American Journal of Emergency Medicine 55 (2022) 84-88

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

American Journal of Emergency Medicine

journal homepage:

An emergency medicine physician well-being study focusing on gender differences and years of practice during the COVID-19 pandemic

Heidi Levine, DO ^a,?, Nadia Baranchuk, MD ^a, Timmy Li, Ph.D. ^b, Gabrielle Garra ^a,

Mohanapriya Sayeen Nagarajan ^a, Nidhi Garg, MD ^a

^a South Shore University Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, 301 East Main Street, Bay Shore, New York 11706, United States of America

^b North Shore University Hospital/Northwell Health Zucker School of Medicine, 300 Community Drive, Manhasset, NY 11030, United States of America

Wellness is built on emotional, physical, social, financial, spiritual, intellectual and environmental pillars. Stressors affect Emergency Med- icine (EM) physicians’ wellness during their shifts, potentially leading to substance abuse, depression, anxiety, relationship difficulties, and even death [1,15,31].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians experienced multiple stressors, anxiety, and depression [2-6,9,35]. Educational systems in critical resilience skills must be developed by organizations to support physicians in coping with these issues [7-10]. Hospital wellness systems and physician groups, focusing on increased engagement and resiliency have been expanding [11-13].

Studies have not examined the Psychological effects of the pandemic on gender differences and years of experience for EM physicians [18- 21]. Our goal was to assess how the COVID-19 pandemic affected physi- cians’ well-being, focusing on these determinants.

The descriptive survey study involved all EM attending physicians in our health system. A 25-item anonymous online survey was sent to 477 EM physicians assessing their wellbeing during the COVID-19 pan- demic. Email distribution included 14 hospitals over six months. Our In- stitutional Review Board approved this study with a waiver of informed consent. No identifiers were collected. Participation was voluntary. No compensation was offered.

Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and proportions, are re- ported for all survey items for the total study sample, and are stratified by physician gender (female vs. male) and years of experience (<11 years vs. >=11 years). Chi-square tests, or Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess differences in survey responses by gender and years of experi- ence. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Caro- lina, United States).

Table 1 shows emotional wellness survey results. During the pandemic, more females had difficulties with depression,

appetite, concentration and sleep. Females were more emotional. They

felt easily irritated, cried, and lashed out more than males.

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Levine), [email protected] (N. Baranchuk), [email protected] (T. Li), [email protected] (M.S. Nagarajan), [email protected] (N. Garg).

Female physicians had more changes in appetite. They ate and hy- drated less during their shifts. One study on women stressed with high cortisol levels found they ate more on the day they were stressed than on their control day [25]. Stress and depression are connected to poor nutritional choices [26,27].

Concentration issues were more common in female EM physicians and physicians with less than 11 years in practice.

Females had more sleep disturbances during the pandemic. Only 13% used more sleep aids. A few revealed aids were ineffective.

Alcohol use was higher in females and those with less than 11 years of experience. A link exists between substance abuse and high stress. Substance abuse, associated with stress or depression, is associated with physician suicide [40-42]. Poor wellbeing, including depression, anxiety, poor quality of life, stress and high level of burnout, are associ- ated with more self-reported errors [23] as well as decreased quality of patients’ care, malpractice risk and early retirement [6,14,24].

Table 2 presents intellectual and physical wellness survey results. Routinely, 83.1% of physicians listened to the news or other social media for pandemic updates. Forty percent of physicians worked out less. Close to half did exercise, with males comprising the majority.

Table 3 details questions on financial and social wellness during the pandemic.

Most participants weren’t impacted financially and remained with their families during the pandemic.

Social wellness improved during the pandemic. Physicians increased their social connections, more in females and slightly more in less expe- rienced physicians. Physicians with strong social supports are happier and have lower risk of burnout [15,51,52]. Persons having higher levels of perceived social support, are less likely to develop psychological con- ditions [49,50].

To de-stress, males mostly exercised and females shopped online. For other activities, gender or years of practice were not impacted (Table 1).

Physical appearance was not a concern, more in females and less experienced physicians.

