6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Pandemic Experience of First Responders: Fear, Frustration, and Stress

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Police officers, firefighters, and paramedics are on the front lines of crises and emergencies, placing them at high risk of COVID-19 infection. A deeper understanding of the challenges facing first responders during the COVID-19 pandemic is necessary to better support this important workforce. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 first responders during the COVID-19 pandemic, asking about the impact of COVID-19. Data collected from our study interviews revealed that, despite large numbers of COVID-19 infections among the staff of police and fire departments, some—but not all—first responders were concerned about COVID-19. A similar divide existed within this group regarding whether or not to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Many first responders reported frustration over COVID-19 information because of inconsistencies across sources, misinformation on social media, and the impact of politics. In addition, first responders described increased stress due to the COVID-19 pandemic caused by factors such as the fear of COVID exposure during emergency responses, concerns about infecting family members, and frustration surrounding new work policies. Our findings provide insight into the impact of COVID-19 on first responders and highlight the importance of providing resources for education about COVID-19 risks and vaccination, as well as for addressing first responders’ mental health and well-being.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study.

          Qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis are two commonly used approaches in data analysis of nursing research, but boundaries between the two have not been clearly specified. In other words, they are being used interchangeably and it seems difficult for the researcher to choose between them. In this respect, this paper describes and discusses the boundaries between qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis and presents implications to improve the consistency between the purpose of related studies and the method of data analyses. This is a discussion paper, comprising an analytical overview and discussion of the definitions, aims, philosophical background, data gathering, and analysis of content analysis and thematic analysis, and addressing their methodological subtleties. It is concluded that in spite of many similarities between the approaches, including cutting across data and searching for patterns and themes, their main difference lies in the opportunity for quantification of data. It means that measuring the frequency of different categories and themes is possible in content analysis with caution as a proxy for significance. © 2013 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Health Care Personnel, First Responders, and Other Essential and Frontline Workers — Eight U.S. Locations, December 2020–March 2021

            Messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials ( 1 , 2 ); however, the benefits of these vaccines for preventing asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection, particularly when administered in real-world conditions, is less well understood. Using prospective cohorts of health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers* in eight U.S. locations during December 14, 2020–March 13, 2021, CDC routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 infections every week regardless of symptom status and at the onset of symptoms consistent with COVID-19–associated illness. Among 3,950 participants with no previous laboratory documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,479 (62.8%) received both recommended mRNA doses and 477 (12.1%) received only one dose of mRNA vaccine. † Among unvaccinated participants, 1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) per 1,000 person-days. § In contrast, among fully immunized (≥14 days after second dose) persons, 0.04 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported, and among partially immunized (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose) persons, 0.19 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported. Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization and 80% for partial immunization. These findings indicate that authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptom status, among working-age adults in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons. HEROES-RECOVER ¶ is a network of longitudinal cohorts in eight locations (Phoenix, Tucson, and other areas in Arizona; Miami, Florida; Duluth, Minnesota; Portland, Oregon; Temple, Texas; and Salt Lake City, Utah) that share a common protocol and methods.** Enrollment in this longitudinal study started in July 2020 and included health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers who provided written consent. The current vaccine effectiveness analytic study period began on the first day of vaccine administration at study sites (December 14–18, 2020) and ended March 13, 2021. Active surveillance for symptoms consistent with COVID-19–associated illness (defined as fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, diarrhea, muscle aches, or loss of smell or taste) occurred through weekly text messages, e-mails, and direct participant or medical record reports. Participants self-collected a midturbinate nasal swab weekly, regardless of COVID-19–associated illness symptom status and collected an additional nasal swab and saliva specimen at the onset of COVID-19–associated illness. Specimens shipped on cold packs were tested by RT-PCR assay at Marshfield Clinic Laboratory (Marshfield, Wisconsin) to determine SARS-CoV-2 infections (PCR-confirmed infection). Receipt of COVID-19 vaccines was documented by multiple methods: by self-report in electronic surveys, by telephone interviews, and through direct upload of vaccine card images at all sites; records were also extracted from electronic medical records at the Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, and Utah sites. Among 5,077 participants, those with laboratory documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection before enrollment starting in July 2020 (608) or identified as part of longitudinal surveillance up until the first day of vaccine administration (240) were excluded. Another 279 were excluded because of low participation (i.e., failed to complete surveillance for ≥20% of study weeks and did not contribute COVID-19–associated illness specimens). Overall, 3,950 participants in the vaccine effectiveness analytic sample were analyzed. Hazard ratios were estimated by the Andersen-Gill extension of the Cox proportional hazards model, which accounted for time-varying vaccination status. Hazard ratios of unvaccinated person-days to partial immunization person-days (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose) and to full immunization person-days (≥14 days after second dose) were calculated separately. The 13 person-days between vaccine administration and partial or full immunization were considered excluded at-risk person-time because immunity was considered to be indeterminate. Unadjusted vaccine effectiveness was calculated as 100% × (1−hazard ratio). An adjusted vaccine effectiveness model included study site as a covariate. All analyses were conducted with SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute). This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy. †† Approximately one half of the participants (52.6%) were from the Arizona study sites (Table 1). Participants included physicians and other clinical leads (primary health care personnel) (21.1%), nurses and other allied health care personnel (33.8%), first responders (21.6%), and other essential and frontline workers (23.5%). The majority of participants were female (62.1%), aged 18–49 years (71.9%), White (86.3%), and non-Hispanic (82.9%) and had no chronic medical conditions (68.9%). Over the 13-week study period, adherence to weekly surveillance reporting and specimen collection was high (median = 100%; interquartile range = 82%–100%). TABLE 1 Characteristics of health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers with reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and percentage receiving one or more doses of a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine — eight U.S. locations, December 14, 2020–March 13, 2021 Characteristic No. (column %) of participants SARS-CoV-2 infection Unvaccinated Vaccinated with ≥1 dose* No. (row %) p-value† No. (row %) No. (row %) p-value† Total 3,950 (100) 205 (5.2) — 989 (25.0) 2,961 (75.0) — Cohort location Phoenix, Arizona 555 (14.1) 39 (7.0§) 14 days after first dose) of 60% (95% CI = 38%–74%) against PCR-confirmed infection identified by records review in Israel ( 5 ). This finding is also consistent with early descriptive findings of SARS-CoV-2 employee and clinical testing results by mRNA vaccination status in the United States ( 8 , 9 ). The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, vaccine effectiveness point estimates should be interpreted with caution given the moderately wide CIs attributable in part to the limited number of postimmunization PCR-confirmed infections observed. Second, this also precluded making product-specific vaccine effectiveness estimates and limited the ability to adjust for potential confounders; however, effects were largely unchanged when study site was included in an adjusted vaccine effectiveness model and when adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, and occupation separately in sensitivity analyses. Finally, self-collection of specimens and delays in shipments could reduce sensitivity of virus detection by PCR ( 10 ); if this disproportionately affected those who received the vaccine (e.g., because of possible vaccine attenuation of virus shedding), vaccine effectiveness would be overestimated. The scientific rigor of these findings is enhanced by its prospective design and the participants’ very high adherence to weekly specimen collection. As the study progresses, viruses will be genetically characterized to examine the viral features of breakthrough infections. Given that there is uncertainty related to the number of days required to develop immunity postvaccination ( 3 – 5 , 7 ), future research examining vaccine effectiveness at different intervals is warranted. These interim vaccine effectiveness findings for both Pfizer-BioNTech’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines in real-world conditions complement and expand upon the vaccine effectiveness estimates from other recent studies ( 3 – 5 ) and demonstrate that current vaccination efforts are resulting in substantial preventive benefits among working-age adults. They reinforce CDC’s recommendation of full 2-dose immunization with mRNA vaccines. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons, which currently varies by location in the United States. Summary What is already known about this topic? Messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials. What is added by this report? Prospective cohorts of 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 13 consecutive weeks. Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%. What are the implications for public health practice? Authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              COVID-19 Worries and Behavior Changes in Older and Younger Men and Women

              Abstract Objectives The case fatality rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is higher among older adults than younger adults and is also higher among men than women. However, worry, which is a key motivator of behavioral health changes, occurs less frequently for older than younger adults, and less frequently for men than women. Building on this, we tested whether older adults–and particularly older men—would report the least amount of COVID-19 worry and also fewer COVID-19 behavior changes. Method From March 23–31, 2020, we administered an online questionnaire assessing COVID-19 perceptions, worries, and behavior changes. Participants were a convenience sample of U.S. residents, who were community-dwelling younger adults (18–35) or older adults (65–81). Analyses included 146 younger adults (68 men, 78 women) and 156 older adults (82 men, 74 women). Participants were predominately white, living in suburban/urban areas, and had completed some college. Results During the early phase of the outbreak in the United States, older adults perceived the risks of COVID-19 to be higher than did younger adults. Despite this, older men were comparatively less worried about COVID-19 than their younger counterparts. Compared with the other participants, older men had also implemented the fewest behavior changes. Discussion Interventions are needed to increase COVID-19 behavior changes in older men. These results also highlight the importance of understanding emotional responses to COVID-19, as these are predictive of their behavioral responses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                IJERGQ
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                IJERPH
                MDPI AG
                1660-4601
                April 2022
                April 13 2022
                : 19
                : 8
                : 4693
                Article
                10.3390/ijerph19084693
                35457559
                ce169b6a-3e45-4ca2-8de6-8b6d492a1a40
                © 2022

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article