O R I G I N A L R E S E A R C H
Psychological Distress Amongst Health Workers
and the General Public During the COVID-19
Pandemic in Saudi ArabiaThis article was published in the following Dove Press journal:
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
Mohammed Khaled
Al-Hanawi1
Martin Limbikani Mwale2
Noor Alshareef1
Ameerah MN Qattan1
Khadijah Angawi1
Rasha Almubark3,4
Omar Alsharqi1
1Department of Health Services and
Hospital Administration, Faculty of
Economics and Administration, King
Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 80200, Saudi
Arabia; 2Department of Economics,
Faculty of Economic and Management
Sciences, University of Stellenbosch,
Cape Town, South Africa; 3Research and
Studies Department, Saudi Food and
Drug Authority, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia;4Sharik Association for Health Research,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Background: The rapid spread of COVID-19 worldwide has confined millions of people to
their homes and has caused a substantial degree of psychological distress. This study aims to
investigate the psychological distress impact of the COVID-19 pandemic among the Saudi
population.
Methods: This is a cross-sectional study, using data collected from 3036 participants via an
online self-reported questionnaire. The psychological distress was constructed using the
COVID-19 Peritraumatic Distress Index to classify individuals in the sample as having
normal, mild or severe distress levels. The study used descriptive analysis and multinomial
logistic regressions to examine the sociodemographic factors associated with psychological
distress levels during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Results: The evidence showed that 40% of the Saudi population are distressed due to
COVID-19, of whom approximately 33% are mildly distressed, while 7% are severely
distressed. The distress levels are particularly high amongst the young, females, private
sector employees and health workers, especially those working on the frontline.
Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic is associated with increased distress amongst people
living in Saudi Arabia. In support of evidence found in other countries, the study has
established that the distress levels vary across different sociodemographic characteristics.
Therefore, limiting people’s psychological damage demands both medium- and long-term
policy strategies, which include mapping the rates of stress and anxiety for effective
psychological treatment allocation and establishing innovative online methods of heightening
people’s mental wellbeing.
Keywords: COVID-19, distress, health workers, psychological, public, Saudi Arabia
IntroductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory syndrome, amongst a larger
family of ribonucleic acid (RNA) viruses, that has infected humans, causing
unprecedented numbers of deaths and substantial psychological distress across the
globe.1–3 COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan, China at the end of 2019 and spread to
other countries, leading the World Health Organisation (WHO) to declare COVID-
19 a global health emergency of international concern. The WHO emphasised the
importance of compliance with infection control standards.4 Not only were the
obvious practices of hygiene and use of hygiene equipment, such as facemasks,
important but, also, limiting personal contact through social distancing became the
gold standard.5,6
Correspondence: Mohammed KhaledAl-HanawiDepartment of Health Services andHospital Administration, Faculty ofEconomics and Administration, KingAbdulaziz University, Jeddah 80200, SaudiArabiaEmail mkalhanawi@kau.edu.sa
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Dovepressopen access to scientific and medical research
Open Access Full Text Article
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020:13 733–742 733
http://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S264037
DovePress © 2020 Al-Hanawi et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing
the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
In response, several countries have implemented decisive
measures to contain the spread of the disease, which include
the imposition of nationwide lockdowns. China was the first
country to implement a successful lockdown to prevent the
further spread of COVID-19.7 Notwithstanding the resultant
mitigation of the pandemic in China, there has been
a deterioration in most Chinese residents’ psychological
wellbeing under the lockdown.8–10 The adverse psychologi-
cal impact includes acute stress disorder, insomnia, post-
traumatic symptoms and depression.11 Moreover, recent
evidence reveals that 35% of the Chinese population were
psychologically distressed.12
The distress caused by COVID-19 is arguably not
limited to China because the factors that could lead to
this psychological state are common. For instance, the
knowledge of coronavirus biology and transmission is
still limited, which increases panic due to the uncertainty
of its spread.7 In addition, there is a global absence of
a vaccine to control COVID-19, leading to unrest about its
containment.13 Moreover, globalisation and increased
access to information in the current era make such worry-
ing insights relating to uncertainty easily transferable,
causing increased psychological distress, including fear
and anxiety, amongst the general public.14–16
The WHO issued a COVID-19 guideline on mental
health and psychological distress in an effort to support
people’s mental and psychological wellbeing during this
outbreak.2 Nevertheless, empirical evidence on the distri-
bution of psychological distress across the public due to
COVID-19 remains sparse. Therefore, this study aims to
investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the psychological
wellbeing among Saudi adults amid the unprecedented
lockdown. Preventive measures, such as lockdown, disrupt
normal life activities, which could generate boredom and
stress. Moreover, the limited access to outdoor leisure,
combined with the uncertainty of an effective remedy to
contain the pandemic, could increase distress. However,
these potential negative effects could generate different
levels of distress conditional on people’s sociodemo-
graphic characteristics. For instance, the demand for out-
door activities could be different between older people and
the young, while fears relating to the lack of available
treatment for the pandemic could also differ depending
on whether one works in healthcare services or not.
These issues demand adequate attention and, therefore,
the study also examines the association between different
sociodemographic characteristics and psychological
distress due to COVID-19 using data from the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia (KSA).
KSA has become a compelling case in understanding
how COVID-19 has caused psychological distress
amongst health workers and the general public for the
following reasons. First, KSA currently has the largest
confirmed number of cases in the Arabian Gulf countries,
which means that the likelihood of pressure on the health
system and fear of infection, which could cause distress,
remain high. Second, despite the potential for increased
psychological distress in KSA, no study has been con-
ducted to identify the groups that might be suffering the
most in terms of distress due to the pandemic. Third, the
Arabian Gulf region has specific unique characteristics,
such as a natural resource-financed health system,17 that
would necessitate that the public health response to
COVID-19 be different from the rest of the world, hence
the demand for special academic attention. Finally, as the
Arabian Gulf countries have similar backgrounds, culture
and religion and are facing similar challenges, this study
on KSA could inform policy design to mitigate COVID-19
related distress in the entire region.
Materials and MethodsStudy Design and SampleThis study uses data from a cross-sectional survey that was
conducted in Saudi Arabia from 3 May to 8 May 2020,
using a validated self-reported survey. The survey used the
COVID-19 Peritraumatic Distress Index (CPDI) self-
reported questionnaire that was originally employed by
a study in China to survey peritraumatic psychological
distress during the epidemic.12 The Shanghai Mental
Health Centre verified the content validity of the CPDI
as fit to be used in collecting the COVID-19 distress
information. The questionnaire is originally in English.
R.A and A.M.N.Q translated the questions into Arabic,
while M.K.A and O.A translated it back to English to
ensure that the translation preserved the meaning captured
by the original English version. The survey then used the
Arabic text to administer the study.
Data were collected online, using SurveyMonkey, tar-
geting individuals living in KSA. A link to the survey was
distributed to respondents via social media, such as Twitter
and WhatsApp groups. The link was also posted on the
King Abdulaziz University website. Online informed con-
sents were obtained before proceeding with the questions.
The informed consent provided two options of “yes”, for
Al-Hanawi et al Dovepress
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePressRisk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020:13734
those who volunteered to partcipate in the study, and “no”,
for those who did not wish to participate. Only those who
selected the affirmative response and confirmed that they
were above the age of 18 years were taken to the ques-
tionnaire page to complete the survey. The respondents
were clearly informed about the study’s aim and objectives
and that they were free to withdraw at any time, without
giving a reason, and that all information and opinions
provided would be anonymous and confidential.
Measurement Tool and Data AnalysisThe questionnaire consisted of two main sections. The first
section gathered information on the respondents’ socio-
demographic characteristics, including age, gender, marital
status, education level, nationality, work status, whether
the participants are health workers and, if so, whether they
were working on the frontline to face the new coronavirus
pandemic. The second section collected information on
self-perceived psychological distress in relation to the
COVID outbreak.
Dependent Variable (Psychological
Distress Assessment)In this paper, psychological distress is defined as an unplea-
sant feeling or emotion that affects a human being’s general
functioning and could induce negative feelings of self, others
and the environment.18 Participants were asked to respond to
24 questions that had five scaled responses to assess their
psychological distress and the responses were used to con-
struct a CPDI. The responses to these questions include 0 =
never, 1 = occasionally, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often and 4 =
most of the time. The questions included those on the fre-
quency of anxiety, depression, specific phobias, cognitive
change, avoidance and compulsive behaviour, physical
symptoms and loss of social functioning since the appearance
of the COVID-19 pandemic. These questions encompass the
diagnostic guidelines for stress disorders and phobias speci-
fied in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th
Revision.12
To construct the CPDI, we summed the codes of the
responses of the 24 questions, meaning that the respon-
dents’ scores could range from 0 to 96. A base count of
4 was added to all respondents to enable the maximum of
the standard 100 for a CPDI. The addition of the base,
which was also done in a recent study on the effects of
COVID-19 on distress in China,12 allows our results to be
compared to previous studies that used 100 by increasing
the base without changing the gradient of the effects. The
CPDI was then classified to obtain the levels of distress, as
follows: a CPDI score between 0 and 28 indicates normal
levels, a CPDI score between 29 and 52 indicates that the
participant is mildly distressed and a CPDI score between
53 and 100 means that the respondent is severely dis-
tressed. Items were evaluated for internal reliability,
using Cronbach’s α. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficientwas 0.91 (p<0.001), indicating internal reliability.19
Independent VariablesFor the sociodemographic variables, the age variable was
divided into categories: 18 to 29 (reference category), 30 to
39, 40 to 49, 50 to 59 and 60 or above. Gender was coded as
a dummy variable with 1 for male and 0 for female. Marital
status was captured as binary and a value of 1 was used for
married and 0 for otherwise. Education was categorised into
high school or below (reference category), college/univer-
sity degree and postgraduate degree. Nationality was coded
as a dummy variable, with 1 for Saudi national and 0 for
non-Saudi. Work status was divided into categories includ-
ing government employee (reference category), private sec-
tor employee, retiree, self-employed, student and
unemployed. Health worker was coded as a dummy vari-
able with 1 if the respondent is a health worker and 0 for
otherwise. Frontline health worker against COVID-19 was
also coded as 1 for participants who were frontline health
workers and 0 for otherwise.
