Impact of SARS-Cov-2 on Clinical Trial Unit workforce in the United Kingdom; An observational study

Quantitative

The analysis focused on 9 questionnaires with 14 dimensions. Participants were divided into several subgroups based on age, gender, ethnicity, role and length of service. Mean and standard deviation scores on 14 dimensions were calculated. ANOVA and t-tests were applied to check the difference in means between different subgroups.

A correlation heat-map was used to demonstrate the correlation between each questionnaire based on Spearman correlation. An item-total correlation was calculated to focus on the core items. Total item correlation in this instance refers to the correlation coefficient summarised between each specific item and other items, which is the quantification of the importance of specific item.

Linear regression was used to investigate the mental health impact during the pandemic.

Qualitative

Transcripts were analysed using thematic and content analysis. Two experienced qualitative researchers independently reviewed transcripts and conduct analyses. A coding framework was developed to capture key themes with each coded theme subjected to detailed analyses to identify subthemes and illustrative quotes.

Length of service

The BAT-12 scores appear to increase with the length of service as indicated in Table 2. Thus, elevated exposure to exhaustion, mental distance, cognitive and emotional impairment appear to be common observations within this group. The ANOVA test showed statistically significant scores between cognitive impairment and mental distance among different age groups (less than 1 year, 1 to 5 years, 6 to ten years, 11 to 15 years, 16 to 20 years, over 21 years) with p-values of 0.008 and less than 0.001 respectively. P-values were not significant within the exhaustion and emotional impairment dimensions with 0.329 and 0.363, respectively. A trend analysis indicates the overall exhaustion and emotional impairment levels increased with the length of service ranges from less than a year to 20 years. There appears to be a large variation within the data. We excluded the data for the group of over 21 years since the sample size is rather small and it is treated as an outlier.

[Table 2]

Well-being

The pooled data indicated 25.8% of respondents suffered from long-term conditions and 3.9% from disabilities. Participants (28.2%) who had an existing mental health condition prior to the pandemic, believed their disease did not worsen, thus a lack of a notable change in their wellbeing was reported. Approximately, 10.9% of participants with mental health conditions felt better since the pandemic began. Participants that were mental health naive (43.1%) their wellbeing worsened since the pandemic began. In 36.3% of participants, physical health conditions did not change since the beginning of the pandemic began whilst 13.4% of participants felt there were improvements. Approximately 32.8% of participants reported their physical condition worsened since the pandemic began.

[Table 1]

Of the trial management participants, 28.3% suffered from long-term conditions which is slightly higher. Clinical trials reported their mental health and physical health conditions worsened since the pandemic began, in comparison to other professional groups with 49.6% and 35.4%, respectively. These participants also the use of medications for their mental and physical conditions; 15.7% and 25.2%, respectively.

In comparison, the remaining participants had a lower percentage of medication use for mental and physical health with 12.6% and 19.8, respectively. The cognitive impairment level is relatively high with an average impairment score of 8.40 among the clinical trialist group compared with the rest of study participants (7.93).

[Table 1 and Table 5]

Professional group outcomes

Five different professional groups with acceptable sample size (ranging from 8 to 127, mean 46.4) were considered into analysis (trial management, quality assurance, database management, doctor/nurse, statistician). Statisticians had the highest level of exhaustion, mental distance, and depression whilst Quality assurance staff had the highest level of cognitive impairment. Nurses and doctors appear to have the highest anxiety and emotional impairment. An overall statistical significance cannot be determined based on the professional group sample sizes. Although, this has clinical significance in relation to the wellbeing of staff. The demographic characteristics and its association with burnout, HADS, everyday discrimination, ISI and GSE is indicated in Table 2.

Approximately, 28.3% of participants working in trial management suffered from long-term conditions and is slightly higher than that of the study population. On the other hand, clinical trialists felt their mental and physical health had worsened since the pandemic began in comparison to other professional groups, 49.6% and 35.4%, respectively.

[Table 5]

Heat-map correlation

Based on the heatmap, heritage and mainstream scores were highly associated with each other based on the spearman correlation score of 0.8. Anxiety level showed a strong correlation with levels of depression, insomnia, exhaustion, emotional impairment and cognitive impairment where the spearman correlation greater than 0.4. GSE and everyday discrimination showed a correlation with the four dimensions of BAT-12 although the spearman correlation was less than -0.4 and over 0.3, respectively.

[Figure 1]

Linear regression

To investigate whether long term exposure to high level stressful environment has influence to their mental health, we combined anxiety, depression and burn out scores (denoted by y) and plot it against the length of service (using the mid-point for each group, denoted by x) in Figure 2. We found that the overall score is increasing along the length of service except the group of over 21.

Item-total correlations of ISI

Means and standard deviations for the ISI and sleep diary measures are reported in Table 3. The ISI average total score was 7.8 8 (SD 5.86). The internal consistency of the ISI was estimated with a Cronbach alpha coefficient and by the item-total correlations. The internal consistency, (i.e. degree of consistency or homogeneity of the items within a scale) of the ISI was 0.74. The item-total correlations varied from a low of 0.55 (initial) to a high of 0.78 (interference) with an average of 0.70 (see Table 3).

Geographical

Of the 485 respondents, 137 disclosed their longitude and latitude, accounting for about 59%. Vast majority of respondents were from England, concentrated to the central and southern parts of England, including Southampton, Bristol, London, Oxford and Birmingham. Scotland had the second largest number of respondents primarily from Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee.

[Table 10]

Qualitative

For the qualitative part of the study, 6 participants (4 women and 2 men) consented and completed interviews (supplementary document). Interview duration ranged from twenty-six to fifty-four minutes. Interview participants included a senior statistician, research nurses and trials managers. Participants described their work-related stress levels between a 3 and a 6. Two participants felt things were worse since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst one said there have been improvements and the other claimed things had returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. There was a general sense that the job came with periods of high pressure that created stress, however this was unrelated to COVID-19.

Participants reported pre-COVID-19 related daily work issues associated with the clinical trials they were working on, office environment and the commute. Different views were reported on the perceived effectiveness of open plan offices in terms of noise, distractions and challenges associated with some processes required for clinical trials management.

There were also tasks that could no longer be completed as before due to changes to the workforce availability. Research nurses transferred to support COVID-19 patients meant recruitment had to be halted for most studies and others transitioned to an ‘on-line’ or ‘telephone’ mode of delivery where possible

Views diverged on contributors to stress, for example,

‘now you have a bit more spare time and are not being pestered by colleagues all of the time on the office, it helps’ [participant 002]; compared to ‘things went very scary, very high for every area of life for everybody …. This is how we operate now, there’s certainly an acceptance so not very high but the bar is set a lot lower now’ [participant 003]. One participant stated that they needed a certain level of stress to be effective ‘I reckon if my work-related stress was below a five, I probably wouldn’t have any impetus to do anything’ [participant 004].

At the height of COVID, however, there was an overwhelming sense of things being beyond individual control for example;

‘it was awful….. in terms of your day, your day wasn’t your own … the adrenalin kicked in because everyone was going into survival mode …’ [003]. Similarly, ‘mostly things that are out of my control ….. things that are out of my hand that are stressful … such as recruitment levels, trying to get that sorted’ [001]; ‘… the whole situation was intensely stressful’ [006].

Participants reported challenges with balancing personal and professional that caused additional stress. Lack of dedicated or appropriate workspace was problematic, as was sharing dining table space with partners who were also trying to work from home. Similarly, one participant was having building works done which had been suspended due to COVID-19, thus had only one usable room in the house for long periods of time during the first lockdown. One participant’s husband worked in A&E and said;

‘had a hell of a time …. He’s lost so many people’ [005]

Another participant’s husband worked away and was doing so due to COVID. During the initial lockdown she was unable to get a childcare place for her five year-old son ‘so I was home-schooling on my own, trying to work at home. That was the most stressful point I think because it’s virtually impossible with a five year-old to home school and work at the same time, so I was working evenings and weekends and it was just constant and then, because we were in lockdown we didn’t see anyone, we didn’t go anywhere, we were totally isolated., So it was pretty awful.’ [006].

There was a consistent theme of the sudden disappearance of a traditional ‘working day’ where working extended often unsociable hours. This change was perceived differently by the participants;

‘… so nobody had an escape plan, nobody had down time but 10, 11 o’clock at night emailing isn’t ideal’ [003]. ‘I respond to emails any time eg at 11pm I can give a quick answer and it’s done. It’s good and bad. I’m quite responsive with people, I’m not a stickler with hours. [004]. ‘There is an expectation to work more from one person who wants to have meetings at 6-7 in the evening. As such as lockdown was done I didn’t want to do that anymore’ [002].

The transition from face-to-face meetings to online zoom meetings came with its own technical challenges including frequent back-to-back meetings without a break or IT failures.

‘I used to have two meetings a week on zoom and there was a time when there were 7 a day’ [003]. ‘You bounce from meeting to meeting rather than doing it physically’ [001]. There were positives, however with one participant saying ‘I do think your true self comes out, everyone’s much more relaxed in a zoom environment than we were before because you have to be. That’s the norm and it’s taken the pressure off.’ [003].

The hybrid approach to work also changed the future working requirements.

‘There aren’t many people showing up to work in the office, it feels pointless to go in’ [001]. ‘It was quite hard because it’s a big open plan office which is why we’re not sort of back in the office yet because they’re trying to work out ventilation and hot desking and stuff…… a key part of what helps me do my work is a big pair of noise-cancelling headphones because it’s too loud and I get distracted really easily’ [004]. ‘Technically we’re back but not everyone is yet. All the desks have moved. Having to travel again is weird. There are no face-to-face meetings, just getting back to being back close to people on the commute again’. [005] There were also positive experiences however ‘I didn’t realise till I started to go back in just how refreshing it is to have, like, even a laugh with someone in your office. Just to have that two minutes’ [005]

Communication became very difficult for some participants;

‘The biggest problem was in the communication …. We realised no-one’s coming back full-time and had to adapt to different ways of working and communicating’ [005].

‘In the early days, the doors were just closed. That was it, just closed’ [003].

One participant felt there was added workload in terms of administration ‘there’s a lot more applications we have to fill in; ….

‘Basically you’ve got to apply to work, to use anywhere and get approval, use the clinic rooms for studies’ [006].

Overall, there was sense of uncertainty despite the pandemic status in the UK changing. There were mixed views on the desirability of office working and returning to a pre-COVID-19 working style.