Inadequate preparedness for response to COVID-19 is associated with stress and burnout among healthcare workers in Ghana

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has compounded the global crisis of stress and burnout among healthcare workers (HCWs). But few studies have empirically examined the factors driving these outcomes. We examined the association between perceived preparedness to respond to the pandemic and HCW stress and burnout and identified potential mediating factors among HCWs in Ghana.

Data are from HCWs in Ghana who completed a cross-sectional self-administered online survey; 414 and 409 HCWs completed stress and burnout questions, respectively. Perceived preparedness, stress, and burnout were measured using validated psychosocial measures. We assessed associations using linear regressions with robust standard errors.

The average score for preparedness was 24 (SD=8.8), 16.3 (SD=5.9) for stress, and 37.4 (SD=15.5) for burnout. In multivariate analysis, HCWs who felt somewhat prepared and prepared had lower stress (β =-1.89, 95%CI:-3.49 to -0.30 and β =-2.66, 95%CI:-4.48 to -0.84) and burnout (β =-7.74, 95%CI:-11.8 to -3.64 and β =-9.25, 95%CI:-14.1 to –4.41) scores than those who did not feel prepared. Appreciation from management and family support were associated with lower stress and burnout, while fear of infection was associated with higher . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 4 stress and burnout. Fear of infection partially mediated the relationship between perceived preparedness and stress/burnout, accounting for about 16 to17% of the effect.

Low perceived preparedness to respond to COVID-19 increases stress and burnout, and this is partly through fear of infection. Interventions to increase HCWs’ morale and capacity to respond to the pandemic are needed. Key Words: COVID-19; Pandemic preparedness; Healthcare workers; Burnout; Stress; Ghana . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 5 Strengths and limitations of this study • Our study is among the first to report data on COVID-19 related stress and burnout among HCWs in Africa and to identify contributing factors, including HCWs’ perceived preparedness to respond to the pandemic. • We used validated psychosocial measures of stress and burnout, as well as a perceived preparedness for COVID-19 scale developed by our team, which has high validity and reliability; this scale can facilitate similar research in other settings. • Our study shows that among healthcare workers in Ghana, low perceived preparedness to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with higher levels of stress and burnout and this association is partially mediated by fear of infection. • Perceived appreciation from management and family support on the other hand are associated with lower stress and burnout. • Findings are based on self-reported data from a cross-sectional online survey, thus, there may be social desirability bias; associations described are not causal; and the online survey may limit generalizability. . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 6

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has become a major health crisis of our generation. The pandemic had affected over 19.8 million people and claimed the lives of over 733,000 people as of August 10 th, 2020.1 Healthcare workers (HCWs) in particular have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, accounting for over 10% of global infections according to the World Health Organization (WHO). 2 In Africa, over 10,000 HCWs across 40 countries contracted COVID-19 as of July 23rd, 2020.3 Underlying the epidemic among these frontline workers are various factors that may be shaping HCWs’ risk of COVID-19, including preparedness indicators such as inadequate training, protocols, knowledge, personal protection equipment (PPE), as well as weak health systems, slow national responses, and poor political leadership. 2,4,5 Yet, emerging data indicate that providers across the globe are inadequately prepared to respond to the pandemic.5,6 The scale and rapid spread of COVID-19, combined with inadequate preparedness, may be contributing to HCW stress and burnout—two psychological indicators that reached crisis levels among HCWs globally prior to COVID-19.7,8 Chronic work-related stress, when not adequately managed, leads to burnout, which manifests as physical, cognitive, and emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (feelings of negativism, cynicism, or detachment from one’s job), and reduced professional efficacy.9 Burnout leads to lower productivity and effectiveness, decreased job satisfaction and commitment, and poor quality care, with risks to patient safety.10,11 Stress and burnout is also associated with poor health outcomes such as depression, cardiovascular disease, and premature mortality. 12,13 Moreover, HCW burnout is expensive for the health system given . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 7 its associations with care quality, absenteeism, and workforce turnover, and is, thus, critical to examine.14,15 Since the WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, a growing number of studies have examined its psychological impact on frontline workers. 16–19 A qualitative study among HCWs in China found that challenges experienced in responding to COVID-19 included exhaustion from prolonged use of protective gear and heavy workloads, and fear of infection and infecting others, while social support and self-management strategies helped HCWs cope with distress. 20 Additionally, a systematic review found that HCWs are experiencing psychological distresses due to COVID-19, with the following pooled estimates for anxiety (26%), depression (25%), distress (35%), stress (40%), insomnia (32%), and PTSD (3% to 16%). 19 None of these studies were in Africa. Inadequate preparedness has been linked to various psychological outcomes among HCWs in prior epidemics outbreaks. 21 But few studies have empirically examined this in the context of COVID-19 and no studies, to our knowledge, have specifically examined the psychological impact of perceived preparedness among HCWs to respond to the COVID-19. A nationwide survey examining psychological distress among the general population in China during the COVID-19 epidemic found that preparedness indicators (e.g., having effective prevention and control measures and a highly efficient health system) were protective against psychological distress. 22 In Africa, where health systems are constrained and underfunded,23 no empirical studies in the context of COVID-19 have reported on this issue to date for HCWs. However, a prior systematic review found that, generally, burnout is high among physicians and even higher . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 8 among nurses in Africa and that drivers of burnout include lack of social support, long work hours and understaffing, and professional and interpersonal conflicts.24,25 Due to shortage of staff and limited resources, HCWs in African settings have been working under excessive workloads and psychologically charged environments where demand outweighs capacity. 26,27 In Ghana, which has the third highest number of COVID-19 cases in Africa and over 2,000 HCWs infected,28,29 stress and burnout may be even higher among HCWs. Previous studies assessing HCWs’ preparedness for the Ebola outbreak in Ghana found that providers felt inadequately prepared to respond, and reported issues such as inadequate PPE and staff. 30–33 Our study contributes to addressing the gap in the literature on the psychological impact of COVID- 19 on African HCWs by examining HCW stress and burnout and associations with perceived preparedness to respond to COVID-19 and other factors in Ghana.

