Perceived Risk of COVID-19 and Employee Decision-Making: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jason Zhu and Version 3 by Jason Zhu.

COVID-19 has negatively affected public health, crippled economies, and transformed social and business environments across the globe. The pandemic has intensified the precariousness of work and the challenge of managing employee performance. There is a convincing need for organizations to develop strong and supportive management and leadership systems, particularly for frontline workers given their atypical and straining work conditions. To do so, it is prudent for managers to continuously interact and engage with these employees to offer emotional support and encouragement, address any issues of concern, and demonstrate care for these workers and their families. 

  • employee decision-making
  • employee disengagement
  • low morale
  • COVID-19
  • turnover intention
  • burnout
  • psychological distress
  • perceived risk of COVID-19
  • employee performance outcomes

1. Introduction

The novel coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, is a highly transmittable and pathogenic disease [1]. It has instigated fear and caused panic all over the globe [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15], negatively affected public health, crippled economies, and transformed social and business environments [16]. The COVID-19 pandemic, which is regarded as one of the worst pandemics in human history [17], has also had an unprecedented effect on the living conditions and deaths of human beings. Globally, as of February 2022, more than 400 million cases of COVID-19 had been confirmed, including almost 6 million deaths, even though more than 10 billion doses of vaccines had been administered [18]. Control measures, such as mandatory lockdowns and social distancing, have also affected the mental health of the public at large [19].
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, most employers have been implementing measures such as the washing of hands, use of hand sanitizers, closure of operations, and social distancing [20][21]. Many have also adopted hybrid and remote work arrangements [22][23][24], which allow employees to be geographically dispersed and physically distanced [25]. While hybrid and remote work appears to have become a new normal in many corporations [26], employees in essential sectors, such as healthcare, have been required to increase their work hours and physical presence, in order to support operational demands. Most healthcare employees, particularly nurses, not surprisingly, are more psychologically disturbed and overworked. Some employees have also been exhibiting negative performance outcomes, such as burnout, disengagement, psychological distress, and low morale [27].
Globally, employee engagement decreased by 2%, from 22% in 2019 to 20% in 2020 [28], amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Around 45% of employees indicated that their lives had been significantly affected by the coronavirus, and workers’ daily stress levels reached a record high, increasing from 38% in 2019 to 43% in 2020 [28]. Therefore, understanding how these factors affect employee decision-making should be a priority for organizations because their effectiveness is highly dependent on employees’ willingness to perform [29][30]. Furthermore, organizations should be looking for better ways to adapt to complexity in their environment [31]. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic and all other infectious disease outbreaks, employers ought to protect their employees and cater to their wellbeing because they are the most valuable assets of an organization. When employees are treated well, they become loyal, engaged, committed, and attached to their organization [32].

2. COVID-19 Pandemic and Employee Behavior

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted normative work arrangements and influenced employee behavior in many ways [33]. It has been associated with job insecurity, financial losses, social exclusion, and stigmatization [20], as well as uncertainty about the future of work, lower job attitudes, and performance [34][35]. Globally, it remains the major workplace transformative event that has forced many organizations to adopt new work arrangements, such as allowing employees to work from home [33]. However, employees in essential sectors, such as healthcare, had to increase their working hours and physical presence, in order to meet operational demands [36]. Healthcare employees have complained about the scarcity of resources, insufficient support, and poor leadership and communication during the COVID-19 pandemic [37]. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe psychological effects among healthcare workers [38][39][40][41]. Although it resulted in the employment of more medical practitioners and increased medical research funding [21], healthcare workers are more vulnerable, since they work in an environment where COVID-19 infections are more likely to occur [42][43]. As a result, healthcare workers have experienced emotional fatigue, aggression, and depersonalization [44][45]. In fact, most employees have been exhibiting mood swings, depressive thoughts, headache and gastric disorders, isolation, demotivation, and poor performance at work [46]. In addition, employees have been experiencing psychological distress, which has been associated with exhaustion and cynical attitudes [15][47][48]. Prolonged exposure to stress and inadequate coping strategies can result in emotional exhaustion [49].