Table 4 displays environmental and spiritual wellness results. Envi- ronmentally, more than 50% of physicians were worried about safety due to reuse of their N95 mask, mostly females. N95 mask reuse leads to decreased effectiveness in protection against contracting the COVID-19 virus [43]. With increased potential transmission, stress levels increase.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2022.02.055

0735-6757/(C) 2022

Table 1

Emotional wellness survey results stratified by respondent gender and years of experience.

Survey item Total sample

Gender? p-Value? Years of experience p-Value??

	(n = 142)	Female	Male		<11 years	>=11 years
		(n = 65)	(n = 75)		(n = 73)	(n = 69)
Emotional wellness prior to the pandemic
Feel down, depressed or hopeless				0.9229			0.7879
Not at all	96 (67.6%)	43 (66.2%)	51 (68.0%)		48 (65.8%)	48 (69.6%)
Several days	45 (31.7%)	22 (33.9%)	23 (30.7%)		24 (32.9%)	21 (30.4%)
Does not apply	1 (0.7%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (1.3%)		1 (1.4%)	0 (0.0%)
Have poor appetite or overeating				0.6469			0.4739
Not at all	96 (67.6%)	42 (64.6%)	52 (69.3%)		47 (64.4%)	49 (71.0%)
Several days	45 (31.7%)	23 (35.4%)	22 (29.3%)		25 (34.3%)	20 (29.0%)
Does not apply	1 (0.7%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (1.3%)		1 (1.4%)	0 (0.0%)
Have trouble concentrating on things such as reading a				0.5139			0.7821
newspaper or watching television
Not at all	100 (70.4%)	48 (73.9%)	50 (66.7%)		50 (68.5%)	50 (72.5%)
Several days	41 (28.9%)	17 (26.2%)	24 (32.0%)		22 (30.1%)	19 (27.5%)
Does not apply	1 (0.7%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (1.3%)		1 (1.4%)	0 (0.0%)
Have thoughts that you would be better off dead, or thoughts				0.1830			1.0000
of hurting yourself in some way
Not at all	136 (95.8%)	61 (93.9%)	73 (97.3%)		69 (94.5%)	67 (97.1%)
Several days	5 (3.5%)	4 (6.2%)	1 (1.3%)		3 (4.1%)	2 (2.9%)
Does not apply	1 (0.7%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (1.3%)		1 (1.4%)	0 (0.0%)
Have trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much or				0.4409			0.1296
had nightmares
Not at all	66 (46.5%)	27 (41.5%)	37 (49.3%)		29 (39.7%)	35 (53.6%)
Several days	75 (52.8%)	38 (58.5%)	37 (49.3%)		43 (58.9%)	32 (46.4%)
Does not apply	1 (0.7%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (1.3%)		1 (1.4%)	0 (0.0%)
Emotional wellness during to the pandemic
Feel down, depressed or hopeless				<0.0001			0.0558
Not at all	52 (36.6%)	12 (18.5%)	38 (50.7%)		21 (28.8%)	31 (44.9%)
Several days	90 (63.4%)	53 (81.5%)	37 (49.3%)		52 (71.2%)	38 (55.1%)
Does not apply	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)		0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Have poor appetite or overeating				0.0021			0.5006
Not at all	65 (45.8%)	20 (30.8%)	43 (57.3%)		31 (42.5%)	34 (49.3%)
Several days	76 (53.5%)	44 (67.7%)	32 (42.7%)		41 (56.2%)	35 (50.7%)
Does not apply	1 (0.7%)	1 (1.5%)	0 (0.0%)		1 (1.4%)	0 (0.0%)
Have trouble concentrating on things such as reading a				0.0079			0.0280
newspaper or watching television
Not at all	64 (45.1%)	21 (32.3%)	41 (54.7%)		26 (35.6%)	38 (55.1%)
Several days	78 (54.9%)	44 (67.7%)	34 (45.3%)		47 (64.4%)	31 (44.9%)
Does not apply	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)		0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Have thoughts that you would be better off dead, or thoughts				0.1448			0.7195
of hurting yourself in some way
Not at all	134 (94.4%)	59 (90.8%)	73 (97.3%)		68 (93.2%)	66 (95.7%)
Several days	8 (5.6%)	6 (9.2%)	2 (2.7%)		5 (6.9%)	3 (4.4%)
Does not apply	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)		0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Have trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much or				0.0055			0.3686
had nightmares
Not at all	44 (31.0%)	12 (18.4%)	30 (40.0%)		20 (27.4%)	24 (34.8%)
Several days	98 (69.0%)	53 (81.5%)	45 (60.0%)		53 (72.6%)	45 (65.2%)
Does not apply	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)		0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Trouble falling asleep	53 (37.3%)	33 (50.8%)	20 (26.7%)	0.0034	31 (42.5%)	22 (31.9%)	0.2259
Trouble staying asleep	59 (41.6%)	30 (46.2%)	29 (38.7%)	0.3709	31(42.5%)	28 (40.6%)	0.8657
Sleeping too much	11 (7.6%)	7 (10.8%)	4 (5.3%)	0.2332	7 (9.6%)	4 (5.8%)	0.5341
Had nightmares	25 (17.6%)	15 (23.1%)	10 (13.3%)	0.1333	17 (23.3%)	8 (11.6%)	0.0800
Became more emotional				<0.0001			0.1734
Yes	83 (58.5%)	50 (76.9%)	33 (44.0%)		47 (64.4%)	36 (52.2%)
No	59 (41.6%)	15 (23.1%)	42 (56.0%)		26 (35.6%)	33 (47.8%)
Felt easily irritated				0.0001			0.5054
Yes	66 (46.5%)	42 (64.6%)	24 (32.0%)		36 (49.3%)	30 (43.5%)
No	76 (53.5%)	23 (35.4%)	51 (68.0%)		37 (50.7%)	39 (56.5%)
Cried				0.0010			0.1043
Yes	45 (31.7%)	30 (46.2%)	15 (20.0%)		28 (38.4%)	17 (24.6%)
No	97 (68.3%)	35 (53.9%)	60 (80.0%)		45 (61.6%)	52 (75.4%)
Lashed out				0.0009			0.1555
Yes	30 (21.1%)	22 (33.9%)	8 (10.7%)		19 (26.0%)	11 (15.9%)
No	112 (78.9%)	43 (66.2%)	67 (89.3%)		54 (74.0%)	58 (84.1%)
Other emotional issues				0.4856			0.3574
Yes	11 (7.8%)	4 (6.2%)	7 (9.3%)		4 (5.5%)	7 (10.1%)
No	131 (92.3%)	61 (93.9%)	68 (90.7%)		69 (94.5%)	62 (89.9%)
Speaking out more regarding COVID-19 to either coworkers,				0.1411			0.0505
friends, family, and/or media