Context Ghana recorded its first two cases of COVID-19 on March 12 th, 2020. Since then, the epidemic in Ghana has grown exponentially, with 41,212 cases and 215 deaths as of August 10th, 2020, making it the country with the third highest number of cases in Africa and 51st globally.1,29 Ghana has a constrained health system, with a population of approximately 30 million, an estimated 1.8 medical doctors and 42 nurses and midwives per 10,000 population, and less than one hospital bed per 1,000 people. 23,34–36 The increasing number of cases within an overburdened healthcare infrastructure is, therefore, a major source of concern for many HCWs. In addition, HCWs have expressed fear of coronavirus infection due to concerns about inadequate PPE and . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 9 testing, sparking threats of industrial strike actions by nurses and doctors in Ghana.37,38 New data on the high number of COVID-19 cases among HCWs, including six deaths, has elevated this fear and, raised renewed concerns about the potential catastrophic effects of a weak health system and lack of HCW preparedness.39,40 Data collection This is a cross-sectional study conducted with HCWs in Ghana (i.e., nurses, physicians, and allied health workers) from April 17th, 2020 to May 31st, 2020. We used a convenience sampling approach to recruit HCWs virtually through advertising on diverse online and social media platforms (WhatsApp, Facebook, and direct messaging), and invited them to complete a self- administered online survey through a link in the ad. To maximize representativeness in our sample, we disseminated survey links to Facebook and WhatsApp pages of different professional groups, graduation year groups, and regional groups of HCWs, as well as to leaders of professional organizations and Ghana Health Service directors to share with members of their groups. No incentives were provided, and respondents had the option of skipping questions. The survey included questions on demographics, perceived preparedness, stress, burnout, and other questions relevant to the pandemic response. Providers consented to the study by completing the survey. Additional study methods can be found elsewhere. 41 Ethical approval was obtained from the University of California, San Francisco (#20-30656) and the Navrongo Health Research Centre (#NHRCIRB374). Patient and public involvement . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 10 Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. HCWs however contributed to the development of the survey questions. Measures Dependent variables: stress and burnout The two outcome variables—stress and burnout—were measured using validated psychosocial measures. Stress was assessed using the 10-item Cohen perceived stress scale, which captures people’s feelings and thoughts in the past month. 42 Questions relate to how nervous or stressed, unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded respondents find their lives (appendix 1a). Each question is on a scale of 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Burnout was assessed using the 14-item Shirom-Melamed Burnout measure (SMBM), which assesses feelings at work in the past month.43 Questions capture three domains of burnout: physical fatigue, emotional exhaustion, and cognitive weariness, with responses options ranging from 1 (never or almost never) to 7 (always or almost always) (appendix 1b). Independent variables The key predictor in this analysis is perceived preparedness to respond to COVID-19, which was assessed using a 15-item scale developed by our team. The questions capture personal, facility, and psychological preparedness for prevention, diagnoses, management, and education regarding COVID-19. Each question has response options from 0 (not prepared at all) to 3 (very prepared), with options for “I don’t know about this (4), and “Not applicable to my role” (5) (appendix 1c). The scale development process is described elsewhere. 41 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 11 Other independent variables included feeling of appreciation, support, and communication from management; family support, ability to isolate at home without exposing family, fear of contracting COVID-19, confidence in being cared for if infected, COVID-19 training; availability of PPE, isolation ward, and protocols for COVID-19; perceived knowledge of how to manage COVID-19 (appendix 1d), and provider and facility characteristics. Analysis The analytic sample is 414 and 409 for the stress and burnout analysis, respectively, representing respondents who answered all questions on stress and burnout and relevant predictors. We examined the distribution of variables using descriptive statistics and created summative scores for stress, burnout, and preparedness. Factor analysis showed all three scales had good construct validity with all items in each scale loading on one dominant factor with eigen-values greater than three. The scales also had good internal consistency with Cronbach alpha of 0.79 for stress, 0.94 for burnout, and 0.91 for preparedness. Before creating summative scores, items were recoded such that higher scores indicate higher stress, burnout, and preparedness. For the preparedness score, we coded response options to range from 0 to 3 by recoding 4(I don’t know about this) to 0(not at all prepared) and 5(not applicable to my role) to 2(prepared). Stress scores range from 0 to 40. Scores of 0-13 are considered low stress, 14-26 moderate stress, and 27-40 high stress. 42 Burnout scores range from 14-98—rescaled to 1-7 by dividing by total number of items for ease of comparison with sub-domains. Scores of ≤ 2.0 are considered no burnout, 2-3.74 moderate burnout, and ≥ 3.75 as high burnout.44 We used the same cutoffs for burnout domains. Preparedness scores range from 0-45. We categorized scores less than 15 as “not at all prepared”; scores 15 to 29 as “somewhat prepared,” and ≥ 30 as “prepared”.41 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 12 We used the continuous scores for the outcomes in linear regressions with robust standard errors to examine the associations with various predictors. The burnout score was slightly skewed to the right, which was corrected with a log transformation. For ease of interpretation, we used the untransformed variable for the main analysis and conducted sensitivity analysis with the log transformed variable. We built multivariate models by gradually adding demographic and other independent variables that were significant in the bivariate analysis and testing for model fit and collinearity. Finally, we examined if the relationships between perceived preparedness and both stress and burnout were mediated by fear of infection using the difference of coefficients (c-c’) method. The mediated or indirect effect is the difference in the coefficients in the model without the mediator (total effect: c) and that in the model with the mediator (direct effect: c’). The proportion mediated is ((c-c’)/c). 45,46 We also examined if the associations were moderated by type of health provider, appreciation from management, and family support. In additional analysis, we ran the models with preparedness as a continuous variable and with the outcomes as binary variables.

Descriptive results About 20% were doctors, 62% nurses (including midwives and medical/physician assistants) and 18% other professionals, including medical laboratory professionals, disease control officers, nutritionists and other allied health care workers (Table 1a). About 26% worked in teaching hospitals, 59% in other public hospitals (e.g., regional and district hospitals and health centers), and 15% in private facilities. Approximately 23% work in the Greater Accra and Ashanti regions (the initial epicenters), 23% from Northern region, and the rest from other regions. There were at . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 13 least 10 respondents from each the 16 regions of the country, except for the Bono and Ahafo regions, which had less than five respondents. The average age of respondents was 34.2 years (SD=6.0), with 8.2 years of professional experience (SD=5.6). About half were female. The average stress score was 16.3 (SD=5.9) (Table 1b), with 64% having moderate stress and 4% high stress. Average burnout score was 37.4 (SD=15.5), with 47% having low burnout and 20% high burnout. About 33%, 15%, and 23%, respectively, had high values for physical exhaustion, emotional exhaustion, and cognitive weariness. Average preparedness score was 24 (SD=8.8), with 56.9% somewhat prepared and 27.5% prepared (Table 1). About 44% perceived management was appreciative or very appreciative of their efforts and 55% perceived communication from management was good or very good. Additionally, 46% were fearful or very fearful of contracting COVID-19 and only 20% were confident or very confident that they would be adequately cared for in their facility if they got infected. About 67% felt their families were supportive or very supportive of their work, and 33% were certain of a place to isolate at home without exposing their family if they were infected. Distribution of other variables shown in Table 1. Bivariate results In the bivariate analysis (Table 2), higher perceived preparedness was associated with lower perceived stress and burnout. The average stress and burnout scores among those who felt prepared was 14 (SD=5.1) and 33 (SD=13.5), respectively, compared to 19 (SD=6.1) and 47 (SD=15.3), respectively, for those who did not feel at all prepared. Burnout scores among other HCWs were lower than that of doctors and nurses. HCWs in Northern region had lower stress . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 14 than those in Greater Accra and Ashanti regions and HCWs in other southern regions had lower burnout than those in Greater Accra and Ashanti regions. Other factors significantly associated with lower stress and burnout included appreciation, support, and communication from management; family support; confidence in being cared for if infected; training on COVID-19; availability of PPE, isolation ward, and COVID-19 guidelines; and confidence in being able to manage COVID-19 patients. Fear of infection and being female were associated with higher stress and burnout. Multivariate analysis In the multivariate analysis (Tables 3a and 3b), the associations between perceived preparedness with both stress and burnout were still significant. When accounting for only the demographic variables (model 1 of Table 3a), providers who felt somewhat prepared and prepared had about 3- and 5-points lower stress scores respectively compared to those who did not feel at all prepared. This decreased to about 2 and 3 points, respectively, with the addition of appreciation from management and family support in model 2. In model 3, which includes fear of infection, the coefficients for somewhat prepared and prepared decreased further (β =-1.89, 95%CI:-3.49 to -0.30 and β =-2.66, 95%CI:-4.48 to -0.84) by 17% and 16% from model 2, suggesting fear of infection partially mediates the relationship between perceived preparedness and stress. For burnout, when accounting for only the demographic variables (Table 3b, model 1), providers who felt somewhat prepared and prepared had about 10 points and 14 points lower burnout scores, respectively, compared to those who did not feel at all prepared. This decreased to about 9 and 10 points, respectively, with the addition of appreciation from management and family . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 15 support in model 2. In model 3, which includes fear of infection, the coefficients for somewhat prepared and prepared decreased to about 8 and 9 points (β =-7.74, 95%CI:-11.8 to -3.64 and β =- 9.25, 95%CI:-14.1 to –4.41)—a 10% decrease from model 2, suggesting potential partial mediation by fear of infection. The mediated effect with the categorical preparedness variable was not significant, but it was significant with the continuous preparedness variable with the proportion of the mediated effect at 16% (table 4). Providers in the Northern region had about 3 points lower stress scores than those in Greater Accra and Ashanti regions (the COVID-19 epicenters). Females also had about 3 points higher burnout scores than males, and married providers had about 5 points lower burnout scores than unmarried providers. Perceived appreciation from management and family support were associated with about 2 points lower stress scores and about 5 points lower burnout scores, while fear of infection was associated with about 2 points higher stress scores and 4 points higher burnout scores. Sensitivity results The interactions between preparedness with type of provider, appreciation from management and family support were not significant for neither stress nor burnout, suggesting the absence of conditional effects. The results obtained from using the log of burnout as the outcome, as well as that from using preparedness as a continuous variable, were consistent with the results of the untransformed burnout variable and the categorical preparedness variables respectively in their significance, direction, and magnitude of the associations. Results from the binary logistic regression based on the dichotomized stress and burnout scores were also generally consistent . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 16 with the results of the continuous variables, with minor variations depending on how the variable was dichotomized (Appendix 2).

We found evidence of high stress and burnout and low perceived preparedness to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic among HCWs in Ghana. Low perceived preparedness was associated with increased stress and burnout. Our findings suggest that increased fear of infection partly accounts for the effect of perceived preparedness on stress and burnout—i.e., inadequate preparation leads to fear of infection, which leads to high stress and burnout. This is, however, a small indirect effect (<20%), which is likely because other factors, including fear of poor outcomes for patients, may also be mediating the effect of preparedness on stress and burnout. In contrast, increased appreciation from management and family support decreases stress and burnout. Inadequate preparedness may, therefore, have multiplicative effects through its association with stress and burnout, which may negatively affect HCW job satisfaction, productivity, quality of care, and workforce turnover 14,15—outcomes that would impede Ghana’s progress in containing COVID-19. High stress and burnout among health workers in Ghana is not surprising given global evidence prior to the pandemic of provider stress and burnout—including in Ghana and other African countries. 25,47,48 Our prevalence of moderate (64%) and high (4%) stress among HCWs is comparable to that reported in a recent systematic review of the psychological impact of COVID-19 on HCWs and general public, which found stress to be at 40% (20%-60%).19 Also, compared to our findings of low (47%) and high (20 %) burnout, a study of HCWs in Ghana . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 17 reported burnout scores ranging from good (71.5%), alarming (12.6%), acute crisis (6.0%), and burnout (9.9%) among Accra-based HCWs; however this was prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.48 Additionally, a study among frontline nurses caring for COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China reported that about half of the nurses studied experienced moderate and high burnout—characterized by emotional exhaustion (60.5%) and depersonalization (42.3%). 49 We found lower levels of moderate to emotional exhaustion (39%) and higher levels physical exhaustion (73%), although the estimates are not directly comparable given the use of different measures in the different studies. Burnout among HCWs during COVID-19 pandemic has thus been characterized as an infection of the mind, 50 with calls for interventions to fight the two afflictions: COVID-19 and the psychological strain experienced by medical professionals at the frontline of the response.51 Extant studies show that factors associated with preparedness include availability of PPE, clear protocols, and isolation wards, training, and good communication from management. 5,41 Improving these would increase perceived preparedness, decrease fear of infection, and decrease stress and burnout. Recommended steps related to preparedness include development of national and regional disaster mitigation plans to shorten the time needed to provide necessary equipment and testing; provision of adequate test kits and PPE; training on disaster management and response for HCWs; and creating a medical reserve corps of licensed individuals.51 Such initiatives would help improve HCW preparedness to respond to COVID-19. Similar to findings from other studies, 18,19,52 our results suggest that feeling appreciated by management and having family support is important for HCWs’ psychological wellbeing, while . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 18 being unmarried, female, and working in the most impacted areas negatively affected wellbeing. Efforts are therefore needed to ensure providers feel appreciated for their role in the pandemic response and to provide additional support to HCWs who are female, unmarried, and based at the epicenters of Ghana’s epidemic. Additionally, interventions are needed to increase workplace awareness of stress and burnout, self-care, availability of and access to mental health services, and to implement organizational policies and practices that prioritize HCW wellbeing. 53 In some jurisdictions, support programs such as peer-support video conferencing sessions are being offered for peer groups to discuss various issues affecting them.54 Additionally, categorizing COVID-19 as an occupational disease, like healthcare organizations have demanded, may help improve worker protections and government accountability. 26 Interventions, like mindfulness exercises, changes to institutional culture, and workplace incentives could also improve psychological outcomes among HCWs. Family support is also critical and may help lower stress and burnout.18

and strengths There are some limitations to the study. First, the use of an online survey with a volunteer sample limits the generalizability of findings to all HCWs in Ghana. This was, however, the best option available for rapid data collection as the country was in partial lock-down due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To address this limitation, we recruited from diverse platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp pages of different professional groups, graduation year groups, and regional groups of HCWs. Survey links were also emailed to leaders of professional organizations and Ghana Health Service directors to share with members of their groups. Thus, our sample is diverse in terms of gender, age, years of experience, region, and facility type as . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 19 shown in the sample distribution—which increases the representativeness of the findings. Moreover, our study sets the stage for future research to examine these issues in a more representative sample under circumstances that allow for probability sampling. Additionally, as with all self-reported data, social desirability and recall bias are potential limitations. The use of composite scores from validated psychosocial measures, however, helps to address this limitation. Finally, this was a cross-sectional study, thus, associations described are not causal. Despite these limitations, this is the first study to our knowledge assessing perceived preparedness for COVID-19 and psychological well-being among HCWs in Africa and contributes critical findings that can help address emerging issues and challenges in the current pandemic response. It also provides a baseline for future studies in Ghana, Africa, and globally.

