Cited by 53COVID-19 and Mental HealthHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutOccupational Health and Burnout

COVID-Well Study: Qualitative Evaluation of Supported Wellbeing Centres and Psychological First Aid for Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Open access
Blake, Holly, Gupta, Alisha, Javed, Mahnoor, Wood, Ben, Knowles, Steph, Coyne, Emma, Cooper, Joanne·2021·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Supported wellbeing centres were set up in UK hospital trusts as an early intervention aimed at mitigating the psychological impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers. These provided high quality rest spaces with peer-to-peer psychological support provided by National Health Service (NHS) staff volunteers called ‘wellbeing buddies’, trained in psychological first aid. The aim of the study was to explore the views of centre visitors and operational staff towards this COVID-19 workforce wellbeing provision. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were undertaken with twenty-four (20F, 4M) employees from an acute hospital trust in the UK. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed, data were handled and analysed using thematic analysis. Interviews generated 3 over-arching themes, and 13 sub-themes covering ‘exposure and job roles’, ‘emotional impacts of COVID-19 and ‘the wellbeing centres’. Supported wellbeing centres were viewed as critical for the wellbeing of hospital employees during the first surge of COVID-19 in the UK. Wellbeing initiatives require managerial advocacy and must be inclusive. Job-related barriers to work breaks and accessing staff wellbeing provisions should be addressed. High quality rest spaces and access to peer-to-peer support are seen to benefit individuals, teams, organisations and care quality. Training NHS staff in psychological first aid is a useful approach to supporting the wellbeing of the NHS workforce during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 · 10.3390/ijerph18073626

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [29]Marmot M. Allen J. Goldblatt P. Herd E. Morrison J. Build. Back Fairer: The COVID-19 Marmot Review. The Pandemic, Socioeconomic and Health Inequalities in England Institute of Health Equity London, UK 2020
  2. [84]Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms Press Conference, April Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882562/2020–04–30_COVID-19_Press_Conference_Slides.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2021)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blake, H., Gupta, A., Javed, M., Wood, B., Knowles, S., Coyne, E., & Cooper, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Blake, Holly
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-03-31
Volume
18
Issue
7
Pages
3626
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3147686556
Cited by
53
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
7.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
  • University of Nottingham
  • Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland
  • Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney
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
COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare worker well-being, psychological first aid, peer support, rest areas, hospital staff, early intervention
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, First Aid, Humans, State Medicine, 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