Research article

Effect of triage training on nurses with Emergency severity index and Australian triage scale: Α quasi-experimental study

  • Introduction 

    Triage training has positive effects on health professionals, the quality of indicators in emergency departments, and the patients. However, data on the effectiveness of triage training on nurses with two different triage scales is limited.

    Objective 

    This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a triage training program in Emergency Departments (EDs), as well as the effect on the accuracy, knowledge, and skills of nurses working in the National Health System of Greece.

    Methods 

    Α quasi-experimental study was carried out, with measurements taken pre-, post-, and three months after implementing the education program. Data were collected between March 2021 and July 2022. Eligible participants for this study included nurses employed in the hospital units of the 4th Health Region of the National Health System. A total of 117 nurses participated in the study. Skills, knowledge, and accuracy were assessed using the Emergency Severity Index and the Australian Triage Scale.

    Results 

    After completing the training program, there was a noticeable improvement in the nurses' performance. Their triage skills displayed an overall statistically significant increase (p < 0.001) and, more crucially, in the subscales of rapid patient assessment skills, patient categorization skills, and patient allocation skills. Additionally, statistically significant increases were observed for triage knowledge and for both screening scales that measured triage accuracy, namely the Emergency Severity Index (p < 0.001) and the Australian Triage Scale (p < 0.001). In addition, the number of over-triage and under-triage cases decreased.

    Conclusions 

    The education program had a positive impact on the nurses, resulting in a statistically significant increase in their triage skills and knowledge. Moreover, the use of both triage scales resulted in an increase in the triage accuracy. The increase in triage skills, knowledge, and accuracy decreased after three months.

    Citation: George Pontisidis, Thalia Bellali, Petros Galanis, Nikolaos Polyzos. Effect of triage training on nurses with Emergency severity index and Australian triage scale: Α quasi-experimental study[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(4): 1049-1070. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024054

    Related Papers:

    [1] Zahra Movahedi Nia, Ali Ahmadi, Bruce Mellado, Jianhong Wu, James Orbinski, Ali Asgary, Jude D. Kong . Twitter-based gender recognition using transformers. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 15962-15981. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023711
    [2] Natalya Shakhovska, Vitaliy Yakovyna, Valentyna Chopyak . A new hybrid ensemble machine-learning model for severity risk assessment and post-COVID prediction system. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(6): 6102-6123. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022285
    [3] Ansheng Ye, Xiangbing Zhou, Kai Weng, Yu Gong, Fang Miao, Huimin Zhao . Image classification of hyperspectral remote sensing using semi-supervised learning algorithm. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 11502-11527. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023510
    [4] Lili Jiang, Sirong Chen, Yuanhui Wu, Da Zhou, Lihua Duan . Prediction of coronary heart disease in gout patients using machine learning models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 4574-4591. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023212
    [5] Jiang Xie, Junfu Xu, Celine Nie, Qing Nie . Machine learning of swimming data via wisdom of crowd and regression analysis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2017, 14(2): 511-527. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017031
    [6] Xianli Liu, Yongquan Zhou, Weiping Meng, Qifang Luo . Functional extreme learning machine for regression and classification. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 3768-3792. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023177
    [7] Yingjian Yang, Wei Li, Yingwei Guo, Nanrong Zeng, Shicong Wang, Ziran Chen, Yang Liu, Huai Chen, Wenxin Duan, Xian Li, Wei Zhao, Rongchang Chen, Yan Kang . Lung radiomics features for characterizing and classifying COPD stage based on feature combination strategy and multi-layer perceptron classifier. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(8): 7826-7855. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022366
    [8] Chaofan Li, Qiong Liu, Kai Ma . DCCL: Dual-channel hybrid neural network combined with self-attention for text classification. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 1981-1992. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023091
    [9] Liangyu Yang, Tianyu Shi, Jidong Lv, Yan Liu, Yakang Dai, Ling Zou . A multi-feature fusion decoding study for unilateral upper-limb fine motor imagery. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 2482-2500. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023116
    [10] Ning Huang, Zhengtao Xi, Yingying Jiao, Yudong Zhang, Zhuqing Jiao, Xiaona Li . Multi-modal feature fusion with multi-head self-attention for epileptic EEG signals. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(8): 6918-6935. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024304
  • Introduction 

    Triage training has positive effects on health professionals, the quality of indicators in emergency departments, and the patients. However, data on the effectiveness of triage training on nurses with two different triage scales is limited.

    Objective 

    This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a triage training program in Emergency Departments (EDs), as well as the effect on the accuracy, knowledge, and skills of nurses working in the National Health System of Greece.

    Methods 

    Α quasi-experimental study was carried out, with measurements taken pre-, post-, and three months after implementing the education program. Data were collected between March 2021 and July 2022. Eligible participants for this study included nurses employed in the hospital units of the 4th Health Region of the National Health System. A total of 117 nurses participated in the study. Skills, knowledge, and accuracy were assessed using the Emergency Severity Index and the Australian Triage Scale.

    Results 

    After completing the training program, there was a noticeable improvement in the nurses' performance. Their triage skills displayed an overall statistically significant increase (p < 0.001) and, more crucially, in the subscales of rapid patient assessment skills, patient categorization skills, and patient allocation skills. Additionally, statistically significant increases were observed for triage knowledge and for both screening scales that measured triage accuracy, namely the Emergency Severity Index (p < 0.001) and the Australian Triage Scale (p < 0.001). In addition, the number of over-triage and under-triage cases decreased.

