Acute psychological effects of Coronavirus Disease 2019 outbreak among healthcare workers in China: a cross-sectional study

Wang, Ying; Ma, Simeng; Yang, Chaowu; Cai, Zhongxiang; Hu, Shaohua; Zhang, Bin; Tang, Shiming; Bai, Hanping; Guo, Xin; Wu, Jiang; Du, Hui; Kang, Lijun; Tan, Huawei; Li, Ruiting; Yao, Lihua; Wang, Gaohua; Liu, Zhongchun

doi:10.1038/s41398-020-01031-w

Cited by 72 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The nursing staff had more anxiety than physicians and other non-medical hospital staff. The same result has been shown in earlier studies [ 8 , 11 , 18 , 29 , 43–45 ]. However, Tan et al.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

COVID-19: anxiety among hospital staff and associated factors

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital staff have experienced a variety of mental health challenges. European research on anxiety and stress among hospital workers during the pandemic is limited. This study aimed to describe the anxiety levels of Finnish hospital workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods The multidimensional, cross-sectional survey was distributed to all hospital staff working at two Finnish specialized medical care centres in the spring of 2020 ( n = 1,995). The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale was used to measure the workers’ anxiety. Results The total mean GAD-7 score was 4.88, indicating normal anxiety levels. However, 30% ( n = 1,079) of the respondents had mild, 10% ( n = 194) moderate and 5% ( n = 88) severe anxiety. Key risk factors were young age, working in a university hospital, problems in cooperation between co-workers, difficulty concentrating at work, a health-threatening physical and psychological workload, and a fear of being infected at work. Conclusion Hospital staff experienced a variety of work-related stress and anxiety issues that should be visible to hospital administrators and policymakers alike. The anxiety is independent of whether the worker is directly involved in caring for or in any way coming into contact with COVID-19 patients. Key message Fifty-five percent of hospital staff have normal anxiety levels. The remaining workers may need targeted support interventions, and a smaller proportion (15%) are in danger of developing longer-term problems affecting their well-being. The anxiety experienced by hospital workers during the COVID-19 pandemic is more severe than that of the population on average. If the pandemic continues, the well-being of hospital staff may be widely threatened. Despite the different geographical locations and COVID-19 situations, hospital workers in Finland and China had similar anxiety levels. The anxiety is independent of whether staff are working in the front line of managing the COVID-19 pandemic or of the number of covid-19 patients admitted to the hospital. The hospital workers felt anxiety because they were facing a new situation which causes changes in their work and daily routine. Health care employers should engage in long-term follow-up as regards the personnel’s recovery from the burden caused by the pandemic and from work in general. It is necessary to make easily attainable, flexibly delivered and cost-effective treatment interventions for anxiety available to hospital staff.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…As in earlier studies, female respondents had more anxiety than male participants in the current study [ 8 , 28 , 29 , 42 , 43 ]. The nursing staff had more anxiety than physicians and other non-medical hospital staff.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

COVID-19: anxiety among hospital staff and associated factors

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All 79 cross-sectional studies [41, 42, 44-50, 52-54, 56-63, 65-74, 77-122, 124-126] met four or more quality criteria, with 38 studies meeting all eight [41, 44, 48, 50, 54, 57, 59, 60, 63, 65-67, 74, 78-80, 83, 87-89, 91, 93, 96, 99-102, 104, 105, 107-109, 113, 119-121, 124, 126]. Most of the studies clearly defined criteria for inclusion in the sample, described study subjects and setting in detail, measured the exposure in a valid, reliable way, and used objective standard criteria for measurement of condition and appropriate statistical analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All 79 cross-sectional studies [ 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 ...…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

What We Have Learned from Two Decades of Epidemics and Pandemics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Burden of Frontline Healthcare Workers

