No abstract

Purpose This study aimed at investigating five dimensions of the psychological impact (post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS), anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance or profession-related burnout) of COVID-19 on healthcare workers (HCW) in China. Methods Studies that evaluated at least one of the five target dimensions of the psychological impact of COVID-19 on HCW in China were included. Studies with no data of our interest were excluded. Relevant Databases were searched from inception up to June 10, 2020. Preprint articles were also included. The methodological quality was assessed using the checklist recommended by AHRQ. Both the rate of prevalence and the severity of symptoms were pooled. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020197126) on July 09, 2020. Results We included 44 studies with a total of 65,706 HCW participants. Pooled prevalence rates of moderate to severe PTSS, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances were 27% (95% CI 16%-38%), 17% (13–21%), 15% (13–16%), and 15% (7–23%), respectively; while the prevalence of mild to severe level of PTSS, anxiety, and depression was estimated as 31% (25–37%), 37% (32–42%) and 39% (25–52%). Due to the lack of data, no analysis of profession-related burnout was pooled. Subgroup analyses indicated higher prevalence of moderate to severe psychological impact in frontline HCW, female HCW, nurses, and HCW in Wuhan. Conclusion About a third of HCW in China showed at least one dimension of psychological symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the prevalence of moderate and severe syndromes was relatively low. Studies on profession-related burnout, long-term impact, and the post-stress growth are still needed.

BackgroundOur study aimed (1) to describe the proportion of psychological distress among Chinese outpatients at general hospitals, (2) to compare cognitive and behavioral characteristics of patients with different distress patterns, and (3) to investigate the discriminant function of the analyzed variables in indicating the affinity towards the different distress patterns.MethodsThis multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted at ten outpatient departments at Chinese general hospitals. The somatic symptom severity scale (PHQ-15), the nine-item depression scale (PHQ-9), and the seven-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) were employed to classify patients in terms of four distress patterns.ResultsA total of 491 patients were enrolled. Among them, the proportion of patients with high psychological distress was significantly higher within those with high somatic distress (74.5% vs. 25.5%, p < .001). Patients with psychological distress alone and mixed distress were significantly younger and with lower monthly family income, while the proportion of female patients (80.9%) was highest in the somatic distress group. Patients with mixed distress had the most negative cognitive and behavioral characteristics [highest health anxiety (5.0 ± 1.9), lowest sense of coherence (35.5 ± 10.0), the worst doctor–patient relationship from both patients’ (36.0 ± 7.3) and doctors’ perspectives (23.3 ± 7.0)], as well as most impaired quality of life (41.6 ± 7.4 and 31.9 ± 10.3). In addition, compared with patients with somatic distress alone, those with psychological distress alone had lower sense of coherence, worse doctor–patient relationship, and more impaired mental quality of life, but less doctor visits. Discriminant analysis showed that gender, mental quality of life, health anxiety, sense of coherence, and frequent doctor visits were significant indicators in identifying patients with different distress patterns.ConclusionsOur study found that (1) psychological distress was not rare in the Chinese general hospital outpatients, especially in those with high somatic distress; (2) patients with psychological distress alone sought less help from doctors, despite their severe psychosocial impairment; and (3) gender, health anxiety, sense of coherence, mental quality of life, and frequent doctor visits could help to identify different distress patterns.