Oncology Nursing Forum, 37, 698-705. https://doi.org/brb9mr

Hart, P. L., Brannan, J. D., & De Chesnay, M. (2014). Resilience in nurses: An integrative review. Journal of Nursing Management, 22, 720-734. https://doi.org/crbz

Imai, H., Matsuishi, K., Ito, A., Mouri, K., Kitamura, N., Akimoto, K.,... Mita, T. (2010). Factors associated with motivation and hesitation to work among health professionals during a public crisis: A cross sectional study of hospital workers in Japan during the pandemic (H1N1) 2009. BMC Public Health, 10, 672. https://doi.org/bv3h26

Izard, C. E. (2010). The many meanings/aspects of emotion: Definitions, functions, activation, and regulation. Emotion Review, 2, 363-370. https://doi.org/d68fvb

Kuttschreuter, M. (2006). Psychological determinants of reactions to food risk messages. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 26, 1045-1057. https://doi.org/dvm27p

Lagadec, P. (2007). Crisis management in the twenty-first century: "Unthinkable" events in "inconceivable" contexts. In W. A. Andersson, P. A. Kennedy, & E. Ressler (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 489-507). New York, NY: Springer.

Lim, H.-K., Woo, J.-M., Kim, T.-S., Kim, T.-H., Choi, K.-S., Chung, S.-K.,... Chae, J.-H. (2009). Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 50, 385-390. https://doi.org/bsm9vc

Lin, C.-Y., Peng, Y.-C., Wu, Y.-H., Chang, J., Chan, C.-H., & Yang, D.-Y. (2007). The psychological effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome on emergency department staff. Emergency Medicine Journal, 24, 12-17. https://doi.org/bm5mq2

Lopez-Vazquez, E., & Marvan, M. L. (2003). Risk perception, stress and coping strategies in two catastrophe risk situations. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 31, 61-70. https://doi.org/fjh87j

Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857-885. https://doi.org/cp2m8p

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-562. https://doi.org/bfdzqj

Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W. T., Wei, M., & Russell, D. W. (2006). Advances in testing the statistical significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 372-378. https://doi.org/bcmf7b

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227-238. https://doi.org/bv32cz

Masten, A. S., & Narayan, A. J. (2012). Child development in the context of disaster, war, and terrorism: Pathways of risk and resilience. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 227-257. https://doi.org/c7q3mv

Maunder, R. (2004). The experience of the 2003 SARS outbreak as a traumatic stress among frontline healthcare workers in Toronto: Lessons learned. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1117-1125. https://doi.org/d57zsq

Maunder, R., Hunter, J., Vincent, L., Bennett, J., Peladeau, N., Leszcz, M.,... Mazzulli, T. (2003). The immediate psychological and occupational impact of the 2003 SARS outbreak in a teaching hospital. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168, 1245-1251.

Maunder, R., Lancee, W., Balderson, K. E., Bennett, J. P., Borgundvaag, B., Evans, S.,... Wasylenki, D. (2006). Long-term psychological and occupational effects of providing hospital healthcare during SARS outbreak. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 12, 1924. https://doi.org/dtppv6

Maunder, R., Lancee, W., Rourke, S., Hunter, J. J., Goldbloom, D., Balderson, K.,... Fones, C. (2004). Factors associated with the psychological impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on nurses and other hospital workers in Toronto. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 938-942. https://doi.org/bztwnz

Miller, K. (2002). The experience of emotion in the workplace: Professing in the midst of tragedy. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 571-600. https://doi.org/c8f787

Mitroff, I. I. (2005). Why some companies emerge stronger and better from a crisis: 7 essential lessons for surviving disaster. New York, NY: American Management Association.

Montpetit, M. A., Bergeman, C. S., Deboeck, P. R., Tiberio, S. S., & Boker, S. M. (2010). Resilience-as-process: Negative affect, stress, and coupled dynamical systems. Psychology and Aging, 25, 631-640. https://doi.org/d6jhwd

Nickell, L. A., Crighton, E. J., Tracy, C. S., Al-Enazy, H., Bolaji, Y., Hanjrah, S.,... Upshur, R. E. G. (2004). Psychosocial effects of SARS on hospital staff: Survey of a large tertiary care institution. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170, 793-798. https://doi.org/dp2bdp

O'Boyle, C., Robertson, C., & Secor-Turner, M. (2006). Public health emergencies: Nurses' recommendations for effective actions. Workplace Health & Safety, 54, 347-353. https://doi.org/crdp

Richardson, B., Sorensen, J., & Soderstrom, E. J. (1987). Explaining the social and psychological impacts of a nuclear power plant accident. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 16-36. https://doi.org/bsx452

Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 307-321. https://doi.org/dh5k5g

Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. The British Journal of Psychology, 147, 598-611. https://doi.org/cbjc6n

