Next Article in Journal
Participation of Nursing Students in Evidence-Based Practice Projects: Results of Two Focus Groups
Previous Article in Journal
Remanufacturing Strategy Choice of a Closed-Loop Supply Chain Network Considering Carbon Emission Trading, Green Innovation, and Green Consumers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 11
10.3390/ijerph19116783
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Work Environment during Coronavirus Epidemics and Pandemics: A Systematic Review of Studies Using Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Designs

by
Anna Nyberg
1,*,
Kristiina Rajaleid
2 and
Ingrid Demmelmaier
1
1
Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, P.O. Box 564, SE-751 22 Uppsala, Sweden
2
Stress Research Institute, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(11), 6783; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116783
Submission received: 27 April 2022 / Revised: 27 May 2022 / Accepted: 28 May 2022 / Published: 1 June 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
We aimed to provide an overview of how work environment and occupational health are affected, and describe interventions designed to improve the work environment during epidemics and pandemics. The guidelines on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were followed. The databases Cinahl, Medline, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were searched for population: working population; exposure: coronavirus epidemic or pandemic; and outcome: work environment, in articles published until October 2020. Quality assessment was based on a modified version of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). After deduplication 3711 articles remained, of which 530 were selected for full-text screening and 119 for quality assessment. After the exclusion of studies that were low quality, 95 remained, of which 85 focused on healthcare personnel and 10 on employees in other industries; 73 used quantitative methods and 22 used qualitative or mixed methods; the majority were based on cross-sectional data. Healthcare staff experienced increased job demands, poor leadership, and lack of resources (personal protective equipment, personnel, and competence). High demands and work with infected patients were associated with negative mental health outcomes. There was a lack of studies assessing interventions, studies from industries other than healthcare, and studies of high quality.

1. Introduction

The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 virus in China in late 2019 rapidly developed into an epidemic, and in March 2020, the World Health Organization declared a state of global pandemic [1]. The spread of disease and restrictions to counteract the spread affected all of society, including working life, educational systems, and healthcare organizations. COVID-19 developed to be a major occupational health risk for employees not only in healthcare [2] but also in the service, manufacturing, and agriculture industries [3,4]. Previous coronavirus epidemics, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) with an outbreak in 2003 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) with an outbreak in 2012, had a similar impact on working life and health, although not as widespread throughout societies worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to be followed by new epidemics and pandemics affecting working life and employees in the decades to come, and employers and society need to be prepared to handle new health crises. The establishment of occupational safety policies to counteract the negative health effects of new epidemics and pandemics need to be based on scientific evidence. Therefore, there is a need to systematically review the current research on how corona epidemics and pandemics impacted working life and employee health, and what measures aimed at counteracting negative health effects on employees were effective. Several reviews of the work environment during the COVID-19 pandemic have been published [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. However, most reviews focused solely on the impact on healthcare organizations [6,7,8,10,11,12], and it is important to include studies describing other labor market industries and how they are affected by epidemics and pandemics. Two reviews had a broader scope: an umbrella review from Canada [9] and a systematic review from Brazil [5]. However, the umbrella review did not evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies, and the systematic review did not include intervention studies targeting work environment factors. Moreover, previous research reviews only included studies of the work environment during COVID-19, possibly missing important knowledge drawn from previous coronavirus epidemics. With the present systematic review of studies, focusing on how the work environment and employee health are affected during an epidemic or pandemic caused by coronavirus (COVID-19, SARS, and MERS), and the effect of interventions to improve work environment and employee health, we intend to fill this knowledge gap. This work is based on a systematic review commissioned by the Swedish Agency for Work Environment Expertise.

Aim

The aim of the present study was to systematically review research on work environments and employee health during coronavirus epidemics or pandemics. The specific research questions were: During an epidemic or pandemic caused by a coronavirus,
  • How is the work environment affected?
  • What are the associations between work environment factors and employee health?
  • What are the effects of interventions to improve the work environment or health?

2. Methods

We followed the guidelines on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [13]. A professional at the University Library at Uppsala University, Sweden, conducted the literature search in the start of October 2020 and a protocol was registered in Prospero on the 29th March 2021 (no CRD42021229165). A principal investigator (AN) and two additional researchers (ID, KR) made up the core review team and two research assistants (YL, WL) and an expert on qualitative research (UW) provided input in particular parts of the review process.

2.1. Search Strategy and Study Selection

The search strategy was developed by the core review team in collaboration with a librarian at Uppsala University. The databases Cinahl, Medline, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were searched for articles published up until October 2020. The search strategy was based on a combination of terms identifying exposure (healthcare epidemic or pandemic), population (working population), and outcome (work environment). The full search strategy is given in Appendix A.
The inclusion criteria for the present study were:
(1)
Language: Swedish or English;
(2)
Population: The working population;
(3)
Exposure: Corona virus epidemic or pandemic; and
(4)
Outcome: Work environment. Only original articles published in peer-review journals were considered.
First, the titles and abstracts identified by the search were screened against our inclusion criteria by two researchers or research assistants in the review team. Discrepancies or uncertainties were discussed and resolved in the core review team. In case the titles and abstracts did not provide enough information, the articles were moved forward to the next step of the selection process. Next, full-text articles were screened by two members of the core review team according to the same procedure as for the previous step. Reasons for exclusion of an article were noted. We used the software tool Covidence (www.covidence.org, accessed on 29 September 2020) for the selection of abstracts and full-text articles. Next, the data of the selected articles were extracted to Excel sheets.

2.2. Quality Assessment

The data extracted from the full-text articles to the Excel sheets were author, journal, year of publication, country of origin, population, response rate, research question, study design, exposure, outcome, confounders considered, follow-up time, analytical strategy, and main results. The quality assessment was based on a slightly modified version of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [14]. Different assessment criteria were considered for the different study designs. One researcher was responsible for the quality assessment of each study, but calibration between assessors and studies was carried out continuously throughout the assessment process. When uncertainties arose, assessment was conducted by discussion between the three members of the core review team. Each study was given a score between one and four or between one and five, depending on the study design. Based on this score, the study was further assessed to be of low, medium, or high quality. See Appendix A for a full description of the quality assessment process. Only studies of medium or high quality were considered in the summary of results, discussion, and conclusion, but low-quality studies are also listed in the tables.

2.3. Summary of Study Results

The majority of studies were based either on cross-sectional or qualitative data. Given the quality of the evidence and the diversity of studies included in the present systematic literature review, a meta-analysis was not feasible. The results are instead carefully presented in seven exhaustive tables. Work environment factors that were reported in several quantitative and qualitative studies are described and highlighted in the discussion section.

3. Results

In the literature search 4043 hits were recorded, of which 3711 remained after deduplication. The titles and abstracts of these articles were screened for eligibility and 530 were moved forward for full-text screening. During this step of the process, an additional 411 articles were excluded (primarily because of not being an empirical study) and 119 were passed on to the stage of quality assessment (see Figure 1).
Of the 119 selected articles, 24 were excluded due to low quality [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Of the remaining 95 studies, 85 investigated the healthcare industry and 10 studies focused on other industries. The results are presented separately for the healthcare industry and other industries below.

3.1. The Healthcare Industry

Of the 85 studies focusing on healthcare workers (HCWs, reported in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4), 67 studies were based on quantitative data (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) and 18 on qualitative or mixed-methods designs (Table 4). The quantitative studies are presented separately for research question 1, 2, and 3 below followed by the results from the qualitative and mixed-methods studies, which were combined for research question 1 and 2 as they were often assessed simultaneously and were not possible to separate in the synthesis of the results (see Figure 2). We did not identify any qualitative or mixed-methods studies assessing research question 3.

3.1.1. Results from Quantitative Studies

RQ 1: How is the work environment affected by an epidemic or pandemic?
There were eight studies of medium or high quality that used quantitative methodology to investigate how the work environment was affected by a pandemic or epidemic [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46] (see Table 1). One of them included data from four continents: four studies were from Europe, one from North America, one from Australia, and one from Asia. Six focused on the work environment during COVID-19 and two during SARS.
In several studies, workload was reported to be increased during the pandemic [39,41,42,44], particularly in high-risk sectors [39], by those working close to infected patients [41], by nurses [42], and by women [39]. In contrast, primary healthcare nurses in Australia reported decreased work hours and threats of termination since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic [40]. One study from the UK reported that telemedicine was efficient and without an associated increased workload [43]. Differences in personnel shortage problems, provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) and PPE training, and staff diagnosed with COVID-19 were reported between Asia, Europe, North America, and South America [45]. Nurses reported more negative factors in the work environment, such as poor information, insufficient infection control measures, and lack of appreciation by employer, than doctors [42,46].
RQ2: Associations between work environment and health during an epidemic or pandemic.
Of the 55 quantitative studies of medium to high quality that investigated associations with health outcomes, 44 investigated associations with mental ill-health [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90], 4 associations with physical complaints due to PPE [91,92,93,94], and 7 associations with risk of healthcare infection [95,96,97,98,99,100,101] (see Table 2). One of the studies was global, 12 were from Europe, 12 from North America, 26 from Asia, 1 from South America, and 3 from the Middle East. Most studies, 36 of them, investigated the work environment and health during COVID-19, 15 during SARS, and 4 during MERS. Three studies compared mental ill-health between healthcare workers and workers in other professions and found that healthcare workers reported increased mental ill-health in comparison [47,53,88]. A large number of the studies focusing on mental health outcomes reported associations between working in the frontline (i.e., working with patients infected or suspected to be infected) and symptoms of depression, anxiety, emotional exhaustion, burnout, sleep disturbances, or post-traumatic stress syndrome [48,50,54,55,57,63,65,67,70,75,81,82,84,86,89,90]. Among these employees, several work stressors were found to be associated with mental health outcomes. For example, longer working hours or overtime work [50,53,68,77,87,88] and type of shift/higher frequency of night shifts [60,64,87] were associated with increased symptoms of mental ill-health. Other factors associated with mental health symptoms were not having adequate knowledge and training to meet the work demands [50,62,67,70,71,83], lack of PPE [61,65,70,77,80,85], fear of being infected by healthcare [61,83], and experiencing stigmatization for working with infected patients [59,69,74]. Lastly, lack of organizational resources, such as manpower [83] or hospital resources for the treatment of infected patients [60] and lack of organizational and social support at work [50,52,62,65,67,84], was associated with negative mental health outcomes.
Seven studies focused on the risk of healthcare infection in healthcare personnel in relation to exposure to infected patients [95,96,97,98,99,100,101]. Higher risk of infection was found to be associated with working within a meter of an exposed patient [99], intubating [96,97], or performing chest compression [101] on a patient, having contact with respiratory secretion of an infected patient [100,101], inadequate training in infection control [95,101], and not using adequate PPE [95,96,100,101].
Four studies of medium or high quality [91,92,93,94] investigated the association between use of PPE and skin injuries or headaches. In three studies [91,92,93], an association between use of PPE and skin injuries was reported and in one study [94], an association with headaches was found.
RQ3: Interventions to improve the work environment during an epidemic or pandemic.
Four studies that measured the effects of interventions to improve the work environment and health were assessed to be of medium or high quality [102,103,104,105]. Three of these [103,104,105] focused on infection control, of which two investigated the effects of infection control training and one compared infection rates between hospitals with and without certain infection control measures. All interventions showed effects on infection. The fourth study [102] evaluated the mental health effects of an intervention targeting several organizational factors such as training, resources, infection control, and support teams. The intervention was found to protect the mental health of healthcare staff.

3.1.2. Results from Qualitative Studies

RQ1 and 2: The work environment during an epidemic or pandemic and its association with employee health.
There were 18 studies of medium to high quality that explored healthcare staffs’ experiences using a qualitative or mixed-methods designs [106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123]. Two studies were performed in Europe, nine in Asia, five in North America, and two in the Middle East. Twelve of the studies were performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, four during SARS, and two during MERS (see Table 4). All studies included a thematic analysis of qualitative data based on interviews or open-ended questionnaire items. The mixed-methods studies also included some quantitative elements.
Healthcare staff described high quantitative demands in terms of increased workload, intense work, large patient volumes, increased work shifts, and more administration [106,107,110,111,113,114,122] causing distress or burnout. In a mixed-methods study, self-reported burnout symptoms were found in 10–18% of 468 emergency physicians during the first 10 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic [107]. Staff also described high qualitative demands, expressed as difficult tasks [108,111,123], new routines [107], collaborating with inexperienced staff [123], and working in a totally new context [113]. They struggled to stay updated on new, constantly changing guidelines [110] and to manage uncertainty [112,115]. Additional themes related to working with infected patients were feeling powerless [113], anxiety and suffering in staff working with seriously ill and dying patients [111,122], and decreased quality of care [108,116]. In several studies, healthcare staff reported a lack of PPE and a fear of becoming infected [106,107,108,110,111,112,114,115,121]. Among staff using PPE, there were reports about exhaustion and discomfort caused by the equipment [113,120,122]. Social stigma and being avoided by family and others due to patient contact was also described [108,117,120,121]. Several studies included staff’s descriptions of deficits in work organization: a chaotic workplace [110], insufficient preparedness for the pandemic [121], lack of information provided to staff [109,118,119], mismatch of nursing competencies and tasks [109], and an unfair work distribution [108]. Other studies included descriptions of healthcare staff’s suggestions for future improvements: involving all actors in developing communication strategies and being open about risk communication [118]. Furthermore, the development of effective work routines [108,109,122], increased attention given to staff’s mental and physical health [109], and disaster rescue training were suggested [114]. Among psychotherapists working remotely, this was perceived as challenging by 80%; nonetheless, 65% considered this to be the future core business for them [116].
Some positive aspects were described: healthcare staff experienced satisfaction and professional development during the SARS epidemic [106] and the COVID-19 pandemic [113,114,122]. Increased flexibility and less family–work conflict, thanks to remote work, were described by psychotherapists [116]. Social support [113,122] and working towards a common goal [106] were described as positive.

3.2. Industries Other Than Healthcare

Of the ten studies focusing on industries other than the healthcare industry (reported in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7), six studies were based on quantitative data (Table 5 and Table 6) and four on qualitative or mixed-methods designs (Table 7). The quantitative studies are presented separately for research question 1 and 2 below, followed by the results from the qualitative and mixed-methods studies presented together for the same research questions (see Figure 3). No studies of interventions aiming to improve the work environment or employee health in industries outside healthcare were identified.