HCWs in Ghana reported low perceived preparedness to respond to COVID-19, which was associated with increased stress and burnout. The effect of inadequate preparation on both stress and burnout is partially mediated by fear of infection. This finding is likely replicable in other low-resource settings, and potentially globally, and highlights the need for interventions to increase providers’ preparedness. The government of Ghana has demonstrated commitment to addressing the needs of HCWs; however, more efforts are needed. Government and other stakeholders must institute necessary trainings, protections, and incentives to improve HCWs’ psychological wellbeing and ability to respond to the pandemic. With HCW shortage in Africa, a high number of cases among these frontline workers, inadequate PPE and preparedness, and growing work demands, such interventions are critically needed to retain them and maintain the quality of care in already strained health systems. Studies in different settings examining the . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 20 impact of these factors on health care quality and outcomes in the context of the pandemic are also needed. For Africa, stress and burnout have far reaching implications for the COVID-19 response. Given warnings that the continent could witness the loss of millions of lives, immediate actions are needed to strengthen health systems, train HCWs, and provide support and encouragement to boost morale. . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 21

We wish to thank all healthcare providers who participated in the study and who helped in the survey dissemination. Contributors PA conceptualized study, developed data collection instruments, conducted data analysis, led manuscript writing; AG helped develop data collection instruments and write manuscript; RA helped develop data collection instruments and write manuscript; JJN helped develop data collection instruments and write manuscript; HM helped develop data collection instruments and write manuscript; AL helped develop data collection instruments and write manuscript; MS helped develop data collection instruments and write manuscript; JA helped develop data collection instruments and write manuscript. Funding: This research was supported by the University of California, San Francisco COVID- 19 Related Rapid Research Pilot Initiative. Competing interests: None declared Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. HCWs however contributed to the development of the survey questions. . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 22 Patient consent for publication: Not required. Ethics approval: The proposal and materials for the study that provides data for this manuscript were approved by the ethical review units of the University of California, San Francisco and Navrongo Health Research Center in Ghana. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. Data availability statement: Study data are available on request. All relevant data are included in the article or enclosed as supplementary information. . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 23

1 Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. COVID-19 Map. 2020. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html (accessed June 9, 2020). 2 World Health Organization. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. World Health Organ. 2020; published online July 17. 3 World Health Organization. Over 10 000 health workers in Africa infected with COVID-19. WHO Reg. Off. Afr. 2020; published online July 23. https://www.afro.who.int/news/over-10- 000-health-workers-africa-infected-covid-19 (accessed Aug 10, 2020). 4 Guest JL, del Rio C, Sanchez T. The Three Steps Needed to End the COVID-19 Pandemic: Bold Public Health Leadership, Rapid Innovations, and Courageous Political Will. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2020; 6: e19043. 5 Suleiman A, Bsisu I, Guzu H, et al. Preparedness of Frontline Doctors in Jordan Healthcare Facilities to COVID-19 Outbreak. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 3181. 6 Raina S, Kumar R, Galwankar S, et al. Are we prepared? Lessons from Covid-19 and OMAG position paper on epidemic preparedness. J Fam Med Prim Care 2020; 9: 2161. 7 The Lancet. Physician burnout: a global crisis. The Lancet 2019; 394: 93. 8 Kopacz MS, Ames D, Koenig HG. It’s time to talk about physician burnout and moral injury. The Lancet 2019; 6: e28. 9 Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol 2001; 52: 397–422. 10 Klein J, Frie KG, Blum K, Knesebeck O von dem. Burnout and perceived quality of care among German clinicians in surgery. Int J Qual Health Care 2010; 22: 525–30. 11 Maslach C, Leiter MP. Understanding the burnout experience: recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry Off J World Psychiatr Assoc WPA 2016; 15: 103–11. 12 Wallace JE, Lemaire JB, Ghali WA. Physician wellness: a missing quality indicator. Lancet Lond Engl 2009; 374: 1714–21. 13 Melamed S, Kushnir T, Shirom A. Burnout and risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. Behav Med Wash DC 1992; 18: 53–60. 14 Toh SG, Ang E, Devi MK. Systematic review on the relationship between the nursing shortage and job satisfaction, stress and burnout levels among nurses in oncology/haematology settings. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2012; 10: 126–41. 15 Leodoro J. Labrague, Janet De los Santos. Fear of COVID-19, psychological distress, work satisfaction and turnover intention among front line nurses. Res Sq 2020. . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 24 16 Du J, Dong L, Wang T, et al. Psychological symptoms among frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2020; published online April. DOI:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2020.03.011. 17 Muller AE, Hafstad EV, Himmels JPW, et al. The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, and interventions to help them: a rapid systematic review Authors: The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, and interventions to help them: a rapid systematic review. medRxiv 2020; : 2020.07.03.20145607. 