    Conclusions 

    The education program had a positive impact on the nurses, resulting in a statistically significant increase in their triage skills and knowledge. Moreover, the use of both triage scales resulted in an increase in the triage accuracy. The increase in triage skills, knowledge, and accuracy decreased after three months.



    In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a national emergency regarding the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic—a widespread, global health concern that brought forth unprecedented challenges. Collectively, the impacts and persistent demands at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected the psychosocial functioning and well-being of many individuals and families [1][5]. Notably, individual drinking rates significantly increased during the mandated COVID-19 quarantine [6][10], potentially as a means to cope with the accompanying social isolation [11]. Heavy alcohol use (i.e., 4 or more drinks on any day, or more than 7 drinks per week, for women; 5 or more drinks on any day, or more than 14 drinks per week, for men [12]) is associated with financial [13], psychological [14], and health consequences [15]. Considering its health significance, the purpose of the current study was to examine the contextual risk factors associated with heavier levels of alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, including parenthood, gender, stress, and intimate partner violence (IPV; violence and aggression between intimate partners). An additional goal of the present study was to examine whether the relationship between parenthood and alcohol use during the early stages of the pandemic depends on one's gender identity.

    Stress is often implicated in the onset and maintenance of alcohol problems [16],[17]. Experiencing stress (e.g., financial, psychological, etc.) may increase alcohol consumption due to alcohol's short-term tension-reducing properties [18],[19]. Indeed, the early months of COVID-19 posed numerous stressors including economic difficulties [20] and uncertainty about the illness [21], both of which likely contributed to increased alcohol consumption. In fact, Grossman and colleagues [6] report that increased stress was the one of the biggest reason adults drank during the early months of COVID-19. Therefore, it was expected that financial and illness-related stress during the pandemic would increase alcohol use among adults in the present study.

    Several forms of IPV perpetration and victimization (i.e., physical, verbal, and sexual) have been positively associated with alcohol consumption [22][25]. Although the link between perpetration and alcohol use has garnered more empirical evidence than victimization [26],[27], the self-medication hypothesis suggests that alcohol is often used as a coping strategy to distract victims of violence from associated psychological distress [28][30]. Weinsheimer et al. [31] found that nearly two-thirds of couples with past-year IPV experiences (i.e., both perpetration and victimization) also reported heavy episodic drinking. Furthermore, a meta-analysis revealed that physical IPV was most closely associated with alcohol misuse compared to sexual and psychological IPV [32]. Conflict and violence among couples and families has also been shown to be exacerbated during major crises and times of economic hardship [33]. This has remained true regarding COVID-19, such that in some regions of the United States (i.e., Northeast and West), domestic violence-related police calls [34] and incidents [35],[36] significantly increased at the beginning of the pandemic. Moreover, physical IPV was estimated to be 1.8 times greater during the stay-at-home orders when more time was spent with a partner but isolated from others outside of the household [37]. Thus, it was expected that physical IPV experiences during the beginning of COVID-19 would be associated with higher levels of drinking.

    Several lines of evidence suggest that there are gender differences regarding experiences of alcohol use. Men typically report consuming higher amounts of alcohol compared to women [38][40], and some evidence suggests that being a man was a risk factor for increased heavy episodic drinking during the first few months of the pandemic [7],[41]. Given existing gender differences in alcohol use, as well as the potential impact of the pandemic on men's heavy episodic drinking, it was expected that men would report drinking higher quantities and more frequently than women during the pandemic stay-at-home orders.

    It is crucial to understand the influence of parenthood on alcohol use during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, as alcohol consumption by parents often has a cascading influence on families through parenting practices (e.g., [42]) and child behavior problems (e.g., [43]). For instance, parental alcohol use is positively associated with harsh caregiving behaviors [44], and such parenting practices increase children's risk of emotional and behavior problems [45]. With regards to COVID-19, pandemic-related restrictions increased childcare responsibilities for many parents, potentially exacerbating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parents' alcohol use [4],[7],[8]. There is some research both prior to [46][49] and during [50] the pandemic indicating that parents are more likely to consume alcohol than adults without children. With the COVID-19 pandemic imposing stay-at-home restrictions and thus additional childcare responsibilities for parents, it is likely that their drinking increased at higher rates than adults without children. Therefore, it was expected that adults with children would consume more alcohol during the pandemic than adults without children.

    There are also documented gender differences between mothers and fathers, with fathers consuming larger quantities of alcohol and drinking more frequently than mothers [46],[51]. In addition, preliminary COVID-19 research found that fathers reported significantly higher alcohol consumption than did mothers [52],[53], suggesting that the pandemic stay-at-home orders may have placed fathers at greater risk for heavier alcohol use than mothers. Although identifying as a man alone is associated with heavier alcohol use [39], the additional responsibilitiy of being a parent may increase the likelihood of problematic alcohol consumption for fathers during the pandemic [52][54]. Thus, it was expected that fathers in the present study would report consuming higher quantities of alcohol and drinking more frequently than mothers during the pandemic.

    Based on the above review, the primary goal of the current study was to examine the incremental influence of stress, IPV, gender, and parenthood on alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., [55]). Notably, many researchers have highlighted the need for this research [56][58], and this study intends to bridge that gap in the extant literature. It was expected that higher levels of stress, increased IPV experiences, identifying as a man, and having children in the home at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic would all be associated with higher levels of alcohol use.

    Additionally, there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that the relation between parenthood and alcohol use might depend on one's gender. Thus, the present study also sought to examine whether fathers or mothers were at the greatest risk for alcohol use at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was further hypothesized that gender would moderate the association between parenthood and alcohol use such that fathers would report higher levels of alcohol use than mothers.