Sauer, L. M., McCarthy, M. L., Knebel, A., & Brewster, P. (2009). Major influences on hospital emergency management and disaster preparedness. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 3, S68-S73. https://doi.org/fhcjv5

Tucker, S. J., Harris, M. R., Pipe, T. B., & Stevens, S. R. (2010). Nurses' ratings of their health and professional work environments. Workplace Health & Safety, 58, 253-267. https://doi.org/fv3zfr

Weiss, D. S., & Marmar, C. R. (1997). The Impact of Event Scale-Revised. In J. P. Wilson & T. M. Keane (Eds.), Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD (pp. 399-411). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Windle, G. (2011). What is resilience? A review and concept analysis. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 21, 152-169. https://doi.org/cv2vw9

Yeung, R., & Morris, J. (2001). Food safety risk: Consumer perception and purchase behaviour. British Food Journal, 103, 170-187. https://doi.org/drp3dj

Zaleskiewicz, T., Piskorz, Z., & Borkowska, A. (2002). Fear or money? Decisions on insuring oneself against flood. Risk, Decision and Policy, 7, 221-233. https://doi.org/b7z5r8

Heejung Son (1), Wang Jun Lee (2), Hyun Soo Kim (3), Kkot Sil Lee (4), Myoungsoon You (5)

(1) Department of Public Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University

(2) Office of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Myongji Hospital

(3) Department of Psychiatry, Myongji Hospital

(4) Department of Infection, Myongji Hospital

(5) Department of Public Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health and Institute of Health and Environment, Seoul National University

How to cite: Son, H., Lee, W., Kim, H., Lee, K., & You, M. (2019). Hospital workers' psychological resilience after the 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 47(2), e7228

CORRESPONDENCE Myoungsoon You, Department of Public Health Science at Graduate School of Public Health and Institute of Health and Environment, Seoul National University, 1, Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea. Email: msyou@snu.ac.kr

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7228
Table 1. Participants' Descriptive Characteristics

Variables               n (%)
Age (years)             M = 32.4 (SD = 8.18), range - 20-63

20-29                   138 (49.3%)
30-39                    82 (29.3%)
40+                      60 (21.4%)
Gender
Male                     72 (25.7%)
Female                  208 (74.3%)
Occupation
Health-care worker      153 (54.6%)
Non-health-care worker  127 (45.4%)
Tenure
Less than 1 year         53 (18.9%)
1-5 years               116 (41.4%)
More than 5 years       111 (39.7%)
Total                   280 (100%)

Table 2. Descriptive statistics

Variables                        M (SD)        HCW (n = 153)

Likelihood of trauma             11.1 (13.80)  13.0 (16.42)
Hyperarousal                      4.5 (4.06)    5.1 (4.90)
Numbness/dissociation             1.3 (1.88)    1.5 (2.20)
Avoidance                         2.2 (3.35)    2.6 (3.89)
Intrusion                         4.2 (5.29)    5.0 (6.24)
Willingness to work               3.7 (0.90)    3.6 (0.88)
Coping ability                   63.2 (14.23)  61.5 (13.97)
Personal competence              20.0 (5.13)   19.3 (4.98)
Trust in one's instincts         17.1 (4.31)   16.7 (4.32)
Positive acceptance of change    13.6 (3.06)   13.3 (3.07)
Control                           7.7 (2.04)    7.5 (2.01)
Spiritual influences              4.8 (1.36)    4.6 (1.40)
Perceived risk                    3.02 (1.01)   3.15 (1.02)
Possibility                       3.39 (1.04)   3.4 (1.06)
Severity                          2.65 (1.27)   2.9 (1.29)
Emotional experience (negative)   5.6 (1.90)    5.7 (1.86)

Variables                        Non-HCW (n = 127)

Likelihood of trauma              8.8 (9.28)
Hyperarousal                      3.7 (2.54)
Numbness/dissociation             1.0 (1.36)
Avoidance                         1.9 (2.52)
Intrusion                         3.2 (3.64)
Willingness to work               3.8 (0.91)
Coping ability                   65.1 (14.33)
Personal competence              20.9 (5.20)
Trust in one's instincts         17.6 (4.27)
Positive acceptance of change    13.9 (3.04)
Control                           7.9 (2.06)
Spiritual influences              4.9 (1.31)
Perceived risk                    2.86 (0.98)
Possibility                       3.3 (1.04)
Severity                          2.4 (1.20)
Emotional experience (negative)   5.5 (1.96)

Note. HCW = health-care worker; non-HCW = non-health-care worker.
COPYRIGHT 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers, Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Son, Heejung; Lee, Wang Jun; Kim, Hyun Soo; Lee, Kkot Sil; You, Myoungsoon
Publication:Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9SOUT
Date:Feb 1, 2019
Words:6170
Previous Article:Reflective Thinking Scale for Healthcare Students and Providers--Chinese version.
Next Article:Structural relationships among exercise passion, emotion, and adherence behaviors of sports participants.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters