Objective

Alarming rates of anxiety and burnout in pre-clinical health profession trainees are now challenged by additional COVID-19 stressors. This study explored COVID-related stressors among first-year medical, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, and veterinary medical students. The authors examined associations between resilience, news monitoring, and COVID stress.

Methods

Students completed an online questionnaire that included the Brief Resilience Scale at their matriculation in August 2019. Survey results were linked to demographic information collected by all schools. A follow-up survey in May 2020 included original questions on COVID-19 stressors and news monitoring. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression models.

Results

Across schools, 74% (266/360) provided consent for the 2019 survey, and 76% (201/264) responded to COVID-19 questions in the follow-up 2020 survey. Students were "extremely" or "very" concerned about family members getting infected (n = 71, 76% School of Medicine (SOM); n = 31, 76% School of Nursing (SON); n = 50, 75% School of Veterinary Medicine (SVM)) and curriculum schedule changes (n = 72, 78%, SOM; n = 28, 68% SON; n = 52, 79% SVM). Greater frequency of COVID news monitoring was associated with greater COVID-related stress (p = 0.02). Higher resilience at matriculation was associated with lower COVID-related stress ten months later (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Amid COVID-19 uncertainty, health science schools should address the immense student stress regarding curriculum disruptions. The results of this study underscore the powerful role of resilience in protecting against stress not only during the known academic rigor of health professions training but also during unprecedented crises.

Background: Asynchronous telepsychiatry (ATP) consultations are a novel form of psychiatric consultation. Studies comparing patient and provider satisfaction for ATP with that for synchronous telepsychiatry (STP) do not exist. Methods: This mixed-methods study is a secondary analysis of patients' and primary care providers' (PCPs) satisfaction from a randomized clinical trial of ATP compared with STP. Patients and their PCPs completed satisfaction surveys, and provided unstructured feedback about their experiences with either ATP or STP. Differences in patient satisfaction were assessed using mixed-effects logistic regression models, and the qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis with an inductive coding framework. Results: Patient satisfaction overall was high with 84% and 97% of respondents at 6 months reported being somewhat or completely satisfied with ATP and STP, respectively. Patients in the STP group were more likely to report being completely satisfied, to recommend the program to a friend, and to report being comfortable with their care compared with ATP (all p < 0.05). However, there was no difference between the patients in ATP and STP in perceived change in clinical outcomes (p = 0.51). The PCP quantitative data were small, and thus only summarized descriptively. Conclusions: Patients expressed their overall satisfaction with both STP and ATP. Patients in ATP reported more concerns about the process, likely because feedback after ATP was slower than that after STP consultations. PCPs had no apparent preference for STP or ATP, and reported implementing the psychiatrists' recommendations for both groups when such recommendations were made, which supports our previous findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02084979; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02084979.