3.2.1. Results from Quantitative Studies

RQ1: How is the work environment affected by a pandemic or epidemic?
Only one study of high enough quality matched the inclusion criteria [124]. The study was from Brazil and investigated changes in working conditions among a variety of professions, such as teachers, social workers, psychologists, physicians, and lawyers, working with child health and security. The results showed that their working hours had decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before.
RQ2: Associations between the work environment and health during an epidemic or pandemic
Five studies, all with a cross-sectional research design, performed in Asia, and assessed to be of medium quality, met the inclusion criteria [125,126,127,128,129]. The samples and research questions were heterogenous. In male police officers in Pakistan during the COVID-19 pandemic, an association between work–family conflict and work-related stress was found [125]. In a Chinese study, no association between where the employees worked (at home, at the office, or both) and mental ill-health was found, with the exception that those who alternated between the office and home reported less somatization symptoms [127]. Another Chinese study reported an association between improved hygiene routines during COVID-19 and lower levels of self-reported stress among employees [128]. A Japanese study found a positive association between the number of preventive infection measures implemented at the workplace, and the level of fear and anxiety related to COVID-19, a result that the authors stated may be due to a higher awareness about the disease at workplaces with a larger number of preventive measures [126]. Last, a study from Hong Kong found associations between dissatisfaction with infection control measures, perceived infection risk, and lower health-related quality of life [129].

3.2.2. Results from Qualitative Studies

RQ1 and 2: The work environment during an epidemic or pandemic and its association with employee health
Four studies of medium or high quality explored experiences among staff in industries other than healthcare using a qualitative or mixed-methods design: three in the educational system [130,131,132] and one in social work [133]. Two studies were performed in North America (SARS and COVID-19, respectively), one in Europe (COVID-19), and one in Australia (COVID-19) (see Table 7). The teachers described how the quick transition to remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic increased their workload [132] and introduced uncertainty [130] and techno stress [131]. Furthermore, they reported how they lost the opportunity to teach hands-on skills [131,132] and worried about students’ learning outcomes [130,132] and wellbeing [130]. The transition to remote teaching was perceived as “demanding” or “very demanding” by 49% of the educators at a physician assistant program in North America [131]. However, they also described how they adjusted and found positive aspects of remote teaching such as using new pedagogies and synchronous teaching across remote sites [132] and increased flexibility, sometimes at the cost of difficulties in home–work balance, during the workday [130]. Social workers at a hospital described how the SARS epidemic influenced their professional roles by increasing the emotional awareness of patients’ families and other professionals and problems regarding information about guidelines and their implementation [133].

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of studies describing the impact of healthcare epidemics and pandemics (COVID-19, MERS, and SARS) on the work environment and employee health, and the effect of interventions, including industries within and outside healthcare organizations. Previous reviews have reported healthcare to be the most thoroughly studied industry [5,9] and the present review confirms this is still the case.
Based on the findings in 95 original studies (85 within healthcare and 10 in other industries), we found unambiguous evidence for a negative impact on healthcare staff in terms of increased demands such as excessive workload and difficult tasks. Healthcare staff reported that they needed to adapt quickly to new routines and collaborations, managing insecurity and a lack of resources. There was a need for strong communicative leadership and provision of social support. Mental ill-health among healthcare staff was associated with exposure to infected patients, high demands, lack of PPE, lack of competence, lack of social support at work, feeling stigmatized, and perceiving a high risk of becoming infected. Nurses reported worse mental health compared to other healthcare professions. A few intervention studies, all within healthcare organizations, were identified. They evaluated training and new routines to reduce the risk of disease transmission and reported positive results. The small number of studies performed in industries outside healthcare found mental ill-health to be associated with insufficient preventive measures at the workplace, high workload, work–family conflict, and not being able to work remotely. A few studies exploring teachers’ experiences reported an increased workload due to the quick transition to remote teaching but also positive aspects of learning new teaching methods that they wished to integrate in their regular teaching after the pandemic.
Several original articles focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic, published after the search in October, 2020, support the findings in the present review: increased working hours and occupational stigma were associated with worse mental health and intention to leave among Taiwanese nurses [134]; mental health among primary healthcare workers in China was negatively affected by pandemic-related work stress; however, such stress was attenuated by social support and resilience [135]; and, finally, a Swedish longitudinal study found negative changes in healthcare staff’s working conditions and their possibility to recover after comparing their ratings before and after the first wave of COVID-19 [136].

4.1. Overall Strength of the Evidence

The large number of articles published since COVID-19 started to spread demonstrate the immediate response in the research community to the pandemic. Evidence started to accumulate within a few months from the outbreak, and a picture is emerging of how the work environment and employees’ health have been affected so far. The evidence from the healthcare sector shows a coherent picture from quantitative and qualitative data from studies worldwide of a strong impact on this industry.

4.2. Limitations of the Current Evidence

The weak study designs and overall low methodological quality of the included studies indicate that quantity was prioritized ahead of quality during the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic but also during previous healthcare epidemics. The speed of the review and publication process, indicated by the dates of the reception, acceptance, and publication of articles, suggests that the peer-review process may have been less stringent than what is normally the case. Most of the studies that met the inclusion criteria for the present systematic review were based on convenience samples and cross-sectional designs. Furthermore, most studies used non-validated measures of exposure and also of the outcomes, and potential confounders were often not considered in the analyses. These methodological flaws prevent any conclusions about the causality between the work environment factors and employee health. The SARS and MERS epidemics were included in the present review because, with time having passed, we expected that studies with longitudinal designs and of higher quality had been published, providing an opportunity to learn from previous healthcare epidemics. However, few longitudinal follow-up studies of the previous healthcare epidemics were identified in our literature search, demonstrating a missed opportunity to learn about the long-term consequences of such epidemics.

4.3. Overall Gaps in Knowledge and Research

Longitudinal studies are needed to follow changes over time, accumulating knowledge that may enable conclusions about the causality and effects in different groups. Furthermore, it is important to develop and evaluate interventions using experimental designs to establish effective measures to enhance the work environment and health as new epidemics and pandemics evolve. In healthcare, employees report experiencing stigma for working with infected patients. More research is needed on this topic, and how to protect healthcare workers from such an extra burden during a health crisis. There is a paucity of studies from industries other than healthcare investigating the work environment and employee health during and after epidemics and pandemics. There is, for example, a need to study the long-term effect of remote work to evaluate both positive and negative impacts. There has, in general, been a larger focus on risks and stressors in the work environment and less research on possible positive changes to the work environment that can inform the development of the new working life past COVID-19.

4.4. Strengths and Limitations of the Current Review

The present review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for developing and reporting systematic research reviews. The search strategy was developed in a collaboration between researchers and a search specialist at Uppsala University library. A large number of studies about the work environment and health during the outbreaks of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS had been published by the search date in October 2020. The authors of the present review screened, together with two research assistants, the 4043 hits and each study was independently evaluated by at least two people in the team. Many full-text articles were read and discussed in the core assessment team. An updated search was conducted at the end of January 2021, generating an additional 2915 hits, which was too large a number of extra articles to be handled with sustained methodological stringency within the time frame of the commission by the Swedish Agency for Work Environment Expertise. A quick assessment of the new hits gave us the primary impression that most of the literature that had been published between October 2020 and January 2021 suffered from similar methodological limitations to the studies published until October 2020 and included in this review. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that we could have identified additional relevant studies of higher quality had we had the possibility of prolonging the time frame for our literature search.
The search strategy was developed carefully, with consideration of capturing relevant studies while simultaneously obtaining an amount of hits in the search result that was feasible to handle within the given time frame. We used MESH terms and search terms for work environment but not for specific work environment risks. We tried to develop such search terms, but because it was impossible to draw the line between which ones to include and which ones to leave out, we decided to only use broader terms. Although this was the most feasible solution, it means that if a study did not include search terms for work environment while still investigating an aspect of this, it was not included in the present review (see the search strategy in Appendix A).
The inclusion of different study designs in the present review provided a nuanced picture of current research but made the evidence more difficult to synthesize. The results across studies with different designs, however, were overall coherent and pointed in the same direction. Using the MMAT meant that an assessment of studies with different designs was parsimonious but possibly not thorough enough to capture all important aspects of methodological quality. It did not, for example, include an assessment of causality. While this assessment tool matched the quality of the evidence of the research field at the time the search was conducted, it also means that the bar for a study to qualify as medium or high quality was quite low.

4.5. Implications for Future Research

Based on the identified knowledge gaps, longitudinal studies are needed to assess the work environment and employee health over time during and after epidemics or pandemics. It is evident that the work environment and employee mental health were affected among healthcare personnel during the acute phases of the pandemic, particularly those working in the frontline, but research on the long-term effects on health after the pandemic is over appears crucial. Preferably, studies could make use of data on work environment factors and health collected before epidemics and follow the samples during and after pandemics, building up longitudinal data to study changes in these measures over time. Intervention studies aimed at mitigating the negative effects on the work environment and employee health are important to inform policy development in case of future epidemics and pandemics. To increase the quality and comparability of studies of the work environment during pandemics and epidemics, validated measures of work exposure and health outcomes need to be used and confounders carefully accounted for in statistical analyses. Finally, more research focusing on industries other than healthcare is needed. Examples are the educational industry, also widely affected by the pandemic, and the service and culture sectors (that were affected economically) and many white-collar industries in which workers quickly transitioned from office to remote work.

5. Conclusions

During the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, a large number of cross-sectional studies, quantitative and qualitative, on the work environment and health, mainly within the healthcare industry, were published. The weak study designs and overall low methodological quality limited the opportunity to learn about the long-term health effects of changes in the work environment during the pandemic. However, there was a remarkable accordance in the results of the situation in the healthcare industry from studies spanning several continents and using different methodologies, painting a picture of increased quantitative and qualitative demands, lack of personal and organizational resources to meet these demands, fear among personnel of being infected, and experienced stigma related to work with infected patients.

5.1. Practical Implications

The possible long-term health effects of the increased demands and limited resources that have characterized the work environment for healthcare employees during acute phases of the COVID-19 pandemic need to be followed up clinically and in research.

5.2. Key Messages

  • The work environment and mental health were strongly affected in healthcare employees during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the possible long-term consequences of severe and long-lasting stressors in the work environment during the COVID-19 pandemic within healthcare.
  • Studies evaluating the effects of interventions aiming to improve the work environment and mitigate negative health effects are needed to prepare for future pandemics.
  • Studies of higher quality with regards to sampling strategies, exposure and outcome measurements, control of possible confounders, etc. are needed to move the research field forward.
  • Studies from industries outside healthcare are needed to obtain a broader picture of how pandemics affect the work environment of entire labor markets.

Author Contributions

A.N. was the PI of the study, lead the work, participated in all phases of the systematic review, and drafted the manuscript together with I.D. K.R. took part in all phases of the systematic review, developed the Excel sheets for the selection process and quality assessment, contributed with methodological expertise, and read and commented on early drafts of the manuscript. I.D. took part in all phases of the systematic review, was responsible for the quality assessment of qualitative and mixed methods studies, and drafted the manuscript together with A.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The systematic review was commissioned by the Swedish Agency for Work Environment Expertise (no 20/00187).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Agnes Kotka at the University Library at Uppsala University for support in developing the search strategy, conducting the database searches and delivering the selected studies to the review team. Ylva Lindberg and Wilhelm Linder contributed in the early phase of the systematic review process by assessing articles in the search results for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ulrika Winblad consulted the core review team in the quality assessment of qualitative and mixed methods studies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Search Strategy

