ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Public Health, 15 July 2022

Sec. Occupational Health and Safety

Volume 10 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.876883

Examining the Mental Health, Wellbeing, Work Participation and Engagement of Medical Laboratory Professionals in Ontario, Canada: An Exploratory Study

  • 1. Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

  • 2. Krembil Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

  • 3. Centre for Research in Occupational Safety and Health, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada

  • 4. School of Public Health, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

  • 5. Department of Population Medicine, The University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada

  • 6. Medical Laboratory Professionals Association of Ontario, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Article metrics

View details

9

Citations

5,6k

Views

1,3k

Downloads

Abstract

Objectives:

The overall objective of this proposed project is to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health, functioning and wellbeing of medical laboratory technologists (MLT) and medical laboratory technicians/assistants (MLT/A) in Ontario, Canada.

Methods:

A cross-sectional study included a self-reported questionnaire for MLT and MLT/A in Ontario. The questionnaire included questions about demographics and occupational characteristics. Questions about mental health, functioning, well-being and psychosocial work environments were also included using validated questionnaires.

Results:

There were 551 MLT and 401 MLT/A in the analytic sample. Most of the respondents were women. The mean age and standard deviation of the overall sample were 42.0 ± 11.8. MLT demonstrated higher quantitative demands, possibilities for development, and organizational justice compared to MLT/A. The scores of work pace, emotional demands, role conflicts, job insecurity, insecurity over working conditions and negative acts were higher for MLT/A than MLT. The WHODAS 2.0 scores of the respondents were 20.80 ± 6.68, higher than approximately 92% average people. For both groups, most respondents scored the COPSOQ-III domains as worse since COVID-19.

Conclusion:

The study provides preliminary evidence regarding the workplace mental health outcomes of medical laboratory professionals in Ontario, Canada. The findings suggest that MLT and MLT/A experience psychosocial work conditions that impact mental health, functioning and disability. Accordingly, additional research is necessary to understand the experiences of medical laboratory professionals.

Introduction

In Canada, Medical Laboratory Technologists (MLT) and Medical Laboratory Technicians/Assistants (MLT/A) are the sixth-largest groups of healthcare professionals. MLT job duties include laboratory analyses, where physicians use the results to evaluate and make informed decisions about their patients' health and possible treatment (1). Working with MLT, MLT/A work responsibilities include conducting medical laboratory testing and maintaining equipment. During the COVID-19 pandemic, MLT and MLT/A have been responsible for the processing of COVID-19 tests (2). In Ontario, MLT and MLT/As are experiencing increased workloads because of the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to deleterious health outcomes, including burnout (36). In addition, Ontario is facing a severe shortage of MLT in 2019, the Medical Laboratory Professionals' Association of Ontario (MLPAO) indicated a significant labor shortage of MLT in Ontario (7). According to the MLPAO (2), 70% of labs that entered COVID-19 were already short-staffed. Furthermore, 44% of MLT will retire in the next 4–8 years (7). The situation is worse in rural and remote areas, where nearly half (45%) of employment opportunities are located. The shortage is ongoing as 39% of openings have been on the market for more than 12 months. Moreover, the healthcare system cannot meet this labor shortage. The increased workload exacerbates this situation and leads to increased work exhaustion, job dissatisfaction, and turnover rates. This leads to mental health illness and stress creating a constant cycle of increased workload, poor mental health, staff illness and absences, and staff shortages (8).

Poor psychosocial health safety has been associated with adverse health outcomes among workers (6). Key workplace factors that can influence psychological wellbeing include collegial relationships, workplace supports and resources, autonomy, working conditions, and opportunities for and attainment of achievements. An example of a health outcome is job stress. In a study with 4,613 laboratory professionals, 96.1% reported feeling “a little bit to a lot of stress” (9). Respondents also reported feeling overwhelmed by their workload, having little control over their work schedule, and feeling anxious about work. Another study found that the likelihood of high job stress for MLT is 36%, compared to nurses and nurse supervisors (67%) and MLT/A (64%) (10). Occupational burnout is another negative workplace health outcome, which is caused by prolonged job stress and leads to physical and emotional exhaustion. Factors associated with burnout and job stress are understaffing and high workloads. Burnout has been studied extensively in many health care groups, including doctors (5, 11, 12), nurses (6, 9, 12), occupational and physical therapists (8, 1315), psychologists and social workers (4). However, there is a dearth of evidence examining burnout among MLT and MLT/A, particularly in Canada. Other areas of psychosocial wellbeing include support resources, job satisfaction, and emotional demands. Moreover, these factors can impact functioning, biopsychosocial health, job satisfaction, productivity, and work performance (9).

Several studies discuss the significant impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of individuals, causing stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, insomnia, denial, anger, and fear (16, 17). More specifically, the mental health of frontline health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic have been widely reported and include symptoms of psychological distress, burnout, anxiety and stress (1821). The pandemic has increased workplace demands and stressors to healthcare professionals as they had to adapt to increased workloads, new work practices including telehealth and personal protective equipment, increased risks to infection, and redeployment (18). In a national U.S. survey looking at cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) nurses and technologists during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase in anxiety/stress (80%), fear (39%), depression (36%), and anger (38%) (22). Furthermore, in a study with healthcare professionals, they found that the increasing number of cases, shortage of medical staff, build-up of working hours and the latent risk of infection were among many factors that increased internal stress (23). In a survey of 348 Ontario laboratory professionals, 87% reported experiencing burnout after a year of testing 24/7 (24).

The literature suggests that prolonged exposure to deleterious mental health and functional outcomes is associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes (2428).

