Highlights Healthcare workers’ mental health problems correlate with organizational factors such as workload and exposure to covid-19 patients. Healthcare workers are more interested in occupational protection, rest, and social support than in professional psychological help. Interventions focus more on addressing individual psychopathology, which points towards a mismatch between what workers want and need, and the services available to them.

Background: The covid-19 pandemic has heavily burdened, and in some cases overwhelmed, healthcare systems throughout the world. Healthcare workers are not only at heightened risk of infection, but also of adverse mental health outcomes. Identification of organizational, collegial and individual risk and resilience factors impacting the mental health of healthcare workers are needed to inform preparedness planning and sustainable response. Methods: We performed a rapid systematic review to identify, assess and summarize available research on the mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers. On 11 May 2020, we utilized the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Live map of covid-19 evidence, the visualization of a database of 20,738 screened studies, to identify studies for inclusion. We included studies reporting on any type of mental health outcome in any type of healthcare workers during the pandemic. We described interventions reported by the studies, and narratively summarized mental health-related outcomes, as study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. We assessed study quality using design-specific instruments. Results: We included 59 studies, reporting on a total of 54,707 healthcare workers. The prevalence of general psychological distress across the studies ranged from 7-97% (median 37%), anxiety 9-90% (median 24%), depression 5-51% (median 21%), and sleeping problems 34-65% (median 37%). Seven studies reported on implementing mental health interventions, and most focused on individual symptom reduction, but none reported on effects of the interventions. In most studies, healthcare workers reported low interest in and use of professional help, and greater reliance on social support and contact with family and friends. Exposure to covid-19 was the most commonly reported correlate of mental health problems, followed by female gender, and worry about infection or about infecting others. Social support correlated with less mental health problems. Discussion: Healthcare workers in a variety of fields, positions, and exposure risks are reporting anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and distress during the covid-19 pandemic, but most studies do not report comparative data on mental health symptoms. before the pandemic. There seems to be a mismatch between risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among healthcare workers in the current pandemic and their needs and preferences, and the individual psychopathology focus of current interventions. Efforts to help healthcare workers sustain healthy relationships to colleagues, family and friends over time may be paramount to safeguard what is already an important source of support during the prolonged crisis. Expanding interventions' focus to incorporate organizational, collegial and family factors to support healthcare workers responding to the pandemic could improve acceptability and efficacy of interventions. Other: The protocol for this review is available online. No funding was received.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate if the included references in a set of completed systematic reviews are indexed in Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase, and how many references would be missed if we were to constrict our literature searches to one of these sources, or the two databases in combination. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study where we searched for each included reference (n = 4,709) in 274 reviews produced by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health to find out if the references were indexed in the respective databases. The data was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet where we calculated the indexing rate. The reviews were sorted into eight categories to see if the indexing rate differs from subject to subject. Results: The indexing rate in MEDLINE (86.6%) was slightly lower than in Embase (88.2%).  Without the MEDLINE records in Embase, the indexing rate in Embase was 71.8%. The highest indexing rate was achieved by combining both databases (90.2%). The indexing rate was highest in the category "Physical health - treatment" (97.4%). The category "Welfare" had the lowest indexing rate (58.9%). Conclusion: Our data reveals that 9.8% of the references are not indexed in either database. Furthermore, in 5% of the reviews, the indexing rate was 50% or lower.

IntroductionIn 2019, the Norwegian Institute for Public Health and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) received support from HTAi to produce a quarterly current awareness alert for the HTAi Disinvestment and Early Awareness Interest Group in collaboration with the HTAi Information Retrieval Interest Group. The alert focuses on methods and topical issues, and broader forecasts of potentially disruptive technologies that may be of interest to those involved in horizon scanning and disinvestment initiatives in health technology assessment (HTA).MethodsInformation specialists at both agencies developed search strategies for disinvestment and for horizon scanning in PubMed and Google. The template for the alert was based on an e-newsletter developed by the Information Retrieval Interest Group. Information specialists and researchers reviewed the monthly (PubMed) and weekly (Google) search results and selected potentially relevant publications. Additional sources were also identified through regular HTA and horizon scanning work.ResultsAlerts are posted quarterly on the HTAi Interest Group website; members receive an email notice when new alerts are available. While the revised PubMed searches are identifying relevant information, Google alerts have been disappointing, and this search may need to be revised further or dropped. When the one-year pilot project ends, in Fall 2020, interest group members will be surveyed to see if the alerts were useful, and whether they have suggestions for improving them.ConclusionsCollaborating on this alert service reduces duplication of effort between agencies, and makes new research in horizon scanning and disinvestment more accessible to colleagues in other agencies working in these areas.

Objective In 2019, members of the Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) Interest Group for Disinvestment and Early Awareness (DEA-IG) and the HTAi Interest Group for Information Retrieval (IR-IG) agreed to produce quarterly current awareness alerts for members of the DEA-IG. The purpose was to pilot a predefined strategy for sharing new publications on methods and topical issues in this area. Methods Literature search strategies for PubMed and Google were developed. Retrieved citations were posted on the DEA-IG Web site. Members of the DEA-IG received an email notification when new alerts were available. An informal survey of the DEA-IG members was used to provide feedback after the pilot. Results Six alerts were issued during the pilot (June 2019–September 2020) with a total of 170 citations. The bulk of the information were 124 PubMed indexed citations, and of these, 96 were retrieved by the PubMed search strategies. Google searches were not found to be useful, but ongoing horizon scanning work at the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) provided additional information. Based on retrospective sorting, we considered thirty-five PubMed citations to be highly relevant for health technology assessment (HTA). The response rate to the survey was limited (seventeen respondents), but most respondents found the alerts useful for their work. Conclusions The results of this pilot project can be used to revise search strategies and information sources, improve the relevance of the alerts, and plan for expanded dissemination strategies.

Background Evidence synthesis organisations worldwide are trying to meet commissioners’ need for rapid responses to their evidence synthesis commissions. In this project we piloted an intensive process, working to complete an evidence synthesis within six-weeks, rather than the standard lead time of 4-6 months. There were three objectives: 1) To develop a plan for and conduct an evidence synthesis in six weeks or less (“intensive pilot”) 2) To register time used for the intensive pilot 3) To evaluate the intensive pilot process and identify barriers, facilitators, learning points, areas for improvement or future implementation ideas. Methods The two project teams divided the pilot into three phases: Pre-planning, planning and intensive. During the pre-planning phase commissions were identified and researchers were recruited. During the planning phase the team interacted with the commissioner, completed the evidence synthesis protocol, and planned how they were going to work together during the intensive phase. During the intensive phase the team implemented their plan and completed the evidence synthesis they were assigned. We held reflective meetings and kept evaluator notes throughout the process. Results The team was able to achieve the project objectives. They developed and implemented a plan for conducting an evidence synthesis in six weeks. They registered their times use. During the pilot process the team reflected on and evaluated the process itself to identify barriers, facilitators, learning points, areas for improvement or future implementation ideas. The involved researchers preferred working in this intensive way. They felt that time use was more effective, and they were more focused. However, there are implications for project leadership and implementation that should be considered before implementing an intensive approach in future evidence synthesis projects. Conclusions The involved researchers preferred working intensively with one evidence synthesis over being involved with many projects at the same time. They felt that time use was more effective, and they were able to complete the tasks in a focused way. However, there are several implications for project management, leadership and further implementation that should be considered before implementing an intensive approach in future evidence syntheses.

Helene Arentz-Hansen (f. 1969) er biolog og har doktorgrad innen immunologi. Hun jobber som seniorforsker ved Område for helsetjenester i Folkehelseinstituttet og er prosjektleder for den nasjonale ressursgruppen for mini-metodevurdering. Forfatter har fylt ut ICMJE-skjemaet og oppgir ingen interessekonflikter. ELISABET HAFSTAD Elisabet Hafstad (f. 1969) har utdanning innenfor fysioterapi og bibliotek-og informasjonsfag. Hun er tilknyttet Område for helsetjenester i Folkehelseinstituttet og medlem av den nasjonale ressursgruppen for mini-metodevurdering. Forfatter har fylt ut ICMJE-skjemaet og oppgir ingen interessekonflikter. VIGDIS LAUVRAK Vigdis Lauvrak (f. 1965) er biolog og har doktorgrad innen bioteknologi. Hun jobber som seniorforsker ved Område for helsetjenester i Folkehelseinstituttet og leder den nasjonale funksjonen for metodevarsling. Forfatter har fylt ut ICMJE-skjemaet og oppgir ingen interessekonflikter. ANNA STOINSKA-SCHNEIDER Anna Stoinska-Schneider (f. 1977) er helseøkonom med en mastergrad innen økonomi og innen helseøkonomi og helseledelse. Hun jobber som seniorrådgiver ved Området for helsetjenester i Folkehelseinstituttet. Forfatter har fylt ut ICMJE-skjemaet og oppgir ingen interessekonflikter.