Cited by 36COVID-19 and Mental HealthHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum

Intolerance of Uncertainty, Fear of Contamination and Perceived Social Support as Predictors of Psychological Distress in NHS Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Open access
Beck, Emily, Daniels, Jo·2023·Psychology, Health & Medicine

Abstract

Psychological distress has been repeatedly quantified over the course of the pandemic, however this has not always included broader healthcare workers, and has mostly focused on prevalence and occupational factors. This study investigated intolerance of uncertainty (IOU), fear of contamination and perceived social support as key predictors of psychological distress in healthcare professionals, between the 10th and 23 June 2020, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was a cross-sectional, online survey design. Opportunity sampling was used to recruit to the study, primarily using social media sites and snowballing techniques. The final sample included 342 National Health Service (NHS) healthcare workers. IU (p < .001), gender (p < .001), fear of contamination (p = .007), perceived social support (p = .012), and age (p = .017) significantly predicted psychological distress in the sample and accounted for 36.2% of variance in psychological distress scores. IOU accounted for 28.2% of this variance. A two-way post hoc ANOVA, looking at gender and profession, showed a significant main effect of gender on psychological distress scores (F(1,218) = 7.156, p = .008, ηp2 = .032), with females reporting significantly higher psychological distress scores compared to males. In conclusion, higher levels of intolerance of uncertainty, fear of contamination and lower levels of perceived social support significantly influenced higher scores of psychological distress. These factors should be considered when adapting and delivering evidence-based interventions to healthcare staff during this crisis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13548506.2022.2092762

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beck, E., & Daniels, J.
Affiliations
University of Bath (GB)
Corresponding author
Daniels, Jo
Venue
Psychology, Health & Medicine
Published
2022-07-06
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
447-459
ISSN
  • 1354-8506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-3966
OpenAlex
W4284704638
Cited by
36
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 1
FWCI
8.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology Health & Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
funding
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Keywords
intolerance of uncertainty, fear of contamination, perceived social support, psychological distress, healthcare workers, COVID-19 pandemic, NHS staff, gender differences, occupational stress, mental health of healthcare workers
MeSH terms
Psychological Distress, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Cross-Sectional Studies, Fear, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Social Support, State Medicine, Uncertainty, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review