The literature also suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has negative effects on mental health (17). The impact of the pandemic on MLT and MLT/A mental health and functioning includes but is not limited to their psychosocial work environment (e.g., work stress, job satisfaction, work productivity, quality of work-life, and work demands) and their means of coping, which remains poorly understood. Thus, the overall objective of this proposed project is to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health, functioning and wellbeing of medical laboratory technologists (MLT) and medical laboratory technicians/assistants (MLT/A) in Ontario.

Methods

Design

A cross-sectional study included a self-reported questionnaire for MLT and MLT/A in Ontario, Canada. The questionnaire was developed in close collaboration with the MLPAO, medical laboratory professionals and a comprehensive literature review. The questionnaire included questions about MLT and MLT/A mental health, wellbeing and psychosocial work environments, roles and demographics, and occupational characteristics using validated questionnaires. The research project was approved by the research ethics board at the University of Toronto. All the data will be collected and securely stored on REDCap (29) servers at the University of Toronto. The study received ethical approval from the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (ID censored for peer-review).

Sample

MLT and MLT/A were invited to complete an anonymous questionnaire and informed consent stating the study's objectives, description, respondents' rights as research participants. In addition, the respondents were provided with two electronic reminders 2 and 4 weeks after the launch of the questionnaire to those who had not responded to the survey. The MLPAO is a provincial organization that represents the interests of medical laboratory professionals with government, health care professionals, regulatory bodies and academic institutions (24). The questionnaire and all reminders were distributed electronically by the MLPAO.

All MLT and MLT/A who met the following eligibility criteria were invited to participate in the current study: (1) actively registered with the College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario (only for MLT who are a regulated health care profession in the province), (2) Ontario was their clinical practice location, (3) employed and working as of March 11, 2020 (start date of the global pandemic) and (4) position as an MLT or MLT/A providing direct or indirect clinical patient care. In total, there were 553 MLT and 401 MLT/A that met the study's eligibility criteria. We applied a sample size calculation (30) to determine the sample size that was adequate to detect small to moderate differences in the level of job stress and burnout as perceived for MLT and MLT/As working across Ontario, Canada.

Measures

The questionnaire included items from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, third edition (COPSOQ-III) English version, an instrument designed for assessing psychosocial conditions in the workplace (31). The present study used 48 questions from the COPSOQ-III middle version, to measure mental health, participation and engagement in MLT and MLT/A. The COPSOQ-III looks at the following domains: work demands, work organization and job contents, interpersonal relations and leadership, work-individual interface, social capital, health and wellbeing and negative acts. Twenty-seven dimensions were assessed across these domains, including but not limited to social support, job security, burnout, and stress. For each COPSOQ-III dimension, Likert Scale–type items were measured and scaled to the interval of 0–100. Response options vary by scale values and scale direction. For example, Very satisfied (100), Satisfied (75), Neither/Nor (50), Unsatisfied (25), Very unsatisfied (0). Psychometric properties of the COPSOQ-III were assessed in various countries, including Canada (31). In an international study looking at the COPSOQ-III psychometric properties, ceiling effects were present for the dimensions Sense of Community at work (30%), Social Support from Colleagues (21%), Social Support from Supervisor (25%), Meaning of Work (25%) and Quality of Work (26%). Furthermore, floor effects were present for dimensions such as Job Insecurity (19%). The COPSOQ-III also has Canadian standardized used to compare to our population. As this portion of the study is cross-sectional, it is unknown if the results are influenced by COVID-19. To this end, following each domain, the participant answered the question: “Since COVID-19, my current response is ‘better than, ‘the same as', or ‘worse than' before the pandemic.”

The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 was used to measure functioning and disability in MLT and MLT/A. This 36-item questionnaire covers 6 domains of functioning: 1 = cognition, 2 = mobility, 3 = self-care, 4 = getting along, 5 = life activities, and 6 = participation (32). The WHODAS 2.0 uses a Likert-like scale and scores for each item ranges rom 1 (none) to 5 (extreme). Psychometric properties of the WHODAS 2.0 have been assessed in various countries, including Canada (33, 34). In addition, the factor structure is consistent across different health populations such as psychiatric illnesses, sclerosis, stroke, and alcohol dependency.

Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using R software (Version 4.1.0 for Windows) (35). Demographic information was summarized using descriptive statistics including percentages, means and standard deviations. The current status of mental health, functioning, and wellbeing, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MLT and MLT/A was examined using descriptive and inferential statistics. To examine the differences in COPSOQ domains, we dichotomized the scores into “low” and “high” by using the median values of the distribution (36). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test were used to examine differences between groups. Comparisons between some groups were made using Fisher's exact analysis due to the small number of certain groups. The sample size varied for some analyses because of missing data on covariates, and the numbers were indicated in the tables. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

The study's response rate was 79.6% (954/1198). The majority (89.9%) of the respondents, including 88.9% MLT and 91.3% MLT/A, self-identified as women. The mean age and standard deviation of the overall sample, MLT and MLT/A were 42.0 ± 11.8, 43.9 ± 12.3, 39.5 ± 10.5, separately. High proportion (77.6%) of Caucasian/white was the characteristic for the considered study population (accounting for 84.8% MLT and 67.6% MLT/A). Table 1 summarizes the main demographic characteristics of the study population.

Table 1

MLT (n = 553)MLT/A (n = 401)Overall (n = 954)
Gender (n =953)
Male5910.7%338.2%929.7%
Female49188.9%36691.3%85789.9%
Other20.4%20.5%40.4%
Age group (n = 906)
18–3517533.6%14236.9%31735.0%
36–4914527.8%16342.3%30834.0%
50 and over20138.6%8020.8%28131.0%
Marital status (n = 952)
Single8315.0%9523.8%17818.7%
Married/common law/ committed42877.4%27468.7%70273.7%
Separated/divorced /widowed427.6%307.5%727.6%
Highest level of education attained (n = 954)
High school173.1%6716.7%848.8%
Community college23943.2%22957.1%46849.1%
University28551.5%9924.7%38440.2%
Other122.2%61.5%181.9%
Ethnicity (n = 954)
Caucasian/white46984.8%27167.6%74077.6%
Other8415.2%13032.4%21422.4%
Number of children living at home (n = 927)
029654.5%17746.1%47351.0%
17313.4%6918.0%14215.3%
214126.0%8822.9%22924.7%
3244.4%379.6%616.6%
491.7%71.8%161.8%
500.0%61.6%60.6%
Accommodation required at work due to disability (n = 950)
Yes234.2%102.5%333.5%
No51693.6%36792.0%88392.9%
Prefer not to answer122.2%225.5%343.6%
Employment status (n = 948)
Full-time44580.6%25564.4%70073.9%
Part-time9316.9%11328.5%20621.7%
Other142.5%287.1%424.4%

Demographic and occupational characteristics of MLT and MLT/A respondents.

COPSOQ Scales

The mean values for the COPSOQ III scales and a comparison of psychosocial factors based on the domains and dimensions of COPSQQ-III among the respondents were presented in Table 2.

Table 2

COPSOQ-III domain
(# of dimensions)
DimensionMedical laboratory technologists
(N = 553)
(Mean ±SD)
Medical laboratory technicians/assistants
(N = 401)
(Mean ±SD)
Total
(Mean ±SD)
Comparison between groups
Demands at Work (3)Quantitative demands59.8 ± 23.555.9 ± 25.558.4 ± 24.3p < 0.05*
Work pace79.2 ± 17.983.1 ± 17.380.6 ± 17.8p < 0.01**
Emotional demands61.5 ± 23.266.4 ± 22.463.2 ± 23.0p < 0.01**
Work organization and jobInfluence at work34.5 ± 21.132.2 ± 23.933.7 ± 22.1p = 0.20
contents (3)Possibilities for development66.0 ± 19.260.6 ± 20.564.0 ± 19.8p < 0.001***
Meaning of work83.4 ± 18.281.1 ± 20.282.5 ± 19.0p = 0.15
Interpersonal relations andPredictability46.0 ± 20.746.2 ± 24.346.1 ± 22.1p = 0.91
leadership (8)Recognition47.6 ± 25.545.8 ± 26.747.0 ± 26.0p = 0.39
Role clarity70.1 ± 19.371.3 ± 19.370.5 ± 19.3p = 0.43
Role conflicts50.4 ± 25.055.3 ± 24.252.1 ± 24.8p < 0.05*
Quality of leadership46.4 ± 27.148.0 ± 26.547.0 ± 26.9p = 0.43
Social support from supervisor51.8 ± 27.252.7 ± 28.152.2 ± 27.5p = 0.69
Social support from colleagues66.6 ± 22.764.4 ± 26.465.8 ± 24.1p = 0.28
Sense of community at work71.1 ± 19.967.8 ± 22.969.9 ± 21.0p = 0.06
Work–individual interface (4)Job insecurity20.0 ± 25.336.7 ± 31.926.0 ± 29.0p < 0.001***
Insecurity over working conditions21.4 ± 29.727.2 ± 33.923.5 ± 31.4p < 0.05*
Job satisfaction59.4 ± 28.359.9 ± 26.159.6 ± 27.5p = 0.83
Work life conflict63.8 ± 27.965.2 ± 28.264.3 ± 28.0p = 0.54
Social Capital (2)Vertical trust59.6 ± 21.462.4 ± 20.660.6 ± 21.2p = 0.09
Organizational justice50.5 ± 21.346.2 ± 22.849.0 ± 21.9p < 0.05*
Health and well-being (3)Self-rated health59.7 ± 22.960.2 ± 25.759.9 ± 23.9p = 0.80
Burnout70.1 ± 23.671.4 ± 25.970.6 ± 24.5p = 0.52
Stress64.0 ± 22.665.2 ± 24.464.4 ± 23.2p = 0.52
Negative acts (4)Sexual harassment1.6 ± 7.04.0 ± 10.72.4 ± 8.6p < 0.01**
Threats of violence2.8 ± 9.513.8 ± 22.76.7 ± 16.5P < 0.001***
Physical violence1.0 ± 5.17.8 ± 17.83.4 ± 11.9p < 0.001***
Bullying16.0 ± 24.419.7 ± 27.117.3 ± 25.4p = 0.08

A comparison of psychosocial factors of the respondents based on COPSOQ-III dimensions.

*

p < 0.05,

**

p < 0.01,

***

p < 0.001.

Demands at Work

The results showed that the scales of “quantitative demands” were significantly higher for the group of MLT (59.8 ± 23.5) than MLT/A (55.9 ± 25.5). High work pace (79.2 ± 17.9) and emotional demands (61.5 ± 23.2) for the group of MLT were determined, but they were lower than those for MLT/A (83.1 ± 17.3 and 66.4 ± 22.4, respectively).

Work Organization and Job Contents

The values of the “possibilities for development” dimension were higher for MLT (66.0 ± 19.2) than MLT/A (64.0 ± 19.8). Values of influence at work and meaning of work didn't have any distinction between the two groups.

Interpersonal Relations and Leadership

Compared to MLT (50.4 ± 25.0), the values of role conflicts for MLT/A were significantly higher (55.3 ± 24.2). Besides role clarity and role conflicts, other six dimensions (predictability, recognition, quality of leadership, social support from supervisor, social support from colleagues, sense of community at work) presented relatively lower scores than general Canadian workers.

Work-Individual Interface

The categories “job insecurity” and “insecurity over working conditions” for MLT/A were rated high (36.7 ± 31.9 and 27.2 ± 33.9), while MLT rated these two dimensions within the relatively normative range (20.0 ± 25.3 and 21.4 ± 29.7).

Other Domains

MLT hold significantly higher scores (50.5 ± 21.3) in organizational justice than MLT/A (46.2 ± 22.8). MLT/A experienced more sexual harassment, threats of violence and physical violence than MLT.

WHODAS 2.0 Scores

Table 3 demonstrates the scores of the WHODAS 2.0 among respondents across the six domains. We found that a mean and standard deviation score of 20.80 ± 6.68 on the WHODAS 2.0 was the best score for describing the MLT and MLT/A population, 20.38 ± 6.34 for MLT and 21.59 ± 7.22 for MLT/A, separately. The participant scores were higher than ~92% of the WHODAS 2.0 population norms across the general population of 10 countries (e.g., China, India, Slovakia).

Table 3

VariablesMedical laboratory technologistsMedical laboratory technicians/assistantsTotalComparison between groups
Mean ±SDMedianMean ±SDMedianMean ±SDMedianp-Value
Domain 13.06 ± 1.3233.27 ± 1.5833.14 ± 1.423p = 0.10
Domain 22.94 ± 1.3523.37 ± 1.5833.09 ± 1.452p < 0.001***
Domain 32.29 ± 0.8622.31 ± 0.7922.30 ± 0.832p = 0.74
Domain 43.54 ± 1.4633.71 ± 1.7133.60 ± 1.553p = 0.23
Domain 54.27 ± 1.6044.52 ± 1.8344.36 ± 1.694p = 0.10
Domain 64.28 ± 1.9144.49 ± 2.2044.36 ± 2.014p = 0.24
Summary20.38 ± 6.341921.59 ± 7.222120.80 ± 6.6820p < 0.05*

A comparison of the functional scores among respondents across the six domains of the WHODAS 2.0.

*

p < 0.05,

***

p < 0.001.

The scores of MLT/A in Domain 2 (Mobility-moving and getting around) were higher than MLT (t = −3.4358, df = 398.62, p < 0.001). The summary scores also presented the same result (t = −2.1145, df = 410.96, p < 0.05).

Impact of COVID-19

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was also assessed in Tables 4, 5. Table 4 presents a cross-tabulation of COPSOQ III scores and COVID-19 among MLTs. While cross-tabulation of COPSOQ III scores and COVID-19 among technicians is found in Table 5. For both groups, the majority of the respondents reported the COPSOQ-III domains as “worse than” since COVID-19.

Table 4

COPSOQ - domainCOPSOQ scoreSince COVID-19, my response is _____beforeP-value
Quantitative demandsN = 443Better than
n = 19
(4.3%)
The same as
n = 143
(32.3%)
Worse than
n = 281
(63.4%)
p < 0.001
Low69894
High1345187
Work paceN = 441Better than
n = 15
(3.4%)
The same as
n = 172
(39.0%)
Worse than
n = 254
(57.6%)
p < 0.001
Low8113109
High759145
Emotional demandsN = 441Better than
n = 4
(0.9%)
The same as
n = 243
(55.1%)
Worse than
n = 194
(44.0%)
p < 0.001
Low114346
High3100148
Influence at workN = 442Better than
n = 4
(0.9%)
The same as
n = 279
(63.1%)
Worse than
n = 159
(36.0%)
p = 0.99
Low213276
High214783
Possibilities for developmentN = 438Better than
n = 21
(4.8%)
The same as
n = 339
(77.4%)
Worse than
n = 78
(17.8%)
p < 0.01
Low618054
High1515924
Meaning of workN = 440Better than
n = 65
(14.8%)
The same as
n = 272
(61.8%)
Worse than
n = 103
(23.4%)
p < 0.001
Low178865
High4818438
PredictabilityN = 439Better than
n = 11
(2.5%)
The same as
n = 213
(48.5%)
Worse than
n = 215
(49.0%)
p < 0.001
Low178125
High1013590
RecognitionN = 441Better than
n = 24
(5.4%)
The same as
n = 205
(46.5%)
Worse than
n = 212
(48.1%)
p < 0.001
Low150130
High2315582
Role clarityN = 440Better than
n = 9
(2.0%)
The same as
n = 299
(68.0%)
Worse than
n = 132
(30.0%)
p < 0.001
Low57786
High422246
Role conflictN = 441Better than
n = 5
(1.1%)
The same as
n = 201
(45.6%)
Worse than
n = 235
(53.3%)
p < 0.001
Low5159110
High042125
Quality of leadershipN = 440Better than
n = 18
(4.1%)
The same as
n = 235
(53.4%)
Worse than
n = 187
(42.5%)
p < 0.001
Low157126
High1717861
Social support from colleaguesN = 442Better than
n = 22
(5.0%)
The same as
n = 307
(69.4%)
Worse than
n = 113
(25.6%)
p < 0.001
Low28678
High2022135
Social support from supervisorN = 440Better than
n = 19
(4.3%)
The same as
n = 271
(61.6%)
Worse than
n = 150
(34.1%)
p < 0.001
Low3122119
High1614931
Sense of community at workN = 440Better than
n = 21
(4.8%)
The same as
n = 288
(65.4%)
Worse than
n = 131
(29.8%)
p < 0.001
Low04478
High2124453
Insecurity over working ConditionsN = 439Better than
n = 68
(15.5%)
The same as
n = 285
(64.9%)
Worse than
n = 86
(19.6%)
p < 0.001
Low5418718
High149868
Vertical trustN = 441Better than
n = 19
(4.3%)
The same as
n = 259
(58.7%)
Worse than
n = 163
(37.0%)
p < 0.001
Low46397
High1519666
Organizational justiceN = 440Better than
n = 4
(0.9%)
The same as
n = 242
(55.0%)
Worse than
n = 194
(44.1%)
p < 0.001
Low2105153
High213741
Job satisfactionN = 440Better than
n = 12
(2.7%)
The same as
n = 204
(46.4%)
Worse than
n = 224
(50.9%)
p < 0.001
Low147140
High1115784
Work life conflictN = 438Better than
n = 4
(0.9%)
The same as
n = 111
(25.4%)
Worse than
n = 323
(73.7%)
p < 0.001
Low183102
High328221
Self-Rated HealthN = 439Better than
n = 8
(1.8%)
The same as
n = 230
(52.4%)
Worse than
n = 201
(45.8%)
p < 0.001
Low289135
High614166
BurnoutN = 440Better than
n = 9
(2.0%)
The same as
n = 95
(21.6%)
Worse than
n = 336
(76.4%)
p < 0.001
Low65798
High338238
StressN = 440Better than
n = 5
(1.1%)
The same as
n = 94
(21.4%)
Worse than
n = 341
(77.5%)
p < 0.001
Low273160
High321181
Sexual harassmentN = 437Better than
n = 2
(0.5%)
The same as
n = 413
(94.5%)
Worse than
n = 22
(5.0%)
p < 0.001
Low239515
High0187
Threat of violenceN = 436Better than
n = 2
(0.5%)
The same as
n = 396
(90.8%)
Worse than
n = 38
(8.7%)
p < 0.001
Low137319
High12319
Physical violenceN = 436Better than
n = 1
(0.2%)
The same as
n = 410
(94.1%)
Worse than
n = 25
(5.7%)
p < 0.05
Low139821
High0124

