Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has initiated an upheaval in society and has been the cause of considerable stress during this period. Healthcare professionals have been on the front line during this health crisis, particularly paramedical staff. The aim of this study was to assess the high level of stress of healthcare workers during the first wave of the pandemic. Materials and methods: The COVISTRESS international study is a questionnaire disseminated online collecting demographic and stress-related data over the globe, during the pandemic. Stress levels were evaluated using non-calibrated visual analog scale, from 0 (no stress) to 100 (maximal stress). Results: Among the 13,537 individuals from 44 countries who completed the survey from January to June 2020, we included 10,051 workers (including 1379 healthcare workers, 631 medical doctors and 748 paramedical staff). The stress levels during the first wave of the pandemic were 57.8 ± 33 in the whole cohort, 65.3 ± 29.1 in medical doctors, and 73.6 ± 27.7 in paramedical staff. Healthcare professionals and especially paramedical staff had the highest levels of stress (p < 0.001 vs non-healthcare workers). Across all occupational categories, women had systematically significantly higher levels of work-related stress than men (p < 0.001). There was a negative correlation between age and stress level (r = -0.098, p < 0.001). Healthcare professionals demonstrated an increased risk of very-high stress levels (>80) compared to other workers (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.87–2.41). Paramedical staff risk for very-high levels of stress was higher than doctors’ (1.88, 1.50–2.34). The risk of high levels of stress also increased in women (1.83, 1.61–2.09; p < 0.001 vs. men) and in people aged <50 (1.45, 1.26–1.66; p < 0.001 vs. aged >50). Conclusions: The first wave of the pandemic was a major stressful event for healthcare workers, especially paramedical staff. Among individuals, women were the most at risk while age was a protective factor.

(1) Background: The effects of lockdown repetition on work-related stress, expressed through Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI), during the COVID-19 pandemic are poorly documented. We investigated the effect of repetitive lockdowns on the ERI in French workers, its difference across occupations, and the change in its influencing factors across time. (2) Methods: Participants were included in a prospective cross-sectional observational study from 30 March 2020 to 28 May 2021. The primary outcome was the ERI score (visual analog scale). The ERI score of the population was examined via Generalized Estimating Equations. For each period, the factors influencing ERI were studied by multivariate linear regression. (3) Results: In 8121 participants, the ERI score decreased in the first 2 lockdowns (53.2 ± 0.3, p < 0.001; 50.5 ± 0.7, p < 0.001) and after lockdown 2 (54.8 ± 0.8, p = 0.004) compared with the pre-pandemic period (59 ± 0.4). ERI was higher in medical than in paramedical professionals in the pre-pandemic and the first 2 lockdowns. Higher workloads were associated with better ERI scores. (4) Conclusions: In a large French sample, Effort-Reward Imbalance worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic until the end of the 2nd lockdown. Paramedical professionals experienced a higher burden of stress compared with medical professionals.

Introduction: Avoiding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related infection in frontline healthcare workers is a major challenge. A massive training program was launched in our university hospital for anesthesia/intensive care unit and operating room staff, aiming at upskilling 2249 healthcare workers for COVID-19 patients' management. We hypothesized that such a massive training was feasible in a 2-week time frame and efficient in avoiding sick leaves. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study. Training focused on personal protective equipment donning/doffing and airway management in a COVID-19 simulated patient. The educational models used were in situ procedural and immersive simulation, peer-teaching, and rapid cycle deliberate practice. Self-learning organization principles were used for trainers' management. Ordinary disease quantity in full-time equivalent in March and April 2020 were compared with the same period in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Results: A total of 1668 healthcare workers were trained (74.2% of the target population) in 99 training sessions over 11 days. The median number of learners per session was 16 (interquartile range = 9–25). In the first 5 days, the median number of people trained per weekday was 311 (interquartile range = 124–385). Sick leaves did not increase in March to April 2020 compared with the same period in the 3 preceding years. Conclusions: Massive training for COVID-19 patient management in frontline healthcare workers is feasible in a very short time and efficient in limiting the rate of sick leave. This experience could be used in the anticipation of new COVID-19 waves or for rapidly preparing hospital staff for an unexpected major health crisis.

Background: The initial lockdown during the pandemic of COVID‐19 led to adjustments in working conditions, including extensive use of telecommuting whenever possible, putatively influencing both work‐related and home‐related stress.Objectives: Our aim was to measure the impact of teleworking on work‐related and home‐related during the COVID‐19 pandemic.Methods: The international study was conducted using an online questionnaire to collect demographic and stress‐related data from individuals worldwide during the 2020 pandemic year. Work‐related and home‐related stress levels were evaluated using an uncalibrated visual analog scale, with a range from 0 (none) to 100 (maximum).Results: A total of 13,537 individuals from 44 countries completed the survey between January and June 2020. A total of 7356 individuals were engaged in professional activities. Of these, 6639 continued to work, of which 2573 carried on as usual and 4066 teleworked. The teleworkers demonstrated a considerably (p < 0.001) lower level of work‐related stress (58 ± 31.6) in comparison to those who maintained their usual work schedule (63.6 ± 31.1). However, there was no statistically significant variation in home‐related stress between the two groups. The risk of high levels of work‐related stress (stress > 80) was multiplied by 1.76 in women (1.54 to 2.01; p < 0.001), by 1.43 (1.27 to 1.61; p < 0.001) for those who did not telework, by 5.31 (4.57 to 6.18; p < 0.001) for those with high levels of home‐related stress (stress > 80), and by 1.46 (1.22 to 1.76; p < 0.001) for those from continents outside Europe. Home‐related stress is also a risk factor for work‐related stress, and vice versa. Sociodemographic risk factors for higher levels of home‐related stress were age < 50 years old, women, working < 50 h per week, continents outside Europe, and not teleworking were no longer risk factors.Conclusion: Telework emerged as a viable option during the initial phase of the global pandemic. This mode of work was associated with lower levels of work‐related stress compared to workers who were required to work in a conventional manner. In terms of home‐related stress, telecommuters experienced more stress than those who continued to work as usual.