Burnout among healthcare personnel has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic's unique features. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide a complete assessment of the prevalence of burnout across various healthcare personnel. Until January 2021, systematic searches for English language papers were conducted using PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest. Thirty observational studies were found after conducting systematic searches. The pooled overall prevalence of burnout was 52% [95% confidence interval (CI) 40–63%]. Pooled emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and lack of personal accomplishment (PA) were 51% (95% CI 42–61%), 52% (95% CI 39–65%), and 28% (95% CI 25–31%), respectively. This study demonstrated that nearly half of the healthcare workers experienced burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the studies that were included, non-frontline COVID-19 exposed healthcare personnel also experienced burnout. From high to lower middle-income countries, there was a gradient in the prevalence of total burnout, EE, and lack of PA. Further studies on burnout in low and lower-middle-income countries are suggested. A uniform diagnostic tool for the assessment of burnout is warranted.

Context: COVID-19, like the other pandemics, apart from its impacts on peoples' health, has had diverse huge impacts on psycho-socio-economic aspects of societies globally. Hence, applying appropriate interventions to reduce the indirect burden of this pandemic is as important as patients’ care. Objectives: In this study, we aimed to review the main interventions against the economic and psychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: This scope review was conducted to determine what measures have been taken by governments against different non-medical (economic and psychosocial) consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors reviewed the relevant articles published from December 2019 to December 2020 through three databases of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The interventions in three areas of economic, social, or psychological were exerted, and in the review of the articles, the country and the target population were considered. Finally, the results were categorized and presented descriptively. Results: Regarding the negative consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in psychosocial and economic aspects of societies, governments, especially in developed countries, have established measures to reduce the burdens of these consequences. Apart from interventions related to the general population, at-risk and vulnerable groups and also those with low socio-economic status are specific target populations for interventions. Conclusions: The future of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain and unpredictable. Governments and their decisions will play a vital role in determining the trend of the pandemic. Therefore, it is the responsibility of governments, especially in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), to support vulnerable people and protect them against the devastating socio-economic and psychological effects of this pandemic using all their capacity.