Cited by 711COVID-19 and Mental HealthHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutOccupational Health and Burnout

Psychosocial effects of SARS on hospital staff: survey of a large tertiary care institution

Open access
Nickell, L. A.·2004·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of SARS in 2003 had a dramatic effect on the health care system in Toronto. The main objective of this study was to investigate the psychosocial effects associated with working in a hospital environment during this outbreak. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to all willing employees of Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre between Apr. 10 and 22, 2003. The survey included questions regarding concern about SARS, precautionary measures, personal well-being and sociodemographic characteristics; a subsample also received the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). RESULTS: Of the 4283 questionnaires distributed, 2001 (47%) were returned, representing 27% of the total hospital employee population of 7474. The proportions of respondents who were allied health care professionals, nurses and doctors and who worked in areas other than patient care were representative of the hospital staff population as a whole. Of the 2001 questionnaires, 510 contained the GHQ-12. Two-thirds of the respondents reported SARS-related concern for their own or their family's health. A total of 148 respondents (29%) scored above the threshold point on the GHQ-12, indicating probable emotional distress; the rate among nurses was 45%. Masks were reported to be the most bothersome infection control precaution. Logistic regression analysis identified 4 factors as being significantly associated with increased levels of concern for personal or family health: perception of a greater risk of death from SARS (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 5.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6-9.6), living with children (adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.5-2.3), personal or family lifestyle affected by SARS outbreak (adjusted OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.5-4.3) and being treated differently by people because of working in a hospital (adjusted OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1). Four factors were identified as being significantly associated with the presence of emotional distress: being a nurse (adjusted OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.5-5.5), part-time employment status (adjusted OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2-5.4), lifestyle affected by SARS outbreak (adjusted OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4-3.5) and ability to do one's job affected by the precautionary measures (adjusted OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.9-4.6). INTERPRETATION: Our findings indicate that the SARS outbreak had significant psychosocial effects on hospital staff. These effects differed with respect to occupation and risk perception. The effect on families and lifestyle was also substantial. These findings highlight the need for interventions to address psychosocial distress and concern and to provide support for employees during such crises.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1503/cmaj.1031077

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 711

Authors
Nickell, L. A.
Affiliations
Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Nickell, L. A.
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2004-03-02
Volume
170
Issue
5
Pages
793-798
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2160881822
Cited by
711
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 107 · 2021: 206 · 2020: 163 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 3
FWCI
20.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Toronto
  • Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto
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 › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Burnout
Keywords
SARS, psychosocial impact, hospital staff, emotional distress, nurses, infection control precautions, personal protective equipment, occupational stress, fear of infection, stigma, part-time work, General Health Questionnaire
MeSH terms
Adult, Burnout, Professional, Canada, Cross Infection, Data Collection, Disease Outbreaks, Female, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Life Style, Male, Middle Aged, Personnel, Hospital, Psychology, Quarantine, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Risk Factors, Contact Tracing, Infection Control, Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

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