Table
Table A1. Database: Cinahl (via Ebsco) Date: 5 October 2020.
Table A1. Database: Cinahl (via Ebsco) Date: 5 October 2020.
Search nrSearch TermResults
Population: working population
#1Employees [MH+]678
#2Industry [MH+]49,859
#3Health Occupations [MH+]755,520
#4Occupations and Professions [MH+]97,601
#5Women, Working [MH+]4309
#6Work [MH+]7345
#7Company OR Employ * OR Industry OR Job OR “Occupational group *” OR Occupations OR Personnel OR Staff OR Work *
[Title/Abstract]		710,991
#8#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #71,647,557
Intervention: Occupational health in the context of coronavirus
#9Coronavirus [MH+]10,073
#10Coronavirus Infections [MH+]17,917
#11COVID-19 [MH+]8752
#12Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus [MH+]425
#13SARS Virus [MH+]312
#14Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome [MH+]2293
#15Corona OR Coronavirus OR cov2 OR COVID19 OR COVID-19 OR MERS OR SARS OR 2019-nCoV * OR “2019-nCoV infection *” [Title/Abstract]22,197
#16#9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #1526,523
#17Occupational Diseases [MH+]39,966
#18Occupational Health [MH+]62,588
#19Occupational Health Nursing [MH+]4552
#20Occupational Health Services [MH+]7659
#21Occupational Medicine [MH+]459
#22Occupational Safety [MH+]20,833
#23Psychosocial Factors [MH+]722
#24Psychosocial Aspects of Illness [MH+]197,113
#25Work Environment [MH+]33,011
#26Workload [MH+]15,717
#27Work Related Illnesses [MH+]476
#28Occupational Disease * OR Occupational Health OR Occupational Medicine OR Psychosocial OR Psycho-social OR Stressor * OR (Work OR Working) N3 (Condition * OR Environment * OR Related OR Load) OR Workload [Title/Abstract]125,105
#2917 OR 18 OR 19 OR 20 OR 21 OR 22 OR 23 OR 24 OR 25 OR 26 OR 27 OR 28883,355
#30#8 AND #16 AND #292451
[MH+] = Subject heading, exploded. [Title/Abstract] = Title or abstract. * = Truncation.
Table
Table A2. Database: PsycInfo (via Ebsco) Date: 20201005.
Table A2. Database: PsycInfo (via Ebsco) Date: 20201005.
Search nrSearch TermResults
Population: working population
#1Occupations [DE]12,145
#2Personnel [DE]10,757
#3Work Teams [DE]5151
#4Working Women [DE]6477
#5Company OR Employ * OR Industry OR Job OR “Occupational group *” OR Occupations OR Personnel OR Staff OR Work *
[Title/Abstract]		1,042,507
#6#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #51,290,435
Intervention: Occupational health in the context of coronavirus
#7Coronavirus [DE]1006
#8Middle East Respiratory Syndrome [DE]24
#9Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome [DE]260
#10corona OR coronavirus OR cov2 OR COVID19 OR COVID-19 OR MERS OR SARS OR 2019-nCoV * OR “2019-nCoV infection *” [Title/Abstract]3503
#11#7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #104164
#12Occupational Health [DE]5907
#13Occupational Safety [DE]3649
#14Psychosocial Factors [DE]34,687
#15Psychosocial Outcomes [DE]233
#16Working Conditions [DE]23,362
#17Work Related Illnesses [DE]1070
#18Occupational disease * OR Occupational Health OR Occupational Medicine OR Psychosocial OR Psycho-social OR Stressor * OR (Work OR Working) N3 (Condition * OR Environment * OR Related OR Load) OR Workload [Title/Abstract]172,647
#1912 OR 13 OR 14 OR 15 OR 16 OR 17 OR 18 350,431
#20#6 AND #11 #AND #19235
[DE] = Thesaurus of Psychological Index Term. [Title/Abstract] = Title or abstract. * = Truncation.
Table
Table A3. Database: Pubmed (via NCBI) Date: 2020105.
Table A3. Database: Pubmed (via NCBI) Date: 2020105.
Search nrSearch TermResults
Population: working population
#1Employment [MeSH Terms]87,290
#2Industry [MeSH Terms]316,795
#3Occupational Groups [MeSH Terms]610,845
#4Occupations [MeSH Terms]34,444
#5Women, working [MeSH Terms]5375
#6Work [MeSH Terms] 63,870
#7Workplace [MeSH Terms]23,230
#8Company OR Employ * OR Industry OR Job OR “Occupational group *” OR Occupations OR Personnel OR Staff OR Work *
[Title/Abstract]		2,340,428
#9#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #83,057,511
Intervention: Occupational health in the context of coronavirus
#10Coronavirus Infections [MeSH Terms]38,313
#11SARS Virus [MeSH Terms]3555
#12Corona OR Coronavirus OR cov2 OR COVID19 OR COVID-19 OR MERS OR SARS OR 2019-nCoV * OR “2019-nCoV infection *” [Title/Abstract]83,910
#13#10 OR #11 OR #1287,768
#14Occupational Diseases [MeSH Terms]132,343
#15Occupational Health [MeSH Terms]33,662
#16Occupational Health Services [MeSH Terms]10,554
#17Occupational Medicine [MeSH Terms]23,330
#18Occupational Health Nursing [MeSH Terms]4390
#19Workload [MeSH Terms]21,538
#20Occupational disease * OR Occupational Health OR Occupational Medicine OR Psychosocial OR Psycho-social OR Stressor * OR Work Condition * OR Working Condition * OR Work Environment * OR Working Environment * OR Workload OR Work load OR Work related [Title/Abstract]232,828
#21#14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20395,316
#22#9 AND #13 AND #211043
[MeSH] = Term from the Medline controlled vocabulary, including terms found below this term in the MeSH hierarchy. Title/Abstract] = Title or abstract. * = Truncation.
Table
Table A4. Database: Web of Science Date: 2020105.
Table A4. Database: Web of Science Date: 2020105.
Population: working population
#1Company OR Employ * OR Industry OR Job OR “Occupational group *” OR Occupations OR Personnel OR Staff OR Work *
[Topic]		6,936,326
Intervention: Occupational health in the context of coronavirus
#2Corona OR Coronavirus OR cov2 OR COVID19 OR COVID-19 OR MERS OR SARS OR 2019-nCoV * OR “2019-nCoV infection *” [Topic]133,497
#3Occupational Disease * OR Occupational Health OR Occupational Medicine OR Psychosocial OR Psycho-social OR Stressor * OR (“Work” or “Working”) NEAR/3 (Condition * OR Environment * OR Related OR Load) OR Workload [Topic]459,304
#4#1 AND #2 AND #3844
[Topic] = Title, Abstract, Author Keywords, Keywords Plus. * = Truncation.
Quality assessment
Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018, [14], an instrument developed for the quality assessment in systematic reviews including original articles with different research designs, was used. The criteria are listed below.
For quantitative non-randomized studies:
(1) If the participants are representative of the target population, (2) if the measurements for outcome and exposure are appropriate, (3) if outcome data is complete (referring to dropout), (4) if relevant confounders are accounted for, and (5) during the study period, if intervention/exposure occurred as intended.
For quantitative randomized controlled trials:
(1) If randomization was appropriately performed, (2) if the groups are comparable at baseline, (3) if there is complete outcome data, (4) if outcome assessors are blinded to the intervention provided, and (5) if the participants adhered to the assigned intervention.
For qualitative studies:
(1) If the qualitative approach is appropriate to answer the research questions, (2) if the data collection methods are adequate to address the research question, (3) if the findings are adequately derived from the data, (4) if the interpretation of the results is sufficiently substantiated by the data, and (5) if there is coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis, and interpretation
For mixed-methods studies:
(1) If there is an adequate rationale for using a mixed-methods design to address the research questions, (2) if the different components of the study are effectively integrated to answer the research question, (3) if the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components are adequately interpreted, (4) if divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results are adequately addressed, and (5) if the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved.
We adjusted the quality assessment criteria for quantitative non-randomized studies. Because the last criterium (during the study period, if intervention/exposure occurred as intended) was not relevant for cross-sectional studies, which is the majority of the included studies, we did not consider this criterion in our quality assessment. Thus, only four criteria were used for quantitative non-randomized studies.
The core research team developed a procedure to rate the overall quality of each study as low, medium, or high. The aim was both to identify studies of low quality to exclude these from our analysis and conclusions, and to obtain an overall picture of the quality of the included research. In this procedure, we considered each study design separately and came to the following criteria for the overall study quality.
For quantitative non-randomized studies:
High quality = 4 yes, Medium quality = 2–3 yes, Low quality = 1 yes.
For quantitative randomized controlled trials:
High quality = 5 yes, Medium quality = 3–4 yes, Low quality = 1–2 yes.
For qualitative and mixed methods studies:
High quality = 5 yes, Medium quality = 3–4 yes, Low quality = 1–2 yes.

References

  1. WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19—11 March 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-COVID-19---11-march-2020 (accessed on 1 February 2021).
  2. Bandyopadhyay, S.; Baticulon, R.E.; Kadhum, M.; Alser, M.; Ojuka, D.K.; Badereddin, Y.; Kamath, A.; Parepalli, S.A.; Brown, G.; Iharchane, S.; et al. Infection and mortality of healthcare workers worldwide from COVID-19: A systematic review. BMJ Glob. Health 2020, 5, e003097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Chen, Y.H.; Glymour, M.; Riley, A.; Balmes, J.; Duchowny, K.; Harrison, R. Excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic among Californians 18-65 years of age, by occupational sector and occupation: March through November 2020. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0252454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Burdorf, A.; Porru, F.; Rugulies, R. The COVID-19 pandemic: One year later—An occupational perspective. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2021, 47, 245–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sigahi, T.F.A.C.; Kawasaki, B.C.; Bolis, I.; Morioka, S.N. A systematic review on the impacts of Covid-19 on work: Contributions and a path forward from the perspectives of ergonomics and psychodynamics of work. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2021, 31, 375–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gualano, M.R.; Sinigaglia, T.; Lo Moro, G.; Rousset, S.; Cremona, A.; Bert, F. The Burden of Burnout among Healthcare Profes-sionals of Intensive Care Units and Emergency Departments during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Galanis, P.; Vraka, I.; Fragkou, D.; Bilali, A.; Kaitelidou, D. Impact of personal protective equipment use on health care workers’ physical health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Infect. Control 2021, 49, 1305–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rieckert, A.; Schuit, E.; Bleijenberg, N.; Cate, D.T.; De Lange, W.; Ginkel, J.M.D.M.-V.; Mathijssen, E.; Smit, L.C.; Stalpers, D.; Schoonhoven, L.; et al. How can we build and maintain the resilience of our health care professionals during COVID-19? Recommendations based on a scoping review. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e043718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fan, J.; Senthanar, S.; Macpherson, R.; Sharpe, K.; Peters, C.; Koehoorn, M.; McLeod, C. An Umbrella Review of the Work and Health Impacts of Working in an Epidemic/Pandemic Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Turner, S.; Botero-Tovar, N.; Herrera, M.A.; Kuhlmann, J.P.B.; Ortiz, F.; Ramírez, J.C.; Maldonado, L.F. Systematic review of experiences and perceptions of key actors and organisations at multiple levels within health systems internationally in responding to COVID-19. Implement. Sci. 2021, 16, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sharifi, M.; Asadi-Pooya, A.A.; Mousavi-Roknabadi, R.S. Burnout among Healthcare Providers of COVID-19; A Systematic Review of Epidemiology and Recommendations: Burnout in healthcare providers. Arch. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2020, 9, e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gross, J.V.; Mohren, J.; Erren, T.C. COVID-19 and healthcare workers: A rapid systematic review into risks and preventive measures. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e042270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Available online: www.prisma-statement.org (accessed on 5 October 2020).
  14. Hong, Q.N.; Fàbregues, S.; Bartlett, G.; Boardman, F.; Cargo, M.; Dagenais, P.; Gagnon, M.-P.; Griffiths, F.; Nicolau, B.; O’Cathain, A.; et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ. Inf. 2018, 34, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Hoffman, K.E.; Garner, D.; Koong, A.C.; Woodward, W.A. Understanding the Intersection of Working from Home and Burnout to Optimize Post-COVID19 Work Arrangements in Radiation Oncology. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 108, 370–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Xie, H.; Cheng, X.; Song, X.; Wu, W.; Chen, J.; Xi, Z.; Shou, K. Investigation of the Psychological disorders in the healthcare nurses during a coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in China. Medicine 2020, 99, e21662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Khalid, I.; Khalid, T.J.; Qabajah, M.R.; Barnard, A.G.; Qushmaq, I.A. Healthcare Workers Emotions, Perceived Stressors and Coping Strategies During a MERS-CoV Outbreak. Clin. Med. Res. 2016, 14, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Koksal, E.; Dost, B.; Terzi, Ö.; Ustun, Y.B.; Özdin, S.; Bilgin, S. Evaluation of Depression and Anxiety Levels and Related Factors Among Operating Theater Workers During the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. J. PeriAnesthesia Nurs. 2020, 35, 472–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kuo, F.; Yang, P.; Hsu, H.; Su, C.; Chen, C.; Yeh, I.; Wu, Y.; Chen, L. Survey on perceived work stress and its influencing factors among hospital staff during the COVID -19 pandemic in Taiwan. Kaohsiung J. Med Sci. 2020, 36, 944–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Maraqa, B.; Nazzal, Z.; Zink, T. Palestinian Health Care Workers’ Stress and Stressors during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Prim. Care Community Health 2020, 11, 2150132720955026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rodriguez, R.M.; Medak, A.J.; Baumann, B.M.; Lim, S.; Chinnock, B.; Frazier, R. Academic Emergency Medicine Physicians’ Anxiety Levels, Stressors, and Potential Stress Mitigation Measures During the Acceleration Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2020, 27, 700–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bhatnagar, S.; Sarma, R.; Vig, S.; Rathore, P.; Pushpam, D.; Mishra, S.; Gupta, N.; Garg, R.; Kumar, V.; Bharati, S.J. Concerns of health care professionals managing non-COVID patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A descriptive cross-sectional study. Indian J. Palliat. Care 2020, 26, S21–S26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Semaan, A.; Audet, C.; Huysmans, E.; Afolabi, B.; Assarag, B.; Banke-Thomas, A.; Blencowe, H.; Caluwaerts, S.; Campbell, O.M.R.; Cavallaro, F.L.; et al. Voices from the frontline: Findings from a thematic analysis of a rapid online global survey of maternal and newborn health professionals facing the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Glob. Health 2020, 5, e002967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shalhub, S.; Mouawad, N.J.; Malgor, R.D.; Johnson, A.P.; Wohlauer, M.V.; Coogan, S.M. Global vascular surgeons experience, stressors, and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Vasc. Surg. 2020, 73, 762–771.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Singh, M.; Pawar, M.; Bothra, A.; Maheshwari, A.; Dubey, V.; Tiwari, A. Personal protective equipment induced facial der-matoses in healthcare workers managing Coronavirus disease 2019. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2020, 34, e378–e380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Tabah, A.; Ramanan, M.; Laupland, K.B.; Buetti, N.; Cortegiani, A.; Mellinghoff, J.; Conway Morris, A.; Camporota, L.; Zappella, N.; Elhadi, M.; et al. Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): An international survey. J. Crit. Care 2020, 59, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, M.; Zhou, M.; Tang, F.; Wang, Y.; Nie, H.; Zhang, L.; You, G. Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding COVID-19 among healthcare workers in Henan, China. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 105, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, S.X.; Sun, S.; Afshar Jahanshahi, A.; Alvarez-Risco, A.; Ibarra, V.G.; Li, J. Developing and testing a measure of COVID-19 organizational support of healthcare workers—Results from Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 291, 113174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhang, Y.; Wei, L.; Li, H.; Pan, Y.; Wang, J.; Li, Q.; Wu, Q.; Wei, H. The Psychological Change Process of Frontline Nurses Caring for Patients with COVID-19 during Its Outbreak. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 2020, 41, 525–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Algunmeeyn, A.; El-Dahiyat, F.; Altakhineh, M.M.; Azab, M.; Babar, Z.U. Understanding the factors influencing healthcare pro-viders’ burnout during the outbreak of COVID-19 in Jordanian hospitals. J. Pharm. Policy Pract. 2020, 13, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Craig, L.; Churchill, B. Dual-earner parent couples’ work and care during COVID-19. Gend. Work. Organ. 2020, 28, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Deguchi, M.; Chie, M. Voices of Sanitation Workers in Japan amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic. Asia-Pac. J. Jpn. Focus. 2020, 18, 5485. [Google Scholar]
  33. Molino, M.; Ingusci, E.; Signore, F.; Manuti, A.; Giancaspro, M.L.; Russo, V.; Zito, M.; Cortese, C.G. Wellbeing Costs of Technology Use during Covid-19 Remote Working: An Investigation Using the Italian Translation of the Technostress Creators Scale. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Moretti, A.; Menna, F.; Aulicino, M.; Paoletta, M.; Liguori, S.; Iolascon, G. Characterization of Home Working Population during COVID-19 Emergency: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Saqib, A.; Rampal, T. Quality improvement report: Setting up a staff well-being hub through continuous engagement. BMJ Open Qual. 2020, 9, e001008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sethi, B.A.; Sethi, A.; Ali, S.; Aamir, H.S. Impact of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on health professionals. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2020, 36, S6–S11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stirling, B.V.; Harmston, J.; Alsobayel, H. An educational programme for nursing college staff and students during a MERS- coronavirus outbreak in Saudi Arabia. BMC Nurs. 2015, 14, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Yildirim, T.M.; Eslen-Ziya, H. The differential impact of COVID-19 on the work conditions of women and men academics during the lockdown. Gender Work Organ. 2020, 28, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Felice, C.; Di Tanna, G.L.; Zanus, G.; Grossi, U. Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak on Healthcare Workers in Italy: Results from a National E-Survey. J. Community Health 2020, 45, 675–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Halcomb, E.; McInnes, S.; Williams, A.; Ashley, C.; James, S.; Fernandez, R.; Calma, K. The Experiences of Primary Healthcare Nurses during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia. J. Nurs. Sch. 2020, 52, 553–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Koh, D.; Lim, M.K.; Chia, S.E.; Ko, S.M.; Qian, F.; Ng, V. Risk perception and impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) on work and personal lives of healthcare workers in Singapore: What can we learn? Med. Care 2005, 43, 676–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kramer, V.; Papazova, I.; Thoma, A.; Kunz, M.; Falkai, P.; Schneider-Axmann, T.; Hierundar, A.; Wagner, E.; Hasan, A. Subjective burden and perspectives of German healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2020, 271, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Smrke, A.; Younger, E.; Wilson, R.; Husson, O.; Farag, S.; Merry, E.; Macklin-Doherty, A.; Cojocaru, E.; Arthur, A.; Benson, C.; et al. Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact on Care for Rare Cancers. JCO Glob. Oncol. 2020, 6, 1046–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Spiller, T.R.; Méan, M.; Ernst, J.; Sazpinar, O.; Gehrke, S.; Paolercio, F. Development of health care workers’ mental health during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Switzerland: Two cross-sectional studies. Psychol. Med. 2020, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Teoh, J.Y.-C.; Ong, W.L.K.; González, D.; Castellani, D.; Dubin, J.M.; Esperto, F.; Campi, R.; Gudaru, K.; Talwar, R.; Okhunov, Z.; et al. A Global Survey on the Impact of COVID-19 on Urological Services. Eur. Urol. 2020, 78, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tolomiczenko, G.S.; Kahan, M.; Ricci, M.; Strathern, L.; Jeney, C.; Patterson, K.; Wilson, L. SARS: Coping with the impact at a community hospital. J. Adv. Nurs. 2005, 50, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bai, Y.; Lin, C.C.; Lin, C.Y.; Chen, J.Y.; Chue, C.M.; Chou, P. Survey of stress reactions among health care workers involved with the SARS outbreak. Psychiatr. Serv. 2004, 55, 1055–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Buselli, R.; Corsi, M.; Baldanzi, S.; Chiumiento, M.; Del Lupo, E.; Dell’Oste, V.; Bertelloni, C.A.; Massimetti, G.; Dell’Osso, L.; Cristaudo, A.; et al. Professional Quality of Life and Mental Health Outcomes among Health Care Workers Exposed to Sars-Cov-2 (Covid-19). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. De Sio, S.; Buomprisco, G.; La Torre, G.; Lapteva, E.; Perri, R.; Greco, E. The impact of COVID-19 on doctors’ well-being: Results of a web survey during the lockdown in Italy. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2020, 24, 7869–7879. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  50. Elbay, R.Y.; Kurtulmuş, A.; Arpacıoğlu, S.; Karadere, E. Depression, anxiety, stress levels of physicians and associated factors in Covid-19 pandemics. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 290, 113130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Evanoff, B.A.; Strickland, J.R.; Dale, A.M.; Hayibor, L.; Page, E.; Duncan, J.G. Work-Related and Personal Factors Associated with Mental Well-Being During the COVID-19 Response: Survey of Health Care and Other Workers. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e21366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fiksenbaum, L.; Greenglass, E.R.; Marjanovic, Z.; Coffey, S. Emotional Exhaustion and State Anger in Nurses Who Worked During the Sars Outbreak: The Role of Perceived Threat and Organizational Support. Can. J. Community Ment. Health 2006, 25, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hacimusalar, Y.; Kahve, A.C.; Yasar, A.B.; Aydin, M.S. Anxiety and hopelessness levels in COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative study of healthcare professionals and other community sample in Turkey. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2020, 129, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Han, L.; Wong, F.K.Y.; She, D.L.M.; Li, S.Y.; Yang, Y.F.; Jiang, M.Y.; Ruan, Y.; Su, Q.; Ma, Y.; Chung, L.Y.F. Anxiety and Depression of Nurses in a North West Province in China During the Period of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Outbreak. J. Nurs. Sch. 2020, 52, 564–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hoseinabadi, T.S.; Kakhki, S.; Teimori, G.; Nayyeri, S. Burnout and its influencing factors between frontline nurses and nurses from other wards during the outbreak of Coronacvirus Disease—COVID-19 in Iran. Nurs. Res. Educ. 2020, 38, e03. [Google Scholar]
  56. Huang, L.; Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Ye, P.; Chen, X.; Xu, H.; Qu, H.; Ning, G. Factors Influencing Anxiety of Health Care Workers in the Radiology Department with High Exposure Risk to COVID-19. Med Sci. Monit. 2020, 26, e926008-1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jung, H.; Jung, S.Y.; Lee, M.H.; Kim, M.S. Assessing the Presence of Post-Traumatic Stress and Turnover Intention among Nurses Post–Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Outbreak: The Importance of Supervisor Support. Work. Health Saf. 2020, 68, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Khalafallah, A.M.; Lam, S.; Gami, A.; Dornbos, D.L.; Sivakumar, W.; Johnson, J.N. Burnout and career satisfaction among attending neurosurgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2020, 198, 106193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Khanal, P.; Devkota, N.; Dahal, M.; Paudel, K.; Joshi, D. Mental health impacts among health workers during COVID-19 in a low resource setting: A cross-sectional survey from Nepal. Glob. Health 2020, 16, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kim, J.-S.; Choi, J.S. Factors Influencing Emergency Nurses’ Burnout during an Outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus in Korea. Asian Nurs. Res. 2016, 10, 295–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Lam, S.C.; Arora, T.; Grey, I.; Suen, L.K.P.; Huang, E.Y.-Z.; Li, D.; Lam, K.B.H. Perceived Risk and Protection From Infection and Depressive Symptoms Among Healthcare Workers in Mainland China and Hong Kong During COVID-19. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lancee, W.J.; Maunder, R.G.; Goldbloom, D.S. Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among Toronto hospital workers one to two years after the SARS outbreak. Psychiatr. Serv. 2008, 59, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lee, S.M.; Kang, W.S.; Cho, A.-R.; Kim, T.; Park, J.K. Psychological impact of the 2015 MERS outbreak on hospital workers and quarantined hemodialysis patients. Compr. Psychiatry 2018, 87, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Luceño-Moreno, L.; Talavera-Velasco, B.; García-Albuerne, Y.; Martín-García, J. Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress, Anxiety, Depression, Levels of Resilience and Burnout in Spanish Health Personnel during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Marjanovic, Z.; Greenglass, E.R.; Coffey, S. The relevance of psychosocial variables and working conditions in predicting nurses’ coping strategies during the SARS crisis: An online questionnaire survey. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2007, 44, 991–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Matsuo, T.; Kobayashi, D.; Taki, F.; Sakamoto, F.; Uehara, Y.; Mori, N.; Fukui, T. Prevalence of Health Care Worker Burnout during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic in Japan. JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e2017271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Maunder, R.G.; Lancee, W.J.; Balderson, K.E.; Bennett, J.P.; Borgundvaag, B.; Evans, S.; Fernandes, C.M.; Goldbloom, D.S.; Gupta, M.; Hunter, J.J.; et al. Long-term psychological and occupa-tional effects of providing hospital healthcare during SARS outbreak. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2006, 12, 1924–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mo, Y.; Deng, L.; Zhang, L.; Lang, Q.; Liao, C.; Wang, N.; Qin, M.; Huang, H. Work stress among Chinese nurses to support Wuhan in fighting against COVID-19 epidemic. J. Nurs. Manag. 