18 Kisely S, Warren N, McMahon L, Dalais C, Henry I, Siskind D. Occurrence, prevention, and management of the psychological effects of emerging virus outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2020; 369: m1642. 19 Luo M, Guo L, Yu M, Wang H. The psychological and mental impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on medical staff and general public – A systematic review and meta- analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2020; 291. DOI:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113190. 20 Liu Q, Luo D, Haase JE, et al. The experiences of health-care providers during the COVID-19 crisis in China: a qualitative study. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8: e790–8. 21 Belfroid E, van Steenbergen J, Timen A, Ellerbroek P, Huis A, Hulscher M. Preparedness and the importance of meeting the needs of healthcare workers: a qualitative study on Ebola. In: Journal of Hospital Infection. W.B. Saunders Ltd, 2018: 212–8. 22 Qiu J, Shen B, Zhao M, Wang Z, Xie B, Xu Y. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatry 2020; 33. DOI:10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213. 23 Craig J, Kalanxhi E, Hauck S. National estimates of critical care capacity in 54 African countries. medRxiv 2020; : 727. 24 Selamu M, Thornicroft G, Fekadu A, Hanlon C. Conceptualisation of job-related wellbeing, stress and burnout among healthcare workers in rural Ethiopia: a qualitative study. DOI:10.1186/s12913-017-2370-5. 25 Dubale BW, Friedman LE, Chemali Z, et al. Systematic review of burnout among healthcare providers in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Public Health 2019; 19: 1247. 26 Amnesty International. Global: Health workers silenced, exposed and attacked. Amnesty Int. 2020; : 1–61. 27 Schwikowski M. COVID-19: Africa ′ s health workers at risk. DW Akad. 2020; published online June 5. https://www.dw.com/en/covid-19-africas-health-workers-at-risk/a-53352778 (accessed June 25, 2020). 28 Adamu Z. Ghana coronavirus: Over 2,000 health care workers have been infected. CNN. 2020; published online July 18. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/18/africa/ghana-healthcare- workers-coronavirus/index.html (accessed July 20, 2020). . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 25 29 World Health Organization. COVID-19 in the WHO African Region. 2020. https://who.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0c9b3a8b68d0437a8cf28581e9c 063a9 (accessed Aug 10, 2020). 30 Annan AA, Yar DD, Owusu M, et al. Health care workers indicate ill preparedness for Ebola Virus Disease outbreak in Ashanti Region of Ghana. BMC Public Health 2017; 17: 546. 31 Adokiya MN, Awoonor-Williams JK. Ebola virus disease surveillance and response preparedness in northern Ghana. Glob Health Action 2016; 9: 29763. 32 Nyarko Y, Goldfrank L, Ogedegbe G, et al. Preparing for Ebola Virus Disease in West African countries not yet affected: Perspectives from Ghanaian health professionals. Glob Health 2015; 11: 1–6. 33 Adongo PB, Tabong PTN, Asampong E, Ansong J, Robalo M, Adanu RM. Health workers perceptions and attitude about Ghana’s preparedness towards preventing, containing, and managing Ebola Virus Disease. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17: 266. 34 United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. COVID-19 in Africa: Protecting Lives and Economies. 2020. 35 World Health Organization. Density of physicians (total number per 10 000 population, latest available year). World Health Organ. 2019. http://www.who.int/gho/health_workforce/physicians_density/en/ (accessed July 2, 2020). 36 World Health Organization. Nursing and midwifery personnel (per 10 000 population). World Health Organ. 2020. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator- details/GHO/nursing-and-midwifery-personnel-(per-10-000-population) (accessed July 2, 2020). 37 GhanaWeb. Korle-Bu doctors threaten to strike over poor coronavirus preparedness. Ghanaweb.com. 2020; published online April 2. https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Korle-Bu-doctors-threaten-to- strike-over-poor-coronavirus-preparedness-912370 (accessed June 25, 2020). 38 GhanaWeb. Korle-Bu nurses stage sit-home strike after one tested positive for coronavirus. GhanaWeb. 2020; published online April 4. https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Korle-Bu-nurses-stage-sit-home- strike-after-one-tested-positive-for-coronavirus-914248 (accessed June 25, 2020). 39 Alessandra Prentice. Ghana health workers warn of potential COVID-19 calamity - Reuters. Reuters. 2020; published online July 9. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus- ghana/ghana-health-workers-warn-of-potential-covid-19-calamity- idUSKBN24A2I3?utm_source=Global+Health+NOW+Main+List&utm_campaign=80f34739 d8- EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_07_09_03_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8d0d062dbd -80f34739d8-861567 (accessed July 10, 2020). . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 26 40 Joint health sector unions and professional associations. Joint health sector unions and professional associations press release. 2020; published online July 9. 41 Afulani PA, Gyamerah AO, Aborigo R, et al. Perceived preparedness to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic: A study with healthcare workers in Ghana. J Glob Health Sci 2020; In press: 2020.07.10.20151142. 42 Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure on perceived stress. Glob Meas Perceived Stress 1983; : 385–96. 43 Shirom A, Melamed S. A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures in two groups of professionals. Int J Stress Manag 2006; 13: 176–200. 44 Grossi G, Perski A, Osika W, Savic I. Stress-related exhaustion disorder – clinical manifestation of burnout? A review of assessment methods, sleep impairments, cognitive disturbances, and neuro-biological and physiological changes in clinical burnout. Scand J Psychol 2015; 56: 626–36. 45 Aneshensel CS. Theory-based data analysis for the social sciences. Sage Publications, 2012. 