Background: COVID-19 arise global attention since their first public reporting. Infection prevention and control (IPC) is critical to combat COVID-19, especially at the early stage of pandemic outbreak. This study aimed to measure level of healthcare workers’ (HCW’) self-reported IPC behaviors with the risk of COVID-19 emerges and increases. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in two tertiary hospitals. A structured self-administered questionnaire was delivered to HCWs in selected hospitals. The dependent variables were self-reported IPC behavior compliance; and independent variables were outbreak risk and three intent of infection risk (risk of contact with suspected patients, high-risk department, risk of affected area). Chi-square tests and multivariable negative binomial regression models were employed. Results: A total of 1386 participants were surveyed. The risk of outbreak increased self-reported IPC behavior on each item (coefficient varied from 0.029 to 0.151). Considering different extent of risk, HCWs from high-risk department had better self-reported practice in most IPC behavior (coefficient ranged from 0.027 to 0.149). HCWs in risk-affected area had higher self-reported compliance in several IPC behavior (coefficient ranged from 0.028 to 0.113). However, HCWs contacting with suspected patients had lower self-reported compliance in several IPC behavior (coefficient varied from − 0.159 to − 0.087). Conclusions: With the risk of COVID-19 emerges, HCWs improve IPC behaviors comprehensively, which benefits for better combat COVID-19. With the risk (high-risk department and affected area) further increases, majority of IPC behaviors achieved improvement. Nevertheless, under the risk of contact with suspected patients, HCWs show worse IPC behaviors. Which may result from higher work load and insufficient supplies and resources among these HCWs. The preparedness system should be improved and medical assistance is urgently needed.

Background: The aim of this study is to develop a scale and evaluate its' validity and reliability to measure the joy in work of doctors.Methods: Based on literature review and panel discussion, the scale framework and item pool were determined. Next, the items were modified by two rounds of expert consultation. Then the pre-investigation was applied and the formal version of scale was formed. Last, the reliability and validity of the scale were tested with 426 physicians.Results: The scale was composed of four dimensions: work autonomy needs, competency identification needs, competency perception needs and work relationship needs. Each dimension had 7 items, and both reliability and validity were acceptable. The Cronbach α coefficient and half-reliability coefficient of the whole scale were 0.954 (>0.9) and 0.974 (>0.9). The Spearman correlations of item-total score ranged from 0.556 to 0.749, indicating a good-item total score correlation. The χ 2/ df, RMSEA, RMR, GFI, CFI, and TLI, CFA of the maximum likelihood method supported a good fit with the model.Conclusions: Based on the self-determination theory, this study develops a scale to measure the joy in work of doctors. It has good validation and reliability, which is useful for doctors and medical institutions to take steps to improve happiness.

Background: Adolescent mental disorders affect 14% of youth globally, yet treatment rates remain low (38%), particularly in low-resource settings. While stigma is a recognized barrier to care, limited evidence exists on how multi-level stigma (public, peer, family) transforms into self-stigmatization during adolescence—a critical developmental period characterized by heightened peer sensitivity. Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized a dyadic design to examine the transmission of stigma from caregivers to adolescents. We distributed survey sets to 8,500 dyads in Shandong, China. After matching and data cleaning, 4,702 valid adolescent-primary caregiver dyads remained. Validated instruments measured public stigma (STIG-9), peer stigma (PMHSS-R), family stigma (PDD), self-stigma (ISMI-10), and mental health status (GHQ-12). Results: Public stigma directly predicted peer stigma ( β = 0.784 [95% CI: 0.752–0.816]), family stigma ( β = 0.348 [95% CI: 0.313–0.383]), and self-stigma ( β = 0.390 [95% CI: 0.351–0.429]). Peer stigma mediated public-to-self-stigma transmission ( β = 0.426 [95% CI: 0.388–0.464]), while family stigma showed no direct effect. Adolescents with mental health problems exhibited higher baseline self-stigma (mean difference: 3.21 [95% CI: 2.83–3.59]) but attenuated response to rising peer stigma. Conversely, mentally healthy youth demonstrated accelerated self-stigmatization when peer stigma increased. Mental health significantly moderated public-to-family ( β = −0.269 [95% CI: −0.309 to −0.229]) and peer-to-self-stigma pathways ( β = −0.246 [95% CI: −0.287 to −0.205]). Conclusion: Peer stigma operates as the primary conduit through which societal stigma becomes internalized during adolescence, whereas family stigma plays a non-significant direct role. The paradoxical moderating effect of mental health—where affected youth show high baseline self-stigma but reduced reactivity—calls for developmentally tailored interventions. School-based peer initiatives should be prioritized alongside public awareness campaigns, while family programs should focus on support rather than stigma reduction.