    The participants were 298 adults from across the United States. Demographic characteristics of all participants can be found in Table 1. The sample was recruited as part of a larger study examining the impact of COVID-19 on health and behavior in May 2020. Individuals were deemed eligible to participate if they were at least 18 years of age and lived in the United States. Participants were specifically recruited through a Qualtrics panel, which compensates participants with points that they can redeem for rewards. See Miller et al. [59] and Belliveau et al. [60] for review of Qualtrics panel procedures. Participants in the present study received approximately $4.40 in reward points as compensation.

    To assess alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, the quantity-frequency index of alcohol use was used [61]. This is a common approach to estimate the average alcohol consumption for an individual [62][64]. To derive the quantity-frequency index, two items assessed participants' quantity (“On average, how many days per week did you drink alcohol?”) and frequency (e.g., “On a typical drinking day, how many drinks did you have?”) of alcohol use during the pandemic. Both of the items were significantly correlated (r = 0.66, p < 0.001) and were multiplied by each other to create an index of alcohol use. The quantity-frequency index of alcohol use during the pandemic (i.e., COVID QFI) was used in the primary analyses.

    Experiences of IPV are frequently bidirectional [65]. Because the goal of the present study was to examine the overall experience of physical IPV within relationships, dyadic experiences of both victimization and perpetration were considered following similar approaches by previous studies [66][68]. As such, experiences of physical IPV were measured through a rapid IPV screening tool developed and proposed by Crane and colleagues [69]. This IPV screening measure was adapted from the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale Short Form [70] and contains eight total items on both perpetration and victimization of physical IPV. Four items assess perpetration (e.g., “I slapped my partner”) and four items assess victimization (e.g., “My partner slapped me”) of physical IPV within the past 30 days in the relationship. All items are dichotomously rated (1 = yes, 0 = no) regarding whether the behavior was experienced or not. The perpetration and victimization scales were highly correlated (r = 0.74, p < 0.001) and the eight items were summed to obtain total physical IPV experience scores (range 0 to 8). Higher scores indicate more experiences of physical violence within the relationship in the past 30 days (Cronbach's α = 0.88).

    Participants completed the Perceived Stress Scale-10 [71], which comprises 10 items that evaluate participants' stressful feelings over the last month (e.g., “In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and ‘stressed’?”). All items are rated on a 5-point scale (0 = Never, 4 = Very Often). Total summed scores across all 10 items were used (range 0 to 50), with higher scores indicating more stressful experiences in the previous month (Cronbach's α = 0.85).

    In the present study, COVID-related stress includes both financial and illness stressors. To evaluate COVID-related financial stressors, participants reported on two questions regarding their change in work status during the pandemic (0 = No change since pandemic, 1 = Unemployed/laid off from work due to pandemic) and perceptions of financial difficulty related to COVID (0 = Not at all difficult, 1 = Somewhat to Extremely difficult). These two items were summed to create a COVID financial stress variable (range 0 to 2), with higher scores reflecting more financial stress due to the pandemic.

    Additionally, five items were used to assess COVID-19 illness stressors. Participants reported separately on whether they or anyone in their household is considered at high risk (0 = No, 1 = Yes), as well as whether themselves, a friend, or a family member had received a COVID-19 diagnosis (0 = No, 1 = Yes). Answers on all five items were summed to create an overall COVID illness stressor variable (range 0 to 5), with higher scores reflecting more illness-related stressors.

    Participants were asked whether or not they had children. Those that reported having children were asked the ages of their children and whether their children lived with them. For the purposes of the study, participants who reported currently having children under the age of 18 years old living with them and under their care were considered to have children in the home.

    The study materials and procedures were approved by the Rochester Institute of Technology Institutional Review Board. Participants were recruited via Qualtrics panels through which they received direct compensation. Informed consent was obtained online from all participants through the Qualtrics software prior to completing the survey material on their own personal devices. Confidentiality and anonymity of all collected data were assured. Participant data were excluded if responses were considered poor quality based on failed attention checks, incoherent responses on open ended questions, or if particpants completed the survey in less than a third of the median survey duration. Of 389 participants who began the survey, 91 were excluded, leaving a final sample of 298.

    All data were subject to extensive cleaning prior to analyses [72], and all analyses were completed using SPSS Version 28.0 [73]. Descriptive statistics were calculated in order to assess for bivariate correlations and means of all study variables. Then, independent samples t-tests were used to compare parents (i.e., having children under 18 at home) to those without children under their care on stress levels, IPV experiences, and alcohol consumption. Additionally, we examined gender differences in alcohol use. A hierarchical regression was conducted to test the incremental influence of parenthood and gender, as well as their potential interaction, on alcohol use during the pandemic, covarying for IPV and stress levels. In the first step of the model predicting quantity and frequency of alcohol use, current and COVID-19 related stress levels were entered. Next, IPV and gender were entered in the second and third steps, respectively. Then, parent status was entered in the fourth step of the model, followed by the interaction term between gender and parenthood in the final step.

    Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics of all study variables are presented in Table 2. The reported number of alcoholic drinks consumed per day for the particpants in the present sample ranged from zero to 15, and reported drinking days per week ranged from zero to seven. On average, participants reported drinking 1.77 drinks a day and drinking 2.08 days a week during the COVID-19 pandemic. Number of alcoholic drinks per day during the pandemic was associated with higher stress levels (r = 0.21, p < 0.01) and IPV experiences (r = 0.31, p < 0.001). In addition, more frequent drinking was associated with higher rates of IPV (r = 0.19, p < 0.05).

    Mean differences by parent status, as well as differences for parents by gender, among all study variables are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Men in the sample reported significantly higher levels of daily and weekly drinking in comparison to women, t(222) = 3.24, p < 0.001 (Mmen = 11.07, Mwomen = 5.44). Parents reported higher levels of IPV, t(113) = −2.58, p = 0.011, COVID-related financial stress, t(170) = −4.29, p < 0.001, current overall stress levels, t(168) = −5.57, p < 0.001, and both daily, t(136) = −6.03, p < 0.001, and weekly alcohol consumption, t(136) = −5.13, p < 0.001, than adults without children under their care. However, parents reported significantly less COVID-19 illness-related stress than those without children under their care, t(167) = 3.14, p = 0.002. Gender difference tests for only the parents in the sample revealed that fathers reported more physical IPV perpetration and victimization than mothers, t(81) = 2.45, p = 0.016. However, mothers and fathers did not differ on reports of drinking, t(75) = 1.00, p = 0.320, current stress, t(94) = 0.12, p = 0.669, COVID-19-related financial stress, t(96) = −0.45, p = 0.488, or illness stress, t(93) = 0.67, p = 0.350.

    Table 1.  Participants' sociodemographic characteristics.
    Characteristics Frequency % M (SD)
    Age (years) - - 49.18 (17.42)
     18–24 26 8.72 -
     25–34 48 16.11 -
     35–44 59 19.80 -
     45–54 36 12.08 -
     55–64 46 15.44 -
     65+ 83 27.85 -
    Parent Status
     Children under 18 at home 98 32.89 -
     Children over 18 at home 38 12.75 -
     No children 162 54.36 -
    Gender
     Man 99 33.22 -
     Woman 199 66.78 -
    Gender by Parent Status
     Father 44 44.90 -
     Mother 54 55.10 -
    Race
     White 251 84.23 -
     Black or African American 24 8.05 -
     Asian 18 6.04 -
     American Indian or Alaskan Native 5 1.68 -
    Household Income from prior 12 months
     $0 44 14.77 -
     $2500–$4499 15 5.03 -
     $5000–$9999 11 3.69 -
     $10,000–$14,999 15 5.03 -
     $15,000–$22,499 26 8.73 -
     $22,500–$29,999 24 8.05 -
     $30,000–$39,999 33 11.07 -
     $40,000–$49,999 35 11.74 -
     $50,000 or more 95 31.89 -
    U.S. region
     Northeast 73 24.49 -
     Midwest 67 22.48 -
     South 106 35.58 -
     West 52 17.45 -

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  Bivariate associations and descriptive statistics among study variables.
    1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
    1. IPV -
    2. Stress 0.24** -
    3. Alcohol Use – Number of Drinks/Day 0.31*** 0.21** -
    4. Alcohol Use – Number of Drinking Days/Week 0.19* 0.04 0.66*** -
    5. COVID Financial Stress 0.11 0.36*** 0.17 0.07 -
    6. COVID Illness Stress 0.35*** 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.10 -
    Mean 0.53 16.55 1.77 2.08 0.76 1.13
    SD 1.46 7.72 2.28 2.36 0.62 1.09

    *Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  Mean differences by parent status.
    Children (n = 98) No Children/Adult Children (n = 74)
    IPV 0.95 (1.93)* 0.06 (0.35)*
    Stress 19.18 (7.13)* 12.81 (7.72)*
    Alcohol Use – Number of Drinks/Day 2.87 (2.69)* 0.67 (1.06)*
    Alcohol Use – Number of Drinking Days/Week 2.90 (2.29)* 1.03 (1.88)*
    COVID Financial Stress 0.92 (0.64)* 0.53 (0.53)*
    COVID Illness Stress 0.91 (1.26)* 1.46 (0.97)*

    *Note: Standard deviations are provided in parentheses; *Indicates significant differences between pair, p < 0.05.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 4.  Mean differences for parents by gender.
    Father (n = 44) Mother (n = 54)
    IPV 1.49 (2.44)* 0.48 (1.17)*
    Stress 19.27 (7.25) 19.10 (7.10)
    Alcohol Use – Number of Drinks/Day 3.32 (3.04) 2.45 (2.28)
    Alcohol Use – Number of Drinking Days/Week 3.14 (2.16) 2.68 (2.41)
    COVID Financial Stress 0.89 (0.65) 0.94 (0.63)
    COVID Illness Stress 1.00 (1.43) 0.83 (1.10)

    *Note: Standard deviations are provided in parentheses; *Indicates significant differences between pair, p < 0.05.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The results of the hierarchical regression analysis are presented in Table 5. In the first step of the regression model, the set of stress variables did not explain a significant amount of variance in participants' quantity and frequency of alcohol use, [R2 = 0.03, F(3,94) = 1.01, p = 0.394]. In the next step, levels of IPV reported within dyads explained a significant amount of variance in alcohol consumption, [ΔR2 = 0.08, ΔF(1,93) = 18.48, p = 0.004], above and beyond stress. Higher levels of reported IPV perpetration and victimization were associated with increased alcohol use (β = 0.33). However, gender did not explain a significant amount of variance above and beyond that of IPV and participants' stress, [ΔR2 = 0.02, ΔF(1,92) = 2.10, p = 0.151]. In the fourth step, having children under 18 living in the home further explained a significant amount of variance in alcohol use above and beyond stress, IPV, and gender, [ΔR2 = 0.09, ΔF(1,91) = 10.14, p = 0.002]. Having a child in the home uniquely predicted alcohol use such that having children under 18 at home (β = 0.37) was significantly associated with higher levels of alcohol consumption during the pandemic. Finally, the interaction between gender and parenthood in the final step of the model did not explain a unique amount of variance in alcohol use, [ΔR2 = 0.01, ΔF(1,90) = 1.04, p = 0.310].

    Table 5.  Summary of a hierarchical regression model predicting alcohol use during the pandemic.
    Step Variable β R2 ΔR2
    1 Current Stress 0.11 0.03 0.03
    COVID Financial Stress −0.01
    COVID Illness Stress 0.13
    2 IPV 0.33* 0.11 0.08
    3 Gender −0.15 0.13 0.02
    4 Parenthood 0.37* 0.22 0.09
    5 Gender X Parenthood 0.27 0.23 0.01

    *Note: Gender was coded as 0 = Man, 1 = Woman; Parenthood was coded as 0 = No children at home or adult children, 1 = children under 18 living at home; *p < 0.001.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    With the COVID-19 pandemic imposing abrupt changes to individuals' daily lives, the goal of this study was to understand how overall and pandemic-related stress, IPV, gender, and parenthood impacted alcohol consumption during the early stages of COVID-19. An additional goal of this study was to examine whether the association between parenthood and alcohol use was stronger for fathers compared to mothers. Importantly, having children in the home during the pandemic predicted greater levels of alcohol use above and beyond gender, IPV experiences, and stress. As anticipated and consistent with past research [7], men reported more drinks per day and drinking days per week compared to women. Parents in this sample also reported more frequent and higher levels of drinking than adults without children. However, the interaction between gender and parenthood was not significant in predicting alcohol use during the pandemic. Findings are discussed below in the context of existing literature.

    In the present study, all men reported higher levels of drinking compared to all women, suggesting that identifying as a man may have been a risk factor for heavier alcohol use at the beginning of the pandemic. This is consistent with our hypotheses and prior research conducted before [39] and during the pandemic [74]. It is possible that men are at an increased risk for heavier alcohol use because they tend to have less adaptive coping mechanisms compared to women [75],[76]. Furthermore, men tend to report higher levels of drinking to cope with stress compared to women [11]. However, gender was not a significant predictor of alcohol use within the context of other potential social and situational influences (i.e., stress, IPV, and parenthood), which is inconsistent with our hypotheses. A possible explanation for this might be that during the COVID-19 pandemic, other factors (i.e., IPV and parenthood) were more significant in accounting for alcohol use. In fact, and not surprisingly, we also found that experiencing IPV was a significant risk factor for drinking at higher levels during the pandemic. This finding is consistent with theory and previous findings [77],[78]. It may be that men were more likely to experience IPV and thus, drank at higher levels than women as a means to cope [79],[80]. Collectively, results suggest that experiencing IPV may have a greater influence on frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption.

    Perhaps the most notable finding of the present study is that parenthood was a significant risk factor for heavy alcohol use during the pandemic, above and beyond the influence of gender, stress, and IPV. Compared to adults without children, parents consumed significantly more alcohol in the early stages of the pandemic. This is consistent with both hypotheses and initial research from the pandemic [50],[81]. Indeed, Schmits and Glowacz [74] demonstrated that having children was a significant indicator of increased alcohol use during COVID-19 in a Belgian sample. Although there is some work suggesting that parents drink less than adults without children (e.g., [82],[83]), Bowden et al. [46] found that parents are more likely to drink at home. This may have been the case during the COVID-19 pandemic [84]. Parczewska [85] further suggests that parents may have lacked necessary coping skills or support when taking on multiple roles (e.g., teacher, caregiver, etc.) at the beginning of the pandemic. This may have further increased alcohol consumption for parents. Interestingly, there were no significant differences between the mothers and fathers in the sample on alcohol use. The impact of parenting children during the early part of the pandemic may have influenced alcohol consumption similarly for both mothers and fathers. This was further supported by the lack of a significant interaction between gender and parenthood status in predicting alcohol use. Although gender differences on alcohol use exist in the present study and prior work, these differences may dissipate when one's parent status is considered. Accordingly, being a parent may have been a risk factor for drinking during the pandemic regardless of gender [86]. In fact, the only difference between mothers and fathers in the present study was that fathers reported more experiences of IPV in their relationship compared to mothers.

    It was surprising that neither of the COVID-related stress variables or overall stress were associated with alcohol consumption, which conflicts with our expectations and prior work during the pandemic (e.g., [87]). In a Canadian sample, Thompson et al. [41] found that increased stress and emotional distress due to the pandemic was associated with drinking more frequently, but only among the men in their sample. With the men in our study reporting higher mean levels of alcohol use than women, it is likely that the relationship between stress levels and alcohol use depends on one's gender. In addition, Adams et al. [88] found that parents accounted their stress levels to COVID-related stressors, similar to our finding that parents in the present study reported higher COVID-related stress than adults without children. Although their sample contained parents only, it could be that the relationship between stress and alcohol use during the pandemic also depends on one's parent status. For example, Portugese parents experienced significantly higher levels of burnout and stress compared to adults without children during the pandemic [89]. Furthermore, Tucker et al. [90] found that only social stress (e.g., stress from being lonely) at the beginning of the pandemic in the U.S predicted increased daily alcohol consumption longitudinally. Therefore, only specific domains of stress experienced during COVID-19 may be associated with problematic alcohol consumption (i.e., social stress) and not others (i.e., general stress, financial stress, stress about the virus). Taken together, the association between stress and alcohol use during the pandemic may be complex and dependent on many other factors (i.e., gender, parenthood, type of stress).

    As always, this study is not without limitations. The cross-sectional nature of the data collection meant pre-pandemic measures were unavailable for some variables, which meant we were unable to measure how individuals' alcohol consumption may have changed from before the pandemic. Additionally, the data was collected at the beginning of the pandemic in the United States during a time when much was unknown about risks of contracting the COVID-19 virus. Due to this, we cannot assess how the relationships between these variables may have changed with varying COVID-19-related restrictions and safety measures. In addition, the current study did not consider the influence of the number of children at home or child age. Stress levels (e.g., [91]) and alcohol use (e.g., [46]) may differ for parents with multiple children and for parents of younger children who require more supervision and help with schoolwork. Subsequent research should focus on these family characteristics to explore a more nuanced understanding of these associations. Furthermore, parents may be at greater risk of experiencing stress and burnout from the pandemic given the unique disruptions to their daily lives (i.e., unexpected childcare responsibilities; [88],[92]). Thus, future work should examine the mechanisms through which parents are at higher risk to misuse alcohol during major life disruptions, such as through the influence of increased stress. These findings also suggest it may be beneficial to examine the role of coping and emotion regulation strategies as they relate to gender, IPV, alcohol consumption, and stress during the pandemic [93]. Finally, although results did not differ if considered separately in the present study, future work could consider distinguishing between predictors of perpetration and victimization when investigating the influence of COVID-19 on experiences of other types of IPV in partner relationships (e.g., [94]).

    Altogether, this study highlights various factors that may have contributed to alcohol use during the pandemic. To our knowledge, no other study simultaneously considers stress, IPV, gender, and parenthood in alcohol consumption during the pandemic. Results found that men reported significantly higher mean levels of drinking in comparison to women. Findings from the present study also suggest that experiencing physical IPV and being a parent at the beginning of COVID-19 was associated with higher alcohol use. While this study focused on the effects of COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, it provides insights that can help inform preventative measures for future possible pandemics and other major life-disrupting events. However, further work is necessary to fully comprehend how parents and couples have been impacted by COVID-19 and to better inform intervention programs to assist intimate partner relationships and families with the potential long-term repercussions of the pandemic. Results from the current study support the development of prevention strategies to reduce the use of alcohol as a coping mechanism for life-disrupting events. Public health initiatives may focus on enhancing family functioning to reduce IPV or increasing resource allocation to address maladaptive alcohol use and IPV. Moreover, preventative programming targeting adolescents may be beneficial, given the onset of IPV and alcohol use during this developmental period. Finally, implementing programming to support the adoption of more problem-focused coping strategies in the early stages of large-scale disruptions may be a worthwhile effort to reduce the risk of alcohol misuse.


    Acknowledgments



    We want to thank the participants nurses for their valuable time, without whom the research would not have been completed.

    Authors' contribution



    George Pontisidis: literature review, data collection and analysis; Petros Galanis: statistical analysis of data; Thalia Bellali: literature discussion; Nikolaos Polyzos: supervision, conclusion and editing.

    Conflict of interest



    Petros Galanis is an editorial board member for AIMS Public Health and were not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. All authors declare that there are no competing interests.

