scholarly journals Impact of Viral Epidemic Outbreaks on Mental Health of Healthcare Workers: A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio Ricci Cabello ◽  
Jose F. Meneses-Echavez ◽  
Maria Jesús Serrano-Ripoll ◽  
David Fraile-Navarro ◽  
Maria Antònia Fiolde Roque ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Burden of predominant psychological reactions among the healthcare workers and general during COVID-19 pandemic phase: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhaskar Thakur ◽  
Mona Pathak
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Global Mental Health ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Psychological Reactions ◽  
Frontline Healthcare Workers ◽  
Anxiety Depression

ABSTRACTAimPresent systematic review and meta-analysis examined the burden of psychological reactions predominantly anxiety, depression, stress and insomnia during novel COVID-19 pandemic phase among the frontline healthcare, non-frontline healthcare and general.MethodologyPubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS were searched for studies between Jan 1, 2020 to May 25, 2020. Brief protocol of the systematic review was registered with the PROSPERO database, (CRD42020186229).Any study that reported the burden of at least one of psychological reactions including anxiety or depression or stress or insomnia was eligible. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistic and results were synthesized using random effect meta-analysis.ResultsOut of 52eligible studies, 43 reported anxiety, 43 reported depression, 20 reported stress and 11 reported insomnia. Overall prevalence for anxiety, depression, stress and insomnia were 26.6%, 26.2%,26.2% and 34.4% respectively. Anxiety and depression were found highest among the COVID-19 patients (43.3% and 51.75 respectively). Apart from COVID-19 patients, prevalence of anxiety, depression, stress and insomnia were found highest among the frontline healthcare (27.2%, 32.1%,55.6% and 34.4% respectively) as compared to general healthcare workers (26.9%, 15.7%, 7.0% and 34.0% respectively) and general population (25.9%, 25.9%,25.4% and 29.4% respectively).ConclusionAnxiety and depression were found highest among the COVID-19 patients. Apart from COVID-19 patients, the anxiety, depression, stress and insomnia were more prevalent among frontline healthcare workers compared to general. Such increased prevalence is prompting towards the global mental health emergency. Therefore a call of urgent attention and pan-region effective mental-health intervention are required to mitigate these psychological reactions.

scholarly journals Impact of viral epidemic outbreaks on mental health of healthcare workers: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 277 ◽  
pp. 347-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria J. Serrano-Ripoll ◽  
Jose F. Meneses-Echavez ◽  
Ignacio Ricci-Cabello ◽  
David Fraile-Navarro ◽  
Maria A. Fiol-deRoque ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mind–Body Modalities to Manage the Mental Health of Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Era

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 1320
Author(s):  
Chan-Young Kwon ◽  
Boram Lee
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Tai Chi ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
General Populations

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become an unprecedented threat to humanity worldwide, including healthcare workers (HCWs). Mind–body modalities have been used to improve the mental health, well-being, quality of life, and physical health of clinical and general populations, and may also be used to improve the mental health of HCWs during COVID-19. The objective of this review is to analyze the effectiveness of mind–body modalities for the mental health of HCWs in the COVID-19 era. Six electronic bibliographic databases were comprehensively searched to find intervention studies using mind–body modalities, including meditation, mindfulness-based intervention, autogenic training, yoga, tai chi, qigong, breathing exercise, music therapy, guided imagery, biofeedback, prayer, and faith-based techniques for HCWs. All intervention studies conducted from December 2019 to August 2021 will be included. Quality assessment will be performed according to study type, and Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool will be used for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). If sufficient homogeneous data from RCTs exist, a meta-analysis will be performed. Dichotomous data and continuous data are presented as risk ratios and mean differences with their 95% confidence intervals, respectively. The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through the publication of a manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal or by presentation at a conference.

scholarly journals Global Prevalence of Mental Health Problems among healthcare workers during The Covid-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 104002
Author(s):  
Ita Daryanti Saragih ◽  
Santo Imanuel Tonapa ◽  
Ice Septriani Saragih ◽  
Shailesh Advani ◽  
Sakti Oktaria Batubara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Global Prevalence

scholarly journals Mental burden and its risk and protective factors during the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: systematic review and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela M. Kunzler ◽  
Nikolaus Röthke ◽  
Lukas Günthner ◽  
Jutta Stoffers-Winterling ◽  
Oliver Tüscher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Population ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk And Protective Factors ◽  
Comparative Data ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Mental burden due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been widely reported for the general public and specific risk groups like healthcare workers and different patient populations. We aimed to assess its impact on mental health during the early phase by comparing pandemic with prepandemic data and to identify potential risk and protective factors. Methods For this systematic review and meta-analyses, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from January 1, 2019 to May 29, 2020, and screened reference lists of included studies. In addition, we searched PubMed and PsycINFO for prepandemic comparative data. Survey studies assessing mental burden by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the general population, healthcare workers, or any patients (eg, COVID-19 patients), with a broad range of eligible mental health outcomes, and matching studies evaluating prepandemic comparative data in the same population (if available) were included. We used multilevel meta-analyses for main, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses, focusing on (perceived) stress, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and sleep-related symptoms as primary outcomes. Results Of 2429 records retrieved, 104 were included in the review (n = 208,261 participants), 43 in the meta-analysis (n = 71,613 participants). While symptoms of anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.40; 95% CI 0.15–0.65) and depression (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.07–1.27) were increased in the general population during the early phase of the pandemic compared with prepandemic conditions, mental burden was not increased in patients as well as healthcare workers, irrespective of COVID-19 patient contact. Specific outcome measures (eg, Patient Health Questionnaire) and older comparative data (published ≥5 years ago) were associated with increased mental burden. Across the three population groups, existing mental disorders, female sex, and concerns about getting infected were repeatedly reported as risk factors, while older age, a good economic situation, and education were protective. Conclusions This meta-analysis paints a more differentiated picture of the mental health consequences in pandemic situations than previous reviews. High-quality, representative surveys, high granular longitudinal studies, and more research on protective factors are required to better understand the psychological impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and to help design effective preventive measures and interventions that are tailored to the needs of specific population groups.

