Systematic review of productivity loss among healthcare workers due to Covid‐19

Abstract

Objective To assess existing evidence on the effects of COVID‐19 on healthcare workers (HCWs) using the health‐related productivity loss approach. Methods A systematic search of online databases including PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Web of Science, and EMBASE was conducted up to 25 August 2020. Following two screening stages, studies related to the effects of COVID‐19 on healthcare workers were included in the study. Results 82 studies were included in the analysis. The COVID‐19 related death rate among HCWs ranged from 0.00‐0.7%, while the positive test incidence varied between 0.00 and 24.4%. 39 evidences assessed psychological disorders. A wide range of psychological disorders observed among HCWs: 5.2 to 71.2% in anxiety, 1.00 to 88.3% in stress, 8.27 to 61.67% in insomnia, and 4.5 to 50.4% in depression. Conclusions The early evidence suggests that healthcare workers are one of the most vulnerable groups when it comes to positive COVID‐19 infection, mortality, and mental illness.

Coworkers are more likely than patients to transmit SARS-CoV-2 infection to healthcare personnel

“…The institutional impact of high-risk exposures in the setting of staff shortages can be profound when considering HCP absenteeism due to exposurerelated quarantine and/or isolation, in addition to the loss of productivity associated with mortality and years lost due to disability from COVID-19 infection and post-COVID-19 sequalae. 7 Our study is subject to limitations. First, the observation period predated the availability of COVID-19 vaccines.…”

“…Over the last 2 years, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has placed extraordinary and excessive demands on the healthcare system and HCPs from increased risk of infection, staff shortage, loss of productivity and/or financial burden 4 7 8. Our cohort illustrates the risk and impact of SARS-CoV-2 occupational exposure on HCP, particularly the risk posed by working alongside coworkers who may be working with an asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection themselves.…”

“…The increased frequency of high-risk exposures to coworkers is especially concerning given the higher risk of post exposure infection demonstrated in our cohort. The institutional impact of high-risk exposures in the setting of staff shortages can be profound when considering HCP absenteeism due to exposure-related quarantine and/or isolation, in addition to the loss of productivity associated with mortality and years lost due to disability from COVID-19 infection and post-COVID-19 sequalae 7…”

Impact of COVID-19 vaccine-associated side effects on health care worker absenteeism and future booster vaccination

“…Effective vaccination enhances work productivity and cost savings by minimizing absenteeism related to the disease itself. [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] However, there is a paucity of data exploring the negative occupational consequences of vaccine-related side effects in the healthcare arena. This is because adverse events due to established vaccinations such as against influenza are infrequent, mild, short-lived, and thus unlikely to substantially impact work performance.…”

Rigour and transparency in the family of systematic reviews: The International Journal of Health Planning and Management encourages prospective protocol registration

“…SRs combine evidence from primary research and stand at the top of the hierarchy of evidence, especially when meta‐analyses are possible. SRs and other forms of knowledge synthesis (e.g., scoping reviews, rapid reviews, realist reviews, evidence maps) 3 are a key source of synthesised evidence for informing the decision‐making of clinicians as well as other health stakeholders (e.g., public health authorities, health planners, health managers, and policy‐makers) 4–9 . To do so, the family of SRs help identify, characterise, integrate, and synthesise the array of primary research findings within a topic or research question that otherwise end‐users cannot keep up with or combine for themselves.…”