Statistical AnalysisDescriptive statistics were used to analyse the general data.
The respondents’ characteristics were classified by their
psychological distress through the three distress categories
and their mean and percentage composition presented per
distress group. The study used a statistical model corrected
for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni procedure,
which divides the 0.05 p-value by the number of compar-
isons to minimise type 1 errors.20 The method allows us to
present the statistically significant differences across the
three distress categories with respective p-values depicted.
Multinomial logistic regressions were used with CPDI
as the dependent variable to examine the factors associated
with normal, mild and severe distress due to COVID-19,
while the sociodemographic characteristics are the inde-
pendent variables. The CPDI is coded with three groups –1
for normal distress (reference category), 2 for mild distress
and 3 for severe distress. Since the logistic coefficients are
composite numbers, we obtained the marginal effects
Dovepress Al-Hanawi et al
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020:13submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress735
using the first derivative method and all the results pre-
sented in the paper are the actual probabilities. Knowing
that the degree of exposure to COVID-19 could generate
variations in the distress levels, the study, besides present-
ing the full sample probabilities, includes a subsample
analysis that looks only at health workers. All analyses
were conducted using STATA 15.1 software (StataCorp
LP, Texas, USA).
Ethical ApprovalAll procedures performed in this study involving human
participants complied with the institutional and/or national
research committee ethical standards and the 1964 Helsinki
declaration, and subsequent amendments, or equivalent ethi-
cal standards. The study was designed and conducted in
accordance with the ethical principles established by King
Abdulaziz University and, therefore, ethical approval was
obtained from the Biomedical Ethics Research Committee,
Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University (Ref-
228-20).
ResultsSociodemographic Characteristics and
Distress LevelTable 1 shows the results of the descriptive analysis. In
total, 3036 participants, including 950 (31.35%) health
workers, of which 449 (14.8%) were frontline health
workers, with the remaining 2086 (68.7%) being the gen-
eral public, participated in the study from the 13 adminis-
trative regions in KSA. Of the participants, 30.9% were
aged between 18 and 29 years, 50.1% were males and
62.7% were married. In terms of education, 26% of the
participants were educated at the high school level or
below, while 54.3% had completed college or university
degrees and 19.6% had completed a postgraduate degree.
The distress distribution across the entire sample shows
that, of the 3036 individuals, 1819 (59.9%) were normal,
999 (32.9%) were mildly distressed and 218 (7.2%) were
severely distressed. Amongst health workers, the propor-
tion of respondents as a percentage of the total sample
increased as we moved from normal (28.9%), through
mild (33.7%), to severe (39.9%) distress. The result is
statistically significant (p<0.01), which provides prelimin-
ary evidence that health workers are at greater risk of
psychological distress relative to non-health workers.
A similar statistically significant trend is observed for
frontline health workers, with the percentage growing
from normal (13.4%), through mild (15.5%), to severe
(24.3%) distress.
Furthermore, there are no statistical differences in dis-
tress levels for people in the age range of 18 to 29, while
those between 30 and 39 years have a statistically signifi-
cant increased trend in the percentage of people as we
move from normal (35.8%), through mild (38.6%), to
severe distress (46.8%). On the contrary, the age group
40 to 49 has a decreasing trend in the level of distress from
normal (23.4%), through mild (18.1%), to severe (13,3%).
Those between the ages of 50 and 59 follow, with
a decreasing distress incidence of 9.8%, 7% and 6% for
normal, mild and severe distress, respectively. People aged
60 or above also show a decreasing trend, from 3.1% to
2.6% to 0.9% for normal, mild and severe distress levels,
respectively. The age distress statistics reveal that the
young, and particularly those between 30 and 39, face
the largest psychological distress risk as a result of
COVID-19. At the same time, older people are at the
lowest risk for this mental disturbance.
Across gender, males show a decreasing trend from
normal (53.2%), through mild (45.0%) to severe (42.2%)
distress levels. On the contrary, females show an increas-
ing trend from normal (46.8%), through mild (55%) to
severe (57.8%) distress, with the results illustrating that
the largest distress burden falls on females relative to
males. There are no statistical differences in distress trends
across education and nationality. Concerning employment
status, only the retired, with a trend of 5.2% normal, 3%
mild and 2.3% severe distress, and the self-employed, with
a trend of 4.3% normal, 3.6% mild and 1.8% severe
distress, become statistically significant.
The Analysis of Distress LevelsTable 2 presents the marginal effects of the multinomial
logistic regression results for the entire sample. The pre-
sented estimates, therefore, are the probabilities of belong-
ing to a particular CPDI level. Being a health worker is
significantly associated with an increased probability of
being mildly distressed by 0.041 and that of being severely
distressed by 0.028. Across ages, there is a significant
reduction in the probability of 40 to 49 year olds being
mildly and severely distressed by 0.078 and 0.032, respec-
tively, while those in the age range of 50–59 associate with
only a reduction in mild distress by 0.082. As these
cohorts are compared to a reference group of the young,
between the ages of 18 to 29, the evidence concurs with
what was observed in the sociodemographic descriptive
Al-Hanawi et al Dovepress
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePressRisk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020:13736
analysis that older people are less susceptible to distress
relative to younger people.
