• COVID-19
• Publicationsclose
• Research softwareclose
• Other research productsclose
• 2013-2022close
• DK close
• Copenhagen University Research Information System close
• Knowmad Institut close

This article's main contributions are twofold: 1) to demonstrate how to apply the general European Union's High-Level Expert Group's (EU HLEG) guidelines for trustworthy AI in practice for the domain of healthcare and 2) to investigate the research question of what does "trustworthy AI" mean at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, we present the results of a post-hoc self-assessment to evaluate the trustworthiness of an AI system for predicting a multiregional score conveying the degree of lung compromise in COVID-19 patients, developed and verified by an interdisciplinary team with members from academia, public hospitals, and industry in time of pandemic. The AI system aims to help radiologists to estimate and communicate the severity of damage in a patient's lung from Chest X-rays. It has been experimentally deployed in the radiology department of the ASST Spedali Civili clinic in Brescia, Italy, since December 2020 during pandemic time. The methodology we have applied for our post-hoc assessment, called Z-Inspection®, uses sociotechnical scenarios to identify ethical, technical, and domain-specific issues in the use of the AI system in the context of the pandemic.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has threatened global mental health, both indirectly via disruptive societal changes and directly via neuropsychiatric sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Despite a small increase in self-reported mental health problems, this has (so far) not translated into objectively measurable increased rates of mental disorders, self-harm or suicide rates at the population level. This could suggest effective resilience and adaptation, but there is substantial heterogeneity among subgroups, and time-lag effects may also exist. With regard to COVID-19 itself, both acute and post-acute neuropsychiatric sequelae have become apparent, with high prevalence of fatigue, cognitive impairments and anxiety and depressive symptoms, even months after infection. To understand how COVID-19 continues to shape mental health in the longer term, fine-grained, well-controlled longitudinal data at the (neuro)biological, individual and societal levels remain essential. For future pandemics, policymakers and clinicians should prioritize mental health from the outset to identify and protect those at risk and promote long-term resilience.

Objective To describe self-reported general and psychological health for allied health practitioners at an Australian acute public health service over three time points within the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Methods This study collected data from cross-sectional online surveys at three time points: May–June 2020 (T1), October–November 2020 (T2) and November–December 2021 (T3). The self-report questionnaire consisted of demographic questions, a general health question and the 21-item version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21).Results A total of 308 responses were received (T1 n = 135, T2 n = 78, T3 n = 95) from representatives of eight allied health professions. The proportion of allied health practitioners reporting poor general health significantly increased over time, as did mean scores on all DASS-21 sub-scales. General health status was also significantly associated with DASS-21 subscale scores. Anxiety scores increased significantly between T1 and T2, while depression scores increased significantly between T2 and T3. Significant increases in stress scores were recorded across all time intervals. Between T1 and T3, the proportion of allied health practitioners reporting moderate, severe, or extremely severe symptoms increased for depression (10.3–30.9%), anxiety (5.2–18.2%) and stress (13.3–36.3%).Conclusion The general and psychological health of allied health practitioners appears to be worsening as the COVID-19 pandemic continues. Organisational strategies to support the health of the allied health workforce in acute care settings must address the cumulative effects of prolonged pressure on their general and psychosocial health. Support strategies need to be responsive to changes in psychological wellbeing at different phases of the pandemic. Objective: To describe self-reported general and psychological health for allied health practitioners at an Australian acute public health service over three time points within the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This study collected data from cross-sectional online surveys at three time points: May-June 2020 (T1), October-November 2020 (T2) and November-December 2021 (T3). The self-report questionnaire consisted of demographic questions, a general health question and the 21-item version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21). Results: A total of 308 responses were received (T1 n = 135, T2 n = 78, T3 n = 95) from representatives of eight allied health professions. The proportion of allied health practitioners reporting poor general health significantly increased over time, as did mean scores on all DASS-21 sub-scales. General health status was also significantly associated with DASS-21 subscale scores. Anxiety scores increased significantly between T1 and T2, while depression scores increased significantly between T2 and T3. Significant increases in stress scores were recorded across all time intervals. Between T1 and T3, the proportion of allied health practitioners reporting moderate, severe, or extremely severe symptoms increased for depression (10.3-30.9%), anxiety (5.2-18.2%) and stress (13.3-36.3%). Conclusion: The general and psychological health of allied health practitioners appears to be worsening as the COVID-19 pandemic continues. Organisational strategies to support the health of the allied health workforce in acute care settings must address the cumulative effects of prolonged pressure on their general and psychosocial health. Support strategies need to be responsive to changes in psychological wellbeing at different phases of the pandemic.

ObjectivesThere are indications that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound negative effect on psychological well-being. Here, we investigated this hypothesis using longitudinal data from a large global cohort of runners, providing unprecedented leverage for understanding how the temporal development in the pandemic pressure relates to well-being across countries.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingGlobal.ParticipantsWe used data from the worldwide Garmin-RUNSAFE cohort that recruited runners with a Garmin Connect account, which is used for storing running activities tracked by a Garmin device. A total of 7808 Garmin Connect users from 86 countries participated.Primary and secondary outcome measuresFrom 1 August 2019 (prepandemic) to 31 December 2020, participants completed surveys every second week that included the five-item WHO Well-Being Index (WHO-5). Pandemic pressure was proxied by the number of COVID-19-related deaths per country, retrieved from the Coronavirus Resource Centre at Johns Hopkins University. Panel data regression including individual- and time-fixed effects was used to study the association between country-level COVID-19-related deaths over the past 14 days and individual-level self-reported well-being over the past 14 days.ResultsThe 7808 participants completed a total of 125 409 WHO-5 records over the study period. We found a statistically significant inverse relationship between the number of COVID-19-related deaths and the level of psychological well-being—independent of running activity and running injuries (a reduction of 1.42 WHO-5 points per COVID-19-related death per 10 000 individuals, p<0.001).ConclusionsThis study suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative effect on the psychological well-being of the affected populations, which is concerning from a global mental health perspective.