scholarly journals One Year of Evidence on Mental Health in the COVID-19 Crisis - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xi Chen ◽  
Jiyao Chen ◽  
Meimei Zhang ◽  
Richard Z. Chen ◽  
Rebecca Kechen Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prevalence Rates ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
One Year ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Frontline Healthcare Workers ◽  
Anxiety Depression

ABSTRACTObjectiveThis paper provides a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence rate of mental health issues of the major population, including general population, general healthcare workers (HCWs), and frontline healthcare workers (HCWs), in China over one year of the COVID-19 crisis.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesarticles in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and medRxiv up to November 16, 2020, one year after the first publicly known confirmed COVID-19 case.Eligibility criteria and data analysisany COVID-19 and mental disorders relevant English studies with frontline/general healthcare workers, general adult population sample, using validated scales. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the prevalence rates of anxiety, depression, distress, general psychological symptoms (GPS), insomnia, and PTSD and ran meta-regression to tease out the heterogeneity.ResultsThe meta-analysis includes 131 studies and 171 independent samples. The overall prevalence of anxiety, depression, distress, GPS, insomnia, and PTSD are 11%, 13%, 20%, 13%, 19%, and 20%, respectively. The meta-regression results uncovered several predictors of the prevalence rates, including severity (e.g., above severe vs. above moderate, p<0.01; above moderate vs. above mild, p<0.01) and type of mental issues (e.g., depression vs. anxiety, p=0.04; insomnia vs. anxiety p=0.04), population (frontline HCWs vs. general HCWs, p<0.01), sampling location (Wuhan vs. non-Wuhan, p=0.04), and study quality (p=0.04).LimitationsFirst, we only focus on China population, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Second, 96.2% studies included in this meta-analysis were cross-sectional. Last, since we only included studies published in English, we expect to have a language bias.ConclusionOur pooled prevalence rates are significantly different from, yet largely between, the findings of previous meta-analyses, suggesting the results of our larger study are consistent with, yet fine-tune, the findings of the smaller, previous meta-analyses. Hence, this meta-analysis not only provides a significant update on the mental health prevalence rates in COVID-19 but also suggests the need to update meta-analyses continuously to provide more accurate estimates of the prevalence of mental illness during this ongoing health crisis. While prior meta-analyses focused on the prevalence rates of mental health disorders based on one level of severity (i.e., above mild), our findings also suggest a need to examine the prevalence rates at varying levels of severity. The one-year cumulative evidence on sampling locations (Wuhan vs. non-Wuhan) corroborates the typhoon eye effect theory. Our finding that the prevalence rates of distress and insomnia and those of frontline healthcare workers are higher suggest future research and interventions should pay more attention to those mental outcomes and populations.

scholarly journals Prevalence and Risk Factors of Mental Health Problems Among Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qinjian Hao ◽  
Dahai Wang ◽  
Min Xie ◽  
Yiguo Tang ◽  
Yikai Dou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Prevalence Of Depression

Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the prevalence and risk factors of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: We applied an optimized search strategy across the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, and four Chinese databases, with hand searching supplemented to identify relevant surveys. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in peer-reviewed literature and used a validated method to assess the prevalence and risk factors of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Heterogeneity was quantified using Q statistics and the I2 statistics. The potential causes of heterogeneity were investigated using subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the robustness of the results.Results: We pooled and analyzed data from 20 studies comprising 10,886 healthcare workers. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, post-traumatic stress symptoms, phobia, obsessive–compulsive symptoms, and somatization symptoms was 24.1, 28.6, 44.1, 25.6, 35.0, 16.2, and 10.7%, respectively. Female and nurses had a high prevalence of depression and anxiety. Frontline healthcare workers had a higher prevalence of anxiety and a lower prevalence of depression than the those in the second-line. Furthermore, the proportion of moderate–severe depression and anxiety is higher in the frontline. Additionally, four studies reported on risk factors of mental health problems.Conclusions: In this systematic review, healthcare workers have a relatively high prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, post-traumatic stress symptoms, phobia, obsessive–compulsive symptoms, and somatization symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, and focus should be on the healthcare workers at high risk of mental problems. Mental health problems in healthcare workers should be taken seriously, and timely screening and appropriate intervention for the high-risk group are highly recommended.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020179189.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document