Franziska Geiser

Dr. Franziska Geiser

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

10Years (2017-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 May 2021 in Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EMEva Morawa
Eva Morawa
CSCaterina Schug
Caterina Schug
FGFranziska Geiser
Franziska Geiser
PBPetra Beschoner
Petra Beschoner
LJLucia Jerg-Bretzke
Lucia Jerg-Bretzke
YEYesim Erim
Yesim Erim

CSCaterina Schug
Caterina Schug
EMEva Morawa
Eva Morawa
FGFranziska Geiser
Franziska Geiser
NHNina Hiebel
Nina Hiebel
PBPetra Beschoner
Petra Beschoner
YEYesim Erim
Yesim Erim
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is impacting mental health worldwide, particularly among healthcare workers (HCWs). Risk and protective factors for depression and generalized anxiety in healthcare workers need to be identified to protect their health and ability to work. Social support and optimism are known protective psychosocial resources, but have not been adequately studied in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic among healthcare workers in Germany. Methods: Within the first wave of the VOICE study (n = 7765), a longitudinal web-based survey study among healthcare workers in Germany, we assessed symptoms of depression (PHQ-2) and generalized anxiety (GAD-2), social support (ENRICHD Social Support Inventory; ESSI), and generalized optimism as well as sociodemographic, occupational, and COVID-19 related variables. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine associations between the constructs. Results: The analyses revealed that higher levels of social support and optimism were associated with lower levels of depression and generalized anxiety. They showed a higher association with depression and generalized anxiety than demographic or occupational risk factors such as female gender and direct contact with infected individuals. Conclusion: Psychosocial resources such as social support and optimism appear to contribute to successful coping with the COVID-19 pandemic and should be considered in future studies.

MCMan-Long Chung
Man-Long Chung
MWManuel Widdel
Manuel Widdel
JKJulian Kirchhoff
Julian Kirchhoff
JSJulia Sellin
Julia Sellin
MJMohieddine Jelali
Mohieddine Jelali
RCRupert Conrad
Rupert Conrad
Pressure injuries remain a serious health complication for patients and nursing staff. Evidence from the past decade has not been analysed through narrative synthesis yet. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and other reviews/sources were screened. Risk of bias was evaluated using a slightly modified QUIPS tool. Risk factor domains were used to assign (non)statistically independent risk factors. Hence, 67 studies with 679,660 patients were included. In low to moderate risk of bias studies, non-blanchable erythema reliably predicted pressure injury stage 2. Factors influencing mechanical boundary conditions, e.g., higher interface pressure or BMI < 18.5, as well as factors affecting interindividual susceptibility (male sex, older age, anemia, hypoalbuminemia, diabetes, hypotension, low physical activity, existing pressure injuries) and treatment-related aspects, such as length of stay in intensive care units, were identified as possible risk factors for pressure injury development. Health care professionals’ evidence-based knowledge of above-mentioned risk factors is vital to ensure optimal prevention and/or treatment. Openly accessible risk factors, e.g., sex, age, BMI, pre-existing diabetes, and non-blanchable erythema, can serve as yellow flags for pressure injury development. Close communication concerning further risk factors, e.g., anemia, hypoalbuminemia, or low physical activity, may optimize prevention and/or treatment. Further high-quality evidence is warranted.

CSCaterina Schug
Caterina Schug
FGFranziska Geiser
Franziska Geiser
NHNina Hiebel
Nina Hiebel
PBPetra Beschoner
Petra Beschoner
LJLucia Jerg-Bretzke
Lucia Jerg-Bretzke
YEYesim Erim
Yesim Erim
Background: Sick leave and turnover of nurses exacerbate an already existing nursing shortage during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany and other countries. Frequency and associated factors of sick leave and intention to quit among nurses need to be examined to maintain healthcare. Methods: An online survey among nursing staff (N = 757) in German hospitals was conducted between May and July 2021. Sick leave days, intention to quit, working conditions, depression, anxiety and sleep disorder symptoms, effort-reward imbalance (ERI), COVID-19-related and sociodemographic variables were measured. Regression analyses were performed. Results: The intention to quit was present in 18.9%. One third (32.5%) reported sick leave of ≥10 and 12.3% more than 25 days in 12 months. Significant predictors for ≥10 sick leave days were infection with SARS-CoV-2, a pre-existing illness, exhaustion, trust in colleagues and fear of becoming infected. Higher ERI reward levels, perception of sufficient staff and contact with infected patients were associated with lower odds for ≥10 sick leave days. Lower reward levels, having changed work departments during the pandemic, working part-time and higher depression levels significantly predicted turnover intention. Conclusion: Alarmingly, many nurses intend to quit working in healthcare. Perceived reward seems to buffer both sick leave and turnover intention. Enhancing protection from COVID-19 and reducing workload might also prevent sick leave. Depression prevention, improved change management and support of part-time workers could contribute to reducing turnover intention among nurses.

LJLucia Jerg-Bretzke
Lucia Jerg-Bretzke
MKMaximilian Kempf
Maximilian Kempf
MJMarc Jarczok
Marc Jarczok
KWKatja Weimer
Katja Weimer
CHChristian Hirning
Christian Hirning
PBPetra Beschoner
Petra Beschoner
Introduction: Epidemics lead to an increase in occupational stress and psychological strain among healthcare workers. However, the impact of a pandemic outbreak on healthcare systems is yet to be clearly defined. Therefore, this work aims to describe and analyze specific areas of workload among different groups of healthcare workers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A sample of N = 8088 persons working in the German-speaking healthcare sector participated in the VOICE/egePan online survey, which addressed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic during the second quarter of 2020. We used 15 self-constructed items, based on the work of Matsuishi et al. (2012), to identify potential COVID-19-specific topics. Results: N = 7542 records of healthcare workers were analyzed. Of these, 60.80% reported, retrospectively, an increase in stress since the outbreak of the pandemic. Problem areas tended to be indicated more frequently by the women surveyed than by the men. Nurses, paramedics and medical technicians reported the highest fear of infecting others while physicians reported the highest fear of physical or mental exhaustion. With respect to age, older respondents indicated less fear and felt more protected. Men and people living alone were more likely to use dysfunctional coping strategies. Migrants reported a higher fear of becoming infected or infecting others as well as they reported about increased levels of smoking. Discussion: Retrospectively, the COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in stress among healthcare workers. Problem areas have different focuses with regard to different living situations, environmental conditions and professions. In order to lay the best basis for healthy and efficient work, it seems necessary to take measures especially tailored to the needs of different groups of healthcare workers.

14 December 2022 in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SDStephan Doering
Stephan Doering
SHStephan Herpertz
Stephan Herpertz
THTobias Hofmann
Tobias Hofmann
MRMatthias Rose
Matthias Rose
KIKatrin Imbierowicz
Katrin Imbierowicz
HKHenrik Kessler
Henrik Kessler
Introduction: Germany is one of the few countries with a medical specialty of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy and many treatment resources of this kind. Objective: This observational study describes the psychosomatic treatment programs as well as a large sample of day-hospital and inpatients in great detail using structured diagnostic interviews. Methods: Mental disorders were diagnosed according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV by means of Mini-DIPS and SCID-II. In addition to the case records, a modified version of the CSSRI was employed to collect demographic data and service use. The PHQ-D was used to assess depression, anxiety, and somatization. Results: 2,094 patients from 19 departments participated in the study after giving informed consent. The sample consisted of a high proportion of “complex patients” with high comorbidity of mental and somatic diseases, severe psychopathology, and considerable social and occupational dysfunction including more than 50 days of sick leave per year in half of the sample. The most frequent diagnoses were depression, somatoform and anxiety disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, and somato-psychic conditions. Conclusions: Inpatient and day-hospital treatment in German university departments of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy is an intensive multimodal treatment for complex patients with high comorbidity and social as well as occupational dysfunction.