The impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers’ anxiety levels

Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Out-of-Hospital Health Professionals: A Living Systematic Review

“…The designs of most of the selected research ( n = 16) were of the descriptive cross-sectional type [ 52 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ], except in the case of the 4 remaining studies in which a qualitative methodology was used [ 51 , 53 , 58 , 70 ]. With regard to their geographic distribution, the studies were completed in regions and countries with important differences in the organization of their health systems: Italy ( n = 6) [ 56 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ], Germany ( n = 2) [ 52 , 59 ], Spain ( n = 2) [ 57 , 61 ], Turkey ( n = 2) [ 55 , 62 ], Belgium ( n = 1) [ 68 ], India ( n = 1) [ 53 ], Iran ( n = 1) [ 51 ], Pakistan ( n = 1) [ 58 ], Poland ( n = 1) [ 54 ], Russia ( n = 1) [ 60 ], and the United States ( n = 1) [ 69 ]. It is worth mentioning that professionals from four different countries (Canada, Ireland, Kenya and the United States) participated in one of the qualitative studies [ 70 ].…”

“…Other results such as fear, sleep quality, resilience level, and substance abuse were not objects of evaluation in the present review, despite having been recurrent topics in the works under analysis. In most studies, the area of work was considered yet another secondary variable, including all the HPs regardless of the area in which they might work [ 54 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ]. No great differences were found in the inclusion and exclusion criteria under consideration.…”

“…A high degree of variability was observed with regard to the number and professional category of the out-of-hospital health workers in the included and analyzed studies. The sample size ranged from 31 to 1831 participants in the descriptive, cross-sectional studies [ 55 , 68 ], while in the qualitative-based studies, this interval was between 3 and 31 participants [ 53 , 70 ]. Paramedics and emergency ambulance technicians were the two professional categories with the highest number of representatives in 11 of the 20 selected articles.…”

“…In the descriptive, cross-sectional studies, the participants were selected through non-probabilistic convenience sampling based on voluntary participation. In all of them, except in one, data collection was done through the completion of an online survey distributed through the principal social networks (Facebook ® , Instagram ® , LinkedIn ® , Twitter ® , WhatsApp ® ), email lists, and specialized fora and web pages of public organizations and thematic communities [ 52 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. Among all the quantitative investigations, the study of Usul et al was the only one that decided to conduct personal interviews with each of the participants as a data-collection method [ 62 ].…”

“…The necessary time to complete the survey fluctuated between 5 and 20 min. The period analyzed in most studies included in this review was the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, between the months of March and July 2020, which coincided with an important increase in the global case rate as well as with the adoption of restrictive governmental measures in the great majority of countries, which considerably constrained the individual liberties of the general public [ 52 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 66 , 69 ]. The study by Vagni et al was the only one in which data was collected on both waves of the pandemic [ 67 ].…”