Objectives This study aimed to compare the longitudinal change of the psychological distress of healthcare workers (HCWs) with non-HCWs during the repeated outbreaks of the COVID-19 in Japan. Methods The data were retrieved from the Employee Cohort Study in the Covid-19 pandemic in Japan study. An online survey was conducted on March 2020 (T1), on May 2020 (T2), on August 2020 (T3), and on November 2020 (T4). Psychological distress was measured by the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire. A mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted as an indicator of the group differences. Results A total sample of analysis was n = 996 (HCWs, n = 111; non-HCWs, n = 885). HCWs consisted of physicians/nurses/midwives and other HCWs (eg, pharmacists, clinical laboratory technicians) in the clinical settings (n = 19; 17% and n = 61; 55%, respectively), and HCWs not working in the clinical settings (n = 31; 28%). Being HCWs were associated with a significant increase in psychological distress from T1 to T2, T3 and T4 (P = .001, P = .002, P < .001; respectively). Conclusions The mental health of HCWs deteriorated through the COVID-19 outbreaks compared with non-HCWs. HCWs are continuously the important targets to provide mental health support.

The Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ) is used widely in occupational health studies and practice. Summarizing scientific production based on measurement is crucial. This study aimed to systematically review observational studies that used the BJSQ and the New BJSQ to show their usability. A systematic search was conducted for studies investigating relationships between the BJSQ or the New BJSQ subscales and other validated measurements on 13 September 2021, in various literature databases. The BJSQ subscales, scoring methods, and other validated measurements in the studies were qualitatively summarized. In total, 145 published reports between 2003 and 2021 were included. Among the BJSQ subscales, job stressors (n = 95) such as quantitative job overload (n = 65) and job control (n = 64) were most often used. The subscales were utilized to investigate the relationships with several other measurements. Five reports used subscales from the New BJSQ. In the last two decades, the BJSQ and the New BJSQ help measure psychosocial factors (PF) at work and contribute to the publication of scientific papers in the occupational health field. This study would encourage the utilization of the questionnaires for future research and practice.

Objectives: This study validated the Japanese version of O’Donovan et al.’s (2020) composite measure of the psychological safety scale and examined the associations of psychological safety with mental health and job-related outcomes. Methods: Online surveys were administered twice to Japanese employees in teams of more than three members. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were tested using Cronbach’s α and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Structural validity was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Convergent validity was tested using Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between psychological safety and psychological distress, work engagement, job performance, and job satisfaction. Results: Two hundred healthcare workers and 200 non-healthcare workers were analyzed. Internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent validity were acceptable. CFA demonstrated poor fit, and EFA yielded a two-factor structure, with team leader as one factor and peers and team forming the second factor. The total score showed significant and expected associations with all outcomes in the adjusted model for all workers. Conclusions: The Japanese version of the measure of the psychological safety scale presented good reliability and validity. Psychological safety is important for employees’ mental health and performance.

Background: Postsecondary student suicide is one of Japan’s most severe public health problems. Gatekeeper training (GKT) programs are a generally recommended suicide prevention intervention in Japan. For suicide countermeasures, an online program tailored to students may enhance self-efficacy as a gatekeeper. Objective: This study aims to describe a research protocol to investigate the effect of a newly developed internet-delivered online peer GKT program to improve postsecondary student self-efficacy as gatekeepers for suicide countermeasures in Japan. Methods: This study is a 2-arm, parallel, randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 (intervention: waiting list) allocation. Participants (n=320) will be recruited, and those who meet the inclusion criteria will be randomly allocated to the intervention or waiting list control group. An approximately 85-minute, 6-section, internet-based gatekeeper program for postsecondary students has been developed that includes videos to help participants acquire skills as gatekeepers. The intervention group will complete the program within 10 days. The primary outcome, self-efficacy as a gatekeeper, is measured using the Gatekeeper Self-Efficacy Scale at baseline, immediately after taking the program, and 2 months after the survey after completing the program follow-up. To compare the primary outcomes, a t test, where the significance level is 5% (2-sided), will be used to test the intervention effect on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: The study was at the stage of data collection at the time of submission. We recruited participants for this study during August and September 2021, and data collection will continue until December 2021. The data analysis related to the primary outcome will start in December 2021, and we hope to publish the results in 2022 or 2023. Conclusions: This is the first study to investigate the effectiveness of an online GKT program for postsecondary students to improve self-efficacy as a gatekeeper using a randomized controlled trial design. The study will explore the potential of an online peer gatekeeper program for postsecondary students that can be disseminated online to a large number of students with minimal cost. Trial Registration: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000045325; https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000051685 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34832

This study aimed to compare longitudinal change of the psychological distress of a group with psychological first aid (PFA) experience and a group without PFA experience among physicians and other healthcare professionals from before the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic to during the pandemic. The baseline survey was conducted in January 2020 (T1). The respondents in T1 were invited to participate in March (T2) and November 2020 (T3). Psychological distress was assessed by the Kessler 6 Scale. Participants were divided into two categories: a group with and a group without PFA experience. Participants were further divided between physicians and healthcare professionals other than physicians, because physicians are more likely to experience morally injurious events. A mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted as an indicator of the group differences. In T1, 398 healthcare professionals participated. The longitudinal analysis of healthcare professionals other than physicians showed that psychological distress was significantly greater in the group without PFA experience than in the group with PFA experience (T1 vs. T3). This study showed psychological distress among healthcare professionals other than physicians was significantly greater in the group without PFA experience than in the group with PFA experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the results were not consistent among physicians.

Objectives It is unclear how many workplace COVID-19 preventive measures were maintained during repeated outbreaks. The aim of this study was to investigate a longitudinal change of implementation of workplace preventive measures responding to COVID-19 in Japan. Methods An online longitudinal study was conducted using a cohort of full-time employees in Japan, starting in March 2020 (T1), with follow-up surveys in May (T2), August (T3), and November (T4) 2020. A repeated measures analysis of variance was performed to compare the difference among the four surveys in the mean number of 23 predetermined items of the measures implemented. Results The final sample comprised 800 employees. The mean number of the implemented measures increased from T1 to T2, but did not change from T2 to T3, then decreased from T3 to T4. The number of workplace preventive measures significantly increased from T1 to T2 for 21 items (P < .001), and significantly decreased from T3 to T4 for 14 items (P < .001 to P = .005). Conclusions While the preventive measures responding to COVID-19 in the workplace were well-implemented during the earlier phase of the outbreak, they seem to have been relaxed after a huge outbreak (T3 to T4: August to November 2020). Workplaces should be encouraged to continue the preventive measures over repeated outbreaks.