3. Employee Perceived Risk & Psychological Distress

The perceived risk of COVID-19 is regarded as a key driver of psychological distress [20] because it is associated with a wide range of stressors that drain the mental health of employees, especially fear and panic [20]. Other stressors include the threat of infection [50], uncertainty [51], quarantine and confinement [52], exclusion from the society and stigmatization [52], job insecurity, and loss of finances [53]. Employees in the health sector have been the most affected frontline workers during the pandemic [54]. This has been largely attributed to their level of exposure, given the nature of their job [55] and risk of interacting with patients suffering from COVID-19 [56], as well as the risk of being infected by work colleagues [57]. It is, therefore, important to understand how the perceived risk of COVID-19 influences employee decision-making. Perceptions regarding the risk of a disease, also known as the perceived susceptibility and severity, affect an individual’s behavior [58]. Deciding on whether or not to adopt safe precautions is highly dependent on people’s perceptions of their vulnerability to illnesses [58]. According to the Health Belief Model (HBM), one of the well-established models of health behavior, perceived risk or severity can be understood as a person’s subjective assessment of the seriousness of a disease, which is affected by different types of factors, such as future expectations and current reality [59]. An increased perception regarding disease severity is associated with proactive precautious health behaviors [58][60]. Individuals who trust that they are not at risk of falling ill are less likely to take safe precautions, thereby exposing themselves and others to hazard, compared to those who strongly believe that they are at risk [61]. The perceived risk of COVID-19 has challenged the psychological resilience of workers [62] and increased their psychological distress [20][38][63]. Based on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional stress model, threatening situations, such as pandemics, ignite anxiety [63]. On a similar note, an emphasis of the influential role played by a situation in building anxiety is made by Cheng and McCarthy’s (2018) theory of workplace anxiety, as well as Gross’ (1998) process framework of emotion regulation [63][64][65]. Psychological distress is defined as the state of person’s emotional suffering, consisting of symptoms of depression, such as sadness and anxiety [66], as well as somatic symptoms, such as insomnia [20][66]. It is an indicator of mental health problem [66] because it may result in major depression if not identified [20][66]. Psychological distress is triggered by a person’s inability to cope with a situation outside of their control [66], such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. Employee Perceived Risk & Negative Performance Outcomes

The conservation of resources (COR) theory suggests that stress arises when (a) there is a threat of losing essential resources, (b) there is loss of key resources, and (c) an effort to achieve central or key resources has been made, but no resources have been attained [67]. In this regard, a sense of purpose and meaning in life, family, health, wellbeing, self-esteem [67], and social support are among the frequently valued resources [68]. When these resources are exhausted, employees tend to enter a defensive mode, in order to preserve themselves and guard against aggressive, duplicitous, and irrational behavior [67]. When threatened, individuals tend to use a coping strategy, in order to overcome the threat [63]. For instance, when feeling anxious, they are likely to develop a defense mechanism, in the form of a fight or flight response, as a way of overcoming the threat [69]. A fight response is activated when a threat is deemed manageable, whereas a flight response is ignited when a threat is hard to overcome [70]. COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease, which can cause severe health problems, such as abdominal pain, pneumonia [71][72], and even death [73]. Most workers are worried that they might get infected, be stigmatized at work, infect their relatives and coworkers, and lose personal freedoms [27][74][75] because the virus has no cure [76][77]. Therefore, the perceived risk of COVID-19 is believed to induce a flight response [63] and negative performance behaviors among workers [78]. Organizations tend to experience increased levels of absenteeism and poor work performance during epidemics and pandemics [79]. Stress and poor working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic have increased negative performance outcomes [80][81][82], such as employee turnover intention, disengagement, low morale, and burnout [24][83][84][85]. Turnover intention is defined as the probability that a worker will quit an organization [86][87]. When employees quit their jobs, organizations tend to bear the loss of human capital. They also suffer from the costs associated with the loss of productivity [88][89]. Turnover intention is usually attributed to work-related factors, such as poor working conditions, the lack of safety at work, and individual and external factors [90]. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, turnover intention among employees has been influenced by higher levels of psychological distress [37][91]. Psychological distress is the key driver of increased turnover intentions at work [83][92][93]. In addition, the perceived risk of COVID-19 has been examined, in relation to employees’ wellbeing and mental health outcomes [94]. The perception of this disease as a serious threat increases the fear of COVID-19 among healthcare workers, hence their intention to leave [95][96]. As such, the pandemic is forcing workers to think about quitting their jobs. Due to the pandemic, most workers have been exhibiting a lack of engagement [83]. Disengagement is concerned with the lack of motivation and attachment towards the achievement of organizational goals and objectives [97][98]. The risk and fear of contracting COVID-19 has also resulted in low morale among employees [99]. Employee morale is regarded as the epitome for business success and a key antecedent of achieving organizational competitiveness. Low morale among employees is viewed as a threat by organizations that seek to achieve their goals and objectives [100]. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, most employees have also been experiencing high levels of burnout [1][101]. Burnout is defined as a syndrome that emanates from the chronic stress at work, with adverse effects on employees’ psychological well-being [102], as well as their work behavior and physical health [103]. Burnout is usually attributed to hostile working conditions, which result from prolonged stress at work, with negative effects on employee performance [104]. As a result of burnout, employees may display behaviors such as negative attitudes, lack of commitment, dissatisfaction, and poor performance at work [102].

Organizations should thus help their employees manage pandemic-related stress by providing psycho-social support through counseling and wellness programs. While this may require additional investment, it should limit negative employee performance outcomes and related costs during this uncontrollable pandemic. Furthermore, employees should feel more motivated and engaged when they are reassured that their employer is trying to help them cope in a difficult circumstance.

To improve working conditions and reduce employees’ burnout, organizations should also provide their workers with additional resources, such as personal protective clothing and products, health insurance, and medical leave, as well as financial compensation for working extended and extra hours. With such resources, employees should be able to pay more attention to and focus on job details, despite their perceived risk of COVID-19, which will enhance their work performance during the pandemic. Organizations should also conduct risk assessments in order to determine if their employees are exposed to any possible threats, and review their safety rules in order to ensure an effective response to infectious diseases outbreaks.

It can be affirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented effects in the world of work, especially among frontline healthcare employees who are most vulnerable to this contagious disease. Turnover intentions are amplified among this group of woresearchkers due to their perceived risk of COVID-19 and induced psychological distress. The latter reduces employee morale and engagement, with burnout becoming predominant as workers worry about contracting the coronavirus due to the poor working conditions that frontline employees face. 

References

  1. De los Santos, J.A.A.; Labrague, L.J. The impact of fear of COVID-19 on job stress, and turnover intentions of frontline nurses in the community: A cross-sectional study in the Philippines. Traumatology 2021, 27, 52–59.
  2. Lastrucci, V.; Lorini, C.; Del Riccio, M.; Gori, E.; Chiesi, F.; Moscadelli, A.; Zanella, B.; Boccalini, S.; Bechini, A.; Puggelli, F.; et al. The Role of Health Literacy in COVID-19 Preventive Behaviors and Infection Risk Perception: Evidence from a Population-Based Sample of Essential Frontline Workers during the Lockdown in the Province of Prato (Tuscany, Italy). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13386.
  3. Gambaro, E.; Gramaglia, C.; Marangon, D.; Azzolina, D.; Probo, M.; Rudoni, M.; Zeppegno, P. The Mediating Role of Gender, Age, COVID-19 Symptoms and Changing of Mansion on the Mental Health of Healthcare Workers Operating in Italy during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13083.
  4. Masoumi, M.; Shokraee, K.; Mohammadi, S.; Moradi, S.; Bagherzade, M.; Balasi, J.; Smiley, A. Sleep Duration as the Main Indicator of Self-Rated Wellness and Health among Healthcare Workers Involved in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 19, 136.
  5. Kim, H.-Y.; Shin, S.-H.; Lee, E.-H. Effects of Health Belief, Knowledge, and Attitude toward COVID-19 on Prevention Behavior in Health College Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1898.
  6. Choi, E.-H.; Kim, W.-J.; Baek, E.-M. Latent Class Analysis of Health Behavior Changes Due to COVID-19 among Middle-Aged Korean Workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1832.
  7. Yeun, Y.-R.; Kim, S.-D. Psychological Effects of Online-Based Mindfulness Programs during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1624.
  8. Harris, S.; Jenkinson, E.; Carlton, E.; Roberts, T.; Daniels, J. “It’s Been Ugly”: A Large-Scale Qualitative Study into the Difficulties Frontline Doctors Faced across Two Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13067.
  9. Ulbrichtova, R.; Svihrova, V.; Tatarkova, M.; Hudeckova, H.; Svihra, J. Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination among Healthcare and Non-Healthcare Workers of Hospitals and Outpatient Clinics in the Northern Region of Slovakia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12695.
  10. Hoffmann, S.; Schiebel, J.; Hufert, F.; Gremmels, H.-D.; Spallek, J. COVID-19 among Healthcare Workers: A Prospective Serological-Epidemiological Cohort Study in a Standard Care Hospital in Rural Germany. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10999.
  11. Liu, F.; Chen, H.; Xu, J.; Wen, Y.; Fang, T. Exploring the Relationships between Resilience and Turnover Intention in Chinese High School Teachers: Considering the Moderating Role of Job Burnout. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6418.
  12. Fotiadis, K.; Dadouli, K.; Avakian, I.; Bogogiannidou, Z.; Mouchtouri, V.A.; Gogosis, K.; Speletas, M.; Koureas, M.; Lagoudaki, E.; Kokkini, S.; et al. Factors Associated with Healthcare Workers’ (HCWs) Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccinations and Indications of a Role Model towards Population Vaccinations from a Cross-Sectional Survey in Greece, May 2021. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10558.
  13. Rodríguez-Almagro, J.; Hernández-Martínez, A.; Romero-Blanco, C.; Martínez-Arce, A.; Prado-Laguna, M.D.C.; García-Sanchez, F.J. Experiences and Perceptions of Nursing Students during the COVID-19 Crisis in Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10459.
  14. Scheibe, S.; De Bloom, J.; Modderman, T. Resilience during Crisis and the Role of Age: Involuntary Telework during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1762.
  15. Grandi, A.; Zito, M.; Sist, L.; Martoni, M.; Russo, V.; Colombo, L. Wellbeing in Workers during COVID-19 Pandemic: The Mediating Role of Self-Compassion in the Relationship between Personal Resources and Exhaustion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1714.
  16. Kim, J.; Lee, H.W.; Gao, H.; Johnson, R.E. When CEOs are all about themselves: Perceived CEO narcissism and middle managers’ workplace behaviors amid the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 106, 1283–1298.
  17. Ployhart, R.E.; Shepherd, W.J.; Strizver, S.D. The COVID-19 pandemic and new hire engagement: Relationships with unemployment rates, state restrictions, and organizational tenure. J. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 106, 518–529.
  18. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Available online: https://covid19.who.int (accessed on 30 December 2020).
  19. Giorgi, G.; Lecca, L.I.; Alessio, F.; Finstad, G.L.; Bondanini, G.; Lulli, L.G.; Arcangeli, G.; Mucci, N. COVID-19-Related Mental Health Effects in the Workplace: A Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 17, 7857.
  20. Hamouche, S. COVID-19 and employees’ mental health: Stressors, moderators and agenda for organizational actions. Emerald Open Res. 2020, 2, 15.
  21. Agba, M.S.; Agba, A.O.; Chukwurah, D.C.J. COVID-19 Pandemic and Workplace Adjustments/Decentralization: A Focus on Teleworking in the New Normal. BRAIN Broad Res. Artif. Intell. Neurosci. 2020, 11, 185–200.
  22. Costa, C.; Teodoro, M.; Mento, C.; Giambò, F.; Vitello, C.; Italia, S.; Fenga, C. Work Performance, Mood and Sleep Alterations in Home Office Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1990.
  23. Yu, J.; Wu, Y. The Impact of Enforced Working from Home on Employee Job Satisfaction during COVID-19: An Event System Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13207.
  24. Pelissier, C.; Paredes, J.; Moulin, M.; Bitot, T.; Fakra, E.; Fontana, L. Telework and Psychological Health in Hospital Staff during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Epidemic in France. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10433.
  25. George, G.; Lakhani, K.R.; Puranam, P. What has changed? The Impact of COVID Pandemic on the Technology and Innovation Management Research Agenda. J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 57, 1754–1758.
  26. Wontorczyk, A.; Rożnowski, B. Remote, Hybrid, and On-Site Work during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic and the Consequences for Stress and Work Engagement. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2400.
  27. Fernandez, R.; Lord, H.; Halcomb, E.; Moxham, L.; Middleton, R.; Alananzeh, I.; Ellwood, L. Implications for COVID-19: A systematic review of nurses’ experiences of working in acute care hospital settings during a respiratory pandemic. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2020, 111, 103637.
  28. Gallup, “State of the Global Workplace: 2021 Report”, Work. Insights. 2021; p. 219. Available online: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/insights.aspx (accessed on 17 February 2022).
  29. Brown, S.; Gray, D.; McHardy, J.; Taylor, K. Employee trust and workplace performance. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2015, 116, 361–378.
  30. Brown, S.; McHardy, J.; McNabb, R.; Taylor, K. Workplace Performance, Worker Commitment, and Loyalty. J. Econ. Manag. Strat. 2011, 20, 925–955.
  31. Amaral, L.A.N.; Uzzi, B. Complex Systems—A New Paradigm for the Integrative Study of Management, Physical, and Technological Systems. Manag. Sci. 2007, 53, 1033–1035.
  32. Rameshkumar, M. Employee engagement as an antecedent of organizational commitment—A study on Indian seafaring officers. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2019, 36, 105–112.
  33. Mihalache, M.; Mihalache, O.R. How workplace support for the COVID-19 pandemic and personality traits affect changes in employees’ affective commitment to the organization and job-related well-being. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 61, 295–314.
  34. Shamsi, M.; Iakovleva, T.; Olsen, E.; Bagozzi, R.P. Employees’ Work-Related Well-Being during COVID-19 Pandemic: An Integrated Perspective of Technology Acceptance Model and JD-R Theory. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11888.
  35. Yoon, S.; McClean, S.T.; Chawla, N.; Kim, J.K.; Koopman, J.; Rosen, C.C.; Trougakos, J.P.; McCarthy, J.M. Working through an “infodemic”: The impact of COVID-19 news consumption on employee uncertainty and work behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 106, 501–517.
  36. Keller, E.; Widestrom, M.; Gould, J.; Fang, R.; Davis, K.G.; Gillespie, G.L. Examining the Impact of Stressors during COVID-19 on Emergency Department Healthcare Workers: An International Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3730.
  37. Tan, B.; Chew, N.W.; Lee, G.K.; Jing, M.; Goh, Y.; Yeo, L.L.; Zhang, K.; Chin, H.-K.; Ahmad, A.; Khan, F.A.; et al. Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers in Singapore. Ann. Intern. Med. 2020, 173, 317–320.
  38. Temsah, M.H.; Alenezi, S.; Al-Arabi, M.; Aljamaan, F.; Alhasan, K.; Assiri, R.; Bassrawi, R.; Alshahrani, F.; Alhaboob, A.; Alaraj, A.; et al. Healthcare workers’ COVID-19 Omicron variant uncertainty-related stress, resilience, and coping strategies during the first week of World Health Organization alert. medRxiv 2021. Available online: http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/24/2021.12.24.21268377.abstract (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  39. Dzinamarira, T.; Murewanhema, G.; Mhango, M.; Iradukunda, P.G.; Chitungo, I.; Mashora, M.; Makanda, P.; Atwine, J.; Chimene, M.; Mbunge, E.; et al. COVID-19 Prevalence among Healthcare Workers. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 19, 146.
  40. Pascoe, A.; Paul, E.; Johnson, D.; Putland, M.; Willis, K.; Smallwood, N. Differences in Coping Strategies and Help-Seeking Behaviours among Australian Junior and Senior Doctors during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13275.
  41. Popa, I.; Ștefan, S.C.; Olariu, A.A.; Popa, C.; Popa, C.F. Modelling the COVID-19 Pandemic Effects on Employees’ Health and Performance: A PLS-SEM Mediation Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1865.
  42. Ramírez, K.R.d.L.; Ruiz-Robledillo, N.; Duro-Torrijos, J.L.; García-Román, V.; Albaladejo-Blázquez, N.; Ferrer-Cascales, R. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Sample of Health Workers in Two Health Departments of the Valencian Community in Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 19, 66.
  43. Riedel, P.-L.; Kreh, A.; Kulcar, V.; Lieber, A.; Juen, B. A Scoping Review of Moral Stressors, Moral Distress and Moral Injury in Healthcare Workers during COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1666.
  44. Kashtanov, A.; Molotok, E.; Yavorovskiy, A.; Boyarkov, A.; Vasil’Ev, Y.; Alsaegh, A.; Dydykin, S.; Kytko, O.; Meylanova, R.; Enina, Y.; et al. A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study Assessing the Psycho-Emotional State of Intensive Care Units’ Physicians and Nurses of COVID-19 Hospitals of a Russian Metropolis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1828.
  45. Jerg-Bretzke, L.; Kempf, M.; Jarczok, M.N.; Weimer, K.; Hirning, C.; Gündel, H.; Erim, Y.; Morawa, E.; Geiser, F.; Hiebel, N.; et al. Psychosocial Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Healthcare Workers and Initial Areas of Action for Intervention and Prevention—The egePan/VOICE Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10531.
  46. Bongers, C.C.; de Korte, J.Q.; Zwartkruis, M.; Levels, K.; Kingma, B.R.; Eijsvogels, T.M. Heat Strain and Use of Heat Mitigation Strategies among COVID-19 Healthcare Workers Wearing Personal Protective Equipment—A Retro-spective Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1905.
  47. Lasalvia, A.; Bodini, L.; Amaddeo, F.; Porru, S.; Carta, A.; Poli, R.; Bonetto, C. The Sustained Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers One Year after the Outbreak—A Repeated Cross-Sectional Survey in a Tertiary Hospital of North-East Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13374.
  48. Klusmann, U.; Aldrup, K.; Schmidt, J.; Lüdtke, O. Is emotional exhaustion only the result of work experiences? A diary study on daily hassles and uplifts in different life domains. Anxiety Stress Coping 2020, 34, 173–190.
  49. Xiang, Y.-T.; Yang, Y.; Li, W.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Q.; Cheung, T.; Ng, C.H. Timely mental health care for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is urgently needed. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, 228–229.
  50. Garfin, D.R.; Silver, R.C.; Holman, E.A. The novel coronavirus (COVID-2019) outbreak: Amplification of public health consequences by media exposure. Health Psychol. 2020, 39, 355–357.
  51. Brooks, S.K.; Dunn, R.; Amlôt, R.; Rubin, G.J.; Greenberg, N. A Systematic, Thematic Review of Social and Occupational Factors Associated With Psychological Outcomes in Healthcare Employees During an Infectious Disease Outbreak. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018, 60, 248–257.
  52. Zhou, X.; Snoswell, C.L.; Harding, L.E.; Bambling, M.; Edirippulige, S.; Bai, X.; Smith, A.C. The Role of Telehealth in Reducing the Mental Health Burden from COVID-19. Telemed. J. e-Health 2020, 26, 377–379.
  53. Ruiz-Frutos, C.; Ortega-Moreno, M.; Soriano-Tarín, G.; Romero-Martín, M.; Allande-Cussó, R.; Cabanillas-Moruno, J.L.; Gómez-Salgado, J. Psychological Distress Among Occupational Health Professionals during Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in Spain: Description and Effect of Work Engagement and Work Environment. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 765169.
  54. Chew, N.W.S.; Ngiam, J.N.; Tan, B.Y.-Q.; Tham, S.-M.; Tan, C.Y.-S.; Jing, M.; Sagayanathan, R.; Chen, J.T.; Wong, L.Y.H.; Ahmad, A.; et al. Asian-Pacific perspective on the psychological well-being of healthcare workers during the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. BJPsych Open 2020, 6, e116.
  55. Babicki, M.; Szewczykowska, I.; Mastalerz-Migas, A. The Mental Well-Being of Health Care Workers during the Peak of the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Nationwide Study in Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6101.
  56. Burdorf, A.; Porru, F.; Rugulies, R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: Consequences for occupational health. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2020, 46, 229–230.
  57. Rayani, M.; Rayani, S.; Najafi-Sharjabad, F. COVID-19-related knowledge, risk perception, information seeking, and adherence to preventive behaviors among undergraduate students, southern Iran. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 59953–59962.
  58. Rosenstock, I.M. Historical Origins of the Health Belief Model. Health Educ. Monogr. 1974, 2, 328–335.
  59. Weinstein, N.D. Perceived probability, perceived severity, and health-protective behavior. Health Psychol. 2000, 19, 65–74.
  60. Venema, T.A.; Pfattheicher, S. Perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and narcissistic traits. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2021, 175, 110696.
  61. Wang, C.; Pan, R.; Wan, X.; Tan, Y.; Xu, L.; Ho, C.S.; Ho, R.C. Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors during the Initial Stage of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Epidemic among the General Population in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1729.
  62. Trougakos, J.P.; Chawla, N.; McCarthy, J.M. Working in a pandemic: Exploring the impact of COVID-19 health anxiety on work, family, and health outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 2020, 105, 1234–1245.
  63. Cheng, B.H.; McCarthy, J.M. Understanding the dark and bright sides of anxiety: A theory of workplace anxiety. J. Appl. Psychol. 2018, 103, 537–560.
  64. Gross, J.J. The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998, 2, 271–299.
  65. Drapeau, A.; Marchand, A.; Beaulieu-Prevost, D. Epidemiology of Psychological Distress. In Mental Illnesses-Understanding, Prediction and Control; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012.
  66. Hobfoll, S.E.; Halbesleben, J.; Neveu, J.-P.; Westman, M. Conservation of Resources in the Organizational Context: The Reality of Resources and Their Consequences. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018, 5, 103–128.
  67. Cohen, S.; Wills, T.A. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 1985, 98, 310–357.
  68. Cannon, W.B. The James-Lange Theory of Emotions: A Critical Examination and an Alternative Theory. Am. J. Psychol. 1927, 39, 106.
  69. Folkman, S.; Lazarus, R.S. An Analysis of Coping in a Middle-Aged Community Sample. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1980, 21, 219–239.
  70. Rothan, H.A.; Byrareddy, S.N. The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. J. Autoimmun. 2020, 109, 102433.
  71. Azer, S. COVID-19: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, complications and investigational therapeutics. New Microbes New Infect. 2020, 37, 100738.
  72. Lotfi, M.; Hamblin, M.R.; Rezaei, N. COVID-19: Transmission, prevention, and potential therapeutic opportunities. Clin. Chim. Acta 2020, 508, 254–266.
  73. Pappa, S.; Ntella, V.; Giannakas, T.; Giannakoulis, V.G.; Papoutsi, E.; Katsaounou, P. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 88, 901–907.
  74. Alharbi, J.; Jackson, D.; Usher, K. The potential for COVID-19 to contribute to compassion fatigue in critical care nurses. J. Clin. Nurs. 2020, 29, 2762–2764.
  75. Harapan, H.; Itoh, N.; Yufika, A.; Winardi, W.; Keam, S.; Te, H.; Megawati, D.; Hayati, Z.; Wagner, A.L.; Mudatsir, M. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A literature review. J. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 667–673.
  76. Ali, I.; Alharbi, O.M. COVID-19: Disease, management, treatment, and social impact. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138861.
  77. Mhango, M.; Dzobo, M.; Chitungo, I.; Dzinamarira, T. COVID-19 Risk Factors Among Health Workers: A Rapid Review. Saf. Health Work 2020, 11, 262–265.
  78. Rosen, S.; Simon, J.; Vincent, J.R.; MacLeod, W.; Fox, M.; Thea, D.M. AIDS is your business. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2003, 81, 80–87, 125.
  79. Bulińska-Stangrecka, H.; Bagieńska, A. The Role of Employee Relations in Shaping Job Satisfaction as an Element Promoting Positive Mental Health at Work in the Era of COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1903.
  80. Carnevale, J.B.; Hatak, I. Employee adjustment and well-being in the era of COVID-19: Implications for human resource management. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 116, 183–187.
  81. Moyo, N. Antecedents of Employee Disengagement Amid COVID-19 Pandemic. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 22, 323–334.
  82. Zerbini, G.; Ebigbo, A.; Reicherts, P.; Kunz, M.; Messman, H. Psychosocial burden of healthcare professionals in times of COVID-19—A survey conducted at the University Hospital Augsburg. Ger. Med. Sci. 2020, 18, Doc05.
  83. Schug, C.; Geiser, F.; Hiebel, N.; Beschoner, P.; Jerg-Bretzke, L.; Albus, C.; Weidner, K.; Morawa, E.; Erim, Y. Sick Leave and Intention to Quit the Job among Nursing Staff in German Hospitals during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1947.
  84. Mobley, W.H.; Horner, S.O.; Hollingsworth, A.T. An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. J. Appl. Psychol. 1978, 63, 408–414.
  85. Emiroğlu, B.D.; Akova, O.; Tanrıverdi, H. The Relationship Between Turnover Intention and Demographic Factors in Hotel Businesses: A Study at Five Star Hotels in Istanbul. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 207, 385–397.
  86. Yang, J.-T. Effect of newcomer socialisation on organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention in the hotel industry. Serv. Ind. J. 2008, 28, 429–443.
  87. Lam, T.; Lo, A.; Chan, J. New Employees’ Turnover Intentions and Organizational Commitment in the Hong Kong Hotel Industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2002, 26, 217–234.
  88. Tian-Foreman, W. Job satisfaction and turnover in the Chinese retail industry. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2009, 3, 356–378.
  89. Shechter, A.; Diaz, F.; Moise, N.; Anstey, D.E.; Ye, S.; Agarwal, S.; Birk, J.L.; Brodie, D.; Cannone, D.E.; Chang, B.; et al. Psychological distress, coping behaviors, and preferences for support among New York healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 2020, 66, 1–8.
  90. De-La-Calle-Durán, M.-C.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, J.-L. Employee Engagement and Wellbeing in Times of COVID-19: A Proposal of the 5Cs Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5470.
  91. Labrague, L.J.; de los Santos, J. COVID-19 anxiety among frontline nurses: Predictive role of organizational support, personal resilience and social support. J. Nurs. Manag. 2020, 28, 1653–1661.
  92. Guidetti, G.; Converso, D.; Sanseverino, D.; Ghislieri, C. Return to Work during the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Study on the Role of Job Demands, Job Resources, and Personal Resources upon the Administrative Staff of Italian Public Universities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1995.
  93. Majeed, M.; Irshad, M.; Bartels, J. The Interactive Effect of COVID-19 Risk and Hospital Measures on Turnover Intentions of Healthcare Workers: A Time-Lagged Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10705.
  94. Tripković, K.; Šantrić-Milićević, M.; Vasić, M.; Živković-Šulović, M.; Odalović, M.; Mijatović-Jovanović, V.; Bukumirić, Z. Factors Associated with Intention of Serbian Public Health Workers to Leave the Job: A Cross-Sectional, Population-Based Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10652.
  95. Kahn, W.A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1990, 33, 692–724.
  96. Ariussanto, K.A.P.; Tarigan, Z.J.H.; Sitepu, R.B.; Singh, S.K. Leadership Style, Employee Engagement, and Work Environment to Employee Performance in Manufacturing Companies. SHS Web Conf. 2020, 76, 01020.
  97. Van Der Feltz-Cornelis, C.M.; Varley, D.; Allgar, V.L.; De Beurs, E. Workplace Stress, Presenteeism, Absenteeism, and Resilience Amongst University Staff and Students in the COVID-19 Lockdown. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 588803.
  98. Shaban, O.S.; Al-Zubi, Z.; Ali, N.; Alqotaish, A. The Effect of Low Morale and Motivation on Employees’ Productivity & Competitiveness in Jordanian Industrial Companies. Int. Bus. Res. 2017, 10, 1.
  99. Wu, F.; Zhao, S.; Yu, B.; Chen, Y.-M.; Wang, W.; Song, Z.-G.; Hu, Y.; Tao, Z.-W.; Tian, J.-H.; Pei, Y.-Y.; et al. A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature 2020, 579, 265–269.
  100. Salvagioni, D.A.J.; Melanda, F.N.; Mesas, A.E.; González, A.D.; Gabani, F.L.; De Andrade, S.M. Physical, psychological and occupational consequences of job burnout: A systematic review of prospective studies. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185781.
  101. Lee, H.; Singh, J. Appraisals, Burnout and Outcomes in Informal Caregiving. Asian Nurs. Res. 2010, 4, 32–44.
  102. Seidler, A.; Thinschmidt, M.; Deckert, S.; Then, F.; Hegewald, J.; Nieuwenhuijsen, K.; Riedel-Heller, S.G. The role of psychosocial working conditions on burnout and its core component emotional exhaustion—A systematic review. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2014, 9, 10.
  103. Shahid, H.M.; Waseem, R.; Khan, H.; Waseem, F.; Hasheem, M.J.; Shi, Y. Process Innovation as a Moderator Linking Sustainable Supply Chain Management with Sustainable Performance in the Manufacturing Sector of Pakistan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2303.
  104. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; An-derson, R.E. Desconocido, Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson New International Edition: London, UK, 2009; Volume 1, p. 100AD.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback