Page 64 - JSOM Summer 2023

Average scores on the PMBS were 37.12 ± 13.06 and ranged 13.38 vs. 35.22 ± 10.75; p = .033). Scores on the PMBS were
from 15 to 93; however, 95% of respondents scored ≤60. higher in those who had not received any training or educa-
Mean subscale scores were 13.85 ± 5.65 for Threat of Harm, tion from their employer on the COVID-19 vaccine or on the
8.43 ± 3.58 for Self-Worth and Judgment, and 13.13 ± 5.74 illness itself (39.35 ± 14.81 vs. 36.95 ± 12.85; p = .025). Ad-
for Reliability and Trustworthiness of Others. Overall, the ditionally, scores were nearly 5 points higher in those who be-
PMBS showed good reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of lieved they had not received enough information to make an
0.86. Subscale scores ranged from 0.65 to 0.79, demonstrating informed decision regarding the COVID-19 vaccination com-
acceptable to good reliability. pared with those who did (41.60 ± 15.82 vs. 36.72 ± 12.66;
p = .013). Nearly the same increase was seen in those who
Those who worked in EMS full-time had PMBS total scores stated they would be uncomfortable if their family member
that were nearly 4 points higher than those who worked in was transported and cared for by an unvaccinated EMS pro-
EMS part-time (38.18 ± 13.58 vs. 34.26 ± 11.11; p = .004). fessional compared with those who stated they would be com-
Results of overall demographics are located in Table 1. fortable with such a practice (40.17 ± 14.42 vs. 35.97 ± 12.33;
p = .037). There were no differences in PMBS scores in EMS
Pandemic- and Vaccine-Related Factors professionals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19; had
Mean maladaptive belief scores were higher in those who had severe symptoms from the infection; articulated feelings about
directly cared for a patient with COVID-19 during the course the safety, risks, or protectiveness of the vaccine; conveyed
of their EMS duties compared with those who had not (37.54 ± concerns regarding disease transmissibility; or expressed trust
in the government’s handling of the pandemic.
TABLE 1 PMBS Total Scores of EMS Professionals by
Sociodemographic Variables Statistically significant differences between groups were ob-
Variable n % M SD p-value served for the level of general anxiety, work-related stress, and
Age 811 100.0 41.11 12.42 <.001 workplace satisfaction in an intra-pandemic environment. Re-
Sex sults of pandemic- and vaccine-related factors are located in
Female 271 33.5 36.75 14.75 Tables 2 and 3.
.050
Male 540 66.5 35.87 12.23 Predictive Utility of Pandemic- and
Education Vaccine-Related Factors
High School Diploma 41 5.0 35.29 10.53 To ascertain the predictive utility of the pandemic- and vaccine-
Some College 247 30.5 37.00 15.23 related factors on maladaptive belief scores, hierarchical lin-
Associate Degree 223 27.5 38.62 13.43 ear regression was computed. Statistically significant vari-
.710
Bachelor’s Degree 218 26.9 33.82 10.89 ables identified in univariate analyses were used to build the
Master’s Degree 73 9.0 34.69 12.90 model.
Doctoral Degree 9 1.1 29.50 7.78
Race VIF and tolerance values were all within normal limits, indi-
cating that the assumption of non-multicollinearity had not
Caucasian 757 93.3 35.92 12.94 been violated. The assumptions of linearity, normality, and ho-
African American 15 1.8 37.14 13.09 moscedasticity were all satisfied after a visual analysis of histo-
American Indian or 8 1.0 40.51 13.01 .048 grams and plots. Additionally, the data met the assumption of
Alaskan Native independent errors (Durbin-Watson value = 2.03).
AAPI 6 0.8 41.83 11.81
Multiracial 25 3.1 39.67 20.74 On block 1, demographic variables, including age, sex, race,
Latinx and Latinx ethnicity, accounted for a statistically significant
2
Yes 26 3.2 53.80 18.10 1.8% variance in PMBS total score, R = 0.018, F (4, 806);
.006
No 785 96.8 35.55 12.55 p =.005. Occupational factors were added in block 2 and in-
Credential Level cluded years of EMS experience, employment type (full- or
EMT 213 26.3 36.56 11.98 part-time), primary employers of EMS and fire, and whether
the respondent was advanced or basic life support. Variables
AEMT 62 7.6 30.79 11.39 .034 entered on block 2 accounted for an additional, but not sta-
Paramedic 536 66.1 37.18 13.75 tistically significant, 1.1% of the variance in PMBS total
Employment scores, ΔR = 0.011, ΔF (5, 801); p = .109. Block 3 included
2
Full-time 630 77.7 36.97 13.44 <.001 pandemic-specific factors (primary information, source of
Part time 181 22.3 33.71 11.98 employer, employee health, continuing education courses, or
Years of EMS Experience 811 100.0 15.42 10.98 .034 the respondent’s primary care physician; having someone in
Primary Employer their household diagnosed with COVID-19; having a friend
EMS Agency 609 75.1 36.96 13.27 .006 diagnosed with COVID-19; the feeling that healthcare work-
Fire Department 113 14.0 34.28 13.88 .037 ers are at higher risk for contracting COVID-19; the belief
Rescue Squad 27 3.3 28.43 8.20 .365 that the respondent has received enough information to make
an informed decision about vaccination; previous history
911 Communications 9 1.1 29.50 7.78 .871 of reporting to work with a COVID-19–like illness; and the
Other 53 6.5 42.50 10.61 .578 consideration that information sources were accurate and reli-
AAPI, Asian American or Pacific Islander; AEMT, Advanced Emer- able), which accounted for a statistically significant 10.6% of
gency Medical Technician; EMT, Emergency Medical Technician; M, the variance in PMBS total scores, ΔR = 0.106, ΔF (9, 792);
2
Mean; PMBS, Posttraumatic Maladaptive Belief Scale; SD, Standard
Deviation p < .001. Last, block 4 included psychopathological factors,
62 | JSOM Volume 23, Edition 2 / Summer 2023