Sleeping habits that have changed???

(continued on next page)

Table 1 (continued)

Survey item Total sample

Gender? p-Value? Years of experience p-Value??

	(n = 142)	Female (n = 65)	Male (n = 75)		<11 years (n = 73)	>=11 years (n = 69)
Never	9 (6.3%)	1 (1.5%)	8 (10.7%)		8 (11.0%)	1 (1.5%)
Sometimes	59 (41.6%)	30 (46.2%)	27 (36.0%)		33 (45.2%)	26 (37.7%)
Often	49 (34.5%)	23 (35.4%)	26 (34.7%)		22 (30.1%)	27 (39.1%)
All the time Effect of COVID-19 on empathy towards patients No change	25 (17.6%) 44 (31.0%)	11 (16.9%) 13 (20.0%)	14 (18.7%) 29 (38.7%)	0.0321	10 (13.7%) 21 (28.8%)	15 (21.7%) 23 (33.3%)	0.0766
More empathetic	59 (41.6%)	31 (47.7%)	28 (37.3%)		26 (35.6%)	33 (47.8%)
Less empathetic	21 (14.8%)	14 (21.5%)	7 (9.3%)		16 (21.9%)	5 (7.3%)
Not sure	18 (12.7%)	7 (10.8%)	11 (14.7%)		0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)

Note: some column percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

* Stratified analysis excludes two respondents who identified as “Other” gender.

?? p-Values derived from chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact tests were appropriate.

??? Response options are not mutually exclusive.

Religious practices were unchanged. Females, more than males, had empathy changes. A study using the

Jefferson Scale of Empathy showed females commonly score higher than males, suggesting females are more empathetic than males [44]. Most providers did not lose empathy towards their patients. Maintain- ing empathy is essential in preventing burnout [45].

Our study found that physician wellness was negatively affected by the pandemic, particularly in female EM physicians. There has been a paucity of studies investigating gender and years of practice differences in relation to the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on EM physicians’ well-being. Female physicians and physicians who have been in practice less than 11 years are more likely to have negative

Table 2

Intellectual and physical wellness survey results stratified by respondent gender and years of experience. Survey item Total sample

	(n = 142)	Female (n = 65)	Male (n = 75)		<11 years (n = 73)	>=11 years (n = 69)
Intellectual wellness Change in non-COVID-19 self-academic reading or learning during the pandemic				0.1379			0.4638
Researched, listened, or watched podcasts more	39 (27.5%)	12 (18.5%)	25 (33.3%)		17 (23.3%)	22 (31.9%)
Researched, listened, or watched podcasts less	27 (19.0%)	14 (21.5%)	13 (17.3%)		16 (21.9%)	11 (15.9%)
Researched, listened, or watched podcasts more, but all or mostly about COVID-19	76 (53.5%)	39 (60.0%)	37 (49.3%)		40 (54.8%)	36 (52.2%)
Read about academic/EBM COVID-19 updates Few times a day / daily	77 (54.2%)	37 (56.9%)	39 (52.0%)	0.8158	33 (45.2%)	44 (63.8%)	0.0730
Every other day / twice a week	40 (28.2%)	18 (27.7%)	22 (29.3%)		24 (32.9%)	16 (23.2%)
Weekly / rarely Listened to the news or used other social media to get updates on the pandemic Few times a day / daily	25 (17.6%) 118 (83.1%)	10 (15.4%) 56 (86.2%)	14 (18.7%) 62 (82.7%)	0.4755	16 (21.9%) 57 (78.1%)	9 (13.0%) 61 (88.4%)	0.2128
Every other day / twice a week	13 (9.2%)	4 (6.2%)	9 (12.0%)		8 (11.0%)	5 (7.3%)
Weekly / rarely	11 (7.8%)	5 (7.7%)	4 (5.3%)		8 (11.0%)	3 (4.4%)
Physical wellness Use of sleeping aids to fall asleep prior to the pandemic				0.0653			0.1845
Never	88 (62.0%)	41 (63.1%)	46 (61.3%)		45 (61.6%)	43 (62.3%)
Sometimes	46 (32.4%)	17 (26.2%)	28 (37.3%)		21 (28.8%)	25 (36.2%)
Often	6 (4.3%)	5 (7.7%)	1 (1.3%)		5 (6.9%)	1 (1.5%)
All of the time Change in use of sleeping aids to fall asleep during the pandemic	2 (1.4%)	2 (3.1%)	0 (0.0%)	0.6357	2 (2.7%)	0 (0.0%)	0.4881
No, never used sleeping aids	81 (57.0%)	35 (53.9%)	45 (60.0%)		41 (56.2%)	40 (58.0%)
No, used the same amount	39 (27.5%)	17 (26.2%)	21 (28.0%)		20 (27.4%)	19 (27.5%)
Yes, used more	19 (13.4%)	11 (16.9%)	8 (10.7%)		9 (12.3%)	10 (14.5%)
Yes, sleeping aid stopped working Effect of pandemic on exercise routine Does not apply, I do not exercise	3 (2.1%) 21 (14.8%)	2 (3.1%) 13 (20.0%)	1 (1.3%) 8 (10.7%)	0.1585	3 (4.1%) 8 (11.0%)	0 (0.0%) 13 (18.8%)	0.0708
I worked out much less	57 (40.1%)	31 (47.7%)	26 (34.7%)		37 (50.7%)	20 (29.0%)
I worked out more	27 (19.0%)	9 (13.9%)	18 (24.0%)		15 (20.6%)	12 (17.4%)
I had to change my exercise routine	18 (12.9%)	6 (9.2%)	12 (16.0%)		7 (9.6%)	11 (15.9%)
I joined virtual classes to continue with my routine	8 (5.6%)	2 (3.1%)	6 (8.0%)		2 (2.7%)	6 (8.7%)
Other Alcohol use during pandemic I drank less	11 (7.6%) 16 (11.3%)	4 (6.2%) 7 (10.8%)	5 (6.7%) 9 (12.0%)	0.0049	4 (5.5%) 9 (12.3%)	7 (10.1%) 7 (10.1%)	0.3312
I drank more	35 (24.7%)	22 (33.9%)	13 (17.3%)		22 (30.1%)	13 (18.8%)
I drank the same	53 (37.3%)	15 (23.1%)	38 (50.7%)		26 (35.6%)	27 (39.1%)
Does not apply, I do not drink	38 (26.8%)	21 (32.3%)	15 (20.0%)		16 (21.9%)	22 (31.9%)

Gender? p-Value? Years of experience p-Value??

*** Response options are not mutually exclusive.

Note: some column percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

* Stratified analysis excludes two respondents who identified as “Other” gender.

?? p-Values derived from chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact tests where appropriate.

Table 3

Financial and social wellness survey results stratified by respondent gender and years of experience. Survey item Total sample

Gender? p-Value? Years of experience p-Value??

Methods used to destress at home???

	(n = 142)	Female	Male		<11 years	>=11 years
		(n = 65)	(n = 75)		(n = 73)	(n = 69)
Financial wellness
Financial effect of pandemic				0.6666			0.7710
Worked less and thus, made less	16 (11.3%)	7 (10.8%)	9 (12.0%)		8 (11.0%)	8 (11.6%)
Lost savings/retirement or investments	8 (5.6%)	2 (3.1%)	6 (8.0%)		4 (5.5%)	4 (5.8%)
Worked more and thus, had greater compensation	21 (14.8%)	9 (13.9%)	10 (13.3%)		13 (17.8%)	8 (11.6%)
Stayed the same, no change	97 (68.3%)	47 (72.3%)	50 (66.7%)		48 (65.8%)	49 (71.0%)
Will retire later than originally planned due to financial effects of the pandemic				0.0734			0.4057
Yes	7 (4.9%)	3 (4.6%)	4 (5.3%)		2 (2.7%)	5 (7.3%)
No	81 (57.0%)	31 (47.7%)	50 (66.7%)		42 (57.5%)	39 (56.5%)
Maybe	50 (35.2%)	30 (46.2%)	20 (26.7%)		28 (38.4%)	22 (31.9%)
Other	4 (2.8%)	1 (1.5%)	1 (1.3%)		1 (1.4%)	3 (4.4%)
Social wellness during the pandemic
Connected with friends and family				0.0111			0.5918
More often than prior to the pandemic	109 (76.8%)	57 (87.7%)	52 (69.3%)		58 (79.5%)	51 (73.9%)
Less often than prior to the pandemic	9 (6.3%)	4 (6.2%)	5 (6.7%)		5 (6.9%)	4 (5.8%)
No change	24 (16.9%)	4 (6.2%)	18 (24.0%)		10 (13.7%)	14 (20.3%)
Alcohol	42 (29.6%)	21 (32.3%)	21 (28.0%)	0.5791	29 (39.7%)	13 (18.8%)	0.0064
Read books	40 (28.2%)	17 (26.2%)	22 (29.3%)	0.6756	20 (27.4%)	20 (29.0%)	0.8540
Watched a movie	101 (72.1%)	48 (73.9%)	53 (70.7%)	0.6756	53 (72.6%)	48 (69.6%)	0.6897
Exercised	73 (51.4%)	26 (40.0%)	46 (61.3%)	0.0118	37 (50.7%)	36 (52.2%)	0.8592
Practiced mediation	30 (21.1%)	14 (21.5%)	15 (20.0%)	0.8227	20 (27.4%)	10 (14.5%)	0.0597
Listened to music	57 (40.1%)	26 (40.0%)	30 (40.0%)	1.0000	32 (43.8%)	25 (36.2%)	0.3556
Shopped online	57 (40.1%)	36 (55.4%)	21 (28.0%)	0.0010	32 (43.8%)	25 (36.2%)	0.3556
Explored the web	56 (39.4%)	25 (38.5%)	31 (41.3%)	0.7294	28 (38.4%)	28 (40.6%)	0.7864
Spoke to family/friends	108 (76.1%)	49 (75.4%)	59 (78.7%)	0.6446	58 (79.5%)	50 (72.5%)	0.3294
Played with a pet	45 (31.7%)	20 (30.8%)	24 (32.0%)	0.8757	27 (37.0%)	18 (26.1%)	0.1630
Other	18 (12.7%)	8 (12.3%)	9 (12.0%)	0.9557	8 (11.0%)	10 (14.5%)	0.5270
Concern about physical appearance during the pandemic				<0.0001			0.0059
More concerned about appearance	7 (4.9%)	5 (7.7%)	2 (2.7%)		6 (8.2%)	1 (1.5%)
Less concerned about appearance	72 (50.7%)	45 (69.2%)	27 (36.0%)		43 (58.9%)	29 (42.0%)
No change	63 (44.4%)	15 (23.1%)	46 (61.3%)		24 (32.9%)	39 (56.5%)

Note: some column percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

* Stratified analysis excludes two respondents who identified as “Other” gender.

?? p-Values derived from chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact tests where appropriate.

??? Response options are not mutually exclusive.

Table 4

Environmental and spiritual wellness survey results stratified by respondent gender and years of experience.

Survey item Total sample

Gender? p-Value? Years of experience p-Value??

	(n = 142)	Female (n = 65)	Male (n = 75)		<11 years (n = 73)	>=11 years (n = 69)
Environmental
Worried about safety due to reusing N95 for 1 week Yes	90 (63.4%)	49 (75.4%)	39 (52.0%)	0.0098	45 (61.6%)	45 (65.2%)	0.5208
No	47 (33.1%)	14 (21.5%)	33 (44.5%)		24 (32.9%)	23 (33.3%)
Other Took a break to eat and drink during shift Yes, ate more due to all the food being donated	5 (3.5%) 34 (23.4%)	2 (3.1%) 14 (21.5%)	3 (4.0%) 20 (26.7%)	0.0042	4 (5.5%) 13 (17.8%)	1 (1.5%) 21 (30.4%)	0.0013
Yes, ate/hydrated as usual	31 (21.8%)	6 (9.2%)	25 (33.3%)		9 (12.3%)	22 (31.9%)
No, ate/hydrated less due to having less time	50 (35.2%)	30 (46.2%)	19 (25.3%)		33 (45.2%)	17 (24.6%)
No, did not eat or drink during shift due to concern about self-contamination	22 (15.5%)	13 (20.0%)	9 (12.0%)		16 (21.9%)	6 (8.7%)
Other Isolation from family Moved out and did not see family	5 (3.5%) 10 (7.0%)	2 (3.1%) 7 (10.8%)	2 (2.7%) 3 (4.0%)	0.3703	2 (2.7%) 4 (5.5%)	3 (4.4%) 6 (8.7%)	0.2269
Stayed in a separate room with minimal to no interaction with family	22 (15.5%)	8 (12.3%)	14 (18.7%)		10 (13.7%)	12 (17.4%)
Continued living with family	89 (62.7%)	41 (63.1%)	48 (64.0%)		44 (60.3%)	45 (65.2%)
Does not apply, live alone	21 (14.8%)	9 (13.9%)	10 (13.3%)		15 (20.6%)	6 (8.7%)
Spiritual wellness Practice or affiliate with any religion				0.7637			0.3873
Yes	89 (62.7%)	40 (61.5%)	48 (64.0%)		43 (58.9%)	46 (66.7%)
						(continued on	next page)

Table 4 (continued)

Survey item Total sample

Gender? p-Value? Years of experience p-Value??

	(n = 142)	Female (n = 65)	Male (n = 75)		<11 years (n = 73)	>=11 years (n = 69)
No Effect of pandemic on religious practice Engaged in religious practice more	53 (37.3%) 16 (11.3%)	25 (38.5%) 10 (15.4%)	27 (36.0%) 6 (8.0%)	0.2056	30 (41.1%) 9 (12.3%)	23 (33.3%) 7 (10.1%)	0.1676
Engaged in religious practice less	13 (9.2%)	3 (4.6%)	10 (13.3%)		3 (4.1%)	10 (14.5%)
Engaged in religious practice the same	68 (47.9%)	32 (49.2%)	35 (46.7%)		35 (48.0%)	33 (47.8%)
Does not apply; do not practice or affiliate with any religion	45 (31.7%)	20 (30.8%)	24 (32.0%)		26 (35.6%)	19 (27.5%)

*** Response options are not mutually exclusive.

Note: some column percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

* Stratified analysis excludes two respondents who identified as “Other” gender.

effects. The study informs what aspects of wellness require support as post COVID-19 physician well-being recovers.

Financial support

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agen- cies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author contribution

HL, NB and NG conceived the study, and designed the trial. We had no research funding. HL, NB, and NG supervised the conduct of the trial and data collection. HL and NB undertook recruitment of participat- ing centers and patients and managed the data, including quality con- trol. TL provided statistical advice on study design and analyzed the data; HL chaired the data oversight committee. HL and NB drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. HL takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

Declaration of Competing Interest

No conflicts of interest.

References

1. Wallace JE, Lemaire JB, Ghali WA. Physician wellness: a missing quality indicator. Lancet. 2009;374:1714-21.
2. Shreffler J, Petrey J, Huecker M. The impact of COVID-19 on Healthcare workers well- ness: a scoping review. West J Emerg Med. 2020 Aug 17;21(5):1059-66.
3. Lu W, Wang H, Lin Y, et al. Psychological status of medical workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. Psychiatry Res. 2020.;288:112936.
4. Preti E, DiMattei V, Perego G, et al. The Psychological impact of epidemic and pan- demic outbreak on healthcare workers: rapid review of the evidence. Curr Psychia- try Rep. 2020;22(8):43. (Published 2020 Jul 10).
5. Schecter A, Diaz F, Moise N, et al. Psychological distress, coping behaviors and pref- erences for support among New York healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pan- demic. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2020;66:1-8.
6. Patel RS, Bachu R, Adikey M, et al. Factors related to physician burnout and its con- sequences. Behav Sci. 2018;8:98.
7. Gemine R, Davies GR, Tarrant S, et al. Factors associated with work-related burnout in NHS staff during COVID-19: a cross-sectional mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2021.;11(1):e042591.
8. Stehman CR, Testo Z, Gershaw RS, et al. Burnout, drop out, suicide: physician loss in emergency medicine, part 1. West J Emerg Med. 2019;20(3):485-94. https://doi. org/10.5811/westjem.2019.4.40970.
9. Shah K, Chaudhari G, Kamrai D, et al. How essential is to focus on physician’s health and burnout in coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic? Cureus. 2020.;12(4):e7538 Pub- lished 2020 Apr 4. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7538.
10. O’Dowd E, O’Connor P, Lydon S, et al. Stress, coping and psychological resilience among physicians. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:730.
11. Rao S, Ferris TG, Hidrue MK, et al. Physician burnout, engagement and career satis- faction in a large academic medical practice. Clin Med Res. 2020;18(1):3-10. https://doi.org/10.3121/cmr.2019.1516.
12. Patrini L, Thottathil P, Shih G, et al. Ask the question, be the solution: fostering well- being through contextualized assessment and strategy development. Ped Anesth. 16 September 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.14087.
13. Gerber B, Scriba J, Geissler A, et al. Pilot study on subjectively and objectively mea- surable stress reduction in the daily routine of a university anesthesia department by an intervention program according to mindfulness-based stress reduction. Gerber Anaesthesist. 2020 Sep;69(9):623-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-020- 00802-w. (Epub2020Jun19).
14. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Shanafelt TD. Physician burnout: contributors, consequences and solutions. J Intern Med. 2018 Jun;283(6):516-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/ joim.12752. (Epub2018Mar24).
15. Carmassi C, Foghi C, Dell’Oste V, et al. PTSD symptoms in healthcare workers facing the three coronavirus outbreaks: what can we expect after the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Res. 2020.;292:113312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113312.
16. Lai J, Ma S, Wang Y, et al. Factors associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2020.;3(3):e203976. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3976e.
17. Batra K, Singh TP, Sharma M, et al. Investigating the psychological impact of COVID- 19 among health care workers: a meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(23):9096. Published 2020 Dec 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17239096.
18. De Kock JH, Latham HA, Leslie SJ, et al. A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers; implications for supporting psychological well-being. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):104. Published 2021 Jan9. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12889-020-10070-3.
19. Zhzng W, Wang K, Yin L, et al. Mental health and psychosocial problems of mental health workers during the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Psychother Psychosom. 2020;89(4):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507639.
20. Hall LH, Johnson J, Watt I, Tsipa A, O’Connor DB. Healthcare staff wellbeing, burnout, and patient safety: a systematic review, PLoS One 11(7):e0159015. Published 2016 Jul 8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159015.
21. Nanda A, Wasan A, Sussman J. Provider health and wellness. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;56:1543-8.
22. Epel E, Lapidus R, McEwen. Stress may add bite to appetite in women: a laboratory study of stress-induced cortisol and eating behavior. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2001;26:37-49.
23. Owen A, Tran T, Hammerbeg K, et al. Poor appetite and overeating reported by adults in Australia during the coronavirus-19 disease pandemic: a population- based study. Public Health Nutr. 2020;25:1-7.
24. Devonport T, Nicholls W, Fullerton C. A systematic review of the association be- tween emotions and eating behavior in normal and overweight adult population. J Health Pschol. 2019 Jan;24(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105317697813. (Epub2017Mar20).

[31] Chatterjee SS, Chakrabarty M, Banerjee D, et al. Stress, sleep and psychological im- pact in healthcare workers during the early phases of COVID-19 in India: a factor analysis, Front Psychol 12:611314.

[35] Garcia-Iglesias JJ, Gomez-Salgado J, Martin-Pereira J, et al. Impacts of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) on the mental health of healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Rev Esp Salud Publ. 2020 Jul 23.;94:e202007088.

1. Sinha R. Chronic stress, drug use, and vulnerablility to addiction. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1141:105-30. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1441.030.
2. Bansal P, Bingemann TA, Greenhawt M, et al. Clinician wellness during the COVID-19 pandemic: extraordinary times and unusual challenges of the allergist/immunolo- gist. J Allergist/Immunologist, J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.04.001.
3. Schernhammer E. Taking their own lives-the high rate of physician suicide. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2473-6.
4. Levine C, Grady C, Block T, et al. Use, re-use or discard? Quantitatively defined vari- ance in the functional integrity of N95 respirators following vaporized hydrogen peroxide decontamination during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Hosp Infect. 2021; 107:50-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.10.007.
5. Hojat M, Gonnella J, Nasca T. The Jefferson scale of physician empathy: development and the preliminary psychometric data. Educ Psychol Measur. 2001;61:349-65.
6. Yugero O, Forne C, Esquerda M, et al. Empathy and burnout of emergency profes- sionals of a health region:a cross-sectional study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96 (37):e8030. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008030.
7. Serafini G, Parmigiani B, Amerio A, et al. The psychological impact of COVID-19 on the mental health in the general population. QJM. 2020;113(8):531-7. https://doi. org/10.1093/qjmed/hcaa201.
8. Szkody E, Stearns M, Stanhope L, et al. Stress-buffering role of social support during COVID-19. Fam Process. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12618.10.1111/famp.12618.
9. Chan C, Qui D, Tan F. Smart community and social resiliences: reflection on the COVID-19 pandemic. Preceding of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on Sys- tem Sciences; 2021.
10. Odom-Forren J. Nursing resilience in the world of COVID-19. J Perianesth Nurs. 2020;35(6):555-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2020.10.005.