‘It’s intense’ – A mixed-methods analysis of how the early COVID-pandemic impacted on the wellbeing of practitioners in a UK homeless organization

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample demographics (n = 42).

Category	Sub-category	Frequency, n (%)
Gender	Females	26 (61.9)
	Males	16 (38.1)
Age classes (in years)	25–34	6 (14.29)
	35–44	15 (35.71)
	45–54	13 (30.95)
	55+	8 (19.05)
Highest Level of Education^†	Level 1: NVQ level 1, GCSE’s D–G	1 (2.38)
	Level 2: NVQ level 2, GCSE’s A–C	0
	Level 3: NVQ level 3, A-levels	9 (21.43)
	Level 4–7: NVQ level 4 & 5, Foundation & Undergraduate degree, Master degree, Postgraduate certificate	31 (73.81)
	Other professional qualification(s)	1 (2.38)
Job Role	Support staff (e.g. support worker/ assistants)	30 (71.43)
	Project managers	12 (28.57)
Employment Status	Full-time (≥35 h/ week)	33 (78.57)
	Part-time (<35 h/ week)	9 (21.43)
No. of years employed by host organization (as of 2019)	Mean = 4.88 yrs, median = 0.83 yrs, range = 0.08–20 yrs
No. of years working in homeless sector in total (as of 2019)	Mean = 10.22 yrs, median = 8.67 yrs, range = 0.17–25.5 yrs

^† Note, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, there are nine qualification levels (entry level 0, and levels 1–8).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and inferential comparisons of pre-COVID and COVID-times WEMWBS and ProQOL sub-scales in support staff and managers (note, statistically significant comparisons are highlighted in bold).

		WEMWBS		ProQOL
				Secondary traumatic stress		Burnout		Compassion satisfaction
		2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020	2019	2020
Support staff (n = 30)	Mean, SE mean	52.17, 1.29	46.57, 1.53	20.07, .98	22.1, 1.25	22.9, 1	24.93, 1.04	37.93, .97	36.6, 1.27
	Mean difference, robust bootstrap confidence intervals (CI), test statistic t (df), p value, effect size d	5.6, BCa 95% CI [3, 8.57], t(29) =  3.24, p = .003, d = 0.79		−2.03, BCa 95% CI [−3.9, −.36], t(29) =  −2.23, p = .034, d = −0.38		−2.03, BCa 95% CI [−3.9, -.17], t(29) =  −2, p = .055, d = −0.37		1.33, BCa 95% CI [−1.72, 4.51], t(29) =  1.04, p = .309, d = 0.25
	Benchmark comparative mean	51.4^a		16.7^b		22.8^c		37.7^d
	Mean difference, robust bootstrap CI, t(df), p, d	.77, BCa 95% CI [−1.6, 3.07], t(29) =  .59, p = .558, d = 0.11	−4.83, BCa 95% CI [−8.07, −2.03], t(29) =  −3.16, p = .004, d = −0.58	3.37, BCa 95% CI [1.63, 5.3], t(29) =  3.45, p = .002, d = 0.63	5.4, BCa 95% CI [3.31, 7.76], t(29) =  4.33, p < .001, d = 0.79	.1, BCa 95% CI [−1.71, 2.05], t(29) =  .1, p = .921, d = 0.02	2.13, BCa 95% CI [.02, 4.13], t(29) =  2.05, p = .049, d = 0.37	.23, BCa 95% CI [−1.76, 2.13], t(29) =  .24, p = .812, d = 0.04	−1.1, BCa 95% CI [−3.77, 1.43], t(29) =  -.87, p = .393, d = −0.16
Project manager (n = 12 for WEMWBS; n = 8 for ProQOL)	Mean, SE mean	48.5, 1.87	48.42, 2.12	19.25, 1.31	18.25, 1.65	25.13, 1.7	23.38, 1.1	37.5, 2.48	39.88, 1.61
	Mean difference, robust bootstrap confidence intervals (CI), test statistic t (df), p value, effect size d	.08, BCa 95% CI [−3.58, 3.65], t(11) =  .036, p = .972, d = 0.01		1, BCa 95% CI [−1.5, 3.13], t(7) =  .75, p = .479, d = 0.27		1.75, BCa 95% CI [−.75, 4.75], t(7) =  1.05, p = .329, d = 0.37		−2.38, BCa 95% CI [−5.13, -.13], t(7) = −1.62, p = .149, d = −0.34
	Benchmark comparative mean	51.4^a		16.7^b		22.8^c		37.7^d
	Mean difference, robust bootstrap CI, t(df), p, d	−2.9, BCa 95% CI [−6.15, .43], t(11) =  −1.56, p = .148, d = −0.45	−2.98, BCa 95% CI [−6.98, .91], t(11) =  −1.41, p = .188, d = −0.41	2.55, BCa 95% CI [.18, 5.05], t(7) =  1.95, p = .092, d = 0.69	1.55, BCa 95% CI [−1.2, 4.18], t(7) =  .94, p = .377, d = 0.33	2.33, BCa 95% CI [−.68, 5.08], t(7) =  1.37, p = .212, d = 0.49	.58, BCa 95% CI [−1.3, 2.45], t(7) =  .52, p = .618, d = 0.19	-.2, BCa 95% CI [−4.45, 4.55], t(7) =  -.08, p = .938, d = −0.03	2.18, BCa 95% CI [−.7, 5.3], t(7) =  1.35, p = .218, d = 0.48

^a 2018/2019 population mean (n = 11,922; Helme et al., 2019).

^b,c,d Normative mean (n = 5612; de La Rosa et al., 2018).

Table 3. High, middle and low cut-score ranges for ProQOL’s three sub-scales (de La Rosa et al., 2018) for support staff and managers.

		Support staff (n = 30)		Project managers (n = 8)
		2019	2020	2019	2020
Secondary traumatic stress	High (21–50)	40% (12 of 30)	50% (15 of 30)	37.5% (3 of 8)	37.5% (3 of 8)
	Middle (14–20)	46.67% (14 of 30)	40% (12 of 30)	62.5% (5 of 8)	37.5% (3 of 8)
	Low (0–13)	13.33% (4 of 30)	10% (3 of 30)	0% (0 of 8)	25% (2 of 8)
Burnout	High (27–50)	20% (6 of 30)	43.33% (13 of 30)	25% (2 of 8)	25% (2 of 8)
	Middle (20–26)	50% (15 of 30)	30% (9 of 30)	62.5% (5 of 8)	62.5% (5 of 8)
	Low (0–19)	30% (9 of 30)	26.67% (8 of 30)	12.5% (1 of 8)	12.5% (1 of 8)
Compassion satisfaction	High (42–50)	20% (6 of 30)	20% (6 of 30)	12.5% (1 of 8)	37.5% (3 of 8)
	Middle (34–41)	70% (21 of 30)	56.67% (17 of 30)	62.5% (5 of 8)	50% (4 of 8)
	Low (0-33)	10% (3 of 30)	23.33% (7 of 30)	25% (2 of 8)	12.5% (1 of 8)

Helme, M., Brown, Z., & Perez-Dominguez, R. (2019). National survey for Wales 2018-2019, Technical report. Office for National Statistics. https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2019-07/national-survey-for-wales-april-2018-to-march-2019-technical-report_0.pdf

 Google Scholar

de La Rosa, G. M., Webb-Murphy, J. A., Fesperman, S. F., & Johnston, S. L. (2018). Professional quality of life normative benchmarks. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 10(2), 225–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000263

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the first author. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions, i.e., their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.