Busch

Moretti

Mazzi

et al. 2021

Psychother Psychosom

142

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In light of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and potential future infectious disease outbreaks, a comprehensive understanding of the negative effects of epidemics and pandemics on healthcare workers’ mental health could inform appropriate support interventions. Thus, we aimed to synthesize and quantify the psychological and psychosomatic symptoms among frontline medical staff. We searched four databases up to March 19, 2020 and additional literature, with daily search alerts set up until October 26, 2020. Studies reporting psychological and/or psychosomatic symptoms of healthcare workers caring for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome, H1N1, Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome, or COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently conducted the search, study selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis and involved a third reviewer in case of disagreement. We used random effects modeling to estimate the overall prevalence rates of psychological/psychosomatic symptoms and the <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> statistic. We included 86 studies, reporting data from 75,991 participants. Frontline staff showed a wide range of symptoms, including concern about transmitting the virus to the family (60.39%, 95% CI 42.53–76.96), perceived stress (56.77%, 95% CI 34.21–77.95), concerns about own health (45.97%, 95% CI 31.08–61.23), sleeping difficulties (39.88%, 95% CI 27.70–52.72), burnout (31.81%, 95% CI 13.32–53.89), symptoms of depression (25.72%, 95% CI 18.34–33.86), symptoms of anxiety (25.36%, 95% CI 17.90–33.64), symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (24.51%, 95% CI 18.16–31.46), mental health issues (23.11%, 95% CI 15.98–31.10), and symptoms of somatization (14.68%, 95% CI 10.67–19.18). We found consistent evidence for the pervasive and profound impact of large-scale outbreaks on the mental health of frontline healthcare workers. As the COVID-19 crisis continues to unfold, guaranteeing easy access to support structures for the entire healthcare workforce is vitally important.

show abstract

“…Emerging studies show the impact on health workers' mental health and psychological wellbeing [e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6], mirroring what was also observed following earlier epi-and pandemics [7][8][9]. Mental health and psychological wellbeing of health workers have consequently risen high on the agenda of policy makers and researchers [10,11].…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Much research, but little learned to date: A scoping review on mental health of health workers in low- and lower-middle income countries and roadmap for future research

Lohmann

John

Dzay

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 has resulted in unprecedented research efforts on health workers’ work realities and their potential mental health impacts. To understand the latter, high-quality evidence on the baseline situation is paramount. With the aim of providing a comprehensive overview of existing evidence and to inform future research, we undertook a scoping review of the quantitative literature on mental health and psychological wellbeing of clinical skilled healthcare personnel working in all settings of care in low- and lower-middle income countries (LLMIC).MethodsWe performed a systematic search of the literature up to the end of 2019, in English or French language, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Global Health, and CAIRN. We included both studies estimating levels of mental health and studies investigating associations with other factors. We extracted data on study characteristics and methodology, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies along nine criteria.ResultsWe found 143 relevant studies, 135 including data on mental health levels and 126 including data on associations with other factors. The studies covered 26 of the world’s 78 LLMICs, with most studies conducted in India, Nigeria, Pakistan, or Egypt, in urban secondary- and tertiary-care settings. 67% of studies assessed burnout, 25% general psychological wellbeing, and 20% other mental health outcomes. Only 19% of studies were of high quality due to shortcomings particularly in regards to sample representativeness, context-specific measurement tool validity, and reporting of methodological detail. We found much heterogeneity in investigated associated factors. Studies focused almost exclusively on potential determinants of mental health, while none linked mental health to objectively measured performance outcomes.ConclusionWe conclude that despite its impressive size, we can learn comparatively little from the current body of literature. Based on our findings, we outline areas for expansion, methodological improvement, and standardization of reporting in future research on mental health of health workers.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO no. CRD42019140036

show abstract

Acute psychological effects of Coronavirus Disease 2019 outbreak among healthcare workers in China: a cross-sectional study

Cited by 72 publications

References 35 publications

COVID-19: anxiety among hospital staff and associated factors

COVID-19: anxiety among hospital staff and associated factors

What We Have Learned from Two Decades of Epidemics and Pandemics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Burden of Frontline Healthcare Workers

Much research, but little learned to date: A scoping review on mental health of health workers in low- and lower-middle income countries and roadmap for future research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About