2020, 28, 1002–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Monterrosa-Castro, A.; Redondo-Mendoza, V.; Lara, M.F.M. Psychosocial factors associated with symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder in general practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Investig. Med. 2020, 68, 1228–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Morgantini, L.A.; Naha, U.; Wang, H.; Francavilla, S.; Acar, Ö.; Flores, J.M.; Crivellaro, S.; Moreira, D.; Abern, M.; Eklund, M.; et al. Factors contributing to healthcare professional burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid turnaround global survey. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0238217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mosheva, M.; Hertz-Palmor, N.; Dorman Ilan, S.; Matalon, N.; Pessach, I.M.; Afek, A.; Ziv, A.; Kreiss, Y.; Gross, R.; Gothelf, D. Anxiety, pandemic-related stress and resilience among physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Depress. Anxiety 2020, 37, 965–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Nickell, L.A.; Crighton, E.J.; Tracy, C.S.; Al-Enazy, H.; Bolaji, Y.; Hanjrah, S.; Hussain, A.; Makhlouf, S.; Upshur, R.E. Psychosocial effects of SARS on hospital staff: Survey of a large tertiary care institution. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2004, 170, 793–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Pratt, M.; Kerr, M.; Wong, C. The impact of ERI, burnout, and caring for SARS patients on hospital nurses’ self-reported compliance with infection control. Can. J. Infect. Control 2009, 24, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  74. Ramaci, T.; Barattucci, M.; Ledda, C.; Rapisarda, V. Social Stigma during COVID-19 and its Impact on HCWs Outcomes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rossi, R.; Socci, V.; Pacitti, F.; Di Lorenzo, G.; Di Marco, A.; Siracusano, A.; Rossi, A. Mental Health Outcomes Among Frontline and Second-Line Health Care Workers During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic in Italy. JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e2010185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ruiz-Fernandez, M.D.; Ramos-Pichardo, J.D.; Ibanez-Masero, O.; Cabrera-Troya, J.; Carmona-Rega, M.I.; Ortega-Galan, A.M. Com-passion fatigue, burnout, compassion satisfaction and perceived stress in healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 health crisis in Spain. J. Clin. Nurs. 2020, 29, 4321–4330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Sampaio, F.; Sequeira, C.; Teixeira, L. Nurses’ Mental Health during the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2020, 62, 783–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Saricam, M. COVID-19-Related anxiety in nurses working on front lines in Turkey. Nurs. Midwifery Stud. 2020, 9, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Shah, N.; Raheem, A.; Sideris, M.; Velauthar, L.; Saeed, F. Mental health amongst obstetrics and gynaecology doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results of a UK-wide study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2020, 253, 90–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Smith, P.M.; Oudyk, J.; Potter, G.; Mustard, C. The Association between the Perceived Adequacy of Workplace Infection Control Procedures and Personal Protective Equipment with Mental Health Symptoms: A Cross-sectional Survey of Canadian Health-care Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: L’association entre le caractère adéquat perçu des procédures de con-trôle des infections au travail et de l’équipement de protection personnel pour les symptômes de santé mentale. Un sondage transversal des travailleurs de la santé canadiens durant la pandémie COVID-19. Can. J. Psychiatry 2020, 66, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  81. Styra, R.; Hawryluck, L.; Robinson, S.; Kasapinovic, S.; Fones, C.; Gold, W.L. Impact on health care workers employed in high-risk areas during the Toronto SARS outbreak. J. Psychosom. Res. 2008, 64, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Su, T.-P.; Lien, T.-C.; Yang, C.-Y.; Su, Y.L.; Wang, J.-H.; Tsai, S.-L.; Yin, J.-C. Prevalence of psychiatric morbidity and psychological adaptation of the nurses in a structured SARS caring unit during outbreak: A prospective and periodic assessment study in Taiwan. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2007, 41, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Suryavanshi, N.; Kadam, A.; Dhumal, G.; Nimkar, S.; Mave, V.; Gupta, A.; Cox, S.R.; Gupte, N. Mental health and quality of life among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in India. Brain Behav. 2020, 10, e01837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Tam, C.W.C.; Pang, E.P.F.; Lam, L.C.W.; Chiu, H.F.K. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Hong Kong in 2003: Stress and psychological impact among frontline healthcare workers. Psychol. Med. 2004, 34, 1197–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Xiao, X.; Zhu, X.; Fu, S.; Hu, Y.; Li, X.; Xiao, J. Psychological impact of healthcare workers in China during COVID-19 pneumonia epidemic: A multi-center cross-sectional survey investigation. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 274, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Zerbini, G.; Ebigbo, A.; Reicherts, P.; Kunz, M.; Messman, H. Psychosocial burden of healthcare professionals in times of COVID-19—A survey conducted at the University Hospital Augsburg. GMS Ger. Med. Sci. 2020, 18, Doc05. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  87. Zhan, Y.-X.; Zhao, S.-Y.; Yuan, J.; Liu, H.; Liu, Y.-F.; Gui, L.-L.; Zheng, H.; Zhou, Y.-M.; Qiu, L.-H.; Chen, J.-H.; et al. Prevalence and Influencing Factors on Fatigue of First-line Nurses Combating with COVID-19 in China: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study. Curr. Med Sci. 2020, 40, 625–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zhou, Y.; Wang, W.; Sun, Y.; Qian, W.; Liu, Z.; Wang, R. The prevalence and risk factors of psychological disturbances of frontline medical staff in china under the COVID-19 epidemic: Workload should be concerned. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 26, 510–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Wang, H.; Huang, D.; Huang, H.; Zhang, J.; Guo, L.; Liu, Y.; Ma, H.; Geng, Q. The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic on medical staff in Guangdong, China: A cross-sectional study. Psychol. Med. 2020, 52, 884–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wang, H.; Liu, Y.; Hu, K.; Zhang, M.; Du, M.; Huang, H.; Yue, X. Healthcare workers’ stress when caring for COVID-19 patients: An altruistic perspective. Nurs. Ethic 2020, 27, 1490–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. I Foo, C.C.; Goon, A.T.J.; Leow, Y.-H.; Goh, C.-L. Adverse skin reactions to personal protective equipment against severe acute respiratory syndrome? A descriptive study in Singapore. Contact Dermat. 2006, 55, 291–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Jiang, Q.; Song, S.; Zhou, J.; Liu, Y.; Chen, A.; Bai, Y.; Wang, J.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; et al. The Prevalence, Characteristics, and Prevention Status of Skin Injury Caused by Personal Protective Equipment among Medical Staff in Fighting COVID-19: A Multicenter, Cross-Sectional Study. Adv. Wound Care 2020, 9, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lan, J.; Song, Z.; Miao, X.; Li, H.; Li, Y.; Dong, L.; Yang, J.; An, X.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, L.; et al. Skin damage among health care workers managing coronavirus disease-2019. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2020, 82, 1215–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Ong, J.J.; Bharatendu, C.; Goh, Y.; Tang, J.Z.; Sooi, K.W.; Tan, Y.L.; Tan, B.Y.; Teoh, H.; Ong, S.T.; Allen, D.M.; et al. Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment—A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19. Headache: J. Head Face Pain 2020, 60, 864–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Alraddadi, B.M.; Al-Salmi, H.S.; Jacobs-Slifka, K.; Slayton, R.B.; Estivariz, C.F.; Geller, A.I.; Al-Turkistani, H.H.; Al-Rehily, S.S.; Alserehi, H.A.; Wali, G.Y.; et al. Risk Factors for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection among Healthcare Personnel. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2016, 22, 1915–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Chatterjee, P.; Anand, T.; Singh, K.J.; Rasaily, R.; Singh, R.; Das, S. Healthcare workers & SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: A case-control investigation in the time of COVID-19. Indian J. Med. Res. 2020, 151, 459–467. [Google Scholar]
  97. Loeb, M.; McGeer, A.; Henry, B.; Ofner, M.; Rose, D.; Hlywka, T.; Levie, J.; McQueen, J.; Smith, S.; Moss, L.; et al. SARS among Critical Care Nurses, Toronto. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Morcuende, M.; Guglielminotti, J.; Landau, R. Anesthesiologists’ and Intensive Care Providers’ Exposure to COVID-19 Infection in a New York City Academic Center: A Prospective Cohort Study Assessing Symptoms and COVID-19 Antibody Testing. Anesth. Analg. 2020, 131, 669–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Reynolds, M.G.; Anh, B.H.; Thu, V.H.; Montgomery, J.M.; Bausch, D.G.; Shah, J.J.; Maloney, S.; Leitmeyer, K.C.; Huy, V.Q.; Horby, P.; et al. Factors associated with nosocomial SARS-CoV transmission among healthcare workers in Hanoi, Vietnam, 2003. BMC Public Health 2006, 6, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Teleman, M.D.; Boudville, I.C.; Heng, B.H.; Zhu, D.; Leo, Y.S. Factors associated with transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome among health-care workers in Singapore. Epidemiol. Infect. 2004, 132, 797–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Liu, W.; Tang, F.; Fang, L.-Q.; De Vlas, S.J.; Ma, H.-J.; Zhou, J.-P.; Looman, C.W.N.; Richardus, J.H.; Cao, W.-C. Risk factors for SARS infection among hospital healthcare workers in Beijing: A case control study. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2009, 14, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Chen, R.; Chou, K.R.; Huang, Y.J.; Wang, T.S.; Liu, S.Y.; Ho, L.Y. Effects of a SARS prevention programme in Taiwan on nursing staff’s anxiety, depression and sleep quality: A longitudinal survey. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2006, 43, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Rogers, B.; Buckheit, K.; Ostendorf, J. Development of Competencies for Respiratory Protection for Health Care Workers. Work. Health Saf. 2018, 67, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Suppan, L.; Abbas, M.; Stuby, L.; Cottet, P.; Larribau, R.; Golay, E.; Iten, A.; Harbarth, S.; Gartner, B.; Suppan, M. Effect of an E-Learning Module on Personal Protective Equipment Proficiency Among Prehospital Personnel: Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e21265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Yen, M.-Y.; Lin, Y.; Su, I.-J.; Huang, F.-Y.; Ho, M.-S.; Chang, S.-C.; Tan, K.-H.; Chen, K.-T.; Chang, H.; Liu, Y.-C.; et al. Using an integrated infection control strategy during outbreak control to minimize nosocomial infection of severe acute respiratory syndrome among healthcare workers. J. Hosp. Infect. 2006, 62, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Bergeron, S.M.; Cameron, S.; Armstrong-Stassen, M.; Pare, K. Diverse implications of a national health crisis: A qualitative ex-ploration of community nurses’ SARS experiences. Can. J. Nurs. Res. Rev. Can. De Rech. En Sci. Infirm. 2006, 38, 42–54. [Google Scholar]
  107. De Wit, K.; Mercuri, M.; Wallner, C.; Clayton, N.; Archambault, P.; Ritchie, K. Canadian emergency physician psychological distress and burnout during the first 10 weeks of COVID-19: A mixed-methods study. J. Am. Coll. Emerg. Physicians Open 2020, 1, 1030–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kackin, O.; Ciydem, E.; Aci, O.S.; Kutlu, F.Y. Experiences and psychosocial problems of nurses caring for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in Turkey: A qualitative study. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2020, 67, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Gao, X.; Jiang, L.; Hu, Y.; Li, L.; Hou, L. Nurses’ experiences regarding shift patterns in isolation wards during the COVID-19 pandemic in China: A qualitative study. J. Clin. Nurs. 2020, 29, 4270–4280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kang, H.S.; Son, Y.D.; Chae, S.-M.; Corte, C. Working experiences of nurses during the Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2018, 24, e12664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Karimi, Z.; Fereidouni, Z.; Behnammoghadam, M.; Alimohammadi, N.; Mousavizadeh, A.; Salehi, T.; Mirzaee, M.S.; Mirzaee, S. The Lived Experience of Nurses Caring for Patients with COVID-19 in Iran: A Phenomenological Study. Risk Manag. Health Policy 2020, 13, 1271–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Lee, J.Y.; Hong, J.H.; Park, E.Y. Beyond the fear: Nurses’ experiences caring for patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome: A phenomenological study. J. Clin. Nurs. 2020, 29, 3349–3362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Liu, Q.; Luo, D.; Haase, J.E.; Guo, Q.; Wang, X.Q.; Liu, S.; Xia, L.; Liu, Z.; Yang, J.; Yang, B.X. The experiences of health-care providers during the COVID-19 crisis in China: A qualitative study. Lancet Glob. Health 2020, 8, e790–e798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Liu, Y.E.; Zhai, Z.C.; Han, Y.H.; Liu, Y.L.; Liu, F.P.; Hu, D.Y. Experiences of front-line nurses combating coronavirus disease-2019 in China: A qualitative analysis. Public Health Nurs. 2020, 37, 757–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Mahendran, K.; Patel, S.; Sproat, C. Psychosocial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on staff in a dental teaching hospital. Br. Dent. J. 2020, 229, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. McBeath, A.G.; Du Plock, S.; Bager-Charleson, S. The challenges and experiences of psychotherapists working remotely during the coronavirus* pandemic. Couns. Psychother. Res. 2020, 20, 394–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Mohindra, R.; Soni, R.K.; Suri, V.; Bhalla, A.; Singh, S.M. The experience of social and emotional distancing among health care providers in the context of COVID-19: A study from North India. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2020, 31, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. O’Connor, E.; O’Sullivan, T.; Amaratunga, C.; Thille, P.; Phillips, K.P.; Carter, M. Risk communication with nurses during in-fectious disease outbreaks: Learning from SARS. J. Emerg. Manag. 2009, 7, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. O’Sullivan, T.L.; Amaratunga, C.; Phillips, K.P.; Corneil, W.; O’Connor, E.; Lemyre, L.; Dow, D. If Schools Are Closed, Who Will Watch Our Kids? Family Caregiving and Other Sources of Role Conflict among Nurses during Large-Scale Outbreaks. Prehospital Disaster Med. 2009, 24, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Robertson, E.; Hershenfield, K.; Grace, S.; Stewart, D.E. The Psychosocial Effects of Being Quarantined following Exposure to SARS: A Qualitative Study of Toronto Health Care Workers. Can. J. Psychiatry 2004, 49, 403–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Sadati, A.K.; Zarei, L.; Shahabi, S.; Heydari, S.T.; Taheri, V.; Jiriaei, R.; Ebrahimzade, N.; Lankarani, K.B. Nursing experiences of COVID-19 outbreak in Iran: A qualitative study. Nurs. Open 2020, 8, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Sun, N.; Wei, L.; Shi, S.; Jiao, D.; Song, R.; Ma, L.; Wang, H.; Wang, C.; Wang, Z.; You, Y.; et al. A qualitative study on the psychological experience of caregivers of COVID-19 patients. Am. J. Infect. Control 2020, 48, 592–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Xu, C.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y. Mapping of Health Literacy and Social Panic via Web Search Data during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: Infodemiological Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e18831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Priolo Filho, S.R.; Goldfarb, D.; Zibetti, M.R.; Aznar-Blefari, C. Brazilian Child Protection Professionals’ Resilient Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Child Abus. Negl. 2020, 110, 104701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Sadiq, M. Policing in pandemic: Is perception of workload causing work-family conflict, job dissatisfaction and job stress? J. Public Aff. 2020, 22, e2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Sasaki, N.; Kuroda, R.; Tsuno, K.; Kawakami, N. Workplace responses to COVID-19 associated with mental health and work performance of employees in Japan. J. Occup. Health 2020, 62, e12134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Song, L.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Yang, Y.; Li, H. Mental Health and Work Attitudes among People Resuming Work during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Tan, W.; Hao, F.; McIntyre, R.S.; Jiang, L.; Jiang, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, X.; Zou, Y.; Hu, Y.; Luo, X.; et al. Is returning to work during the COVID-19 pandemic stressful? A study on immediate mental health status and psychoneuroimmunity prevention measures of Chinese workforce. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 87, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Wong, E.L.-Y.; Ho, K.-F.; Wong, S.Y.-S.; Cheung, A.W.-L.; Yau, P.S.-Y.; Dong, D.; Yeoh, E.-K. Views on Workplace Policies and its Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life during Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Survey of Employees. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 2020, 11, 344–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Kim, L.E.; Asbury, K. ‘Like a rug had been pulled from under you’: The impact of COVID-19 on teachers in England during the first six weeks of the UK lockdown. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 90, 1062–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Neary, S.; Van Rhee, J.; Roman, C. The Effect of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Physician Assistant Educators. J. Physician Assist. Educ. 2020, 31, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Pather, N.; Blyth, P.; Chapman, J.A.; Dayal, M.R.; Flack, N.A.; Fogg, Q.A.; Green, R.A.; Hulme, A.; Johnson, I.; Meyer, A.J.; et al. Forced Disruption of Anatomy Education in Australia and New Zealand: An Acute Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2020, 13, 284–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Gearing, R.; Saini, M.; McNeill, T. Experiences and implications of social workers practicing in a pediatric hospital environment affected by SARS. Health Soc. Work 2007, 32, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Li, T.; Pien, L.; Kao, C.; Kubo, T.; Cheng, W. Effects of work conditions and organisational strategies on nurses’ mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Nurs. Manag. 2021, 30, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Shi, L.-S.; Xu, R.H.; Xia, Y.; Chen, D.-X.; Wang, D. The Impact of COVID-19-Related Work Stress on the Mental Health of Primary Healthcare Workers: The Mediating Effects of Social Support and Resilience. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 800183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Alexiou, E.; Steingrimsson, S.; Akerstrom, M.; Jonsdottir, I.H.; Ahlstrom, L.; Finizia, C.; Wijk, H.; Degl’Innocenti, A. A Survey of Psychiatric Healthcare Workers’ Perception of Working Environment and Possibility to Recover Before and After the First Wave of COVID-19 in Sweden. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 770955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 06783 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of the selection and exclusion of articles.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the selection and exclusion of articles.
Ijerph 19 06783 g001
Ijerph 19 06783 g002 550
Figure 2. Studies of the healthcare industry sorted by research question and methodology. Research questions (RQs): During an epidemic or pandemic caused by a coronavirus: (1) How is the work environment affected? (2) What are the associations between work environment factors and employee health? (3) What are the effects of interventions to improve the work environment or health?
Figure 2. Studies of the healthcare industry sorted by research question and methodology. Research questions (RQs): During an epidemic or pandemic caused by a coronavirus: (1) How is the work environment affected? (2) What are the associations between work environment factors and employee health? (3) What are the effects of interventions to improve the work environment or health?
Ijerph 19 06783 g002
Ijerph 19 06783 g003 550
Figure 3. Studies of industries other than healthcare, sorted by research question and methodology. Research questions (RQs): During an epidemic or pandemic caused by a coronavirus: (1) How is the work environment affected? (2) What are the associations between work environment factors and employee health? (3) What are the effects of interventions to improve the work environment or health?
Figure 3. Studies of industries other than healthcare, sorted by research question and methodology. Research questions (RQs): During an epidemic or pandemic caused by a coronavirus: (1) How is the work environment affected? (2) What are the associations between work environment factors and employee health? (3) What are the effects of interventions to improve the work environment or health?
Ijerph 19 06783 g003
Table
Table 1. Overview of quantitative studies assessing how the work environment is affected by an epidemic or pandemic (COVID-19, SARS, or MERS) in the healthcare industry (research question 1).
Table 1. Overview of quantitative studies assessing how the work environment is affected by an epidemic or pandemic (COVID-19, SARS, or MERS) in the healthcare industry (research question 1).
NoAuthor
(Year)		CountryPopulationDesign,
N (% Women)		Exposure
(Pandemic)		ResultSubgroup
Comparison		Overall
Quality
1Felice (2020)ItalyHCWs, mainly physicians, in northern ItalyCross-sectional survey, n = 388 (61%)COVID-19Females and respondents working in high-risk sectors were more likely to rate psychological support as useful and workload as increased.Gender, occupation, standard vs. high-risk sectorMedium
2Halcomb (2020)AustraliaPrimary healthcare nursesCross-sectional survey,
n = 637 (96%)		COVID-19Nearly half of the respondents reported either decreased hours of employment, threatened termination, or actual termination of employment since the onset of the pandemic. Most respondents reported that they had sufficient knowledge about COVID-19 but that they never or only sometimes had access to sufficient PPE.NoneHigh
3Koh (2005)SingaporeHCWsCross-sectional survey, n = 10,511 (82%)SARSMore than half reported an increased workload. Non-SARS-affected hospitals had a higher increase in workload than SARS-affected hospitals. Being exposed to SARS daily was associated with a higher increase in workload than being exposed less often. Nurses and several other occupational groups reported a higher increase in workload than doctors.Occupational groups, hospitalsHigh
4Kramer (2021)GermanyHCWsCross-sectional survey, n = 3669 (61%)COVID-19More nurses reported a high increase in workload, not being sufficiently informed about the pandemic, feeling left alone by the employer, and that the employer had not taken appropriate measures, informed appropriately, or were prepared for the pandemic compared with doctors and other occupational groups. More nurses than doctors and others further felt little appreciation from the management, were afraid of catching the virus, and more often reported that they would not continue working in the healthcare industry after the COVID-19 pandemic. There were several statistically significant differences in work environment factors in comparisons between ICU, ER, COVID-19 wards, and other wards. Doctors, nurses, others
ICU, ER, COVID-19 ward compared with others		Medium
5Sarma
(2020)		IndiaHCWsCross-sectional survey,
n = 110 (40%)		COVID-19In total, 84.5% of the participants were concerned about the risk of infection to self and family and 56.4% were disturbed by the lack of any concrete protocol for patient management. Less staff availability, delay in discharging duties toward their patients, and increased workload were other concerns. NoneLow
6Semaan (2020)GlobalHCWs (maternal and newborn health professionals)Cross-sectional survey, n = 714 (not reported)COVID-19The percentage of respondents who reported available/updated guidelines, access to COVID-19 testing, and dedicated isolation rooms for confirmed/suspected COVID-19 maternity patients was higher in high-income countries than in low- and middle-income countries (difference not tested statistically).High- compared with low- and middle-income countriesLow
7Smrke
(2020)		UKHCWs (physicians, and nurses in rare cancer care)Cross-sectional survey, n = 18 (not reported)COVID-19In total, 75% of the planned face-to-face appointments in rare cancer care were converted to telemedicine. Clinicians found telemedicine efficient, with no associated increased workload. NoneMedium
8Spiller (2020)Switzerland Nurses and physicians Two independent cross-sectional samples: during the COVID-19 outbreak and after its flattening
n = 812 (71%)		COVID-19 Nurses and physicians reported, in both samples, that they worked more during the pandemic than before. They also suffered more from anxiety and burnout. NoneMedium
9Teoh (2020)Asia, Europe, North America, and South AmericaHCWs (urology staff)Cross-sectional survey, n = 1004 (18%)COVID-19A higher number of staff had been diagnosed with COVID-19 in Europe and North America than in the other countries; European respondents cited the highest percentage of personnel shortage problems followed by South America and Asia. Provision of PPE and PPE training also differed by continent.Africa, Asia, Australia/NZ, Europe, North America, South AmericaMedium
10(2005)CanadaHCWsCross-sectional survey, n = 300 (74%)SARSNurses relied more on peer support than doctors, felt less informed and less involved in decision-making than doctors felt, and were more likely to report that infection control procedures were not strict enough.Doctors/NursesMedium
HCWs: Healthcare workers; PPE: Personal protective equipment.
Table
Table 2. Overview of quantitative studies assessing the associations between work environment factors and health (research question 2) in the healthcare industry during an epidemic or pandemic (COVID-19, SARS, or MERS).
Table 2. Overview of quantitative studies assessing the associations between work environment factors and health (research question 2) in the healthcare industry during an epidemic or pandemic (COVID-19, SARS, or MERS).
NoAuthor
(Year)		Country/
Pandemic		PopulationDesign,
N (% Women)		ExposureOutcomeThe Association
between WE and Health		Subgroup
Comparison		Overall
Quality
1Alraddadi (2016)Saudi Arabia/ MERS-CovHCWsRetrospective cohort study, n = 292 (64%)Working in units that treated MERS-CoV patientsMERS-CoV antibodiesAttack rate in the medical intensive care unit of 11.7%, emergency department of 4.1%, neurology unit (with no known MERS-CoV patients) of 0%.
Those who had undergone infection control training specific to MERS-CoV had a lower risk of infection.
Always covering the nose and mouth with a medical mask or N95 respirator when caring for MERS-CoV patients was associated with a lower risk of infection.		Occupation: radiology technicians attack rate 29.4%, nurses 9.4%, respiratory therapists 3.2%, physicians 2.4%; clerical staff 0%, patient transporters 0%.
Gender: no difference by sex		Medium
2Bai (2004)Taiwan/
SARS		HCWs and administrative personnelCross-sectional survey, n = 338 (51%)Administrative vs. healthcare personnel, quarantined vs. notSeveral mental health outcomesAssociation between being quarantined and acute stress disorder. In contrast to administrative personnel, healthcare workers reported experiencing significantly more insomnia, exhaustion, and uncertainty about the frequent modifications of infection control procedures.Administrative versus healthcare personnel, quarantined versus not quarantinedMedium
3Buselli (2020)Italy/
COVID-19		HCWs in a major university hospital in ItalyCross-sectional survey, n = 265 (69%)ICU staff/frontline staffSymptoms of anxiety and depressionAssociation between working in the frontline and reported symptoms of anxiety but not symptoms of depression.ICU staff/frontline staffMedium
4Chatterjee (2020)India/
COVID-19		HCWsCase-control study, n = 378 cases (42%) and n = 373 controls (49%)Use of PPE, performing endotracheal intubationqRT-PCR test resultIncreased risk if never used PPE (OR = 5.33 with 95% CI 2.27–12.48)) and if performing endotracheal intubation (OR = 4.33, 1.16–16.07).NoneMedium
5DeSio (2020)Italy/
COVID-19		Physicians in Rome and FlorenceCross-sectional survey, n = 695 (45%)Caring for COVID-19 patients versus notPsychological distress (GHQ-12) and perceived well-being (WHO-5)Higher odds of symptoms of mental ill-health among physicians working in areas most affected by COVID-19 compared with physicians working in areas less affected by COVID-19.Areas more or less affected by COVID-19Medium
6Elbay (2020)Turkey/
COVID-19		PhysiciansCross-sectional survey, n = 442 (57%)Frontline work, workload, competence, supportDepression and anxiety (DASS-21)Association between working in the frontline and sum score of depression and anxiety; among frontline workers, the association between higher weekly working hours, higher number of COVID-19 patients cared for, lower level of support, and lower level of experienced competence on the one hand and sum score of depression and anxiety on the other.Working in frontline versus notMedium
7Evanoff (2020)USA/COVID-19Faculty and clinical staff at medical universityCross-sectional survey, n = 5500 (60.3)Current work status/clinical setting/caring for patients with COVID-19/supervisor behaviors supportive of family rolesStress, anxiety, depression, exhaustion, overall well-beingBeing exposed to COVID-19 and having a supervisor who was not supportive of family roles were associated with most of the negative mental health outcomes in the overall and the specific clinical sample. Working as a clinician was associated with more anxiety and decreased overall well-being compared to other occupational groups. Clinical staff working in high-risk (for COVID-19) settings had more negative mental health outcomes than clinical staff that did not work in high-risk settings.Clinical groups vs. nonclinical groups, high-risk vs. non high-risk clinical groupsMedium
8Fiksenbaum (2006)Canada/
SARS		NursesCross-sectional survey, n = 333 (95%)Perceived SARS threat, organizational supportEmotional exhaustion (MBI-GS)Working conditions contributed significantly to higher perceived SARS threat, which was associated with increased emotional exhaustion. Higher levels of organizational support were associated with lower perceived SARS threat and emotional exhaustion.NoneMedium
9Foo (2006)Singapore/
SARS		Nurses, doctors, assistants at hospitalCross-sectional survey, n = 322 (86%)Use of PPE
(N95 mask, gloves, gown)		Adverse skin reactionsAll those reporting adverse reactions wore N95 masks for a mean 8 h/day mean 8.4 months or gloves for a mean 6.2 h/day mean 9.4 months
Staff using other masks and plastic gloves, respectively, did not report adverse skin reactions.		Staff who reported acne, dry skin, and itch were younger than those without reactionsMedium
10Hacimusalar (2020)Turkey/
COVID-19		HCWs and non-HCWsCross-sectional survey, n = 1121 (HCWs), n = 1035 (non-HCWs)
(not reported)		Working hoursAnxiety, hopelessnessMore anxiety and hopelessness among HCWs than non-HCWs; more anxiety and hopelessness among nurses than other groups. Association between high working hours and anxiety.HCWs vs. non-HCWs; nurses vs. doctorsMedium
11Han (2020)China/
COVID-19		Nurses in a Chinese provinceCross-sectional survey, n = 21,199 (99%)Hospitals with cases of COVID-19Anxiety, depressionNurses who worked in designated hospitals tended to have higher anxiety scores.Staff in hospitals with and without COVID-19 patientsHigh
12Hoffman (2020)USA/
COVID-19		Oncology radiation staffCross-sectional survey n = 575 (69%)Working from homeBurnout symptomsIn employees working from home at least part of the time, 74% reported the experience to be positive, and rating the experience as positive was associated with less burnout. Unfavorable work-from-home responses were, in qualitative responses, linked to child/family care and IT issues.Occupations within oncology radiationLow
13Hongling (2020)China/
COVID-19		NursesCross-sectional survey, n = 159 (66%)Working at COVID-19 wardTraumatization, stressNurses who worked on the non-critical care ward scored higher on traumatization and stress than nurses who worked on the critical care ward.Nurses in critical vs. non-critical wardLow
14Hoseinabadi (2020)Iran/
COVID-19		NursesCross-sectional survey, n = 245 (48%)Working at COVID-19 wardBurnoutNurses working at the frontline were more likely to suffer from job stress and burnout than nurses on the usual ward. Job stress was associated with burnout.Nurses working in frontline vs. usual wardMedium
15Huang (2020)China/
COVID-19		HCWs in radiology departmentsCross-sectional, n= 377 (59%)Contact with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients, availability of PPE, knowledge about COVID-19AnxietyA nursing role and lack of PPE were associated with anxiety in multivariate analysis.Occupations within radiologyHigh
16Jiang (2020)China /COVID-19Nurses and doctors at hospitalsCross-sectional survey, n = 4308 (88%)Use of PPESkin injuriesDaily wearing time and grade 3 PPE (N95/KN95 masks, gowns, gloves, and shoes) were associated with skin injuries.Male gender was associated with skin injuriesMedium
17Jung (2020)South Korea/
MERS		NursesCross-sectional survey, n = 147 (100%)Level of involvement in SARS patientsPTSDLevel of involvement in the care for patients with suspected or confirmed MERS was associated with levels of PTSD.SeveralMedium
18Khalafallah (2020)USA/
COVID-19		NeurosurgeonsCross-section survey, n = 407 (11.3%)Working in a hostile or difficult environment spending increased time conducting non-neurosurgical medical care due to COVID-19BurnoutBurnout was associated with working in a hostile or difficult environment (OR = 2.534, p  =  0.008), and spending increased time conducting non-neurosurgical medical care (OR  =  2.362, p  =  0.019) since the rise of COVID-19.NoneMedium
19Khalid (2016)Saudi Arabia/
MERS		HCWs who worked in high-risk areasCross-sectional survey, n = 117 (76%)Safety of self, colleagues, family membersStressHCWs who saw their own, their colleagues, and their family members’ safety and well-being threatened experienced stress.NoneLow
20Khanal (2020)Nepal/
COVID-19		HCWsCross-sectional survey, n = 475 (53%)Working overtime, insufficient precautionary measures, stigma, work schedule, working in affected districtAnxiety, depression, insomniaExperienced stigma was associated with all mental health outcomes; inadequate precautionary measures associated with anxiety and depression. Nurses experienced more anxiety than other health professionals.Nurses/Doctors/Other health professionalsMedium
21Kim (2016)Korea/
MERS		ED nursesCross-sectional survey, n = 215 (94%)Job stress, poor hospital resources for treatment of MERS, shift, care for MERS patientBurnoutED nurses’ burnout was associated with job stress and poor hospital resources for the treatment of MERS-CoV.NoneHigh
22Koksal
(2020)		Turkey/ COVID-19HCWsCross-sectional survey, n = 702 (70%)Workload, COVID-19 training, Contact with COVID-19 patient, unnecessary use of PPESymptoms of depression and anxietyUnnecessary use of PPE was associated with depressive symptoms; increased workload was associated with symptoms of anxiety.NoneLow
23Kuo (2020)Taiwan/
COVID-19		Doctors, nurses, medical examinators, administratorsCross-sectional survey, n = 752 (89%)Various stressors among HCWs caring for patients with highly infectious diseaseDiscomfort, burden, etc.Highest scores were found for the subscales discomfort caused by PPE and burden caring for patients.Different occupationsLow
24Lam (2020)China/
COVID-19		Nurses, physicians, and others from various cities and hospitalsCross-sectional survey, n = 932 (63–83% in 3 samples)Infection, PPEDepressionMost strongly associated with depression were feeling susceptible to contracting COVID-19 and difficulty obtaining face masks.NoneMedium
25Lan (2020)China/COVID-19Physicians and nursesCross-sectional survey n = 542 (sex not reported)Wearing PPESkin damageThe prevalence was 97%. Wearing N95 masks or goggles >6 h per day and hand hygiene >10 times per day increased the risk of skin damage.NoneMedium
26Lancee (2008)Canada/
SARS		HCWs in Toronto where most SARS patients in Canada wereCross-sectional retrospective survey and interview, n = 133Perception of the adequacy of training, protection, and support with respect to SARSDiagnosed psychiatric disorderNew episodes of psychiatric disorders were directly associated with a history of having a psychiatric disorder before the SARS outbreak and inversely associated with years of healthcare experience and the perceived adequacy of training and support.NoneMedium
27Lee (2018)South Korea/
MERS		HCWsRepeated survey, n = 359 (82%)MERS-related tasksStress and psychological impactMedical staff that performed MERS-related tasks showed the highest risk for post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms even after time had elapsed.Different occupationsMedium
28Liu (2009)China/ SARSHCWsCase-control study, n = 51 cases (69%) and n = 426 controls (69%)Types of contact with patients; emergency care experience; wearing mask, glasses, protective clothes, etc.; taking trainingDiagnosis of SARS according to WHO’s criteria; confirmed with Ig G antibodies against SARS-CoVFactors significantly associated with increased risk of SARS infection: not wearing a 16-layer or 12-layer cotton surgical mask; emergency care experience; contact with respiratory secretion; not taking training; and contact with chest compression.NoneHigh
29Loeb (2004)Canada/ SARSCritical care nursesCase-control study, n = 8 cases (100%) and n = 32 controls (100%)Types of patient care activities, use of PPESuspected or probable SARS case according to Canada’s case definition; confirmed with antibody testingActivities related to intubation increased SARS risk and use of a mask (particularly an N95 mask) was protective.NoneMedium
30Luceno-Moreno (2020)Spain/
COVID-19		HCWs in contact with COVID-19 patientsCross-sectional survey, n = 1422 (86%)Type of shiftPost-traumatic stress, anxiety, and depressionWorking 12- or 24-h shifts, compared with a large range of other shifts, was associated with mental health outcomes.Type of healthcare center and occupationMedium
31Maraqa (2020)Palestine/
COVID-19		Frontline HCWsCross-sectional survey, n = 430 (55%)Contact with COVID-19 patients, knowledge, training in outbreak responsePerceived stress levelNo training in outbreak response was associated with higher stress levels.NoneLow
32Marjanovic (2007)Canada/
SARS		NursesCross-sectional survey, n = 333, (95%)Organizational support, trust in equipmentBurnoutHigher levels of organizational support and trust in equipment/infection control, and lower levels of contact with SARS patients and time spent in quarantine were associated with lower levels of emotional exhaustion.NoneMedium
33Matsuo (2020)Japan/
COVID-19		HCWsCross-sectional survey, n = 312 (72%)Workload, transmission riskBurnoutNot being a physician, desire for a reduced workload, and desire for appreciation or respect were associated with higher OR for burnout.OccupationMedium
34Maunder (2006)Canada/
SARS		HCWs in 9 hospitals that treated SARS patients (Toronto) and 5 hospitals that did not (Hamilton)Cross-sectional survey distributed 1–2 years after the SARS outbreak, n = 769 (86–90%)Training, PPE, support, conflicts, workload, overtime, stigmaBurnout, Psychological distress, PTSDToronto HCWs reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and post-traumatic stress. Toronto workers were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours and to report behavioral consequences of stress. Variance in adverse outcomes was explained by a protective effect of the perceived adequacy of training and support and by a provocative effect of a maladaptive coping style and other individual factors.Hospitals that treated SARS patients vs. hospitals that did notMedium
35Mo (2020)China/
COVID-19		NursesCross-sectional survey, n = 180 (90%)Working hours per weekWork stressHigher number of working hours per week was associated with more stress.NoneMedium
36Monterrosa-Castro (2020)Colombia/
COVID-19		General practitionersCross-sectional survey, n = 531 (60%)Feeling protected by employer, job satisfaction, stigma, etc.Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD)Feeling protected by their employer and job satisfaction were negatively associated with GAD; social discrimination for working as a general practitioner was positively associated with GAD.NoneMedium
37Morcuende (2020)US/COVID-19PhysiciansCross-sectional questionnaire, n = 105 (57%)Patient work with/without adequate PPECOVID-19-like symptoms; antibody testingExposed and unexposed respondents did not differ regarding COVID-19 antibodies.NoneMedium
38Morgantini (2020)60 countries (including Sweden)/
COVID-19		HCWsCross-sectional survey, n = 2707 (not reported)Work impacting household activities, feeling pushed beyond training, exposure to COVID-19 patients, adequate PPEBurnoutBurnout was associated with work impacting household activities, feeling pushed beyond training, exposure to COVID-19 patients, and making life-prioritizing decisions.
Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) was protective against burnout. Burnout was higher in high-income countries (HICs) compared to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).		High-income countries (HICs) compared to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)Medium
39Mosheva (2020)Israel/
COVID-19		PhysiciansCross-sectional survey, n = 1106 (49%)Pandemic-related stress factorsAnxietyLack of knowledge about prevention and protection was associated with anxiety.NoneMedium
40Nickell (2004)Canada/
SARS		HCWsCross-sectional survey, n = 2001 (79%)OccupationEmotional distressBeing a nurse, part-time employment, and the ability to do one’s job affected by the precautionary measures were associated with emotional distress.OccupationMedium
41Ong (2020)Singapore/
COVID-19		Nurses, doctors, and paramedicsCross-sectional survey
n =158 (70%)		Use of PPEHeadachePPE usage for >4 h/day was associated with de novo headache.NoneMedium
42Pratt (2009)Canada/
SARS		Nurses from several areas of healthcare practiceCross-sectional survey, n = 536 (97%)Effort-reward imbalanceBurnout, compliance with infection controlEffort-reward imbalance was associated with burnout and with compliance with infection control measures.NoneMedium
43Ramaci (2020)Italy/
COVID-19		HCWs in large hospital in southern ItalyCross-sectional survey, n = 260 (50%)Stigma, job demandsBurnout, fatigueStigma and job demands were associated with burnout and fatigue.NoneMedium
44Reynolds (2006)Vietnam/ SARSHospital workersCohort study, nested case-control study, n = 153 (n.a.)Activities during SARS patient’s hospitalizationSARS-CoV infection (confirmed by RT-PCR test or antibodies)Proximity to index patient was nearly universal among those who were infected. Activities associated with infection risk: touched index patient, came within 1 m, spoke with index patient, saw (viewed) the patient, etc.NoneMedium
45Rodriguez (2020)USA/
COVID-19		Academic emergency medicine physiciansCross-sectional survey, n = 426 (45%)Several stressorsStress and burnoutThe most commonly cited measures that would alleviate stress or anxiety were increasing personal protective equipment (PPE) availability, offering rapid COVID-19 testing at physician discretion, providing clearer communication about COVID-19 protocol changes, and assuring that physicians can take leave for care of family and self.NoneLow
46Rossi (2020)Italy/
COVID-19		HCWsCross-sectional survey, n = 1379 (77%)Several stressorsPost-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS), insomnia, depressionBeing a frontline HCW was associated with PTSS. General practitioners were more likely to endorse PTSS than other HCWs while nurses and healthcare assistants were more likely to endorse severe insomnia. Having a colleague deceased, hospitalized, or in quarantine was associated with negative health outcomes. Being exposed to contagion was associated with symptoms of depression.OccupationMedium
47Ruiz-Fernandez (2020)Spain/
COVID-19		Nurses and physiciansCross-sectional survey, n = 506 (77%)OccupationCompassion fatigue (CF), burnout (BO), compassion satisfaction (CS), perceived stress (PS)Physicians had higher CF and BO scores while nurses had higher CS scores.OccupationMedium
48Sampaio (2020)Portugal/
COVID-19		NursesCross-sectional survey
n = 767 (81%)		Overtime work, inadequate PPEDepression, anxiety, stressOvertime work and inadequate quantity and quality of PPE were associated with higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress.NoneMedium
49Saricam (2020)Turkey/
COVID-19		NursesCross-sectional survey
n = 123 (74%)		Working in COVID-19 ward, regular ward, ICUAnxietyCOVID-19-related anxiety was associated with working in the wards rather than ICUs.NoneMedium
50Shah (2020)UK/
COVID-19		Obstetrics and gynecology doctorsCross-sectional survey
n = 207 (81%)		Working during COVID-19Depression and anxietyObstetricians and gynecologists had more depression and anxiety compared to UK-wide estimates.Anxiety was more common amongst female doctors compared to malesMedium
51Shalhub (2020)58 countries
Mainly the US 43% and Brazil 43%/COVID-19		Vascular surgeonsCross-sectional survey
n = 1609		COVID-19 related stressorsAnxietyStaying separate from family/home and using PPE were associated with increased anxiety. Hospital support was associated with decreased anxiety.NoneLow
52Singh (2020)India/
COVID-19		Physicians, nurses, and paramedicsCross-sectional structured interview by telephone
n = 43		Use of PPEDermatosesDescriptive results:
Irritant contact dermatitis 39.5%, friction dermatitis 25.5%.		NoneLow
53Smith (2020)Canada/
COVID-19		HCWs (not specified)Cross-sectional survey
n = 5988
(91%)		PPE and infection control procedures needs metAnxiety and depressionHigher prevalence of anxiety and depression (using cut-offs) in groups with unmet needs.NoneMedium
54Styra (2008)Canada/
SARS		Mainly nursesCross-sectional survey
n = 248 (86%)		Contact with SARS patientsPost-traumatic stress syndromeWorking in high-risk units was associated with greater distress. HCWs who experienced greater contact with SARS patients while working in high-risk units were less distressed.Non-SARS unitsMedium
55Su (2007)Taiwan/
SARS		NursesProspective longitudinal design
n = 102		Contact with SARS patientsPsychiatric morbidity and psychological adaptationOccurrence of psychiatric symptoms was associated with direct exposure to SARS patient care, previous mood disorder history, younger age, and perceived negative feelingsNon-SARS unit nursesMedium
56Suryavanshi (2020)India/
COVID-19		Physicians, nurses, residents, paraclinicalCross-sectional survey
n = 197 (51%)		Knowledge, manpower, fear of infection, pressure, concerns about patient death rates, discriminationDepression, anxietyWork environment stressors, such as lack of knowledge, lack of manpower, and fear of infection, were associated with increased risk of combined depression and anxiety.NoneMedium
57Tabah (2020)Australia/
COVID-19		Physicians, nurses, and assistantsCross-sectional survey
n = 2711 (46%)		Duration of PPE use, measured as length of shiftAdverse effects (heat, headaches, etc.)Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shifts.NoneLow
58Tam (2004)Hongkong/
SARS		Nurses, physicians, assistantsCross-sectional survey
n = 652
(79%)		Contact with SARS patients, employer supportStress, psychological morbidityDirect contact with SARS patients was associated with high stress; perceived inadequacy of support items was associated with psychological morbidity.Nurses had higher stress and more psychological morbidity compared with other professionalsMedium
59Teleman (2004)Singapore/
SARS		Doctors, nurses, othersCase-control design with telephone interviews
n = 86 (95%)		Contact with SARS patientsSARS infectionContact with respiratory secretions associated with higher OR. Hand washing and wearing N95 masks associated with lower OR. No effect of wearing gowns or gloves.NoneMedium
60Wang (2020)China/
COVID-19		Doctors, nurses, othersCross-sectional survey n = 1049 (86%)Contact with COVID-19 patientsDepression anxiety, insomniaContact with COVID-19 patients was associated with anxiety and depression, stress, and insomnia.High-risk vs. low-risk exposure groupHigh
61Wang (2020)China/
COVID-19		Nurses, doctors, othersCross-sectional survey n = 1234 (90%)Contact with COVID-19 patientsStressStress was associated with being a nurse, being married, and spending more than 20 days caring for COVID-19 patients. Stress had a negative correlation with being rescue staff.NoneMedium
62Xiao (2020)China/
COVID-19		Physicians, nursesCross-sectional survey n = 958 (67%)Access to PPEAnxiety and depressionAccess to PPE was associated with lower levels of anxiety and depression.Females and those with more contact history had more anxiety and depressionMedium
63Zerbini (2020)Germany/
COVID-19		Nurses, physiciansCross-sectional survey n = 110 (70%)Contact with COVID-19 patientsPsychosocial burdenNurses working on the COVID-19 wards reported higher levels of stress, exhaustion, and depressive mood, and lower levels of work-related fulfilment compared to nurses working on regular wards.
No difference between groups for physicians.		Nurses vs. physiciansMedium
64Zhan (2020)China/
COVID-19		NursesCross-sectional survey n = 2667 (97%)Working hoursFatigueLonger working hours were associated with nurses’ fatigue, and a higher frequency of weekly night shifts had a low positive correlation with nurses’ fatigue.NoneMedium
65Zhang (2020)China/
COVID-19		Nurses, doctors, paramedicsCross-sectional survey n = 1357 (47%)Overworked before COVID-19FatigueBeing overworked before COVID-19 was associated with fatigue after the outbreak.Frontline vs. non-frontline HCWsLow
66Zhang (2020)Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru/
COVID-19		Nurses, physicians, pharmacistsCross-sectional survey n = 712 (68%)Organizational supportAnxiety, life satisfactionDevelopment and testing of the questionnaire “COVID-19 organizational support”. Identified 3 factors predicting HCWs’ anxiety and life satisfaction: work support, family support, and risk support.NoneLow
67Zhou (2020)China/
COVID-19		Firstline hospital staff and general populationCross-sectional comparative study n = 606 and 1099Years of working, daily working hoursDepression, anxiety, somatization symptoms, insomnia, suicide riskMore depression, anxiety, somatization, and insomnia in frontline medical staff than in the general population. In frontline medical staff, daily working hours were positively associated with all psychological disorders.NoneMedium
HCWs: Healthcare workers; PPE: Personal protective equipment.
Table
Table 3. Overview of quantitative studies assessing interventions to change the work environment or health in the healthcare industry during an epidemic or pandemic (COVID-19, SARS, or MERS, research question 3).
Table 3. Overview of quantitative studies assessing interventions to change the work environment or health in the healthcare industry during an epidemic or pandemic (COVID-19, SARS, or MERS, research question 3).
NoAuthor
(Year)		CountryPopulationDesign,
N (% Women)		Comparison
Groups		InterventionOutcome
Measure		Effect/ChangeSubgroup
Comparison		Overall
Quality
1Chen (2006)Taiwan116 nursing staffBefore-after design
(98)		NoneEpidemic prevention plan: in-service training, manpower allocation, PPE, and mental health teamAnxiety, depression, and sleep qualityAnxiety and depression decreased from before to after the intervention, and sleep quality improved.NoneMedium
2Rogers (2020)USAVarious HCWs at 10 hospitalsBefore-after design
25
Observations 216
Focus groups 72		NoneEducational programKnowledge and practice of respiratory protectionKnowledge increased to typically 100%.
Observations showed improper use of respirators (75% of all observations).
Focus groups and logged incidents identified competences needed:
1. Know when PPE is needed;
2. Know the policy.
3. Other specific knowledge.		NoneMedium
3Saqib (2020)UKHCWs (not specified)Before-after design
n = 93		NoneQuiet room at the hospital to recover MoodMood improved after visiting the quiet room.NoneLow
4Stirling (2015)Saudi ArabiaHCWs and studentsBefore-after design
n = 75 staff, 65 students		NoneTheoretical education about pandemics and precautionsKnowledgeKnowledge improved but still gaps. Note: the results are not reported in numbers!NoneLow
5Suppan (2020)SwitzerlandEmergency hospital personnelRCTRandomized controlled trialE-learning module on PPE Knowledge and attitude toward PPECorrect choice of PPE was significantly increased in both the e-learning and control group, and higher in the e-learning group (but the difference between groups was not significant).Similar effect regardless of profession or history of COVID-19High
6Yen (2006)TaiwanDoctors, nurses, admin personnel, and volunteersNon-randomized study with comparison group n = 459Other Taiwan hospitalsTriage, risk zones, alcohol dispensersInfected with SARSLess infected staff (0.03 cases/bed) compared with staff at comparison hospitals (0.13 cases/bed).NoneMedium
HCWs: Healthcare workers; PPE: Personal protective equipment.
Table
Table 4. Overview of qualitative and mixed-methods studies exploring how the work environment in the healthcare sector is affected by an epidemic or pandemic (research question 1) and studies investigating the associations between the work environment and health during an epidemic or pandemic (research question 2).
Table 4. Overview of qualitative and mixed-methods studies exploring how the work environment in the healthcare sector is affected by an epidemic or pandemic (research question 1) and studies investigating the associations between the work environment and health during an epidemic or pandemic (research question 2).
NoAuthor
(Year)		CountryEpidemic/PandemicSamplePhenomenon ExploredData Collection and
Analytic Method		Main ResultsOverall
Quality
1Algunmeeyn (2020)JordaniaCOVID-1910 nurses, 10 physicians, 10 pharmacistsFactors influencing healthcare providers’ burnoutQualitative study
Individual interviews
Thematic analysis		Three themes:
1. Job stress;
2. Staff and resource adequacy;
3. Fear of COVID-19 infection.		Low
2Bergeron (2006)CanadaSARS941 community nursesInfluence on work and personal livesMixed methods study
Questionnaire.
Thematic analysis with some quantitative descriptives		Two themes:
1. Experience: 66% of respondents cited increased hours and weekend shifts, increased paperwork, staff shortages, program stoppages, and additional work relating to patient and visitor screening and the mandatory use of gowns and masks.
2. Learning from the experience: opportunities for personal learning, professional and policy development, and insight into policy and administrative implications.		Medium
3De Wit
(2020)		CanadaCOVID-19468 emergency physicians and residentsBurnout time trends (quantitative)
Sources of psychological stress
(qualitative)		Mixed-methods study
Weekly online survey including open-ended questions
Hierarchical logistic regressions
Thematic analysis		No time trend in burnout levels (10–18% over 10 weeks). Number of shifts per week and tested for COVID-19 (positive or negative) were positively associated with burnout.
Two themes:
1. Impact of COVID-19 on the work environment: personal safety, academic and educational work, PPE, workforce, patient volumes, work patterns, work environment;
2. Fears about the ramifications of COVID-19 on lifestyle: a new financial reality, contrasting negative and positive experiences.		Medium
4Gao (2020)ChinaCOVID-1914 nursesExperiences of shift patternsQualitative study
Thematic analysis		Four themes:
1. Assess the competency of nurses to assign nursing work scientifically and reasonably;
2. Reorganize nursing workflow to optimize shift patterns;
3. Communicate between managers and frontline nurses to humanize shift patterns;
4. Nurses’ various feelings and views on shift patterns.		Medium
5Kackin (2020)TurkeyCOVID-1910 nursesPsychosocial problemsQualitative study
Individual interviews
Thematic analysis		Three themes:
1. Effects of the outbreak: Working conditions, psychological, social;
2. Short-term coping strategies;
3. Needs.
Working conditions concerned: lack of equipment, unfairness in work distribution, change in the working unit, process management, being appreciated as healthcare personnel, difficulty in working with different team members, decreased quality of care, obligation to make ethical decisions, and the risk of infection due to frequent contact in nursing.		Medium
6Kang (2018)South KoreaMERS27 nursesWorking experiencesQualitative study
Focus groups and individual interviews
Content analysis		Four themes:
1. Experiencing burnout due to the heavy workload;
2. Relying on personal protective equipment for safety;
3. Being busy with catching up with the new guidelines related to Middle East respiratory syndrome;
4. Caring for suspected or infected patients with caution.		Medium
7Karimil
(2020)		IranCOVID-1912 nursesCaring for patientsQualitative study
Individual interviews
Thematic analysis		Three themes:
1. Mental condition (subthemes anxiety/stress and fear);
2. Emotional condition (subthemes suffering/affliction and waiting for death);
3. Care context (subthemes turmoil and lack of support/equipment). Work pressure, inexperience, chaos, and staff shortage.		Medium
8Lee (2020)South KoreaMERS17 nursesCaring for patientsQualitative study
Individual interviews
Thematic analysis		Themes:
1. Fear of uncertainty (infection, novel equipment);
2. Beyond hesitation;
3. A scene like a battlefield (difficulties because of PPE);
4. Chaotic nursing identity;
5. Buttresses for sustainability;
6. Lingering trauma;
7. Expanded horizon of nursing.		Medium
9Liu (2020)ChinaCOVID-199 nurses, 4 physiciansCombating COVID-19Qualitative study
Individual interviews
Thematic analysis		Three themes:
1. Being fully responsible for patients’ wellbeing—’this is my duty’. Healthcare providers volunteered and tried their best to provide care for patients. Nurses had a crucial role in providing intensive care and assisting with the activities of daily living.
2. Challenges of working on COVID-19 wards. Healthcare providers were challenged by working in a totally new context, exhaustion due to heavy workloads and protective gear, the fear of becoming infected and infecting others, feeling powerless to handle patients’ conditions, and managing relationships in this stressful situation.
3. Resilience amid challenges. Healthcare providers identified many sources of social support and used self-management strategies to cope with the situation. They also achieved transcendence from this unique experience.		Medium
10Liu (2020)ChinaCOVID-1917 nursesCombating COVID-19Qualitative study
Individual interviews
Thematic analysis		Four themes:
1. Facing tremendous new challenges and danger;
2. Strong pressure because of fear of infection, exhaustion by heavy workloads, and stress of nursing seriously ill COVID-19 patients;
3. Strong sense of duty and identity as a healthcare provider;
4. Rational understanding of the epidemic—the nurses believed that the epidemic would soon be overcome and would like to receive disaster rescue training.		Medium
11Mahendran (2020)Hong KongCOVID-19120 staff at dental teaching hospitalHealth outcome
Generalized Anxiety Disorder
(quantitative)
Psychosocial implications of COVID-19
(qualitative)		Mixed-methods study
Survey with closed and open questions
Descriptive statistics
Thematic analysis		Severe GAD in 16.7%.
No access to PPE for 33%.
The most prevalent concerns:
Friends and family (24%);
Personal health 11%;
Nature of disease 11%;
Current job 10%;
General uncertainty 9%;
Social and mental health 9%;
Personal protection 8%.		Medium
12McBeath (2020)UKCOVID-19335 psychotherapistsExperiences and challenges of working remotelyMixed-methods study
Survey with closed and open questions Descriptive statistics
Thematic analysis		Remote work was perceived as challenging by 80% but reported to be the future core business by 65%
Three themes:
1. Adaption issues: less job satisfaction, difficult technology, developed strategies to pace work;
2. Opportunities: less travel, less family–work conflict;
3. Challenges: more fatigue and strain, uncertainty about clinical effectiveness.		High
13Mohindra (2020)IndiaCOVID-19574 HCWs at a tertiary care hospitalExperience of social and emotional distancingMixed-methods study
Survey with closed- and open-ended questions
Descriptive statistics		Four predefined affected domains:
1. Hospital: avoided by colleagues (51%);
2. Neighborhood: avoided and verbally assaulted (54%);
3. Family and home: avoided and verbally assaulted (34%);
4. Self: anxious and guilty (99%).
Medium
14O’Connor (2009)CanadaSARS100 nursesIdentify gaps in risk communicationQualitative study
Focus groups
Key areas in which risk communication could be more efficient to address nurses’ concerns:
1. Managing uncertainty;
2. Occupational health and safety;
3. Employee quality of life.
High levels of uncertainty, lack of trust, and questions about leadership credibility emerged as important risk communication challenges. Communication problems were compounded by a lack of reliable information, frequent changes in infection control guidelines and risk avoidance messages, and contradictory actions of management and senior leaders.		Medium
15O’Sullivan (2009)CanadaSARS100 nursesNeed for organizational and social supportQualitative study
Focus groups		Four themes:
1. Personal/professional dilemmas;
2. Assistance with child, elder, and/or pet care;
3. Adequate resources and vaccinations to protect families;
4. Appropriate mechanisms to enable two-way communication between employees and their families under conditions of quarantine or long work hours.		Medium
16Robertson (2004)CanadaSARS10 hospital healthcare workers of mixed professionsPsychosocial effects of being quarantinedQualitative study
Individual interviews
Grounded theory		Three themes:
1. Loss: restricted physical contact, wearing a mask, remaining at home;
2. Duty: but anxiety when caring for infected patients;
3. Conflicts: fear of infecting the family.
Quarantined workers experienced stigma, fear, and frustration. We highlight the need for clear and easily accessible information on dealing with infectious diseases.		Medium
17Sadati (2020)IranCOVID-1924 nursesExperiences of the COVID-19 outbreakQualitative study
Individual interviews
Content analysis		Five themes:
1. Defected preparedness (lack of PPE);
2. The worst perceived risk (infection risk);
3. Family protection;
4. Social stigma (avoided by family and others);
5. Sacrificial commitment (committed to their work).		Medium
18Sethi (2020)PakistanCOVID-19290 healthcare workers in the private and public sector, including
medicine and medicine education and dentistry		Personal and professional impactQualitative study
Open-ended questions in questionnaire
Thematic analysis		1. Personal impact;
2. Professional impact: increased workload, financial instability;
3. Challenges: managing home and family, lack of PPE.		Low
19Sun (2020)ChinaCOVID-1920 nursesPsychological experiencesQualitative study
Individual interviews
Thematic analysis		Four themes:
1. Negative emotions (fatigue, discomfort, and helplessness) were caused by high-intensity work, fear and anxiety, and concern for patients and family members.
2. Self-coping styles: psychological and life adjustment, altruistic acts, team support, and rational cognition.
3. Growth under pressure: increased affection and gratefulness, development of professional responsibility and self-reflection.
4. Positive and negative emotions occurred simultaneously.		 Medium
20Xu (2020)ChinaCOVID-1921 primary care practitionersBarriers to and experiences of COVID-19 epidemic controlQualitative study.
Individual telephone interviews.
Thematic analysis.		Challenges:
1. Inappropriate scheduling and role ambiguity;
2. Difficult tasks and inadequate capacities;
3. Unexperienced community workers and insufficient cooperation.
The practitioners perceived respect and a sense of accomplishment and were preoccupied with the outbreak. Others were frustrated by fatigue and psychological distress. Suggestions were made for improving management, optimizing workflows, providing additional support, facilitating cooperation, and strengthening the primary care system.		Medium
21Zhang (2020)ChinaCOVID-1923 nursesNurses’ change process during the care of patients with COVID-19Qualitative study
Individual interviews
Thematic analysis		1. Early stage (from notice to entering the isolation unit): Ambivalence. Torn between professional mission and fear of being infected.
2. Middle stage (after 1–2 weeks at unit): Emotional exhaustion due to the unfamiliar working environment and colleagues, wearing PPE, isolated loneliness, fear of getting infected.
3. Later stage (after 3–4 weeks at unit): Energy renewal due to adaptation to the new working environment, mutual support from team, social support, monetary incentives, and recognition from the government and public.		Low
HCWs: Healthcare workers; PPE: Personal protective equipment.
Table
Table 5. Overview of quantitative studies assessing how the work environment in organizations outside the healthcare sector is affected by an epidemic or pandemic (research question 1). All studies are in the context of COVID-19.
Table 5. Overview of quantitative studies assessing how the work environment in organizations outside the healthcare sector is affected by an epidemic or pandemic (research question 1). All studies are in the context of COVID-19.
NoAuthor
(Year)		CountryPopulationDesign,
n (% Women)		Comparison GroupsThe Effect on Work Environment MeasureSubgroup
Comparisons		Overall
Quality
1Craig (2020)AustraliaDual-earner parent couplesCross-sectional survey,
n = 1536 (n.a.)		Retrospectively self-reported pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 (about self and partner)Less than 10% lost their job, were stood down, or found work elsewhere. Most respondents were working at home during pandemics. Earnings decreased. Work hours decreased in paid work and increased in unpaid work. For most respondents, subjective time pressure lessened. A higher proportion were extremely dissatisfied regarding how they divided their time between paid and unpaid work compared to before pandemics. A higher proportion of women were extremely unsatisfied with how they and their partner shared paid and unpaid work compared to before pandemics.Gender differences narrowed in full-/part-time work, time pressureLow
2Priolo Filho (2020)BrazilChild protection professionalsCross-sectional survey,
n = 309 (89%)		Self-reported changeAverage hours worked per week decreased compared to before pandemics.NoneMedium
3Yildirim (2020)France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Turkey, UK, USAcademicsCross-sectional survey,
n = 198 (65%)		Men/womenTime spent on work and routines in childcare changed more for women than for men; no difference between men and women in changed routines in housework and change in their contribution to housework.Having children or not:
daily routines of women academics with children were disproportionately affected		Low
Table
Table 6. Overview of quantitative studies assessing the associations between work environment factors and health in organizations outside the healthcare sector during an epidemic or pandemic (research question 2). All studies are in the context of COVID-19.
Table 6. Overview of quantitative studies assessing the associations between work environment factors and health in organizations outside the healthcare sector during an epidemic or pandemic (research question 2). All studies are in the context of COVID-19.
NoAuthor
(Year)		CountryPopulationDesign,
n (% Women)		ExposureOutcomeThe Association between Work Environment and HealthSubgroup
Comparisons		Overall
Quality
1Molino (2020)ItalySeveral industriesCross-sectional survey,
n = 743 (59%)		Three dimensions of technostress:
overload (e.g., work fast), invasion (e.g., less time with family), complexity (e.g., do not understand the technology)		Behavioral stressAll three dimensions of technostress
showed a positive relationship with behavioral stress.		NoneLow
2Moretti (2020)ItalyRemote-working office staffCross-sectional survey, n = 51 (57%)Working from homeStress, neck pain, low back painWorking from home was associated with being less stressed in 39% and more stressed in 33% of the participants; worsening of previous neck pain was reported by 50% and improvement by 8%; worsening of low back pain was reported by 38% and improvement by 14%.NoneLow
3Sadiq (2020)PakistanPolice constablesCross-sectional survey,
n = 247 (0%)		Workload, work–family conflictJob stressWorkload and work–family conflict were positively associated with job stress.NoneMedium
4Sasaki (2020)JapanFull-time workersCross-sectional survey,
n = 1379 (49%)		Number of preventive workplace measures taken in response to COVID-19Fear and worry about COVID-19, psychological distressThe number of preventive workplace measures was positively associated with fear and worry about COVID-19, and negatively associated with psychological distress.NoneMedium
5Song (2020)ChinaWorking populationsCross-sectional survey
n = 709
(74%)		Location of workAnxiety, depression, insomniaLocation of work was not associated with anxiety, depression, and insomnia. Working at home and office alternatively vs. at the office was negatively associated with somatization.NoneMedium
6Tan (2020)ChinaWork forceCross-sectional survey
n = 673
(25%)		Ventilation in the workplace, workplace hygiene, perception that the company cares about your healthAnxiety, depression, insomnia, stressHaving good ventilation at the workplace was not associated with mental health status. Improved workplace hygiene after the COVID-19 outbreak was not associated with anxiety, depression, and insomnia, and was negatively associated with stress.
Perception that the company cares about your health was not associated with mental health status.		NoneMedium
7Wong
(2020)		Hong-KongFull- or part-time-employed or self-employed employeesCross-sectional survey
n = 1048
(68%)		 Dissatisfaction with workplace infection control policy and measure was associated with lower self-reported health-related quality of life; the association was mediated by perception of infection risk.NoneMedium
Table
Table 7. Overview of qualitative and mixed-methods studies exploring how the work environment outside the healthcare sector is affected by an epidemic or pandemic (research question 1) and studies investigating the associations between the work environment and health during an epidemic or pandemic (research question 2).
Table 7. Overview of qualitative and mixed-methods studies exploring how the work environment outside the healthcare sector is affected by an epidemic or pandemic (research question 1) and studies investigating the associations between the work environment and health during an epidemic or pandemic (research question 2).
NoAuthor
(Year)		CountryEpidemic/
Pandemic		SamplePhenomenon ExploredData Collection and Analytic MethodMain ResultsOverall
Quality
1Deguchi (2020)JapanCOVID-196 sanitation workersImpact on daily livesTelephone interviews
Thematic analysis		Seven themes:
1. Alerting overseas news of potential dangers;
2. Fear of contracting COVID-19;
3. Negotiated for safer protocols and gear;
4. Increased workload;
5. Experience of discrimination and stigma;
6. Increased public attention and awareness;
7. Our work goes beyond garbage collection.		Low
2Gearing (2007)CanadaSARS19 social workers (out of 48) at the hospital Experiences and work practicesFocus groups
Thematic analysis		Three themes:
1. Emotional level (emotional awareness and coping strategies);
2. Technical level (communication and advocacy/bridging);
3. Unintended consequences (interrupted education, unsafe at hospital, perception/worries from others).		High
3Kim (2020)UKCOVID-1924 teachers from English state schoolsExperiences of partial
school closures and lockdown 		Individual interviews
Thematic analysis		Six themes:
1. Uncertainty (negative emotions, rush, and panic);
2. Finding a way (adjusted thinking and behavior to provide remote teaching);
3. Worry for the vulnerable (pupils with violent homes);
4. Importance of relationships (pupils, parents);
5. Teacher identity (need to organize and plan, meet pupils);
6. Reflections (less busy, flexibility, difficult with home–work balance).		Medium
4Neary (2020)USACOVID-1967 teachers at Physician Assistant EducationExperiences of adaption to new instructional techniquesSurvey with closed and open questions
T-test, ANOVA.
Thematic analysis		Prior experience with technology was associated with lower levels of stress.
Concern about technology was the most common stressor and cause of decreased quality of instruction.
Four themes:
1. Support;
2. Time;
3. Logistics;
4. Interaction.		Medium
5Pather (2020)AustraliaCOVID-1918 university teachersDisruptions and changes in anatomy educationIndividual interviews
Thematic analysis		1. Continuing education (loss of integrated “hands-on” experiences);
2. Challenges (workload, traditional roles, students, pedagogy, personal educational philosophies);
3. Key opportunities (enabling synchronous teaching across remote sites, expanding offerings into the remote learning space, and embracing new pedagogies);
4. Managing anatomy education’s transition six critical elements (community care, clear communications, clarified expectations, constructive alignment, community of practice, ability to compromise, adapt, continuity planning).		Medium
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nyberg, A.; Rajaleid, K.; Demmelmaier, I. The Work Environment during Coronavirus Epidemics and Pandemics: A Systematic Review of Studies Using Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Designs. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6783. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116783

AMA Style

Nyberg A, Rajaleid K, Demmelmaier I. The Work Environment during Coronavirus Epidemics and Pandemics: A Systematic Review of Studies Using Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Designs. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(11):6783. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116783

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nyberg, Anna, Kristiina Rajaleid, and Ingrid Demmelmaier. 2022. "The Work Environment during Coronavirus Epidemics and Pandemics: A Systematic Review of Studies Using Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Designs" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 11: 6783. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116783

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop