Occupational Stress and Mental Health: A Comparison Between Frontline Medical Staff and Non-frontline Medical Staff During the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak

Xie, Zhen; Zhao, Ke; Zhang, Guohua; Feng, Ruihua; Chen, Jianjun; Xu, Dongmei; Liu, Xiaodong; Ngoubene-Atioky, Arlette J.; Huang, Hong; Liu, Yanlong; Chen, Li; Wang, Wei

doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.555703

Cited by 46 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…About two thirds (n = 98) of the studies reported the data on depression [ 8 , 23 – 27 , 29 – 33 , 35 , 36 , 38 – 41 , 45 – 52 , 56 – 60 , 62 – 65 , 67 – 69 , 71 – 76 , 78 – 82 , 84 , 86 , 88 , 89 , 91 , 92 , 94 , 95 , 97 , 99 , 100 , 103 , 104 , 106 – 108 , 111 , 113 , 115 – 117 , 120 , 123 , 124 , 127 , 129 – 133 , 137 , 138 , 140 , 141 , 143 – 146 , 149 , 151 – 154 ,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 117 out of 148 studies described the anxiety data in terms of frequency or percentage [ 8 , 10 , 11 , 24 – 27 , 30 – 33 , 35 – 42 , 45 – 56 , 58 – 60 , 62 – 65 , 67 – 69 , 71 – 76 , 78 – 82 , 84 , 86 , 88 – 95 , 99 , 100 , 103 – 114 , 116 – 118 , 120 , 122 – 135 , 137 – 141 , 143 – 145 , 149 , 151 – 154 , 156 – 165 ]. Tools that were used to screen for anxiety were Depression-Anxiety-Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21), 2-item and 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-2& GAD-7), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale 14 items (HADS), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS), Chinese Classification and the Diagnose Criterion of Mental Disorder (CCMD-3), State and Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Dispositional cancer worry scale, Symptom Checklist 90, and Beck Anxiety Scales (BAS).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychological distress among healthcare providers during COVID-19 in Asia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Ching

Lee

et al. 2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction COVID-19 pandemic is having a devastating effect on the mental health and wellbeing of healthcare providers (HCPs) globally. This review is aimed at determining the prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, fear, burnout and resilience and its associated factors among HCPs in Asia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods We performed literature search using 4 databases from Medline, Cinahl, PubMed and Scopus from inception up to March 15, 2021 and selected relevant cross-sectional studies. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot. Random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence while risk factors were reported in odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. Results We included 148 studies with 159,194 HCPs and the pooled prevalence for depression was 37.5% (95%CI: 33.8–41.3), anxiety 39.7(95%CI: 34.3–45.1), stress 36.4% (95%CI: 23.2–49.7), fear 71.3% (95%CI: 54.6–88.0), burnout 68.3% (95%CI: 54.0–82.5), and low resilience was 16.1% (95%CI: 12.8–19.4), respectively. The heterogeneity was high (I2>99.4%). Meta-analysis reported that both females (OR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.30–1.68) and nurses (OR = 1.21; 95%CI = 1.02–1.45) were at increased risk of having depression and anxiety [(Female: OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.49–1.85), (Nurse: OR = 1.36; 95%CI = 1.16–1.58)]. Females were at increased risk of getting stress (OR = 1.59; 95%CI = 1.28–1.97). Conclusion In conclusion, one third of HCPs suffered from depression, anxiety and stress and more than two third of HCPs suffered from fear and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic in Asia.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological distress among healthcare providers during COVID-19 in Asia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Ching

Lee

et al. 2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The importance of this phenomenon lies in the fact that women performed those jobs whose exposure to the virus was higher during the first wave, such as Nurse Assistants and Nurses. Studies later showed that being in the frontline against the virus in direct contact with COVID-19 patients was, in fact, a risk factor for higher psychological distress ( 24 , 60 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender-Based Analysis of the Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Healthcare Workers in Spain

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study aims to analyze from a gender perspective the psychological distress experienced by the medical workforce during the peak of the pandemic in Spain.Methods: This is a single-center, observational analytic study. The study population comprised all associated health workers of the Cruces University Hospital, invited by email to participate in the survey. It consisted of a form covering demographic data, the general health questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28), and the perceived stress scale (PSS-14). We used multivariant regression analysis to check the effect of gender on the scores. We used gender analysis in both design and interpretation of data following SAGER guidelines.Results: Females made 74.6% of our sample, but their proportion was higher in lower-paid positions such as nursery (89.9%) than in higher-paid ones. The percentage of women categorized as cases with the GHQ-28 was 78.4%, a proportion significantly higher than in the male population (61.3%, p < 0.001). The multivariant regression analysis showed that being women, working as orderly hospital porters, and having a past psychiatric history were risk factors for higher scores in both the GHQ-28 and PSS-14.Conclusion: Women and those with lower-paid positions were at risk of higher psychological distress and worse quality of life within the medical workforce during the first wave of the pandemic. Gender analysis must be incorporated to analyze this fact better.

show abstract

“…Workplace exposure was used to differentiate respondents into frontline and non-frontline workers. Frontline workers were medical staff directly involved with COVID-19 patient care, and non-frontline workers were medical staff without direct involvement with COVID-19 patient care ( 41 ). We distinguished these two groups of workers by asking respondents whether they engaged directly with treating COVID-19 patients.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological Distress Among Healthcare Professionals During the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Low Resource Settings: A Cross-Sectional Study in Bangladesh

Hossain

Patwary

Sultana

et al. 2021

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has been very destructive to and compromised the functioning of all nations' public health systems. In the absence of a vaccine, healthcare workers have been employed to relentlessly fight against COVID-19. The psychological status of healthcare workers during the pandemic in countries with limited resources, notably Bangladesh, remains unclear. The present study aimed to investigate the psychological states of frontline and non-frontline Bangladeshi healthcare workers during the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak. An online cross-sectional study was conducted from May 5 to 31, 2020 with 203 respondents. Psychological states were measured with a self-reported numerical scale of fear, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale, and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). The prevalence rates of fear, anxiety, and depression were 60.6, 71.9, and 55.2%, respectively. Compared to non-frontline workers, frontline workers reported higher rates of anxiety (79.0 vs. 67.2%) and depression (65.4 vs. 48.4%). Multivariate logistic regression models showed that working in a public institution, being employed for <5 years, and being over-worked were risk factors for developing psychological distress. Our findings emphasize the need for timely psychological interventions to support the mental well-being of healthcare professionals in Bangladesh.

show abstract

Occupational Stress and Mental Health: A Comparison Between Frontline Medical Staff and Non-frontline Medical Staff During the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak

Cited by 46 publications

References 46 publications

Psychological distress among healthcare providers during COVID-19 in Asia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Psychological distress among healthcare providers during COVID-19 in Asia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Gender-Based Analysis of the Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Healthcare Workers in Spain

Psychological Distress Among Healthcare Professionals During the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Low Resource Settings: A Cross-Sectional Study in Bangladesh

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About