    [1] Corkery N, Avsar P, Moore Z, et al. (2021) What is the impact of team triage as an intervention on waiting times in an adult emergency department?–A systematic review. Int Emerg Nurs 58: 101043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2021.101043
    [2] Oredsson S, Jonsson H, Rognes J, et al. (2011) A systematic review of triage-related interventions to improve patient flow in emergency departments. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 19: 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-43
    [3] Qureshi NA (2010) Triage systems: a review of the literature with reference to Saudi Arabia. East Mediterr Health J 16: 690-698. https://doi.org/10.26719/2010.16.6.690
    [4] Raita Y, Goto T, Faridi MK, et al. (2019) Emergency department triage prediction of clinical outcomes using machine learning models. Crit Care 23: 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2351-7
    [5] Ghazali SA, Abdullah KL, Moy FM, et al. (2020) The impact of adult trauma triage training on decision-making skills and accuracy of triage decision at emergency departments in Malaysia: A randomized control trial. Int Emerg Nurs 51: 100889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2020.100889
    [6] Jang JH, Kim SS, Kim S (2020) Educational Simulation Program Based on Korean Triage and Acuity Scale. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17: 9018. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17239018
    [7] Sartini M, Carbone A, Demartini A, et al. (2022) Overcrowding in Emergency Department: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions-A Narrative Review. Healthcare 10: 1625. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10091625
    [8] Faheim S, Ahmed S, Aly E, et al. (2019) Effect of Triage Education on Nurses' Performance in Diverse Emergency Departments. Evid Based Nurs Res 1: 11. https://doi.org/10.47104/ebnrojs3.v1i2.45
    [9] Hinson JS, Martinez DA, Schmitz PSK, et al. (2018) Accuracy of emergency department triage using the Emergency Severity Index and independent predictors of under-triage and over-triage in Brazil: a retrospective cohort analysis. Int J Emerg Med 11: 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-017-0161-8
    [10] Moon SH, Cho IY (2022) The Effect of Competency-Based Triage Education Application on Emergency Nurses' Triage Competency and Performance. Healthcare 10: 596. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10040596
    [11] Tam HL, Chung SF, Lou CK (2018) A review of triage accuracy and future direction. BMC Emerg Med 18: 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-018-0215-0
    [12] Campbell D, Fetters L, Getzinger J, et al. (2022) A Clinical Nurse Specialist–Driven Project to Improve Emergency Department Triage Accuracy. Clin Nurse Spec 36: 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000641
    [13] Farrohknia N, Castrén M, Ehrenberg A, et al. (2011) Emergency Department Triage Scales and Their Components: A Systematic Review of the Scientific Evidence. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 19: 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-42
    [14] Hardy A, Calleja P (2019) Triage education in rural remote settings: A scoping review. Int Emerg Nurs 43: 119-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2018.09.001
    [15] Visser LS, CPEN F, Montejano AS (2019) Fast facts for the triage nurse: an orientation and care guide. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826148513
    [16] Christ M, Grossmann F, Winter D, et al. (2010) Modern Triage in the Emergency Department. Dtsch Ärztebl Int 107: 892. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2010.0892
    [17] Hinson JS, Martinez DA, Cabral S, et al. (2019) Triage Performance in Emergency Medicine: A Systematic Review. Ann Emerg Med 74: 140-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.09.022
    [18] Olsson M, Svensson A, Andersson H, et al. (2022) Educational intervention in triage with the Swedish triage scale RETTS©, with focus on specialist nurse students in ambulance and emergency care–A cross-sectional study. Int Emerg Nurs 63: 101194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2022.101194
    [19] Considine J, LeVasseur SA, Villanueva E (2004) The Australasian Triage Scale: Examining emergency department nurses' performance using computer and paper scenarios. Ann Emerg Med 44: 516-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.04.007
    [20] Duko B, Geja E, Oltaye Z, et al. (2019) Triage knowledge and skills among nurses in emergency units of Specialized Hospital in Hawassa, Ethiopia: cross sectional study. BMC Res Notes 12: 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4062-1
    [21] Fathoni M, Sangchan H, Songwathana P (2013) Relationships between triage knowledge, training, working experiences and triage skills among emergency nurses in East Java, Indonesia. Nurse Media J Nurs 3: 511-525.
    [22] Jordi K, Grossmann F, Gaddis GM, et al. (2015) Nurses' accuracy and self-perceived ability using the Emergency Severity Index triage tool: a cross-sectional study in four Swiss hospitals. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 23: 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-015-0142-y
    [23] Kerie S, Tilahun A, Mandesh A (2018) Triage skill and associated factors among emergency nurses in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2017: a cross-sectional study. BMC Res Notes 11: 658. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3769-8
    [24] Fathoni M, Sangchan H, Songwathana P (2010) Triage knowledge and skills among emergency nurses in East Java Province, Indonesia. Aust Emerg Nurs J 13: 153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aenj.2010.08.304
    [25] Varndell W, Hodge A, Fry M (2019) Triage in Australian emergency departments: Results of a New South Wales survey. Australas Emerg Care 22: 81-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.auec.2019.01.003
    [26] Pontisidis G, Platis C, Galanis P, et al. (2021) Emergency department triage: The knowledge and skills of Greek health professionals. Arch Hell Med 38: 497-507.
    [27] Gkampriell H, Voutsinou RN, Ekmektzoglou K, et al. (2023) Knowledge and Skills of the Medical and Nursing Staff of Emergency Department in Triage Comparative Study between Public and Private Hospitals in Athens. Health Sci J 17: 1-6.
    [28] Thawley A, Aggar C, Williams N (2020) The educational needs of triage nurses. Health Educ Pract J Res Prof Learn 3: 26-38. https://doi.org/10.33966/hepj.3.1.14121
    [29] Yazdannik A, Mohamadirizi S, Nasr-Esfahani M (2020) Comparison of the effect of electronic education and workshop on the satisfaction of nurses about Emergency Severity Index triage. J Educ Health Promot 9: 158. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_182_19
    [30] Jang K, Jo E, Song KJ (2021) Effect of problem-based learning on severity classification agreement by triage nurses. BMC Nurs 20: 256. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00781-2
    [31] Molina-McBride A Improving triage and patient throughput process with emergency department rapid triage protocol and emergency severity index training (2022). Available from: https://share.calbaptist.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/bef99d91-6c0e-480d-9ae2-7b97bdf46bc2/content
    [32] McElroy CD (2020) Improving Emergency Department Triage Accuracy and Effectiveness with Implementation of Emergency Severity Index Toolkit: A Doctor of Nursing Practice Project. Southeastern Louisiana University .
    [33] Recznik CT, Simko LC, Travers D, et al. (2019) Pediatric Triage Education for the General Emergency Nurse: A Randomized Crossover Trial Comparing Simulation with Paper-Case Studies. J Emerg Nurs 45: 394-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2019.01.009
    [34] Atack L, Rankin JA, Then KL (2005) Effectiveness of a 6-week Online Course in the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale for Emergency Nurses. J Emerg Nurs 31: 436-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2005.07.005
    [35] Rahmati H, Azmoon M, Meibodi MK, et al. (2013) Effects of Triage Education on Knowledge, Practice and Qualitative Index of Emergency Room Staff: A Quasi-Interventional Study. Bull Emerg Trauma 1: 69-75.
    [36] Gilboy N, Tanabe T, Travers D, et al. (2012) Emergency severity index (ESI): A triage tool for emergency department care, version 4, implementation handbook 2012 edition. AHRQ publication : 12.
    [37] Triage workbook-Emergency, Triage Education Kit. Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/triage-workbook-emergency-triage-education-kit?language=en
    [38] MAPI Research InstituteLinguistic Validation Process (2002). Available from: http://www.mapi-re-searchinst.com/lvprocess.asp
    [39] Medical Outcomes Trust.Trust introduces new translation criteria. Med Outcom Trust Bull (1997) 5: 1-4.
    [40] Association WM (2013) World medical association declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310: 2191-2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
    [41] Brosinski CM, Riddell AJ, Valdez S (2017) Improving Triage Accuracy: A Staff Development Approach. Clin Nurse Spec 31: 145-148. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000291
    [42] Hoffman S, Voss JA, Hendrickx L, et al. (2022) Effect of Emergency Severity Index Annual Competency Assessment on Mistriage. J Nurs Care Qual 37: 356-361. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000638
    [43] Hoseini SD, Khankeh HR, Dalvandi A, et al. (2018) Comparing the effect of the two educational methods: competency-based, and lecture, on the knowledge and performance of nurses in the field of hospital triage. Health Emergencies Disasters Q 3: 77-84. https://doi.org/10.29252/nrip.hdq.3.2.77
    [44] Hosseini A, Mojtahedzadeh R, Aeen Mohammadi, et al. (2022) Effective triage training for nurses: comparison of face to face, pamphlet, and multimedia training. J E-Learn Knowl Soc 18: 101-106. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135442
    [45] Jahromi MK, Dost ER (2017) Assessing the Effect of Triage Education Emergency Severity Index (ESI) In Both Lecturing and Team Base Learning (TBL) On the Knowledge of Emergency Medical Staff Hospitals of Jahrom University of Medical Sciences. Int J Sci Stud 5: 267-270.
    [46] Javadi M, Gheshlaghi M, Bijani M (2023) A comparison between the impacts of lecturing and flipped classrooms in virtual learning on triage nurses' knowledge and professional capability: an experimental study. BMC Nurs 22: 205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01353-2
    [47] Mansour H, Ahmed N, Khafagy W, et al. (2015) Effect of implementing triage training competencies on newly graduated nurses working in emergency hospital. Mansoura Nurs J 2: 159-179. https://doi.org/10.21608/mnj.2015.149111
    [48] McNally S Triage education: From experience to practice standards (2006). Available from: https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A24
    [49] Mohebbi K, Taheri_Ezbarami Z, Maroufizadeh S, et al. (2023) Effectiveness of Outcome-Based Pediatric Triage Education on knowledge and Decision Making of Nursing Students in Guilan: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Medbiotech J .
    [50] Rankin JA, Then KL, Atack L (2013) Can Emergency Nurses' Triage Skills Be Improved by Online Learning? Results of an Experiment. J Emerg Nurs 39: 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2011.07.004
    [51] Toffoli K (2016) Improving Emergency Department Triage Quality Improvement Project. Drexel University . https://doi.org/10.17918/etd-7230
    [52] Tran N (2019) Implementing ESI Education Project for Nurses in the Triage Process. Walden University . Available from: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/7437.
    [53] Yazdannik A, Dsatjerdi E, Mohamadirizi S (2018) Utilizing mobile health method to emergency nurses' knowledge about Emergency Severity Index triage. J Educ Health Promot 7: 10. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_29_17
    [54] Zagalioti SC, Fyntanidou B, Exadaktylos A, et al. (2023) The first positive evidence that training improves triage decisions in Greece: evidence from emergency nurses at an Academic Tertiary Care Emergency Department. BMC Emerg Med 23: 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-023-00827-5
    [55] Bahlibi TT, Tesfamariam EH, Andemeskel YM, et al. (2022) Effect of triage training on the knowledge application and practice improvement among the practicing nurses of the emergency departments of the National Referral Hospitals, 2018; a pre-post study in Asmara, Eritrea. BMC Emerg Med 22: 190. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-022-00755-w
    [56] Megginson LA (2008) RN-BSN education: 21st century barriers and incentives. J Nurs Manag 16: 47-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2007.00784.x
    [57] Eley R, Fallon T, Soar J, et al. (2008) The status of training and education in information and computer technology of Australian nurses: a national survey. J Clin Nurs 17: 2758-2767. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02285.x
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Jason Lee, Alia Tayara, James D. Warren, Boris Kuyeb, Elizabeth McKee, Alexander Velazquez, Oishika Paul, Andrea F. Lewis, COVID-19 impact on facial trauma: Insights from Mississippi's only level 1 trauma center, 2024, 45, 01960709, 104086, 10.1016/j.amjoto.2023.104086
    2. Panteleimon Chriskos, Christos A. Frantzidis, Christina S. Plomariti, Emmanouil Papanastasiou, Athanasia Pataka, Chrysoula Kourtidou-Papadeli, Panagiotis D. Bamidis, SmartHypnos: An Android application for low-cost sleep self-monitoring and personalized recommendation generation, 2025, 184, 00104825, 109306, 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.109306
    3. Kyle Treiber, Intimate Partner Abuse and Homicide During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Situational Action Theory Analysis, 2024, 40, 1043-9862, 290, 10.1177/10439862241245882
    4. Akua O. Gyamerah, Alexandrea E. Dunham, Janet Ikeda, Andy C. Canizares, Willi McFarland, Erin C. Wilson, Glenn-Milo Santos, Claudio Alberto Dávila-Cervantes, Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on violence exposure and alcohol use among adults who drink alcohol, 2024, 19, 1932-6203, e0316096, 10.1371/journal.pone.0316096
    5. A. Merlo, P.A. Hendriksen, N.R. Severeijns, J. Garssen, G. Bruce, J.C. Verster, Alcohol Consumption During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Critical Review, 2025, 40, 0885-6222, 10.1002/hup.70004
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1274) PDF downloads(97) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Tables(4)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog