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>² 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.

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Background Given the automatization of care and rationing of time and staff due to economic imperatives, often resulting in dehumanized care, the concept of 'humanization of care' has been increasingly discussed in the scientific literature. However, it is still an indistinct concept, lacking well-defined dimensions and to date no literature review has tried to capture it. Objectives The objectives of this systematic review were to identify the key elements of humanization of care by investigating stakeholders' (patients, patients' caregivers, healthcare providers) perspectives and to assess barriers and strategies for its implementation. Methods We carried out a systematic search of five electronic databases up to December 2017 as well as examining additional sources (e.g., gray literature). Search terms included "humanization/humanisation of care" and "dehumanization/ dehumanisation of care". We conducted a thematic synthesis of the extracted study findings to identify descriptive themes and produce key elements. Results Of 1327 records retrieved, 14 full-text articles were included in the review. Three main areas (relational, organizational, structural) and 30 key elements (e.g., relationship bonding, holistic approach, adequate working conditions) emerged. Several barriers to implementation of humanization of care exist in all areas. Conclusion Our systematic review and synthesis contributes to a deeper understanding of the concept of humanization of care. The proposed key elements are expected to serve as preliminary guidance for healthcare institutions aiming to overcome challenges in various forms and achieve humanized and efficient care. Future studies need to fully examine specific practices of humanized care and test quantitatively their effectiveness by examining psychosocial and health outcomes.

Given the negative impact of adverse events on the wellbeing of healthcare providers, easy access to psychological support is crucial. We aimed to describe the types of support resources available in healthcare organizations, their benefits for second victims, peer supporters’ experiences, and implementation challenges. We also explored how these resources incorporate aspects of Safety I and Safety II. We searched six databases up to 19 December 2019 and additional literature, including weekly search alerts until 21 January 2021. Two reviewers independently performed all methodological steps (search, selection, quality assessment, data extraction, formal narrative synthesis). The 16 included studies described 12 second victim support resources, implemented between 2006 and 2017. Preliminary data indicated beneficial effects not only for the affected staff but also for the peer responders who considered their role to be challenging but gratifying. Challenges during program implementation included persistent blame culture, limited awareness of program availability, and lack of financial resources. Common goals of the support programs (e.g., fostering coping strategies, promoting individual resilience) are consistent with Safety II and may promote system resilience. Investing in second victim support structures should be a top priority for healthcare institutions adopting a systemic approach to safety and striving for just culture.