Background: Healthcare workers are at increased risk of adverse mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies are warranted that examine socio-ecological factors associated with these outcomes to inform interventions that support healthcare workers during future disease outbreaks. Methods: We conducted an online cross-sectional study of healthcare workers during May 2020 to assess the socio-ecological predictors of mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed factors at four socio-ecological levels: individual (e.g., gender), interpersonal (e.g., social support), institutional (e.g., personal protective equipment availability), and community (e.g., healthcare worker stigma). The Personal Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Primary Care Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Concise scales assessed probable major depression (MD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and alcohol use disorder (AUD), respectively. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess unadjusted and adjusted associations between socio-ecological factors and mental health outcomes. Results: Of the 1,092 participants, 72.0% were female, 51.9% were frontline workers, and the mean age was 40.4 years (standard deviation = 11.5). Based on cut-off scores, 13.9%, 15.6%, 22.8%, and 42.8% had probable MD, GAD, PTSD, and AUD, respectively. In the multivariable adjusted models, needing more social support was associated with significantly higher odds of probable MD, GAD, PTSD, and AUD. The significance of other factors varied across the outcomes. For example, at the individual level, female gender was associated with probable PTSD. At the institutional level, lower team cohesion was associated with probable PTSD, and difficulty following hospital policies with probable MD. At the community level, higher healthcare worker stigma was associated with probable PTSD and AUD, decreased satisfaction with the national government response with probable GAD, and higher media exposure with probable GAD and PTSD. Conclusions: These findings can inform targeted interventions that promote healthcare workers’ psychological resilience during disease outbreaks.

The COVID-19 pandemic puts health workers at increased risk of adverse mental health outcomes. However, no studies have assessed health workers’ experiences using qualitative methods during the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States to identify novel factors that could relate to their mental health. In May 2020, we distributed an online survey to health workers across 25 medical centers throughout the United States. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Primary Care-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Concise and associated cutoff values were used to assess rates of probable major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and alcohol use disorder, respectively. To provide insight into the factors shaping these and other mental health conditions, we included two open-ended questions asking respondents to recount their most upsetting and hopeful experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and how it made them feel. Using a hybrid inductive-abductive approach and thematic content analysis, we created a Social Ecological Model to represent themes among health workers’ experiences within five ecological levels: individual, interpersonal, organization, community, and public policy. Of the 1,132 participants who completed the survey, 14.0% had probable major depression, 15.8% probable generalized anxiety disorder, 23.1% probable post-traumatic stress disorder, and 42.6% probable alcohol use disorder. Individual level themes included participants’ personal health and self-care behaviors. Interpersonal level themes included the health of their social circle, family functioning, and social support. Organization level themes included their hospital’s management, resources, patient care, routine, and teams. Themes in the community level included the media, scientific knowledge about COVID-19, morale, behavior, and support of health workers. Lastly, government and health system leadership and shelter-in-place policy were themes within the public policy level. Our findings provide insights into novel factors that have impacted health workers’ wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors should be further explored to inform interventions and public policy that mitigate mental health morbidities among health workers during this and future outbreaks.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to identify the peripheral blood DNA methylation signature of hepatic fat. We conducted epigenome-wide association studies of hepatic fat in 3,400 European ancestry (EA) participants and in 401 Hispanic ancestry and 724 African ancestry participants from four population-based cohort studies. Hepatic fat was measured using computed tomography or ultrasound imaging and DNA methylation was assessed at >400,000 cytosine-guanine dinucleotides (CpGs) in whole blood or CD14+ monocytes using a commercial array. We identified 22 CpGs associated with hepatic fat in EA participants at a false discovery rate <0.05 (corresponding P = 6.9 × 10−6) with replication at Bonferroni-corrected P < 8.6 × 10−4. Mendelian randomization analyses supported the association of hypomethylation of cg08309687 (LINC00649) with NAFLD (P = 2.5 × 10−4). Hypomethylation of the same CpG was also associated with risk for new-onset T2D (P = 0.005). Our study demonstrates that a peripheral blood–derived DNA methylation signature is robustly associated with hepatic fat accumulation. The hepatic fat–associated CpGs may represent attractive biomarkers for T2D. Future studies are warranted to explore mechanisms and to examine DNA methylation signatures of NAFLD across racial/ethnic groups.

Background: Gender discrimination among women healthcare workers (HCWs) negatively impacts job satisfaction, mental health, and career development; however, few studies have explored how experiences of gender discrimination change during times of health system strain. Thus, we conducted a survey study to characterize gender discrimination during a time of significant health system strain, i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We used a convenience sampling approach by inviting department chairs of academic medical centers in the United States to forward our online survey to their staff in January 2021. The survey included one item assessing frequency of gender discrimination, and an open-ended question asking respondents to detail experiences of discrimination. The survey also included questions about social and work stressors, such as needing additional childcare support. We used ordinal logistic regression models to identify predictors of gender discrimination, and grounded theory to characterize themes that emerged from open-ended responses. Results: Among our sample of 716 women (mean age = 37.63 years, SD = 10.97), 521 (72.80%) were White, 102 (14.20%) Asian, 69 (9.60%) Black, 53 (7.4%) Latina, and 11 (1.50%) identified as another race. In an adjusted model that included demographic characteristics and social and work stressors as covariates, significant predictors of higher gender discrimination included younger age (OR = 0.98, 95%CI = 0.96, 0.99); greater support needs (OR = 1.26, 95%CI = 1.09,1.47); lower team cohesion (OR = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.91, 0.97); greater racial discrimination (OR = 1.07, 95%CI = 1.05,1.09); identifying as a physician (OR = 6.59, 95%CI = 3.95, 11.01), physician-in-training (i.e., residents and fellows; OR = 3.85, 95%CI = 2.27,6.52), or non-clinical worker (e.g., administrative assistants; OR = 3.08, 95%CI = 1.60,5.90), compared with nurses; and reporting the need for a lot more childcare support (OR = 1.84, 95%CI = 1.15, 2.97), compared with reporting no childcare support need. In their open-ended responses, women HCWs described seven themes: 1) belittlement by colleagues, 2) gendered workload distributions, 3) unequal opportunities for professional advancement, 4) expectations for communication, 5) objectification, 6) expectations of motherhood, and 7) mistreatment by patients. Conclusions: Our study underscores the severity of gender discrimination among women HCWs. Hospital systems should prioritize gender equity programs that improve workplace climate during and outside of times of health system strain.