BackgroundHealth services implemented a range of initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic to support employee wellbeing and assist employees to manage the professional and personal challenges they experienced. However, it is not known if such initiatives were acceptable to employees or met their needs.AimsTo evaluate the wellbeing and support initiatives implemented at an Australian health service during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspectives of employees (both users and non-users) and key stakeholders.MethodsA mixed-methods design (survey, interviews and data audit) to investigate employees’ and key stakeholders’ perceptions, experiences and use of the wellbeing and support initiatives implemented at a large tertiary metropolitan health service in Melbourne, Australia.ResultsTen employees participated in an interview and 907 completed a survey. The initiatives were well used and appreciated by staff. There was no significant difference in the proportion of clinical staff who had used the initiatives compared to non-clinical staff (44% versus 39%; P=0.223). Survey respondents reported the initiatives improved their mental health (n = 223, 8%), ability to cope with COVID-19 related stress and anxiety (n = 206, 79%), do their work (n = 200, 77%) and relationships with colleagues (n = 174, 67%). Staff would like many of the initiatives (with some modifications) to continue after the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsThe findings suggest a high level of staff satisfaction with the implemented wellbeing and support initiatives, and confirm the need for, and importance of, developing and implementing initiatives to support health service staff during outbreaks of infectious diseases such as the COVID-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: Health services implemented a range of initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic to support employee wellbeing and assist employees to manage the professional and personal challenges they experienced. However, it is not known if such initiatives were acceptable to employees or met their needs. AIMS: To evaluate the wellbeing and support initiatives implemented at an Australian health service during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspectives of employees (both users and non-users) and key stakeholders. METHODS: A mixed-methods design (survey, interviews and data audit) to investigate employees' and key stakeholders' perceptions, experiences and use of the wellbeing and support initiatives implemented at a large tertiary metropolitan health service in Melbourne, Australia. RESULTS: Ten employees participated in an interview and 907 completed a survey. The initiatives were well used and appreciated by staff. There was no significant difference in the proportion of clinical staff who had used the initiatives compared to non-clinical staff (44% versus 39%; P=0.223). Survey respondents reported the initiatives improved their mental health (n = 223, 8%), ability to cope with COVID-19 related stress and anxiety (n = 206, 79%), do their work (n = 200, 77%) and relationships with colleagues (n = 174, 67%). Staff would like many of the initiatives (with some modifications) to continue after the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest a high level of staff satisfaction with the implemented wellbeing and support initiatives, and confirm the need for, and importance of, developing and implementing initiatives to support health service staff during outbreaks of infectious diseases such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract Background : The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted health services and their staff, including nursing and midwifery educators. Nursing and midwifery educators were tasked with meeting nurses’ and midwives’ rapidly-changing educational requirements, and supporting the nursing and midwifery workforce through the pandemic. Thus, nursing and midwifery educators were pivotal to the pandemic response. Aim : To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on nursing and midwifery educators across four large, multi-site Australian health services. Methods : Qualitative descriptive study. All nursing and midwifery educators from public health services in Melbourne, Victoria (n=3) and Adelaide, South Australia (n=1) were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview (July – November 2020). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed thematically. Findings : Forty-six nursing and midwifery educators participated in interviews. Across the health services, two similar themes and six sub-themes were identified. In the first theme, ‘Occupational impacts of COVID-19’, participants described adjusting to providing education during the pandemic, managing increased workloads, concerns about not being able to carry out their usual education activities and the importance of support at work. The second theme, ‘Psychological impacts of COVID-19’, included two sub-themes: the negative impact on participants’ own mental health and difficulties supporting the mental health of other staff members. Participants from all health services identified unexpected positive impacts; online education, virtual meetings and working at home were perceived as practices to be continued post-pandemic. Conclusions : Hospital-based nursing and midwifery educators demonstrated agility in adjusting to the fast-changing requirements of providing education during the pandemic. Educators would benefit from continued occupational and psychosocial support during the COVID-19 pandemic, and inclusion in discussions to inform hospitals’ preparedness for managing the education of nurses and midwives during future pandemics.

Background: Most investigations of nurses' and midwives' psychological wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic have been conducted in a single setting.Aim: To assess and compare the psychological wellbeing of nurses and midwives in Australia and Denmark during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: Nurses and midwives employed at four metropolitan health services in Australia and one in Denmark completed an anonymous online survey, which assessed depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms (The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale - 21 Items (DASS-21)), and sociodemographic and employment factors.Findings: Completed surveys were received from 3001 nurses and midwives (1611 Australian and 1390 Danish). Overall, approximately one in seven of the nurses and midwives surveyed reported moderate to extremely severe levels of depression (n=399, 13.5%), anxiety (n=381, 12.9%) and stress (n=394, 13.4%). Australian nurses' and midwives' scores on all DASS-21 subscales were significantly higher (representing higher levels of depression, anxiety and stress) than the scores for the Danish nurses and midwives. Fewer years of clinical experience, living in Australia and being employed on a part-time basis were significantly associated with higher levels of psychological distress.Discussion: A considerable proportion of nurses and midwives experienced distress during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the proportion and severity varied by country. Australian nurses and midwives experienced higher levels of distress than their Danish colleagues.Conclusion: Nurses and midwives working in countries with relatively low numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths are also likely to experience psychological distress. Nurses and midwives would benefit from targeted country-specific support and wellbeing initiatives.