Background: The death toll of COVID-19 topped 170,000 in Europe by the end of May 2020. COVID-19 has caused an immense psychological burden on the population, especially among doctors and nurses who are faced with high infection risks and increased workload. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the mental health of medical professionals with nonmedical professionals in different European countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that medical professionals, particularly those exposed to COVID-19 at work, would have higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. We also aimed to determine their main stressors and most frequently used coping strategies during the crisis. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted during peak COVID-19 months in 8 European countries. The questionnaire included demographic data and inquired whether the participants were exposed to COVID-19 at work or not. Mental health was assessed via the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales32 (23.53)–21 (DASS-21). A 12-item checklist on preferred coping strategies and another 23-item questionnaire on major stressors were completed by medical professionals. Results: The sample (N=609) consisted of 189 doctors, 165 nurses, and 255 nonmedical professionals. Participants from France and the United Kingdom reported experiencing severe/extremely severe depression, anxiety, and stress more often compared to those from the other countries. Nonmedical professionals had significantly higher scores for depression and anxiety. Among medical professionals, no significant link was reported between direct contact with patients with COVID-19 at work and anxiety, depression, or stress. “Uncertainty about when the epidemic will be under control” caused the most amount of stress for health care professionals while “taking protective measures” was the most frequently used coping strategy among all participants. Conclusions: COVID-19 poses a major challenge to the mental health of working professionals as a considerable proportion of our participants showed high values for depression, anxiety, and stress. Even though medical professionals exhibited less mental stress than nonmedical professionals, sufficient help should be offered to all occupational groups with an emphasis on effective coping strategies.

Background: COVID-19 resulted in considerable mental health burden in the Chinese general population and among health care workers at the beginning and peak of the pandemic. However, little is known about potentially vulnerable groups during the final stage of the lockdown. Objective: The aim of this survey study was to assess the mental health burden of different professions in China in order to find vulnerable groups, possible influencing factors, and successful ways of coping during the last 4 weeks of the lockdown in Hubei Province. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey asked participants about current residence, daily working hours, exposure to COVID-19 at work, and media preferences. We used a shortened version of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) to assess mental health. Further assessments included perceived stress (Simplified Chinese version of the 14-item Perceived Stress Scale), coping strategies for all participants, and specific stressors for health care workers. We followed the reporting guidelines of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement for observational studies. Results: The sample (N=687) consisted of 158 doctors, 221 nurses, 24 other medical staff, 43 students, 60 teachers/government staff, 135 economy staff, 26 workers/farmers, and 20 professions designated under the “other” category. We found increased depression (n=123, 17.9%), anxiety (n=208, 30.3%), and stress (n=94, 13.7%) in our sample. Professions that were vulnerable to depression were other medical staff and students. Doctors, nurses, and students were vulnerable to anxiety; and other medical staff, students, and economy staff were vulnerable to stress. Coping strategies were reduced to three factors: active, mental, and emotional. Being female and emotional coping were independently associated with depression, anxiety, or stress. Applying active coping strategies showed lower odds for anxiety while mental coping strategies showed lower odds for depression, anxiety, and stress. Age, being inside a lockdown area, exposure to COVID-19 at work, and having a high workload (8-12 hours per day) were not associated with depression, anxiety, or stress. WeChat was the preferred way of staying informed across all groups. Conclusions: By the end of the lockdown, a considerable part of the Chinese population showed increased levels of depression and anxiety. Students and other medical staff were the most affected, while economy staff were highly stressed. Doctors and nurses need support regarding potential anxiety disorders. Future work should focus on longitudinal results of the pandemic and develop targeted preventive measures.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic severely affected everyday life and working conditions for most Europeans, particularly health care professionals (HCPs). Over the past 3 years, various policies have been implemented in various European countries. Studies have reported on the worsening of mental health, work-related stress, and helpful coping strategies. However, having a closer look is still necessary to gain more information on the psychosocial stressors and unmet needs of HCPs as well as nonmedical staff. Objective: This study aimed to obtain quantitative information on job-related stressors of physicians and nurses and the coping strategies of HCPs and nonmedical staff at 2 periods of the COVID-19 pandemic. By further analyzing qualitative comments, we wanted to gain more information on the psychosocial stressors and unmet needs of HCPs as well as nonmedical staff on different levels of experience. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at 2 time points during the COVID-19 pandemic in several European countries. The first study period (T1) lasted between April 1 and June 20, 2020, and the second study period (T2) lasted between November 25, 2021, and February 28, 2022. On a quantitative level, we used a questionnaire on stressors for physicians and nurses and a questionnaire on coping strategies for HCPs and nonmedical staff. Quantitative data were descriptively analyzed for mean values and differences in stressors and coping strategies. Qualitative data of free-text boxes of HCPs and nonmedical staff were analyzed via thematic analysis to explore the experiences of the individuals. Results: T1 comprised 609 participants, and T2 comprised 1398 participants. Overall, 296 participants made 438 qualitative comments. The uncertainty about when the pandemic would be controlled (T1: mean 2.28, SD 0.85; T2: mean 2.08, SD 0.90) and the fear of infecting the family (T1: mean 2.26, SD 0.98; T2: mean 2.02, SD 1.02) were the most severe stressors identified by physicians and nurses in both periods. Overall, the use of protective measures (T1: mean 2.66, SD 0.60; T2: mean 2.66, SD 0.60) and acquiring information about COVID-19 (T1: mean 2.29, SD 0.82; T2: mean 1.99, SD 0.89) were identified as the most common coping strategies for the entire study population. Using thematic analysis, we identified 8 themes of personal experiences on the micro, meso, and macro levels. Measures, working conditions, feelings and emotions, and social climate were frequently mentioned topics of the participants. In T1, feelings of isolation and uncertainty were prominent. In T2, feelings of exhaustion were expressed and vaccination was frequently discussed. Moreover, unmet psychosocial needs were identified. Conclusions: There is a need for improvement in pandemic preparedness. Targeted vocational education measures and setting up of web-based mental health support could be useful to bridge gaps in psychosocial support needs in future crises.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for improving public confidence in vaccines. Academic gaps and redundancies on vaccinations must be identified to revise the medical curriculum for up-to-date training of medical students. This cross-sectional survey assessed the status of vaccine-related teaching in general and specific to COVID-19 in medical schools across Germany. A total of 4313 medical students completed a questionnaire comprising items on national learning goals and perceived needs for teaching on vaccinations. Mixed methods were used to analyse data quantitatively for relative frequencies (%) and correlations between teaching items and semesters (Spearman’s rho), and qualitatively (content analysis). Our findings showed that 38.92% of the students were dissatisfied with teaching on vaccine-preventable diseases, but the perceived satisfaction increased in later semesters (r = 0.46, p < 0.001). Moreover, 75.84% and 68.15% of the students were dissatisfied with teaching related to vaccine scepticism and vaccine-related communication strategies, respectively. Furthermore, 63.79% reported dissatisfaction with teaching on COVID-19 disease and 72.93% with teaching on COVID-19 vaccines. A total of 79.12% stated they educated others on COVID-19 and its vaccines and 75.14% felt responsible to do so. A majority of the medical students were dissatisfied with teaching on dealing with vaccine scepticism, communication strategies and COVID-19 vaccines. We recommend practice-oriented vaccine education, especially for teaching communication skills to medical students.

The COVID‐19 pandemic has disrupted scientific gatherings and conferences, opening up opportunities for virtual learning platforms. Realizing the potential of online academic exchanges, the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) also developed virtual avenues and information systems for capacity building of mental health professionals across the world. Among its first such initiatives, the WPA organized a virtual Train the Trainers workshop, where 123 psychiatrists, psychiatric trainees, and educators from 45 countries participated. The innovative and interactive workshop allowed participants to get to know each other, exchange educational and professional experiences, and ask questions or receive advice from experts. Keynote speakers, including WPA President Prof. Afzal Javed and Prof. Norman Sartorius, stressed upon the importance of finding innovative solutions in psychiatry training and the need to improve teaching and training in the field of psychiatry, especially in the provision of leadership and communication skills. Online training methods can provide easy access to academics and students while reducing the organizational and logistical costs. They have the potential to improve educational equality and allow the voice of the underprivileged scientists to be heard across the globe. The devastating impact on access to mental health services during COVID‐19 underscores the urgent need for online training, particularly in countries where the ratio of psychiatrists to patients is inadequate and doctors concentrate more on treatment than on research and education. Virtual educational interventions could prove incredibly useful in the future just as they are being successfully utilized in local and regional contexts during the pandemic.