Cross-tabulation of COPSOQ-III scores and COVID-19 (medical laboratory technologists).

Table 5

COPSOQ - domainCOPSOQ scoreSince COVID-19, my response is _____beforeP-value
Quantitative demandsN = 245Better than
n =20
(8.2%)
The same as
n = 68
(27.7%)
Worse than
n =157
(64.1%)
p < 0.001
Low104559
High102398
Work paceN = 241Better than
n = 16
(6.6%)
The same as
n = 63
(26.2%)
Worse than
n =162
(67.2%)
p < 0.001
Low83854
High825108
Emotional demandsN = 239Better than
n = 13
(5.4%)
The same as
n = 101
(42.3%)
Worse than
n = 125
(52.3%)
p < 0.001
Low77140
High63085
Influence at workN = 237Better than
n = 12
(5.1%)
The same as
n = 130
(54.8%)
Worse than
n = 95
(40.1%)
p < 0.01
Low17460
High115635
Possibilities for developmentN = 241Better than
n = 27
(11.2%)
The same as
n = 148
(61.4%)
Worse than
n = 66
(27.4%)
p < 0.001
Low44635
High2310231
Meaning of workN = 241Better than
n =52
(21.6%)
The same as
n = 121
(50.2%)
Worse than
n = 68
(28.2%)
p < 0.01
Low184743
High347425
PredictabilityN = 242Better than
n = 16
(6.6%)
The same as
n = 114
(47.1%)
Worse than
n = 112
(46.3%)
p < 0.001
Low04069
High167443
RecognitionN = 243Better than
n = 30
(12.4%)
The same as
n =99
(40.7%)
Worse than
n = 114
(46.9%)
p < 0.001
Low13875
High296139
Role clarityN = 242Better than
n = 20
(8.3%)
The same as
n = 123
(50.8%)
Worse than
n = 99
(40.9%)
p < 0.001
Low42966
High169433
Role conflictN = 242Better than
n = 20 (8.3%)
The same as
n = 87
(35.9%)
Worse than
n = 135
(55.8%)
p < 0.001
Low105850
High102985
Quality of leadershipN = 238Better than
n = 18
(7.6%)
The same as
n = 106
(44.5%)
Worse than
n = 114
(47.9%)
p < 0.001
Low32664
High158050
Social support from colleaguesN = 240Better than
n = 26
(10.8%)
The same as
n = 135
(56.3%)
Worse than
n = 79
(32.9%)
p < 0.001
Low54061
High219518
Social support from supervisorN = 241Better than
n = 26
(10.8%)
The same as
n = 126
(52.3%)
Worse than
n = 89
(36.9%)
p < 0.001
Low65773
High206916
Sense of community at workN = 236Better than
n = 16
(6.8%)
The same as n = 134 (56.8%)Worse than
n = 86
(36.4%)
p < 0.001
Low13153
High1510333
Insecurity over working conditionsN = 240Better than
n = 35
(14.6%)
The same as
n = 129
(53.7%)
Worse than
n = 76
(31.7%)
p < 0.001
Low238026
High124950
Vertical trustN = 238Better than
n = 15
(6.3%)
The same as
n = 145
(60.9%)
Worse than
n = 78
(32.8%)
p < 0.01
Low44240
High1110338
Organizational justiceN = 239Better than
n = 15
(6.3%)
The same as
n = 119
(49.8%)
Worse than
n = 105
(43.9%)
p < 0.001
Low23368
High138637
Job satisfactionN = 240Better than
n = 14
(5.8%)
The same as
n = 110
(45.8%)
Worse than
n = 116
(48.4%)
p < 0.001
Low13179
High137937
Work life conflictN = 241Better than
n = 14
(5.8%)
The same as
n = 58
(24.1%)
Worse than
n = 169
(70.1%)
p < 0.001
Low83856
High620113
Self-rated healthN = 242Better than
n = 9
(3.7%)
The same as
n = 129
(53.3%)
Worse than
n = 104
(43.0%)
p < 0.001
Low34677
High68327
BurnoutN = 243Better than
n = 12
(4.9%)
The same as
n = 51
(21.0%)
Worse than
n = 180
(74.1%)
p < 0.001
Low83245
High419135
StressN = 242Better than
n = 10
(4.1%)
The same as
n = 51
(21.1%)
Worse than
n = 181
(74.8%)
p < 0.001
Low73978
High312103
Sexual harassmentN = 240Better than
n = 9
(3.7%)
The same as
n = 208
(86.7%)
Worse than
n = 23
(9.6%)
p = 0.125
Low718117
High2276
Threat of violenceN = 240Better than
n = 12
(5.0%)
The same as
n = 178
(74.2%)
Worse than
n = 50
(20.8%)
p < 0.001
Low713511
High54339
Physical violenceN = 240Better than
n = 12
(5.0%)
The same as
n = 193
(80.4%)
Worse than
n = 35
(14.6%)
p < 0.01
Low1015819
High23516