Amongst these people, males are less likely to be
mildly distressed by 0.063 and less severely distressed by
0.023 indicating that the reference category, female, is at
a greater risk of being distressed. With regard to employ-
ment status, only private sector employees are more likely
to be mildly distressed, by 0.059, relative to the omitted
category of government sector employees. All the other
employment categories are not significantly different in
their susceptibility to distress in comparison to the govern-
ment sector employees. The education variable shows that
only postgraduates relate to a 0.029 reduction in the prob-
ability of being severely distressed, in relation to the
comparison group of the high school or below education
level. The results also show that nationality does not
matter in terms of distress caused by the pandemic.
The results also revealed that, amongst all social demo-
graphic characteristics, only age particularly that of 40 to
49, gender, people with postgraduate qualifications and
Table 1 Sociodemographic Characteristics and Distress Levels
Total Normal Mild Severe P-value
Overall 3036 1819(59.9) 999(32.9) 218(7.2)
Health worker
Yes 950(31.3) 526(28.9) 337(33.7) 87(39.9) 0.007***
No 2086(68.7) 1293(71.1) 662(66.3) 131(60.1) 0.007***
Frontline health worker
Yes 449(14.8) 244(13.4) 155(15.5) 53(24.3) 0.001***
No 2587(85.2) 1575(86.6) 844(84.5) 165(75.7) 0.001***
Age
18 to 29 938(30.9) 508(27.9) 336(33.6) 72(33) 0.328
30 to 39 1129(37.2) 651(35.8) 386(38.6) 102(46.8) 0.005***
40 to 49 625(20.6) 426(23.4) 181(18.1) 29(13.3) 0.001***
50 to 59 261(8.6) 178(9.8) 70(7.0) 13(6) 0.061*
≥ 60 82(2.7) 56(3.1) 26(2.6) 2(0.9) 0.038**
Gender
Male 1521(50.1) 968(53.2) 450(45.0) 92(42.2) 0.015**
Female 1515(49.9) 851(46.8) 549(55.0) 126(57.8) 0.015**
Marital status
Married 1904(62.7) 1161(63.8) 610(61.1) 135(61.9) 0.754
Unmarried 1132(37.3) 658(36.2) 389(38.9) 83(38.1) 0.754
Education
High school education or below 789(26.0) 460(25.3) 267(26.7) 61(28) 0.480
College/University degree 1651(54.3) 990(54.4) 540(54.1) 123(56.4) 0.547
Postgraduate degree 596(19.6) 369(20.3) 192(19.2) 34(15.6) 0.108
Nationality
Saudi 2836(93.4) 1704(93.7) 924(92.5) 204(93.6) 0.932
Non Saudi 200(6.6) 115(6.3) 75(7.5) 14(6.4) 0.932
Employment status
Government sector employee 1354(44.6) 839(46.1) 418(41.8) 95(43.6) 0.704
Private sector employee 498(16.4) 273(15) 185(18.5) 39(17.9) 0.524
Retiree 131(4.3) 95(5.2) 30(3.0) 5(2.3) 0.025**
Self-employed 118(3.9) 78(4.3) 36(3.6) 4(1.8) 0.052*
Student 431(14.2) 240(13.2) 155(15.5) 36(16.5) 0.334
Unemployed 504(16.6) 295(16.2) 175(17.5) 39(17.9) 0.627
Notes: Percentages in parentheses. ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.
Dovepress Al-Hanawi et al
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020:13submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress737
health workers significantly relate to the severely dis-
tressed category. Furthermore, being a health worker has
the highest probability (0.028) of being severely distressed
with the highest level of significance (p<0.01) relative to
the rest in the group. Moreover, the descriptive statistics in
Table 2 revealed that health workers have an increasing
trend of distress, from mild to severe, relative to non-
health workers and, therefore, health workers could be at
relatively higher risk of distress compared to the rest of the
population. The result warrants further investigation into
the different characteristics of health workers that correlate
with the various levels of distress. The study interrogated
these health worker correlates of distress by examining the
relationship between sociodemographic variables and dis-
tress amongst only health workers and the results are
presented in Table 3.
Table 3 presents the estimates of the sample for health
workers. Knowing that not all health workers are working
in close contact with the COVID-19 infected, a variable
that separates ordinary health workers and frontline work-
ers is included in the analysis as these two groups could
have different levels of distress due to their variations in
exposure to the pandemic. Column (1) shows that being
frontline health worker increases the probability of severe
distress, by 0.049. Health workers who are between the
ages of 30 to 39 are less likely to be mildly distressed, by
0.074, while those between the ages of 40 to 49 are less
susceptible to mild distress by 0.154. In addition, those in
the age range of 50 to 59 have a reduced probability, by
0.263, of being mildly distressed. The age output reveals
that, relative to the reference category of 18 to 29 years
old, older people are less likely to be distressed.
Furthermore, male health workers are less likely to be
severely distressed, by 0.046, while students are the only
employment category less likely to be mildly distressed,
by 0.113. The results reveal that, amongst health workers,
education and nationality do not correlate with distress due
to COVID-19.
DiscussionKSA reported its first case of COVID-19 on 2 March 2020
and, by 14 May 2020, the number was at 44,830, which was
the highest in the Arabian Gulf states. Throughout the
history of emerging pandemics, it has been documented
that there is a strong association between a pandemic
event and individuals’ psychological distress. Several stu-
dies have investigated the impact of pandemics on psycho-
logical distress. The evidence dates back to the 1918
Spanish Flu pandemic, which resulted in psychiatric
complications.21 With the surge in the prevalence of
COVID-19, and the quarantine restrictions, anxiety and
stress levels rise.22 Thus, this study attempts to understand
the impact of COVID-19 on the psychological distress
among the Saudi population during the pandemic.
Understanding this impact is central in crafting effective
Table 2 The Marginal Effects of SociodemographicCharacteristics on Distress
Dependent Variable: CPDI (1) (2) (3)
Normal Mild Severe
Health worker −0.069*** 0.041** 0.028***
(0.020) (0.019) (0.010)
30 to 39 years 0.021 −0.033 0.012
(0.027) (0.026) (0.014)
40 to 49 years 0.110*** −0.078** −0.032*
(0.032) (0.031) (0.018)
50 to 59 years 0.107*** −0.082** −0.026
(0.041) (0.040) (0.024)
≥ 60 years 0.056 0.017 −0.073
(0.072) (0.068) (0.054)
Male 0.086*** −0.063*** −0.023**
(0.020) (0.019) (0.011)
Married −0.048** 0.032 0.016
(0.022) (0.022) (0.012)
College/University degree 0.030 −0.022 −0.008
(0.022) (0.021) (0.011)
Postgraduate degree 0.042 −0.013 −0.029*
(0.028) (0.027) (0.016)
Saudi national 0.034 −0.034 −0.000
(0.036) (0.034) (0.019)
Private sector employee −0.067** 0.059** 0.008
(0.027) (0.026) (0.014)
Retiree 0.075 −0.077 0.002
(0.059) (0.058) (0.036)
Self-employed 0.041 0.003 −0.044
(0.050) (0.047) (0.035)
Student −0.017 0.007 0.009
(0.036) (0.035) (0.019)
Unemployed 0.002 −0.000 −0.001
(0.030) (0.029) (0.016)
Observations 3036 3036 3036
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.
Al-Hanawi et al Dovepress
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePressRisk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020:13738
policy responses to safeguard the population’s psychologi-
cal wellbeing amidst the COVID-19 public health crisis.
The study found that about 40% of the KSA population
had psychological distress. This result is analogous to the
40% found in Italy,20 and close to that found in France,
which was that 38% of the public are distressed due to
COVID-19.23 Iran has found that 59% of its population is
distressed due to the pandemic,24 which is higher than has
been found in this study. Therefore, this study’s findings
reveal that KSA has similar levels of COVID-19 distress
as some countries, while remaining lower when compared
to other countries, such as Iran.
Nevertheless, KSA’s COVID-19 level of distress is, on
average, high considering the proactive early pandemic
control measures that KSA undertook in comparison to
Italy and France, who had less time to prepare and imple-
ment effective measures. Hence, psychological distress
remains one of the significant health problems in KSA
during the pandemic.25 Moreover, there is a particular
concern because certain groups were found to be more
affected than others in this study. Across the entire sample
of the KSA population, the results showed that health
workers have an increased probability of becoming both
mildly and severely distressed, due to COVID-19, com-
pared to the rest of the population. These health practi-
tioners are working in close contact with the people
affected by the pandemic and, hence, are highly exposed
to the risk of contracting the disease from their patients.26
Not only are the health workers distressed due to fear of
infection but, also, the increased number of patients in
healthcare facilities due to the pandemic has amplified
the caseload per health worker and number of working
hours.27
Across the age groups, the study found that older
people are relatively less stressed compared with young
people. This result supports similar evidence found in
China.28 The reason behind this could be that older people
can manage their stress due to better knowledge about the
pandemic relative to the young.29 Another explanation
could be that younger people experience the highest men-
tal distress due to COVID-19 because of their high expo-
sure to social media,30 which transmits a large amount of
information about the pandemic, some of which is neces-
sary, while some are disturbing. Previous evidence from
KSA substantiates this finding by showing that the young,
particularly those in undergraduate college levels, experi-
ence high distress due to internet addiction.31 Moreover,
a study in Pakistan found that 82.8% of the population
identified the internet as a major source of the panic that is
generated about COVID-19 fears.32 Furthermore, the
young also happen to be the group involved in the most
outdoor activities, such as attending sports events that
have been banned under lockdown due to the pandemic.
As such, the young people need to adapt to new indoor
ways of living that could be generating boredom and
Table 3 The Marginal Effects of the SociodemographicCharacteristics on Distress Amongst Health Workers
Dependent Variable: CPDI (1) (2) (3)
Normal Mild Severe
Frontline health worker −0.017 −0.033 0.049**
(0.033) (0.032) (0.020)
30 to 39 0.062 −0.074* 0.011
(0.048) (0.045) (0.028)
40 to 49 0.165*** −0.154*** −0.012
(0.058) (0.056) (0.035)
50 to 59 0.275*** −0.263*** −0.012
(0.089) (0.090) (0.052)
≥ 60 0.036 −0.033 −0.003
(0.153) (0.145) (0.095)
Male 0.067* −0.021 −0.046**
(0.035) (0.034) (0.021)
Married −0.000 −0.035 0.035
(0.039) (0.037) (0.023)
College/University degree 0.048 −0.048 0.000
(0.042) (0.040) (0.024)
Postgraduate degree 0.071 −0.044 −0.027
(0.048) (0.046) (0.029)
Saudi national 0.038 −0.034 −0.005
(0.063) (0.060) (0.036)
Private sector employee −0.074 0.064 0.009
(0.050) (0.047) (0.028)
Retiree 0.052 −0.028 −0.024
(0.145) (0.146) (0.094)
Self-employed 0.699 0.463 −1.162
(43.395) (29.108) (72.503)
Student 0.117* −0.113* −0.004
(0.065) (0.062) (0.039)
Unemployed −0.004 0.003 0.000
(0.068) (0.065) (0.038)
Observations 950 950 950
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. ***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.
Dovepress Al-Hanawi et al
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020:13submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress739
frustration. Moreover, previous evidence has revealed that
prolonged quarantine restrictions generate fear and
anxiety.33
Females were more susceptible to distress relative to
males. Similarly, recent studies in China and Italy that
assessed psychological distress post the COVID-19 outbreak
found that females were more likely to develop psychologi-
cal distress, while males are less susceptible to post-traumatic
distress in responding to stressful outbreaks.12,20 This finding
could be attributed to gender differences in the hormonal
response to stress.34 Young, Korszun35 substantiate this evi-
dence that female hormones amplify the magnitude of stress
responses within this group.
Private sector employees were found to be more dis-
tressed relative to government sector workers, which could
be due to the variations in employment sector benefits in
KSA. The government sector has greater job security rela-
tive to the private sector.36 In the event that the total econ-
omy lockdowns implemented due to the pandemic lead to
loss of business, especially for non-essential services, pri-
vate sector employees could lose their jobs, which is not the
case for government employees, who have secure jobs
relative to private sector workers. Therefore, it is not very
surprising that private sector workers are more distressed
than their public sector counterparts.
In the sample of health workers, the study found simi-
lar results to those of the full sample that older people and
males are less likely to be distressed relative to the young
and females, respectively. An additional result is that,
amongst the health workers, frontline health workers face
increased chances of severe distress relative to the rest of
the health workers, which is consistent with the findings
from Italy.20 Being the first-hand attendants of the pan-
demic in the health system exposes them to the largest risk
of contracting the virus. As such, it is not surprising that
their fears and psychological breakdowns are greater than
the general public. However, the results showed that,
amongst the health workers, students are less likely to be
distressed. In KSA, students who are also health workers
are those in their final year of their studies and are con-
ducting internships. Since the lockdown in KSA, interns,
together with other scholars, were asked to suspend les-
sons, which included their work. Hence, this action
reduced their exposure to the pandemic and relieved
them of their duties relative to the full-time employees in
the health sector, which makes the students less likely to
be distressed.
These results have implications for policy. Cases of
psychological distress have been on the increase due to
abrupt changes in lifestyle, such as school lockdowns and
curfews. In China, these invasive actions were disruptive
to people’s lives.12 The resultant negative psychological
impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures demand policy
interventions to prevent the worsening of distress among
Saudi Arabians. Thus, adequate research was needed to
explore the measure of the pandemic’s psychological
effects on the community and the affected groups of
people.37 The research findings of this paper will help in
establishing both immediate actions and long-term strate-
gic plans in managing psychological distress.
In the medium term, there is a need to improve monitor-
ing and reporting of anxiety rates, depression and self-harm,
especially amongst the highly affected groups such as health-
care workers and the younger population. The information
will assist in targeting appropriate medical interventions to
help the affected individuals.37 In addition, it is necessary to
map the already existent psychological support and resources
to be used in both treatment of and prevention of such effects.
In the long term, the government needs to invest in identify-
ing the root causes of the high rates of distress and anxiety
amongst the already implemented COVD-19 prevention
measures. In addition, there is a need to develop novel inter-
ventions that safeguard people’s mental wellbeing, such as
promoting prosocial behaviour, altruism and embracing psy-
chosocial heightening online activities.37
Study LimitationsThe study is not without its limitations. First, by using an
online questionnaire, the study selects a population that has
access to the internet, which might affect its sample’s repre-
sentativeness. Nevertheless, the study received data that
encompassed all the regions of the kingdom, which might
reduce the problem with regard to geographical coverage. Of
course, the authors acknowledge that the technological selec-
tivity and the unreliability of self-administered questionnaire
issues are not completely settled. However, the online survey
is the best possible case with the current need to maximise
social distance under COVID-19 mitigation. Second, as the
study uses cross-sectional data, it could not control for unob-
served heterogeneity across the respondents. Therefore, the
estimates should be interpreted with caution, as associations
and not implying causation. Future research could perform
a follow-up on our sample once the pandemic is over to form
panel data and control for time-invariant unobserved
heterogeneity.
Al-Hanawi et al Dovepress
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePressRisk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020:13740
ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has brought about unprecedented
changes in human lives, which could lead to serious psy-
chological distress if disregarded. Limiting such distress,
therefore, relies on identifying the groups of people that are
at the highest risk due to the pandemic. This study examined
the factors that are associated with psychological distress
during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia using
cross-sectional data obtained from an online survey. The
online survey has been useful as we are in the heat of the
pandemic, where the traditional physical surveys are not
allowed to prevent the spread of the virus. The study used
descriptive analysis and logistical regressions to understand
the important sociodemographic variables related to post-
COVID-19 distress. The findings showed that being
a health worker, a frontline health worker, a young person,
a female and a private sector employee are related to dis-
tress in KSA. The study further argues that increased efforts
in raising the public awareness of COVID-19 and providing
supportive psychological programs and verified social net-
works, in both the immediate and long term, remain vital in
mitigating the psychological distress amongst the affected
Saudis. The results from KSA can be applied in designing
policy response for the post-traumatic psychological disor-
ders not only in KSA but also in the other Arabian Gulf
countries that have similar backgrounds, culture and reli-
gion and are facing similar challenges.
Data Sharing StatementThe datasets generated and/or analysed during the current
study are not publicly available due to privacy and con-
fidentiality agreements as well as other restrictions, but are
available from the corresponding author (MKA) on rea-
sonable request.
Author ContributionsAll authors made substantial contributions to conception
and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpreta-
tion of data; took part in drafting the article or revising it
critically for important intellectual content; gave final
approval of the version to be published; and agree to be
accountable for all aspects of the work.
FundingThis project was funded by the Deanship of Scientific
Research (DSR) at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah,
under grant no. GCV19-8-1441. The funders had no role
in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to
publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors,
therefore, acknowledge with thanks DSR for technical
and financial support.
DisclosureThe authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References1. Zhu N, Zhang D, Wang W, et al. A novel coronavirus from patients
with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:727–733.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001017
2. WHO. Mental health and psychosocial considerations during theCOVID-19 outbreak; 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/mental-health-considerations.pdf.Accessed May 9, 2020.
3. Suresh V. The 2019 novel corona virus outbreak–An institutional guide-line. Indian J Anaesth. 2020;64(3):242. doi:10.4103/ija.IJA_104_20
4. WHO. WHO timeline – COVID-19; 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/27-04-2020-who-timeline—covid-19. Accessed May 09, 2020.
5. Ramesh N, Siddaiah A, Joseph B. Tackling corona virus disease 2019(COVID 19) in workplaces. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2020;24(1):16. doi:10.4103/ijoem.IJOEM_49_20
6. Cirrincione L, Plescia F, Ledda C, et al. COVID-19 pandemic: pre-vention and protection measures to be adopted at the workplace.Sustainability. 2020;12(9):3603. doi:10.3390/su12093603
7. Lau H, Khosrawipour V, Kocbach P, et al. The positive impact oflockdown in Wuhan on containing the COVID-19 outbreak in China.J Travel Med. 2020;27. doi:10.1093/jtm/taaa037
8. Brodeur A, Clark AE, Fleche S, Powdthavee N. Assessing the impactof the coronavirus lockdown on unhappiness, loneliness, and bore-dom using Google Trends. arXiv Preprint arXiv:200412129. 2020.
9. Zhang J, Lu H, Zeng H, et al. The differential psychological distressof populations affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Brain BehavImmun. 2020;87:49–50. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.031
10. Torales J, O’Higgins M, Castaldelli-Maia JM, Ventriglio A. The outbreakof COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact on global mental health. Int J SocPsychiatr. 2020;66(4):317–320. doi:10.1177/0020764020915212
11. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, et al. The psychological impactof quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence.Lancet. 2020;395:912–920. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8
12. Qiu J, Shen B, Zhao M, Wang Z, Xie B, Xu Y. A nationwide surveyof psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19epidemic: implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatr.2020;33(2):e100213. doi:10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213
13. Cascella M, Rajnik M, Cuomo A, Dulebohn SC, Di Napoli R.Features, evaluation and treatment coronavirus (COVID-19). In:Statpearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2020.
14. Shigemura J, Ursano RJ, Morganstein JC, Kurosawa M, Benedek DM.Public responses to the novel 2019 coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Japan:mental health consequences and target populations. Psychiatr ClinNeurosci. 2020;74(4):281. doi:10.1111/pcn.12988
15. Bao Y, Sun Y, Meng S, Shi J, Lu L. 2019-nCoV epidemic: addressmental health care to empower society. Lancet. 2020;395(10224):e37–e38. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30309-3
16. Sood S. Psychological effects of the Coronavirus disease-2019pandemic. Res Human Med Educ. 2020;7:23–26.
17. Al-Hanawi MK, Alsharqi O, Almazrou S, Vaidya K. Healthcarefinance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a qualitative study ofhouseholders’ attitudes. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018;16(1):55–64. doi:10.1007/s40258-017-0353-7
Dovepress Al-Hanawi et al
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020:13submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePress741
18. Arvidsdotter T, Marklund B, Kylén S, Taft C, Ekman I. Understandingpersons with psychological distress in primary health care. ScandJ Caring Sci. 2016;30(4):687–694. doi:10.1111/scs.12289
19. Fetters L, Tilson J. Evidence Based Physical Therapy. FA Davis;2018.
20. Moccia L, Janiri D, Pepe M, et al. Affective temperament, attachmentstyle, and the psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak: anearly report on the Italian general population. Brain Behav Immun.2020;87:75–79. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.048
21. Menninger KA. Psychoses associated with influenza: i. general data:statistical analysis. J Am Med Assoc. 1919;72(4):235–241. doi:10.1001/jama.1919.02610040001001
22. Fardin MA. COVID-19 and anxiety: a review of psychologicalimpacts of infectious disease outbreaks. Arch Clin Infect Dis.2020;15(COVID–19):e102779. doi:10.5812/archcid.102779
23. Chaix B, Delamon G, Guillemasse A, Brouard B, Bibault J-E.Psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in France:a national assessment of at-risk populations. medRxiv. 2020.
24. Jahanshahi AA, Dinani MM, Madavani AN, Li J, Zhang SX. Thedistress of Iranian adults during the Covid-19 pandemic–More dis-tressed than the Chinese and with different predictors. Brain BehavImmun. 2020;87:124–125. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.081
25. Barry M, Ghonem L, Alsharidi A, et al. Coronavirus disease-2019pandemic in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: mitigation measures andhospital preparedness. J Nat Sci Med. 2020;2.
26. Lu W, Wang H, Lin Y, Li L. Psychological status of medical work-force during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.Psychiatry Res. 2020;288:112936. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112936
27. Verma S, Mythily S, Chan Y, Deslypere J, Teo E, Chong S. Post-SARS psychological morbidity and stigma among general practi-tioners and traditional Chinese medicine practitioners in Singapore.Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2004;33(6):743–748.
28. Guo Q, Zheng Y, Shi J, et al. Immediate psychological distress inquarantined patients with COVID-19 and its association with periph-eral inflammation: a mixed-method study. Brain Behav Immun. 2020.doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.038
29. Al-Hanawi MK, Angawi K, Alshareef N, et al. Knowledge, attitudeand practice toward COVID-19 among the public in the Kingdom ofSaudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. Front Public Health.2020;8:217. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00217
30. Cheng C, Jun H, Liang B. Psychological health diathesis assessmentsystem: a nationwide survey of resilient trait scale for Chinese adults.Stud Psychol Behav. 2014;12:735–742.
31. Hasan AA-H, Jaber AA. Prevalence of internet addiction, its associa-tion with psychological distress, coping strategies among undergrad-uate students. Nurse Educ Today. 2019;81:78–82. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2019.07.004
32. Balkhi F, Nasir A, Zehra A, Riaz R. Psychological and behavioralresponse to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Cureus. 2020;12(5).
33. Taghrir MH, Akbarialiabad H, Marzaleh MA. Efficacy of massquarantine as leverage of health system governance duringCOVID-19 outbreak: a mini policy review. Arch Iran Med. 2020;23(4):265–267. doi:10.34172/aim.2020.08
34. Sareen J, Erickson J, Medved MI, et al. Risk factors for post-injurymental health problems. Depress Anxiety. 2013;30(4):321–327.doi:10.1002/da.22077
35. Young E, Korszun A. Sex, trauma, stress hormones and depression.Mol Psychiatry. 2010;15(1):23–28. doi:10.1038/mp.2009.94
36. Alkhamis A, Cosgrove P, Mohamed G, Hassan A. The personal andworkplace characteristics of uninsured expatriate males in Saudi Arabia.BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):56. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-1985-x
37. Holmes EA, O’Connor RC, Perry VH, et al. Multidisciplinaryresearch priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action formental health science. Lancet Psychiatr. 2020;7(6):547–560.doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy DovepressPublish your work in this journalRisk Management and Healthcare Policy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on all aspects of publichealth, policy, and preventative measures to promote good healthand improve morbidity and mortality in the population. The journalwelcomes submitted papers covering original research, basicscience, clinical & epidemiological studies, reviews and evaluations,
guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, case reports andextended reports. The manuscript management system is completelyonline and includes a very quick and fair peer-review system, whichis all easy to use. Visit http://www.dovepress.com/testimonials.phpto read real quotes from published authors.
Submit your manuscript here: https://www.dovepress.com/risk-management-and-healthcare-policy-journal
Al-Hanawi et al Dovepress
submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com
DovePressRisk Management and Healthcare Policy 2020:13742
