Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T21:28:12.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tracking emotions and emotion regulation strategies used in a hospital staff cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2021

A. Goldring*
Affiliation:
Psychiatric Research, Nathan Kline Institute, New York, United States of America
B. Silston
Affiliation:
Psychology, Columbia University, New York, United States of America
S. Krueger
Affiliation:
Psychology, Columbia University, New York, United States of America
J. Bendt
Affiliation:
Basic Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, United States of America
M. Loguidice
Affiliation:
Psychology, Columbia University, New York, United States of America
N. Wimberger
Affiliation:
Psychiatry, Manhattan Psychiatric Center, New York, United States of America
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

In response to collective life events, many people regulate their emotional states through social interactions to reduce cognitive tolls. During pandemics, physical distancing renders the social support strategy less viable, increasing mental health risks.

Objectives

The current work aims to understand the range of emotions and strategies used in a population of Mental Health staff.

Methods

We conducted an anonymous survey on staff from OMH facilities (n=211) to assess the impact of Covid-19. The current survey captures a host of social, affective, and demographic variables. Accompanied by scales on emotions, emotion regulation, risk, and perception.

Results

Work, family, and health-concerns were the primary contributors to mood. The most common strategy was “situation-avoidance,” then “exercising.” When comparing depression scores against whether or not specific kinds of regulation strategies were utilized, only differences in the strategy of “emotion-suppression” and “authority-seeking” were substantially related to the CES-D scores. Specifically, participants who kept feelings to themselves tended to have higher CES-D scores than those who let their feelings show, while those who sought out authority scored lower on the CES-D, on average than those that did not seek authority.

Conclusions

Healthcare staff are under greater stress and pressure during national emergencies, and to regulate emotions during consistent high-stress, our preliminary data suggest that suppression and distraction strategies are dominant. Suggesting that staff prefer or have little choice but to focus on work. Alternatively, perhaps they are overwhelmed to the extent that avoidance and distraction are more accessible strategies. Further analysis of our data may help us understand more.

Type
Abstract
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.