46 VanderWeele TJ. Mediation analysis: a practitioner’s guide. Annu Rev Public Health 2016; 37: 17–32. 47 Chersich MF, Gray G, Fairlie L, et al. COVID-19 in Africa: care and protection for frontline healthcare workers. Glob. Health. 2020; 16: 46. 48 Odonkor ST, Frimpong K. Burnout among Healthcare Professionals in Ghana: A Critical Assessment. BioMed Res Int 2020; 2020: 1–8. 49 Hu D, Kong Y, Li W, et al. Frontline nurses’ burnout, anxiety, depression, and fear statuses and their associated factors during the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China: A large-scale cross-sectional study. EClinicalMedicine 2020; 24. DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100424. 50 Texas A&M University. Infecting the mind: Burnout in health care workers during COVID- 19. ScienceDaily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200513143749.htm (accessed Aug 4, 2020). 51 Sasangohar F, Jones SL, Masud FN, Vahidy FS, Kash BA. Provider Burnout and Fatigue During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned From a High-Volume Intensive Care Unit. Anesth Analg 2020; 131: 106–11. 52 Chew NWS, Lee GKH, Tan BYQ, et al. A multinational, multicentre study on the psychological outcomes and associated physical symptoms amongst healthcare workers during COVID-19 outbreak. Brain Behav Immun 2020; 88: 559–65. 53 Abida Sultana, Rachit Sharma, Mahbub Hossain, Sudip Bhattacharya, Neetu Purohit. Burnout among healthcare providers during COVID-19: Challenges and evidence-based interventions. Indian J Med Ethics 2020; : 1–4. . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 27 54 Ross J. The Exacerbation of Burnout During COVID-19: A Major Concern for Nurse Safety. J Perianesth Nurs 2020; 35: 439–40. 55 West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, Shanafelt TD. Interventions to prevent and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet 2016; 388: 2272–81. . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 28 Tables Table 1a: Univariate distributions Variables Stress sample Burnout sample No. % No. % Total 414 100 409 100.0 Provider type Doctor 82 19.8 81 19.8 Nurse/related 259 62.6 256 62.6 Other 73 17.6 72 17.6 Facility type Teaching hospital 109 26.3 108 26.4 Regional/district hospital 119 28.7 117 28.6 Health center/Other govt facility 125 30.2 124 30.3 Private/mission facility 61 14.7 60 14.7 Region Greater Accra/Ashanti 94 22.7 93 22.7 Northern region 94 22.7 92 22.5 Other Northern 96 23.2 95 23.2 Other Southern 130 31.4 129 31.5 Years of experience 5 or less years 134 32.4 133 32.5 6 to 10 years 173 41.8 169 41.3 More than 10 years 107 25.8 107 26.2 Ages Less than 30 113 27.5 111 27.3 30 to 39 234 56.9 232 57.1 40 to 73 64 15.6 63 15.5 Gender Male 210 50.7 208 50.9 Female 204 49.3 201 49.1 No. of children No children 124 30.6 121 30.2 1 or 2 children 189 46.7 189 47.2 3 to 6 children 92 22.7 90 22.5 Marital status Single 120 29 119 29.1 Married 294 71 290 70.9 Perceived stress Low stress 130 31.4 Moderate stress 266 64.3 High stress 18 4.3 Burnout No burnout 135 33.0 Low burnout 192 46.9 High burnout 82 20.0 Physical fatigue No fatigue 110 26.9 Low fatigue 163 39.9 High fatigue 136 33.3 Emotional exhaustion No exhaustion 251 61.4 Low exhaustion 97 23.7 High exhaustion 61 14.9 Cognitive weariness No weariness 196 47.9 Low weariness 118 28.9 High weariness 95 23.2 Preparedness Not at all prepared 65 15.7 63 15.4 Somewhat prepared 235 56.8 233 57.0 Prepared 114 27.5 113 27.6 Appreciation from management Not at all appreciative 61 14.7 58 14.2 Somewhat appreciative 173 41.8 172 42.1 Appreciative 146 35.3 145 35.5 Very appreciative 34 8.2 34 8.3 Support from management Not at all supportive 51 12.3 49 12.0 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 29 A little supportive 218 52.7 215 52.6 Supportive 123 29.7 123 30.1 Very supportive 22 5.3 22 5.4 Communication from management Very poor communication 49 11.9 47 11.5 Poor communication 136 32.9 137 33.6 Good communication 192 46.5 188 46.1 Very good communication 36 8.7 36 8.8 Fearful of contracting COVID-19 Not fearful 53 12.8 52 12.7 A little fearful 170 41.1 169 41.3 Fearful 102 24.6 102 24.9 Very fearful 89 21.5 86 21.0 Confidence in being cared for if infected Not confident 181 43.7 178 43.5 A little confident 151 36.5 151 36.9 Confident 70 16.9 68 16.6 Very confident 12 2.9 12 2.9 Support from family Not at all supportive 24 5.8 23 5.6 A little supportive 111 26.8 108 26.4 Supportive 182 44 181 44.3 Very supportive 97 23.4 97 23.7 Ability to isolate at home if infected No 229 55.3 226 55.3 Somewhat 51 12.3 52 12.7 Yes 134 32.4 131 32.0 Training on COVID-19 No 187 45.2 184 45 Yes 227 54.8 225 55 Facility has adequate PPEs No 312 75.4 308 75.3 Yes 28 6.8 27 6.6 I don’t know 74 17.9 74 18.1 Facility has COVID-19 isolation ward No 125 30.3 124 30.4 Yes 275 66.6 271 66.4 I don’t know 13 3.1 13 3.2 Facility has protocol for screening for COVID-19 No 66 15.9 65 15.9 Yes 333 80.4 330 80.7 I don’t know 15 3.6 14 3.4 Facility has protocol for managing COVID-19 No 147 35.5 145 35.5 Yes 202 48.8 200 48.9 I don’t know 65 15.7 64 15.6 Guidelines to report suspected COVID-19 No 78 18.8 76 18.6 Yes 318 76.8 315 77 I don’t know 18 4.3 18 4.4 Know what to do if COVID-19 suspected No 21 5.1 21 5.1 Somewhat 118 28.5 118 28.9 Yes 275 66.4 270 66 Know how to manage a confirmed case of COVID-19 No 145 35.1 142 34.8 Somewhat 137 33.2 137 33.6 Yes 87 21.1 86 21.1 Not applicable to my role 44 10.7 43 10.5 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 30 Table 1b: Distribution of continuous scores for key variables N Mean SD Min Max Perceived stress 414 16.29 5.86 2 34 Burnout 409 2.67 1.11 1 7 Physical fatigue 409 3.11 1.27 1 7 Emotional exhaustion 409 2.16 1.25 1 7 Cognitive weariness 409 2.44 1.31 1 7 Perceived preparedness 414 24.07 8.85 3 44 Perceived preparedness 409 24.12 8.82 3 44 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 31 Table 2: Bivariate distributions Stress Scores Burnout scores N Mean Sd /g2010 [95% CI] N Mean Sd /g2010 [95% CI] Total 414 16.3 5.9 409 37.4 15.5 Preparedness Not at all prepared 65 19.2 6.1 0 [0 0] 63 46.9 15.3 0 [0 0] A little prepared 235 16.4 5.8 -2.82*** [-4.38 -1.26] 233 37.2 15.3 -9.13*** [-13.2 -5.07] Prepared 114 14.4 5.1 -4.84*** [-6.58 -3.11] 113 32.5 13.5 -14.0*** [-18.5 -9.47] Provider type Doctor 82 16.0 6.4 0 [0 0] 81 39.9 16.8 0 [0 0] Nurse/related 259 16.4 5.7 0.43 [-1.03 1.89] 256 37.4 15.1 -2.03 [-5.88 1.82] Other 73 16.3 5.7 0.43 [-1.42 2.28] 72 34.4 14.9 -5.37* [-10.3 -0.49] Facility type Teaching hospital 109 15.5 5.6 0 [0 0] 108 38.3 14.6 0 [0 0] Regional/district hospital 119 16.7 5.8 1.2 [-0.33 2.72] 117 36.8 14.9 -1.05 [-5.13 3.03] Health center/Other govt facility 125 16.5 6.1 1.1 [-0.41 2.60] 124 36.7 15.7 -1.11 [-5.11 2.89] Private/mission facility 61 16.5 6.0 1.04 [-0.80 2.88] 60 38.2 17.7 0.32 [-4.59 5.23] Region Greater Accra/Ashanti 94 17.1 5.8 0 [0 0] 93 40.1 15.3 0 [0 0] Northern region 94 14.6 6.0 -2.46** [-4.11 -0.80] 92 36.8 15.0 -3.69 [-8.17 0.79] Other Northern 96 17.6 5.8 0.52 [-1.13 2.17] 95 38.2 17.1 -1.9 [-6.32 2.52] Other Southern 130 16.0 5.6 -1.05 [-2.58 0.49] 129 35.3 14.4 -4.36* [-8.48 -0.24] Years of experience 5 or less years 134 15.7 5.8 0 [0 0] 133 36.4 15.5 0 [0 0] 6 to 10 years 173 17.2 6.1 1.46* [0.14 2.77] 169 38.5 15.7 2.72 [-0.79 6.23] More than 10 years 107 15.6 5.4 -0.018 [-1.50 1.46] 107 36.7 15.1 0.32 [-3.63 4.26] Ages Less than 30 113 15.7 5.7 0 [0 0] 111 37.7 15.1 0 [0 0] 30 to 39 234 16.8 5.9 1.06 [-0.25 2.37] 232 37.2 16.0 -0.43 [-3.94 3.08] 40 to 73 64 15.4 5.7 -0.3 [-2.09 1.50] 63 37.1 14.4 -0.78 [-5.55 3.99] Gender Male 210 15.5 5.6 0 [0 0] 208 34.4 15.4 0 [0 0] Female 204 17.1 6.0 1.52** [0.40 2.64] 201 40.4 15.0 6.25*** [3.31 9.19] No. of children No children 124 16.0 5.5 0 [0 0] 121 37.9 15.9 0 [0 0] 1 or 2 children 189 17.0 5.8 1.02 [-0.31 2.36] 189 37.5 15.4 -0.53 [-4.09 3.04] 3 to 6 children 92 15.4 6.4 -0.57 [-2.16 1.01] 90 36.3 15.6 -1.67 [-5.92 2.58] Marital status Single 120 16.4 5.3 0 [0 0] 119 39.0 15.8 0 [0 0] Married 294 16.2 6.1 -0.13 [-1.38 1.11] 290 36.7 15.3 -2.05 [-5.34 1.24] Appreciation from management Not at all appreciative 61 18.3 6.2 0 [0 0] 58 46.7 19.1 0 [0 0] Somewhat appreciative 173 17.2 5.6 -1.06 [-2.72 0.60] 172 39.1 14.4 -7.41** [-11.8 -3.01] Appreciative 146 15.0 5.5 -3.23*** [-4.93 -1.53] 145 33.7 13.5 -12.8*** [-17.3 -8.36] Very appreciative 34 13.1 5.6 -5.22*** [-7.61 -2.84] 34 28.7 12.6 -18.0*** [-24.3 -11.7] Support from management Not at all supportive 51 18.1 7.1 0 [0 0] 49 45.6 18.8 0 [0 0] A little supportive 218 16.5 5.5 -1.57 [-3.35 0.20] 215 37.7 14.8 -7.41** [-12.1 -2.72] Supportive 123 15.5 5.7 -2.61** [-4.51 -0.71] 123 34.2 14.0 -10.9*** [-15.9 -5.89] Very supportive 22 14.0 6.1 -4.07** [-6.98 -1.16] 22 33.8 16.5 -11.4** [-19.1 -3.78] . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 32 Communication from management Very poor communication 49 19.3 6.7 0 [0 0] 47 45.8 15.8 0 [0 0] Poor communication 136 16.9 5.5 -2.34* [-4.21 -0.46] 137 39.9 15.5 -5.97* [-11.0 -0.96] Good communication 192 15.3 5.6 -3.97*** [-5.77 -2.17] 188 34.6 14.8 -11.3*** [-16.1 -6.45] Very good communication 36 15.0 5.9 -4.29*** [-6.76 -1.81] 36 31.6 12.8 -13.1*** [-19.6 -6.61] Fearful of contracting COVID-19 Not fearful 53 13.5 5.7 0 [0 0] 52 30.2 14.4 0 [0 0] A little fearful 170 15.6 5.6 2.22* [0.46 3.98] 169 35.6 13.6 5.32* [0.69 9.95] Fearful 102 17.1 5.4 3.69*** [1.80 5.59] 102 38.5 15.5 8.32** [3.33 13.3] Very fearful 89 18.2 6.1 4.76*** [2.82 6.70] 86 43.8 17.1 13.5*** [8.36 18.6] Confidence in being cared for if infected Not confident 181 17.4 6.3 0 [0 0] 178 40.9 16.7 0 [0 0] A little confident 151 15.9 5.3 -1.48* [-2.72 -0.23] 151 35.5 13.6 -4.66** [-7.93 -1.39] Confident 70 15.0 5.4 -2.38** [-3.98 -0.79] 68 33.6 14.2 -7.50*** [-11.7 -3.29] Very confident 12 12.8 5.4 -4.54** [-7.92 -1.15] 12 30.7 16.6 -10.1* [-19.0 -1.12] Support from family Not at all supportive 24 23.5 5.9 0 [0 0] 23 54.9 17.4 0 [0 0] A little supportive 111 16.9 5.9 -6.62*** [-9.08 -4.17] 108 39.1 15.4 -15.2*** [-21.9 -8.53] Supportive 182 15.6 5.2 -7.98*** [-10.3 -5.61] 181 35.2 14.3 -19.4*** [-25.9 -13.0] Very supportive 97 15.2 5.8 -8.39*** [-10.9 -5.90] 97 35.4 14.5 -19.9*** [-26.6 -13.1] Ability to isolate at home if infected No 229 16.4 6.0 0 [0 0] 226 37.9 15.7 0 [0 0] Somewhat 51 16.7 5.0 0.27 [-1.52 2.05] 52 38.9 14.7 0.46 [-4.23 5.14] Yes 134 15.9 5.9 -0.53 [-1.78 0.72] 131 35.9 15.3 -2.07 [-5.41 1.26] Training on COVID-19 No 187 17.8 5.9 0 [0 0] 184 41.6 15.5 0 [0 0] Yes 227 15.1 5.6 -2.68*** [-3.79 -1.58] 225 33.9 14.6 -7.38*** [-10.3 -4.44] Facility has adequate PPEs No 312 16.3 5.7 0 [0 0] 308 37.9 15.9 0 [0 0] Yes 28 12.9 5.2 -3.49** [-5.74 -1.25] 27 31.7 13.6 -6.45* [-12.6 -0.29] I don’t know 74 17.4 6.2 1.01 [-0.46 2.48] 74 37.1 14.0 -1.09 [-5.01 2.83] Facility has COVID-19 isolation ward No 125 16.5 6.4 0 [0 0] 124 37.1 16.4 0 [0 0] Yes 275 16.0 5.5 -0.51 [-1.74 0.72] 271 37.0 14.9 0.5 [-2.77 3.76] I don’t know 13 21.5 5.6 4.97** [1.65 8.28] 13 48.9 16.3 12.1** [3.14 21.0] Facility has protocol for screening for COVID-19 No 66 16.5 6.5 0 [0 0] 65 37.8 17.3 0 [0 0] Yes 333 16.1 5.8 -0.40 [-1.94 1.15] 330 36.9 15.2 -1.75 [-5.82 2.32] I don’t know 15 19.3 2.9 2.82 [-0.46 6.10] 14 47.5 10.3 9.38* [0.65 18.1] Facility has protocol for managing COVID-19 No 147 16.9 6.2 0 [0 0] 145 39.2 17.4 0 [0 0] Yes 202 15.9 5.7 -1.00 [-2.25 0.25] 200 35.8 14.5 -3.22 [-6.51 0.073] I don’t know 65 16.3 5.4 -0.46 [-2.17 1.24] 64 38.2 13.3 -0.73 [-5.29 3.83] Guidelines to report suspected COVID-19 No 78 18.3 6.1 0 [0 0] 76 43.0 16.3 0 [0 0] Yes 318 15.8 5.7 -2.42** [-3.86 -0.98] 315 36.0 15.0 -6.80*** [-10.6 -2.98] I don’t know 18 16.0 6.2 -2.26 [-5.23 0.72] 18 36.9 15.4 -6.19 [-14.1 1.77] Know what to do if COVID-19 suspected No 21 18.8 6.1 0 [0 0] 21 41.3 14.7 0 [0 0] Somewhat 118 18.1 5.4 -0.69 [-3.35 1.96] 118 42.4 15.6 1.26 [-5.80 8.32] . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 33 Yes 275 15.3 5.8 -3.49** [-6.03 -0.95] 270 34.9 14.9 -6.25 [-13.0 0.50] Know how to manage a confirmed case of COVID-19 No 145 17.1 6.0 0 [0 0] 142 39.8 16.6 0 [0 0] Somewhat 137 16.4 5.5 -0.69 [-2.05 0.67] 137 37.4 14.8 -2.51 [-6.10 1.09] Yes 87 14.8 5.8 -2.27** [-3.82 -0.72] 86 34.2 14.3 -5.13* [-9.22 -1.05] Not applicable to my role 44 16.3 6.0 -0.80 [-2.77 1.17] 43 35.7 15.3 -4.14 [-9.32 1.04] 95% confidence intervals in brackets * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 34 Table 3a: Multivariable linear regression of potential predictors on Stress Perceived stress scores Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 /g2010 [95% CI] /g2010 [95% CI] /g2010 [95% CI] Perceived preparedness Not at all prepared 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Somewhat prepared -2.95*** [-4.59 -1.31] -2.29** [-3.90 -0.68] -1.89* [-3.49 -0.30] Prepared -4.60*** [-6.38 -2.83] -3.18*** [-4.99 -1.37] -2.66** [-4.48 -0.84] Provider type Doctor 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Nurse/related 0.09 [-1.66 1.85] 0.04 [-1.66 1.74] 0.13 [-1.54 1.80] Other 0.30 [-1.81 2.41] 0.23 [-1.81 2.26] 0.33 [-1.69 2.35] Region Greater Accra/Ashanti 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Northern region -2.67** [-4.45 -0.89] -2.80** [-4.54 -1.07] -3.04*** [-4.78 -1.30] Other Northern 0.56 [-1.17 2.30] 0.34 [-1.38 2.07] -0.08 [-1.81 1.66] other Southern -0.75 [-2.34 0.84] -0.87 [-2.41 0.66] -1.18 [-2.73 0.37] Facility type Teaching hospital 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Regional/district hospital -0.10 [-1.76 1.56] 0.14 [-1.45 1.73] 0.41 [-1.17 2.00] Health center/Other govt facility -0.47 [-2.41 1.47] 0.08 [-1.82 1.98] 0.30 [-1.60 2.19] Private/mission facility -0.11 [-2.19 1.97] 0.24 [-1.80 2.28] 0.26 [-1.79 2.31] Years of experience 5 or less years 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 6 to 10 years 1.59* [0.26 2.92] 1.45* [0.12 2.77] 1.45* [0.14 2.77] More than 10 years 0.35 [-1.20 1.90] 0.50 [-1.04 2.04] 0.59 [-0.94 2.12] Gender Male 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Female 1.16 [-0.040 2.35] 1.06 [-0.11 2.22] 0.71 [-0.45 1.87] Marital status Single 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Married -0.66 [-1.92 0.61] -0.78 [-2.02 0.46] -0.94 [-2.17 0.28] Appreciation from management Not /somewhat appreciative 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Appreciative/Very appreciative -1.94** [-3.10 -0.78] -1.89** [-3.05 -0.72] Support from family Not/a little supportive 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Supportive/Very Supportive -1.88** [-3.13 -0.64] -1.86** [-3.10 -0.62] Fearful of contracting COVID-19 Not/a little fearful 0.00 [0 0] Fearful/Very fearful 1.89** [0.77 3.02] Constant 19.2*** [16.6 21.7] 20.5*** [17.9 23.1] 19.5*** [16.9 22.2] Observations 414.00 414.00 414.00 R-squared 0.13 0.18 0.20 95% confidence intervals in brackets * p<0.05 ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 35 Table 3b: Multivariable linear regression of potential predictors on burnout Burnout scores Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 /g2010 [95% CI] /g2010 [95% CI] /g2010 [95% CI] Perceived preparedness Not at all prepared 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Somewhat prepared -10.3*** [-14.4 -6.13] -8.57*** [-12.7 -4.44] -7.74*** [-11.8 -3.64] Prepared -14.0*** [-18.5 -9.54] -10.3*** [-15.1 -5.52] -9.25*** [-14.1 -4.41] Provider type Doctor 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Nurse/related -2.07 [-6.39 2.24] -2.17 [-6.26 1.93] -1.98 [-6.05 2.10] Other -4.00 [-9.11 1.12] -4.13 [-9.05 0.80] -3.89 [-8.80 1.02] Region Greater Accra/Ashanti 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Northern region -3.29 [-7.84 1.25] -3.47 [-7.96 1.02] -4.01 [-8.47 0.45] Other Northern 0.02 [-5.09 5.13] -0.53 [-5.57 4.51] -1.53 [-6.49 3.43] other Southern -2.68 [-6.97 1.61] -2.97 [-7.19 1.26] -3.69 [-7.89 0.51] Facility type Teaching hospital 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Regional/district hospital -1.58 [-5.81 2.65] -0.80 [-4.96 3.37] -0.20 [-4.30 3.90] Health center/Other govt facility -1.50 [-6.08 3.08] 0.11 [-4.48 4.70] 0.59 [-3.94 5.13] Private/mission facility -0.31 [-5.92 5.30] 0.79 [-4.70 6.28] 0.78 [-4.68 6.24] Years of experience 5 or less years 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 6 to 10 years 3.25 [-0.19 6.69] 2.92 [-0.49 6.32] 2.94 [-0.41 6.30] More than 10 years 3.35 [-0.75 7.44] 3.77 [-0.24 7.78] 4.01* [0.027 7.98] Gender Male 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Female 4.29** [1.22 7.35] 4.07** [1.10 7.04] 3.28* [0.33 6.23] Marital status Single 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Married -4.68** [-8.07 -1.29] -5.00** [-8.34 -1.65] -5.35** [-8.60 -2.10] Appreciation from management Not /somewhat appreciative 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Appreciative/Very appreciative -5.11** [-8.25 -1.96] -4.95** [-8.07 -1.83] Support from family Not/a little supportive 0.00 [0 0] 0.00 [0 0] Supportive/Very Supportive -4.99** [-8.20 -1.77] -4.90** [-8.10 -1.71] Fearful of contracting COVID-19 Not/a little fearful 0.00 [0 0] Fearful/Very fearful 4.27** [1.40 7.13] Constant 36.6*** [30.1 43.2] 40.1*** [33.4 46.8] 37.9*** [31.0 44.8] Observations 409.00 409.00 409.00 R-squared 0.15 0.19 0.21 95% confidence intervals in brackets * p<0.05 ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint 36 Table 4: Mediation by fear of infection Perceived stress score Burnout score /g2010 [95% CI] /g2010 [95% CI] Preparedness score 1Total effect: c -0.12*** [-0.18 -0.054] -0.29*** [-0.46 -0.12] 2Direct effect: c' -0.097** [-0.16 -0.032] -0.24** [-0.42 -0.070] Mediated (Indirect) effect: c-c’ -0.020* [-0.036 -0.0035] -0.046* [-0.086 -0.0065] % of total effect mediated: [(c-c’)/c] *100 17.01 15.81 1Includes all variables from Model 2 in tables 3a and b, with categorical perceived preparedness variable replaced by the contin uous preparedness variables 2Includes all variables from Model 3 in tables 3a and b, with categorical perceived preparedness variable replaced by the contin uous preparedness variables . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 21, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.20177410doi: medRxiv preprint