Mediating role of burnout in relationship between psychological resilience and psychological distress among CDC staff during COVID-19 pandemic

Background The staff in centers for disease control and prevention (CDC) were at a great risk for psychological distress when they were faced with outbreak-related prevention and control work and routine tasks during the COVID-19 period. Psychological resilience and burnout are two key influencing factors on psychological distress.

Objective To explore the status and mechanisms of psychological resilience, burnout, and psychological distress among CDC staff.

Methods From September to October 2022, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in all CDC staff in Beijing, and 2228 CDC staff from 17 units (including 1 municipality-level CDC and 16 district-level CDCs) participated the questionnaire survey. The basic information questionnaire, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10) Chinese version, Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) Chinese version, and the 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (Kessler10) Chinese version were selected in our study. Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to analyze the differences in the scores of psychological resilience, burnout, and psychological distress by demographic and sociological characteristics. The correlations among the three elements were analyzed by Spearman correlation analysis. Potential influencing factors of psychological distress of the CDC staff were evaluated by multiple linear regression. A potential mediating effect of psychological resilience-burnout-psychological distress was analyzed by the mediation package of R 4.2.0, and validated by Bootstrap method.

Results Of 2228 questionnaires distributed, 2022 valid questionnaires were collected, and the recovery rate was 90.75%. The median (P₂₅, P₇₅) psychological distress score of CDC staff was 13.00 (8.00, 24.00), and the number of participants with psychological distress levels of 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 358 (17.71%), 546 (27.00%), 362 (17.90%), and 756 (37.39%), respectively. The median (P₂₅, P₇₅) psychological resilience score was 24.00 (20.00, 30.00) and the median (P₂₅, P₇₅) burnout score was 38.00 (25.00, 50.00). The results of the multiple linear regression showed that psychological resilience, burnout, caring for the elderly, having a chronic disease, and monthly income had independent influences on psychological distress (P<0.05), and emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced personal accomplishment (reversed) in the case of burnout had a great effect on psychological distress (P<0.05). After controlling general demographic characteristic variables, total burnout score exerted a partial mediation effect on the relationship between psychological resilience and psychological distress, with a mediation effect value of −0.439 (95%CI: −0.483, −0.397), and a total mediation effect contribution rate of 60.89%. The two dimensions of burnout (emotional exhaustion and cynicism) played a partial mediating role between psychological resilience and psychological distress, with mediating effect contribution rates of 42.44% and 41.41%, respectively.

Conclusion Psychological distress among CDC staff in Beijing was prominent during COVID-19. Psychological resilience can act directly on psychological distress or indirectly on psychological distress through burnout. Both emotional exhaustion and cynicism dimensions of burnout have a partial mediating role between psychological resilience and psychological distress. Increasing psychological resilience and decreasing burnout may reduce the occurrence of psychological distress.