Cross-tabulation of COPSOQ-III scores and COVID-19 (technicians).

In addition, respondents with poor psychological status (e.g., the low group for meaning of work; high group for work pace) were more likely to experience greater pressure under the influence of the epidemic. For example, we found that 33.3% (n = 84) MLT with high job satisfaction reported that their job satisfaction was worse than before the start of the pandemic, while 74.5% (n = 140) MLT with low job satisfaction reported that their job satisfaction was worse than before the start of the pandemic (P < 0.001). Furthermore, we found that 67.22% of MLT/A indicated that they felt worse about work pace than before the start of the pandemic, especially those who experienced faster work pace initially.

Discussion

The main findings of this study found scores of work pace, emotional demands, role conflicts, job insecurity, insecurity over working conditions and negative acts were higher for MLT/A than MLT. The purpose of the study is to examine the current mental status, functioning and disability of medical laboratory professionals in Ontario and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their mental health. This is the first study to examine the psychosocial risk factors of medical laboratory professionals in Ontario, Canada. The health care workers are working at the scenes and are not patient-facing. However, they are the backbone of the healthcare system in providing critical services in general medical laboratory technology, diagnostic typology, and clinical genetics (37). The fact that most of the medical laboratory professions were women, which was larger than other healthcare workers, like doctors, occupational therapists might account for some high scores in COPSOQ because early studies showed that women were more likely to suffer from mental health problems, e.g., depression, anxiety and burnout, considered because job status could also influence mental health problems. For example, Labrague et al. showed that health workers like nurses who worked part-time reported higher fear scores than full-time workers, thus affecting their psychological and emotional wellbeing and work performance (38). The characteristic of part-time work, including temporary and unstable, also increase job insecurity and leaves little room for career development. Therefore, the high proportion of part-time jobs in MLT/A may also be an important reason for this population's prominent psychological health problem.

In addition, negative behaviors like physical violence and sexual harassment in the workplace was also common among laboratory professions, especially among MLT/A group. These kinds of behaviors will affect an individual's work performance or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment (39). Studies focused on nurses have found that greater work demands and less trust and justice were associated with nurses' experiences of violence (40). Manageable workloads and greater understanding of MLT and MLT/A work responsibilities and a more supportive work environment may reduce negative health outcomes acts for medical laboratory professions.

The high sense of job insecurity and insecurity over working conditions was present, especially in the group of MLT/A; heavy demands of workload, including high quantitative and emotional demands and fast work pace were also reflected in medical laboratory professions, especially MLT. This reflected the current problems in the medical laboratory system: inadequate working conditions, high workload, growing competition among healthcare workers and less safety at work. Health workers in such circumstances are experiencing increased pressures at their workplace due to high working demands or do not have enough time to complete the tasks and feel insecure, despite giving maximum effort.

In addition, respondents with poor psychological status (e.g., the low group for meaning of work; high group for work pace) were more likely to experience greater pressure under the influence of the epidemic, which led to further deterioration of their mental health. For example, we found a third MLT with high job satisfaction reported that their job satisfaction was worse than before the start of the pandemic, while almost three quarters of MLT with low job satisfaction reported feeling worse. This vicious circle suggested the importance of early intervention and early treatment for medical laboratory professions.

We found that the mean scores of WHODAS 2.0 in MLT and MLT/A were higher than approximately 92% of the WHODAS 2.0 population norms across the general population of 10 countries, indicating the extent of disability associated with a psychiatric condition among medical laboratory workers was quite serious than average people. When disability limits a person's daily activities, it is clinically significant to consider the impact (i.e., possible mental problems) disability may cause. Moreover, there is evidence that the increase in the WHODAS 2.0 score was associated with increased comorbidities, in particular those related to mental (depression) and physical health (41).

Strengths and Limitations

Mental Health, functioning and disability were significant health concerns for medical laboratory professionals in Ontario. At the same time, they did not receive the same attention as other healthcare workers, e.g., doctors or nurses. To raise awareness on this occupational group, we worked closely with the Medical Laboratory Professionals' Association of Ontario (MLPAO) to recruit participants across the province to represent the diversity of the workforce across geography and workplace settings (e.g., hospitals, private laboratories, etc.). Therefore, the sample is well representative of this group in Ontario. We used the COPSOQ-III and WHODAS 2.0, two internationally well-known questionnaires to measure the results, giving a better reference value for our results. Our study also covered a comparison in the mental status before and after COVID-19 in this occupational group, which has not been examined in any previous studies.

We also acknowledge other potential limitations. First, this was a cross-sectional study, so that causality could not be established. Second, the study participants (MLT and MLA/T) were emailed a link to the survey using REDCap at one certain time. As a result, this may lead to bias in that the credibility and validity of email patterns were not as high as face-to-face interviews. In addition, there are different versions of COPSOQ-III that may raise questions about the reliability of the results when comparing the results with other studies. Furthermore, the study did not evaluate or examine other conditions of COVID-19, such as issues regarding families and restrictions. As a result, this limitation does not allow us to capture the full impact of Covid-19.

Conclusion

The study provides preliminary evidence regarding the workplace mental health outcomes of medical laboratory professionals in Ontario, Canada. The implications of the pandemic reflected on mental health and functioning, specifically the limitations on their psychosocial work environments, have led this study to examine these effects. The scores of work pace, emotional demands, role conflicts, job insecurity, insecurity over working conditions and negative acts were higher for MLT/A than MLT. In terms of their functioning, we observed scores that are higher than the 92% of the normed population. There is a need for robust studies that examine a larger sample across time. The findings may also provide information for governments and employers to address strategies to improve the mental health of laboratory medical professionals.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Statements

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by University of Toronto Research Ethics Board. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Acknowledgments

The Medical Laboratory Professionals' Association of Ontario funded the Article Processing Charge.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  • 1.

    BandaliKZhuLGamblePAW. Canada's health human resource challenges: what is the fate of our healthcare heroes?Healthc Manage Forum. (2011) 24:17983. 10.1016/j.hcmf.2011.04.001

  • 2.

    Medical Laboratory Professionals' Association of Ontario. Report: medical laboratory professionals at a breaking point – two-year analysis. (2022). Available online at: https://www.mlpao.org/_files/ugd/691355_870e5fae53f34d0cba723820bac97c13.pdf

  • 3.

    MaunderRGHeeneyNDStrudwickGShinHDO'NeillBYoungNet al. Burnout in Hospital-Based Healthcare Workers during COVID-19. Ontario: Science Briefs of the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table (2021).

  • 4.

    RoslanNSYusoffMSBAsreneeARMorganK. Burnout prevalence and its associated factors among Malaysian healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic: an embedded mixed-method study. Healthcare. (2021) 9:190. 10.3390/healthcare9010090

  • 5.

    WestCPDyrbyeLNSinskyCTrockelMTuttyMNedelecLet al. Resilience and burnout among physicians and the general US working population. JAMA Net Open. (2020). 3:e20938596. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.9385

  • 6.

    WooTHoRTangATamW. Global prevalence of burnout symptoms among nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychiatr Res. (2020) 123:920. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.12.015

  • 7.

    Medical Laboratory Professionals' Association of Ontario. Medical Laboratory Shortage. Hamilton, ON (2019).

  • 8.

    BainbridgeLDavidsonKLorangerL. Burnout Among Alberta physiotherapists: A White Paper (2017).

  • 9.

    DyrbyeLNShanafeltTDJohnsonPOJohnsonLASateleDWestCPet al. cross-sectional study exploring the relationship between burnout, absenteeism, and job performance among American nurses. BMC Nurs. (2019) 18:157. 10.1186/s12912-019-0382-7

  • 10.

    WilkinsK. Work stress among health care providers. Health Rep. (2007) 18:336.

  • 11.

    RotensteinLSTorreMRamosMARosalesRCGuilleCSenSet al. Prevalence of burnout among physicians. JAMA. (2018) 320:113151. 10.1001/jama.2018.12777

  • 12.

    SangheraJPattaniNHashmiYVarleyKFCheruvuMSBradleyAet al. The impact of SARS-CoV-2 on the mental health of healthcare workers in a hospital setting—a systematic review. J Occup Health. (2020) 62:116. 10.1002/1348-9585.12175

  • 13.

    PainterJAkroydDElliotSAdamsRD. Burnout among occupational therapists. Occup Ther Health Care. (2003) 17:6378. 10.1080/J003v17n01_06

  • 14.

    PoulsenAAMeredithPKhanAHendersonJCastrisosVKhanSR. Burnout and work engagement in occupational therapists. Br J Occup Ther. (2014) 77:15664. 10.4276/030802214X13941036266621

  • 15.

    ScanlanJNHazeltonT. Relationships between job satisfaction, burnout, professional identity and meaningfulness of work activities for occupational therapists working in mental health. Aust Occup Ther J. (2019) 66:58190. 10.1111/1440-1630.12596

  • 16.

    Sanchez-GomezMGiorgiGFinstadGLUrbiniFFotiGMucciNet al. COVID-19 pandemic as a traumatic event and its associations with fear and mental health: a cognitive-activation approach. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18:114. 10.3390/ijerph18147422

  • 17.

    ToralesJO'HigginsMCastaldelli-MaiaJMVentriglioA. The outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact on global mental health. Int J Soc Psychiatry. (2020) 66:31720. 10.1177/0020764020915212

  • 18.

    SmallwoodNKarimiLBismarkMPutlandMJohnsonDDharmageSCet al. High levels of psychosocial distress among Australian frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey. Gen Psychiatry. (2021) 34:111. 10.1136/gpsych-2021-100577

  • 19.

    DenningMGohETTanBKannegantiAAlmonteMScottAet al. Determinants of burnout and other aspects of psychological well-being in healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic: A multinational cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. (2021) 16:118. 10.1371/journal.pone.0238666

  • 20.

    BarelloSPalamenghiLGraffignaG. Burnout and somatic symptoms among frontline healthcare professionals at the peak of the Italian COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Res. (2020) 290:11312933. 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113129

  • 21.

    ChorWPDNgWMChengLSituWChongJWNgLYAet al. Burnout amongst emergency healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-center study. Am J Emerg Med. (2021) 46:7002. 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.10.040

  • 22.

    EstesBAVargheseJJJacquesJNaiduSS. Logistical, financial, and psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac catheterization lab nurses and technologists: A US National Survey. J Invasive Cardiol. (2021) 33:E915. 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.433

  • 23.

    Pazmiño ErazoEEAlvear VelásquezMJSaltos ChávezIGPazmiño PullasDE. Factors associated with psychiatric adverse effects in healthcare personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ecuador. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría. (2021) 50:16675. 10.1016/j.rcpeng.2020.12.001

  • 24.

    Medical Laboratory Professionals' Association of Ontario. About The MLPAO (2021). Available online at: https://www.mlpao.org/about

  • 25.

    BookerLASlettenTLAlvaroPKBarnesMCollinsAChai-CoetzerCLet al. Exploring the associations between shift work disorder, depression, anxiety and sick leave taken amongst nurses. J Sleep Res. (2020) 29:19. 10.1111/jsr.12872

  • 26.

    CockerFJossN. Compassion fatigue among healthcare, emergency and community service workers: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2016) 13:118. 10.3390/ijerph13060618

  • 27.

    DuarteJPinto-GouveiaJ. The role of psychological factors in oncology nurses' burnout and compassion fatigue symptoms. Eur J Oncol Nurs. (2017) 28:11421. 10.1016/j.ejon.2017.04.002

  • 28.

    HallLHJohnsonJWattITsipaAO'ConnorDB. Healthcare staff wellbeing, burnout, and patient safety: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:112. 10.1371/journal.pone.0159015

  • 29.

    HarrisPATaylorRMinorBLElliottVFernandezMO'NealLet al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. (2019) 95:124. 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208

  • 30.

    TaherdoostH. Determining sample size; how to calculate survey sample size. Int J Econ Manag Syst. (2017) 2:2379.

  • 31.

    BurrHBerthelsenHMoncadaSNüblingMDupretEDemiralYet al. The third version of the copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Saf Health Work. (2019) 10:482503. 10.1016/j.shaw.2019.10.002

  • 32.

    UstunTBKostanjsekNChatterjiSRehmJ. Measuring Health and Disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Geneva: World Health Organization (2010). p. 188.

  • 33.

    MacLeodMATremblayPFGrahamKBernardsSRehmJWellsS. Psychometric properties and a latent class analysis of the 12-item world health organization disability assessment schedule 20 (WHODAS 20) in a pooled dataset of community samples International. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. (2016) 25:24354. 10.1002/mpr.1523

  • 34.

    PöslMCiezaAStuckiG. Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients. Qual Life Res. (2007) 16:152131. 10.1007/s11136-007-9259-4

  • 35.

    ChanBKC. Data Analysis Using R Programming. In: Biostatistics for Human Genetic Epidemiology. Sunnyvale, CA: Springer International Publishing (2018). p. 47122.

  • 36.

    SlanyCSchütteSChastangJFParent-ThirionAVermeylenGNiedhammerI. Psychosocial work factors and long sickness absence in Europe. Int J Occup Environ Health. (2014) 20:1625. 10.1179/2049396713Y.0000000048

  • 37.

    Canadian Institute for Health Information. Medical Laboratory Technologists. Canadian Institute for Health Information (2021).

  • 38.

    LabragueLJSantosJAA. Fear of COVID-19, psychological distress, work satisfaction and turnover intention among frontline nurses. J Nurs Manag. (2021) 29:395403. 10.1111/jonm.13168

  • 39.

    NukalaMFreedman-WeissMYooPSmedsMR. Sexual harassment in vascular surgery training programs. Ann Vasc Surg. (2020) 62:927. 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.05.011

  • 40.

    ParkMChoSHHongHJ. Prevalence and perpetrators of workplace violence by nursing unit and the relationship between violence and the perceived work environment. J Nurs Scholarsh. (2015) 47:8795. 10.1111/jnu.12112

  • 41.

    FerrerMLPPerraciniMRRebustiniFBuchallaCM. WHODAS 2.0-BO. Revista de Saúde Pública. (2019) 53:19. 10.11606/S1518-8787.2019053000586

Summary

Keywords

medical laboratory technologists, medical laboratory assistants/technicians, medical laboratory professionals, mental health, occupational health, Canada

Citation

Nowrouzi-Kia B, Dong J, Gohar B and Hoad M (2022) Examining the Mental Health, Wellbeing, Work Participation and Engagement of Medical Laboratory Professionals in Ontario, Canada: An Exploratory Study. Front. Public Health 10:876883. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.876883

Received

16 February 2022

Accepted

01 June 2022

Published

15 July 2022

Volume

10 - 2022

Edited by

Judie Arulappan, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman

Reviewed by

Nicola Mucci, University of Florence, Italy; Ceyda Sahan, Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Behdin Nowrouzi-Kia ; orcid.org/0000-0002-5586-4282

This article was submitted to Occupational Health and Safety, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics