Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T14:18:09.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

COVID-19 pandemic effects on health worker’s mental health: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2022

Claudia Aymerich
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain
Borja Pedruzo
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain
Jose Luís Pérez
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain
Maria Laborda
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain
Jon Herrero
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain
Jorge Blanco
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain
Gonzalo Mancebo
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain
Lucía Andrés
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain
Olatz Estévez
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain
Maitane Fernandez
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain
Gonzalo Salazar de Pablo
Affiliation:
Department of Psychosis Studies, Early Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
Ana Catalan*
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain Biocruces Bizkaia Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, Spain Neuroscience Department, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Leioa, Spain Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
Miguel Ángel González-Torres
Affiliation:
Psychiatry Department, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain Biocruces Bizkaia Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, Spain Neuroscience Department, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Leioa, Spain
*
* Author for correspondence: Ana Catalan, E-mail: ana.catalanalcantara@osakidetza.eus

Abstract

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) exposed to coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) are at high risk of developing mental health concerns across several domains. The aim of this study is to determine the updated, global frequency of these outcomes.

Methods

A multistep literature search was performed from database inception until March 1, 2021. PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review and PROSPERO protocol were used to identify studies reporting on depression, anxiety, acute stress, post-traumatic symptoms, insomnia, and burnout in HCWs exposed to COVID-19. A quantitative meta-analysis with random effects was conducted to analyze the proportion rate of the mental health disorders. Sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the effect of the different continents and scales. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to examine the effect of gender, age, and work position.

Results

239 articles were included (n = 271,319 HCWs, mean age = 36.08 ± 8.33 (66.99% female). 33% HCWs exposed to COVID-19 reported depressive symptoms (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 28–38%), 42% anxiety features (95% CI = 35–48), 40% acute stress (95% CI = 32–47), 32% post-traumatic symptoms (95% CI = 26–37%), 42% insomnia (95% CI = 36–48), 37% burnout (95% CI = 31–42). Sensitivity analyses did not show statistically significant differences. Meta-regressions found a statistically significant lower prevalence of post-traumatic symptoms in Asia.

Conclusions

HCWs exposed to COVID-19 were found to have a significant prevalence of mental health concerns in all domains analyzed. The effects of COVID-19 on HCWs’ mental health could be underestimated and the future consequences dismissed.

Type
Review/Meta-analysis
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association

Introduction

On December 31, 2019, the WHO warned of the first cases of pneumonia caused by a new coronavirus in the city of Wuhan [1]. As of September 1, 2021, the disease caused by this virus (the COVID-19) has infected more than 215 million people worldwide and caused 4.5 million deaths, thus being considered a global pandemic [2].

Large outbreaks such as the one caused by COVID-19 place healthcare workers (HCWs) in a position of particular vulnerability [Reference Salazar de Pablo, Vaquerizo-Serrano, Catalan, Arango, Moreno and Ferre3]. HCWs are not only one of the groups most at risk of being infected by COVID-19 [Reference Galanis, Vraka, Fragkou, Bilali and Kaitelidou4], but they are exposed to a huge workload [Reference Almaghrabi, Alfaraidi, Al Hebshi and Albaadani5], the absence of adequate protective equipment [Reference Rosenbaum6] and the extensive media coverage [Reference Hart, Chinn and Soroka7,Reference Lynch, Evans, Ice and Costa8]. Routine clinical practice has been significantly changed, and many professionals have been removed from their usual workplace and redirected to higher-risk frontline works while also having to adhere to continuously changing guidelines [Reference Houghton, Meskell, Delaney, Smalle, Glenton and Booth9].

The literature published during the SARS and MERS pandemics more than a decade ago suggests that HCWs present, due to all the above, an increased risk of suffering adverse mental health effects in pandemic situations, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress symptoms [Reference Lee, Kang, Cho, Kim and Park10Reference Su, Lien, Yang, Su, Wang and Tsai14]. In line with these results, recently numerous scientific articles have been published on this subject. Most of these studies and reviews, however, focus on one or few mental health domains or offer results from very specific populations, either in terms of geographical origin (mainly from mainland China) or professional category and medical specialty [Reference Luo, Chua, Xiong, Ho and Ho15–18].

No updated meta-analyses analyze the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the different domains of mental health impact in HCWs worldwide, including depression, anxiety, burnout, acute stress, post-traumatic symptoms, and insomnia. Therefore, the aim of this study is to synthesize the available scientific evidence about the state of mental health of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021247610). The study was conducted in accordance with “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) [Reference Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff and Altman19], (Supplementary Table S1) and “Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (MOOSE) checklist [Reference Stroup, Berlin, Morton, Olkin, Williamson and Rennie20] (Supplementary Table S2), following “EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines” [Reference Altman, Simera, Hoey, Moher and Schulz21].

Search strategy and selection criteria

A systematic literature search was carried out by two independent researchers (C.A. and B.P.). Web of Science database (Clarivate Analytics) was searched, incorporating the Web of Science Core Collection, the BIOSIS Citation Index, the KCI-Korean Journal Database, MEDLINE®, the Russian Science Citation Index, and the SciELO Citation Index as well as Cochrane Central Register of Reviews, and Ovid/PsycINFO databases, from inception until March 1, 2021.

The following keywords were used: “CoV-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “2019 nCoV” OR “2019nCoV” OR “2019 novel coronavirus” OR “new coronavirus” OR “novel coronavirus” OR “SARS CoV-2” OR “Wuhan coronavirus” OR “COVID 19” OR “2019-nCoV” AND “professionals” OR “worker*” OR “doctor*” OR “nurse*” OR “occupation*” OR “employee*” OR “healthcare provider*” OR “healthcare worker*” OR “healthcare employee*” OR “personnel” OR “emergency worker” OR “paramedic*”.

Articles identified were first screened as abstracts, and after the exclusion of those which did not meet the inclusion criteria, the full texts of the remaining articles were assessed for eligibility and inclusion.

Inclusion criteria for the systematic review and meta-analysis were (a) individual studies with original data, (b) focusing on HCWs exposed to COVID-19 (defined as HCWs who have been working during COVID-19 pandemic tending to patients potentially infected with SARS-COV-2, but not necessarily limited toHCWs working in frontline units), (c) reporting meta-analyzable proportions about mental health outcomes included in at least one of the following categories: anxiety, depression, acute stress/distress, post-traumatic symptoms, burnout, and sleep disturbances, (d) using validated, structured, evaluation scales, (e) nonoverlapping samples (overlap was determined by looking at the inclusion dates, type of population and country in which the study was carried out, and the study with the largest sample was then selected), (f) sample size ≥50 participants, and (g) written in English. Exclusion criteria were (a) reviews, clinical cases, study protocols or qualitative studies, conferential proceedings, letters, and commentaries, (b) reporting outcomes on populations other than HCWs, including the general population, medical and nursing students, dentists, and podologists.

Data extraction

Three researchers (J.L.P., M.L., and J.H.) independently extracted data from all the included studies. The three databases were then cross-checked, and discrepancies were resolved through consensus under the supervision of a senior researcher (A.C.). A summary of selected variables included: first author and year of publication, country and city, HCW category involved, sample size, age (mean ± standard deviation [SD]), sex (% female), mental health domain studied, evaluation tool used, quality assessment (see below), and key findings.

Risk of bias (quality) assessment

Risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies due to the heterogeneity expected in the included studies [Reference Wells, Shea, O’Connell, Peterson, Welch and Losos22] (Supplementary Methods S1).

Strategy for data synthesis

First, we provided a systematic synthesis (Supplementary Table S4) of the findings from the included studies structured around the selected six mental health outcomes: anxiety, depression, acute stress/distress, post-traumatic symptoms, burnout, and sleep disturbances. Second, we performed meta-analyses using, as primary effect size, the proportion (% and standard error [SE], when available) of mental health outcomes in HCWs exposed to COVID-19.

Meta-regressions were performed to determine the effect of the (a) sex, (b) age, and (c) NOS score on the mental health domains. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to estimate the association between the mental health domains and (a) continent of the study, (b) type of mental health worker (doctor, nurse, or multi-professional), and (c) used scale.

Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the Q statistic, with the proportion of the total variability in effect size estimates evaluated using the I2 index (with an I2 > 50% representing significant heterogeneity) [Reference Lipsey MW and Wilson23]. Publication biases were assessed for the proportion of remission or recovery by inspecting funnel plots and assessing Egger’s test [Reference Egger, Davey Smith, Schneider and Minder24].

All analyzes were conducted using STATA version 17 [25]. The significance level was set at a p < 0.05, two-sided.

Results

The literature search yielded 15,459 citations through electronic database, which were screened for eligibility; 394 articles were assessed in full text, and 155 were excluded (reasons for exclusion are detailed in Supplementary Table S3). The final database for the systematic review and meta-analysis included 239 studies (Figure 1).

Figure 1. PRISMA 2009 flow diagram [Reference Tan, Wang, Yap, Chan, Ho and Hamid26].

One hundred and sixty studies (66.95%) focused on depression, 179 (74.90%) on anxiety, 57 (23.85%) on acute stress/distress, 55 (23.01%) on sleep problems, 39 (16.32%) on post-traumatic symptoms, and 24 (10.04%) on burnout. The full sample includes 271,319 HCWs, including articles with sample sizes ranging from 54 to 21,199 HCWs. The mean age of the sample was 36.08 years, ranging from 21 to 55.13 years (SD = 8.33). 66.99% were female. Studies included HCWs from 50 countries in five continents: 150 (62.76%) from Asia, 55 (23.01%) from Europe, 20 (8.37%) from America, 11 (4.60%) from Africa, and 2 (0.84%) from Oceania; there was also one multicontinental study [Reference Kroenke, Spitzer and Williams27].

Depression

Depression prevalence was reported in 160 studies, including a total sample of 210,762 participants. Multiple evaluation scales were used, including Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) [Reference Kroenke, Spitzer and Williams28], PHQ-2 [Reference Kroenke, Spitzer, Williams and Lowe29], PHQ-4 [Reference Zung30], Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) [Reference Snaith31], Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) [Reference Beck, Ward and Mendelson32], Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) [Reference Radloff33], Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) [Reference Henry and Crawford34], and Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) [Reference Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams and Lowe35]. The pooled prevalence of depression was 0.33 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.28–0.38). Prevalence varied widely depending on the scale used, from 0.53 with PHQ-2/4 to 0.26 with CES-D. Detailed results of depression and the other mental health domains are displayed in Table 1. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions revealed no statistically significant differences regarding age, gender, NOS score, or continent.

Table 1. Prevalence of mental health impacts across each of the domains and scales studied.

Abbreviations: AIS, Athens Insomnia Scale; BAI, Beck Anxiety Inventory; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; CAS, Coronavirus Anxiety Scale; CBI, Copenhagen Burnout Inventory; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; DASS-21, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21; GAD-7, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; IES-R, Impact of Event Scale—Revised; ISI, Insomnia Severity Index; MBI-DP, Maslach Burnout Inventory—depersonalization; MBI-EE, Maslach Burnout Inventory—emotional exhaustion; MBI-RPA, Maslach Burnout Inventory—reduced personal accomplishment; Mini-Z, Mini-Z Burnout Survey; n.a., not applicable; PC-PTSD, Primary Care—Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Scale; PCL-C, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist—Civilian Version; PHQ, Patient Health Questionnaire; PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; SAS, Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale; SASRQ, Stanford Acute Stress Reaction Questionnaire; SDS, Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale; SQS, Sleep Quality Scale; STAI-S, State-–Trait Anxiety Inventory—State Subscale.

Anxiety

Anxiety prevalence was reported in 179 studies, including a total sample of 206,513 participants. Multiple evaluation scales were used, including Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) [Reference Zung36], DASS-21 [Reference Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams and Lowe35], HADS [Reference Beck, Ward and Mendelson32], Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) [Reference Beck, Epstein, Brown and Steer37], Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) [Reference Spielberger38], State–Trait Anxiety Inventory—State Subscale (STAI-S) [Reference Lee39], PHQ-4 [Reference Zung30], and Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS) [Reference Cardena, Koopman, Classen, Waelde and Spiegel40]. The pooled prevalence of anxiety was 0.42 (95% CI 0.35–0.48). Again, prevalence varied substantially depending on the scale used, from 0.34 with BAI to 0.68 with STAI-S. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions did not show statistically significant differences regarding age, gender, NOS score, or continent.

Acute stress

Acute stress prevalence was reported in 57 studies, including a total sample of 48,042 participants. Multiple evaluation scales were used, including Stanford Acute Stress Reaction Questionnaire (SASRQ) [Reference Cohen, Kamarck and Mermelstein41], DASS-21 [Reference Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams and Lowe35], and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) [Reference Morin, Belleville, Belanger and Ivers42]. The pooled prevalence of acute stress was 0.40 (95% CI 0.32–0.47). Prevalence varied from 0.26 as measured with DASS-21 to 0.62 with PSS. Again, sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions revealed no statistically significant differences regarding age, gender, NOS score, continent, or professional category.

Insomnia

Insomnia prevalence was reported in 55 studies, including a total sample of 37,068 participants. Multiple evaluation scales were used, including Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) [Reference Yi, Shin and Shin43], Sleep Quality Scale (SQS) [Reference Soldatos, Dikeos and Paparrigopoulos44], Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS) [Reference Buysse, Reynolds, Monk, Berman and Kupfer45], and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) [Reference Weiss, Marmar, Wilson and Keane46]. The pooled prevalence of insomnia was 0.42 (95% CI 0.36–0.48). Sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions revealed no statistically significant differences regarding age, gender, NOS score, or continent.

Post-traumatic symptoms

Relevant post-traumatic symptoms prevalence was reported in 39 studies, including a total sample of 58,995 participants. Multiple evaluation scales were used, including Impact of Event Scale—Revised (IES-R) [47], Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist—Civilian Version (PCL-C) [Reference Prins, Ouimette and Kimerling48], and Primary Care—Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Scale (PC-PTSD) [Reference Dolan, Mohr, Lempa, Joos, Fihn and Nelson49]. The pooled prevalence of post-traumatic symptoms was 0.32 (95% CI 0.26–0.37). Prevalence varied from 0.20 with PCL-C to 0.38 with IES-R. No statistical statistically significant differences regarding age, gender, or NOS score were found in meta-regressions. Sensitivity analyses found a statistically significant lower prevalence of post-traumatic symptoms in Asia (0.29; 95% CI 0.18–0.34) compared to North America (0.41; 95% CI 0.34–0.48).

Burnout

Burnout prevalence was reported in 25 studies, including a total sample of 30,873 participants. Three scales were used to evaluate it: Mini-Z Burnout Survey (Mini-Z) [Reference Kristensen, Borritz, Villadsen and Christensen50], Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) [Reference Maslach, Jackson, Leiter, Zalaquett and Wood51], and Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) [Reference Kim, Park, Kim, Park, Jhon and Kim52]. MBI has three measurable domains: emotional exhaustion (MBI-EE), depersonalization (MBI-DP), and reduced personal accomplishment (MBI-RPA). Scoring positively to any of these areas implies a relevant level of professional burnout. The pooled prevalence of burnout symptoms was 0.37 (95% CI 0.31–0.42). Prevalence varied from 0.22 with Mini-Z to 0.53 with CBI. In MBI, emotional exhaustion was the most deteriorated area among the sample. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions revealed no statistically significant differences regarding age, gender, NOS score, or continent.

Quality assessment and meta-regressions

According to NOS Scale, the mean quality of the included studies was 5.12 ± 0.80 and ranged from three to seven. Scores for each individual article are available in Supplementary Table S4.

Discussion

This meta-analysis has identified, for the first time on a large scale and at a global level, the prevalence of mental health symptoms in several domains in the HCWs group. HCW exposed to COVID-19 were found to have a significant prevalence rate of anxiety, depression, acute stress, insomnia, post-traumatic symptoms and burnout.

Thirty three percentage of the HCWs exposed to COVID-19 presented depressive symptomatology. This prevalence is higher than that reported in the general population during the pandemic, between 20.9% [Reference Ettman, Abdalla, Cohen, Sampson, Vivier and Galea53] and 27.8% [Reference Pashazadeh Kan, Raoofi, Rafiei, Khani, Hosseinifard and Tajik54]. The prevalence of anxiety in HCWs reported by this meta-analysis, 42%, is also much higher than that detected in the general population, 27.3% [Reference Dutta, Sharma, Torres-Castro, Pachori and Mishra55]. These results are consistent with previous findings in the literature; both Dutta et al. [Reference Saragih, Tonapa, Saragih, Advani, Batubara and Suarilah56] and Saragih et al. [Reference Salari, Khazaie, Hosseinian-Far, Khaledi-Paveh, Kazeminia and Mohammadi57] reported very similar data to those found in this study. These authors reported a total prevalence of depression of 0.32 and 0.37 and anxiety of 0.33 and 0.40, respectively. Another recent meta-analysis [Reference Liu, Zhu, Zhang, Zhang, Zhang and Liu58] reported a lower prevalence, 0.24 for depression and 0.26 for anxiety. However, this meta-analysis [Reference Liu, Zhu, Zhang, Zhang, Zhang and Liu58] included only 29 articles published in the initial months of the pandemic. All of this suggests that a progressive worsening in the mental health of HCWs may have occurred as the COVID-19 pandemic dragged on.

Insomnia was found to have a prevalence of 42%, higher than the 18–31% prevalence identified in other meta-analyses studying the general population for the same period [59–61]. This difference between the samples may be caused at least in part by the long and strenuous work shifts that characterize the duties of HCWs, which worsen insomnia and sleep quality [Reference Shehata, Mohamed Nour, Abdelrahim Badr and Khalifa62,Reference Al Maqbali, Al Sinani and Al-Lenjawi63].

As for acute stress, a prevalence of 40% was found in the sample included in our meta-analysis. While these results are similar to those previously reported in another recent meta-analysis [Reference Norhayati, Che Yusof and Azman64], the prevalence of relevant post-traumatic stress symptoms in our sample (32%) was unexpectedly high, more than doubling the 15% prevalence previously reported [Reference Krishnamoorthy, Nagarajan, Saya and Menon65,Reference Tromans66]. This may be due to several reasons. Firstly, post-traumatic stress symptoms, as per definition, take time to appear, so it is reasonable to expect an increase in its prevalence as months go by. Furthermore, the previous meta-analysis included a lower number of studies, including mostly samples from Asia, limiting the generalization of its results to a global sample. General population samples also report a significantly lower prevalence of post-traumatic symptoms during the same time frame [Reference Adriaenssens, De Gucht and Maes67].

Finally, our study also analyzed the prevalence of burnout in HCWs exposed to the COVID-19 pandemic, a mental health domain little studied in previous meta-analyses. The sample included in our meta-analysis presented a 37% burnout prevalence. This is consistent with data reported by a previous study [Reference Salazar de Pablo, Vaquerizo-Serrano, Catalan, Arango, Moreno and Ferre3]. Burnout was already a relevant problem in HCWs before the COVID-19 pandemic, heavily related to a decrease in occupational well-being [Reference Jimenez-Labaig, Pacheco-Barcia, Cebria, Galvez, Obispo and Paez68], so an increase in burnout prevalence is a growingly concerning phenomenon. During the pandemic, burnout has been especially high among young professionals due to increased workload, the loss of formational activities, and the perceived lack of proper supervision [Reference Lacobucci69].

These results may have several clinical implications. First, our study confirms that HCWs are an especially vulnerable population during the COVID-19 pandemic, being more prone to mental health impairment than the general population. These findings suggest that the deterioration in the mental health of HCWs is not due to measures of general confinement, social distance and concern about the pandemic, but to the particularities of the health professions and their conditions during the pandemic. These challenges include the lack of protective equipment [Reference Lucchini, Lozzo and Bambi70], increased workload and strenuous work shifts [Reference Hossain and Clatty71], but also ethical challenges and moral distress [Reference Drewett, Gibney and Ko72,Reference Dedeilia, Sotiropoulos, Hanrahan, Janga, Dedeilias and Sideris73]. In addition to this, residents and fellows have seen their training deprioritized while also increasing their responsibility and workload [Reference Kang, Li, Hu, Chen, Yang and Yang74]. Institutions should provide their professionals with proper formation, coping tools and strategies to alleviate the effects of the pandemic on their mental health. Preventive approaches should also be improved for HCWs facing these challenges, including the implementation of screening instruments to identify professionals with mental health symptomatology [Reference Salazar de Pablo, Vaquerizo-Serrano, Catalan, Arango, Moreno and Ferre3].

The meta-regression results reveal fewer symptoms in the post-traumatic domain in Asia than in other continents. Asia—and especially China, where most of the articles from this continent have been published—was initially the continent most affected by the pandemic [Reference Xie, Stone, Zheng and Zhang75], so these results may seem paradoxical. However, some studies have detected that proximity to the pandemic’s epicenter is inversely correlated with levels of distress, in a phenomenon known as the “Psychological Typhoon Eye” effect [Reference Gilbert, Lieberman, Morewedge and Wilson76]. Previous research shows that deep emotional feelings, such as those related to health emergencies, decrease more quickly than less deep feelings since they activate internal psychological mechanisms designed to mitigate them [Reference Zhang, Ma, Li and Xin77]. Coping efficacy has been identified as a mediating factor between both events [Reference Hook and Rose Markus78], which could, in turn, be stimulated by cultural factors related to collectivist cultures [Reference Jung, Di Santo, Clifford, Prosperi-Porta, Skanes and Hung79].

This study has several strengths. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the largest meta-analysis published to date evaluating mental health outcomes in HCWs exposed to COVID-19. In addition, it evaluates domains of mental health less studied in previous meta-analyses, such as burnout or post-traumatic symptoms. Studies from more than 50 countries on 5 continents have been included, so its results are highly generalizable.

On the other hand, this study also has several limitations, mainly the considerable heterogeneity in the outcomes evaluated. Some authors have used different scales and cut-off points in the different domains of mental health. The exposure levels and the length of exposition duration of the HCWs included in the studied samples have not been analyzed due to the lack of data. Meta-regressions have been carried out to assess the impact of gender, professional category, and geographic origin on heterogeneity. COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated the publication of many studies in a short time, some of them of limited quality [80]. It is necessary to improve the design of the studies and standardize the methods and populations evaluated. Also, further studies should be conducted to determine in-depth the factors associated with mental health problems in HCWs during the pandemic.

In conclusion, HCWs worldwide exposed to COVID-19 were found to have a significant prevalence of concerning symptoms in a wide range of mental health domains. The effects of COVID-19 on HCWs’ mental health should not be underestimated. Further studies should be carried out to follow its evolution during the pandemic, and effective measures should be implemented to prevent and alleviate mental health deterioration in HCWs.

Supplementary Materials

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.1.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author/first author, A.C./C.A., upon request.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: C.A., B.P., L.A., G.S.P., and A.C.; Data curation: C.A., B.P., J.L.P., J.H., J.B., and G.M.; Formal analysis: C.A. and M.L.; Investigation: B.P., J.L.P., M.L., J.H., J.B., G.M., L.A., O.E., and M.F.; Methodology: B.P., J.L.P., M.L., J.H., J.B., G.M., L.A., O.E., G.S.P., and M.F.; Project administration: B.P.; Supervision: A.C. and M.A.G.-T.; Writing—original draft: C.A. and A.C.; Writing—review and editing: C.A., M.F., A.C., and M.A.G.-T.

Financial Support

This research received funding from the OSI Bilbao Basurto Research Commission.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Ana Catalan and Miguel Ángel González-Torres shared senior authorship.

References

World Health Organization. WHO statement regarding cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China [accessed 31 December 2019].Google Scholar
Salazar de Pablo, G, Vaquerizo-Serrano, J, Catalan, A, Arango, C, Moreno, C, Ferre, F, et al. Impact of coronavirus syndromes on physical and mental health of health care workers: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2020;275:4857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galanis, P, Vraka, I, Fragkou, D, Bilali, A, Kaitelidou, D. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and associated factors in healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect. 2021;108:120–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Almaghrabi, RH, Alfaraidi, HA, Al Hebshi, WA, Albaadani, MM. Healthcare workers experience in dealing with coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Saudi Med J. 2020;41(6):657–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenbaum, L. Facing covid-19 in Italy: ethics, logistics, and therapeutics on the epidemic’s front line. Recenti Prog Med. 2020;111(4):192–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Hart, PS, Chinn, S, Soroka, S. Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Sci Commun. 2020;42:679–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, J, Evans, N, Ice, E, Costa, DK. Ignoring nurses: media coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021;18(8):1278–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houghton, C, Meskell, P, Delaney, H, Smalle, M, Glenton, C, Booth, A, et al. Barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers’ adherence with infection prevention and control guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases: a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis. Emergencias. 2021;33(1):62–4.Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, SM, Kang, WS, Cho, AR, Kim, T, Park, JK. Psychological impact of the 2015 MERS outbreak on hospital workers and quarantined hemodialysis patients. Compr Psychiatry. 2018;87:123–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, X, Kakade, M, Fuller, CJ, Fan, B, Fang, Y, Kong, J, et al. Depression after exposure to stressful events: lessons learned from the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic. Compr Psychiatry. 2012;53(1):1523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chong, MY, Wang, WC, Hsieh, WC, Lee, CY, Chiu, NM, Yeh, WC, et al. Psychological impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on health workers in a tertiary hospital. Br J Psychiatry. 2004;185:127–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAlonan, GM, Lee, AM, Cheung, V, Cheung, C, Tsang, KW, Sham, PC, et al. Immediate and sustained psychological impact of an emerging infectious disease outbreak on health care workers. Can J Psychiatr. 2007;52(4):241–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, TP, Lien, TC, Yang, CY, Su, YL, Wang, JH, Tsai, SL, et al. 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(1,2):119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y, Chua, CR, Xiong, Z, Ho, RC, Ho, CSH. A systematic review of the impact of viral respiratory epidemics on mental health: an implication on the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:565098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pappa, S, Ntella, V, Giannakas, T, Giannakoulis, VG, Papoutsi, E, Katsaounou, P. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;88:901–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muller, AE, Hafstad, EV, Himmels, JPW, Smedslund, G, Flottorp, S, Stensland, SO, et al. The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, and interventions to help them: a rapid systematic review. Psychiatry Res. 2020;293:113441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danet Danet, A. Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic in western frontline healthcare professionals. a systematic review. Med Clin (Barc). 2021;156(9):449–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stroup, DF, Berlin, JA, Morton, SC, Olkin, I, Williamson, GD, Rennie, D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. J Am Med Assoc. 2000;283(15):2008–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altman, DG, Simera, I, Hoey, J, Moher, D, Schulz, K. EQUATOR: Reporting guidelines for health research. Lancet. 2008;371(9619):1149–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, GA, Shea, B, O’Connell, D, Peterson, J, Welch, V, Losos, M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-analyses. 2012; Available at: http://wwwohrica/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxfordasp.Google Scholar
Lipsey MW, , Wilson, DB. Practical meta-analysis. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.Google Scholar
Egger, M, Davey Smith, G, Schneider, M, Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J. 1997;315:629–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17. 2021.Google Scholar
PRISMA. PRISMA Flow Diagram, http://prisma-statement.org/prismastatement/flowdiagram.aspx; 2021 [accessed September 7th, 2021].Google Scholar
Tan, YQ, Wang, Z, Yap, QV, Chan, YH, Ho, RC, Hamid, ARAH, et al. Psychological health of surgeons in a time of COVID-19: a global survey. Ann Surg. 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroenke, K, Spitzer, RL, Williams, JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;9:606–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroenke, K, Spitzer, RL, Williams, JB. The patient health questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41:1284–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroenke, K, Spitzer, RL, Williams, JB, Lowe, B. An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: the PHQ-4. Psychosomatics 2009;50(6):613–21.Google ScholarPubMed
Zung, W. Self-rating depression scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965;12:6370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snaith, RP. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, AT, Ward, CH, Mendelson, M. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961;4:561–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radloff, LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1(3):385401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, JD, Crawford, JR. The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol. 2005;44(Pt 2):227–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzer, RL, Kroenke, K, Williams, JB, Lowe, B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zung, W. A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics. 1971;12:371–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, AT, Epstein, N, Brown, G, Steer, RA. An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. J Consult. 1988;56:893.Google ScholarPubMed
Spielberger, CD. State-trait anxiety inventory for adults; 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, SA. Coronavirus anxiety scale: a brief mental health screener for COVID-19 related anxiety. Death Stud. 2020;44(7):393401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cardena, E, Koopman, C, Classen, C, Waelde, LC, Spiegel, D. Psychometric properties of the Stanford Acute Stress Reaction Questionnaire (SASRQ): a valid and reliable measure of acute stress. J Trauma Stress. 2000;13(4):719–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, S, Kamarck, T, Mermelstein, R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24(4):385–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morin, CM, Belleville, G, Belanger, L, Ivers, H. The Insomnia Severity Index: psychometric indicators to detect insomnia cases and evaluate treatment response. Sleep. 2011;34(5):601–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yi, H, Shin, K, Shin, C. Development of the sleep quality scale. J Sleep Res. 2006;15(3):309–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soldatos, CR, Dikeos, DG, Paparrigopoulos, TJ. Athens Insomnia Scale: validation of an instrument based on ICD-10 criteria. J Psychosom Res. 2000;48(6):555–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buysse, DJ, Reynolds, CF, Monk, TH, Berman, SR, Kupfer, DJ. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res. 1989;28(2):193213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, DS, Marmar, CR. The impact of event scale—Revised. In: Wilson, , JP, Keane, , TM, editors. Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD: a handbook for practitioners, New York:– Guilford Press; 1997, pp. 399411.Google Scholar
The PTSD checklist: reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility.In: Annual meeting of the international society for traumatic stress studies, San Antonio, CA; 1993.Google Scholar
Prins, A, Ouimette, P, Kimerling, R, et al. The primary care PTSD screen (PC-PTSD): development and operating characteristics. Prim Care Psychiatry. 2003;9:914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, ED, Mohr, D, Lempa, M, Joos, S, Fihn, SD, Nelson, KM, et al. Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: a psychometric evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(5):582–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, TS, Borritz, M, Villadsen, E, Christensen, KB. The Copenhagen burnout inventory: a new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress. 2005;19:192207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslach, C, Jackson, SE, Leiter, MP Maslach Burnout Inventory manual. In: Zalaquett, P, Wood, RJ, editors. Evaluating stress: a book of resources, London: The Scarecrow Press; 1997. pp. 191218.Google Scholar
Kim, SW, Park, IH, Kim, M, Park, AL, Jhon, M, Kim, JW, et al. Risk and protective factors of depression in the general population during the COVID-19 epidemic in Korea. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21(1):445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ettman, CK, Abdalla, SM, Cohen, GH, Sampson, L, Vivier, PM, Galea, S. Prevalence of depression symptoms in US adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(9):e2019686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pashazadeh Kan, F, Raoofi, S, Rafiei, S, Khani, S, Hosseinifard, H, Tajik, F, et al. A systematic review of the prevalence of anxiety among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Affect Disord. 2021;293:391–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dutta, A, Sharma, A, Torres-Castro, R, Pachori, H, Mishra, S. Mental health outcomes among health-care workers dealing with COVID-19/severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian J Psychiatry. 2021;63(4):335–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saragih, ID, Tonapa, SI, Saragih, IS, Advani, S, Batubara, SO, Suarilah, I, et al. Global prevalence of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;121:104002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salari, N, Khazaie, H, Hosseinian-Far, A, Khaledi-Paveh, B, Kazeminia, M, Mohammadi, M, et al. The prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-regression. Hum Resour Health. 2020;18(1):100–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, X, Zhu, M, Zhang, R, Zhang, J, Zhang, C, Liu, P, et al. Public mental health problems during COVID-19 pandemic: a large-scale meta-analysis of the evidence. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11(1):384–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alimoradi, Z, Gozal, D, Tsang, HWH, Lin, CY, Brostrom, A, Ohayon, MM, et al. Gender-specific estimates of sleep problems during the COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sleep Res. 2021; 31(1):e13432.Google ScholarPubMed
Huang, Y, Zhao, N. Mental health burden for the public affected by the COVID-19 outbreak in China: who will be the high-risk group? Psychol Health Med. 2021;26(1):2334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galasso, L, Mule, A, Castelli, L, Ce, E, Condemi, V, Banfi, G, et al. Effects of shift work in a sample of Italian nurses: analysis of rest-activity circadian rhythm. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(16):8378. doi:10.3390/ijerph18168378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shehata, RSA, Mohamed Nour, ZA, Abdelrahim Badr, AM, Khalifa, EM. Serotonin variations and sleep disorders among shift workers. a cross-sectional study. Toxicol Ind Health. 2021;37:603–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al Maqbali, M, Al Sinani, M, Al-Lenjawi, B. Prevalence of stress, depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance among nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res. 2021;141:110343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norhayati, MN, Che Yusof, R, Azman, MY. Prevalence of psychological impacts on healthcare providers during COVID-19 pandemic in Asia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(17):9157. doi:10.3390/ijerph18179157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krishnamoorthy, Y, Nagarajan, R, Saya, GK, Menon, V. Prevalence of psychological morbidities among general population, healthcare workers and COVID-19 patients amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2020;293:113382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tromans, S. Editorial on psychological distress in the Greek general population during the first COVID-19 lockdown. BJPsych Open. 2021;7(5):e170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adriaenssens, J, De Gucht, V, Maes, S. Determinants and prevalence of burnout in emergency nurses: a systematic review of 25 years of research. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(2):649–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jimenez-Labaig, P, Pacheco-Barcia, V, Cebria, A, Galvez, F, Obispo, B, Paez, D, et al. Identifying and preventing burnout in young oncologists, an overwhelming challenge in the COVID-19 era: a study of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM). ESMO Open. 2021;6(4):100215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacobucci, G. Covid-19: doctors still at “considerable risk” from lack of PPE, BMA warns. British Med J. 2020;368:m1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucchini, A, Lozzo, P, Bambi, S. Nursing workload in the COVID-19 era. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2020;61:102929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hossain, F, Clatty, A. Self-care strategies in response to nurses’ moral injury during COVID-19 pandemic. Nurs Ethics. 2021;28(1):2332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drewett, GP, Gibney, G, Ko, D. Practical ethical challenges and moral distress among staff in a hospital COVID-19 screening service. Intern Med J. 2021;51(9):1513–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dedeilia, A, Sotiropoulos, MG, Hanrahan, JG, Janga, D, Dedeilias, P, Sideris, M. Medical and surgical education challenges and innovations in the COVID-19 era: a systematic review. In Vivo. 2020;34(3 Suppl):1603–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, L, Li, Y, Hu, S, Chen, M, Yang, C, Yang, BX, et al. The mental health of medical workers in Wuhan, China dealing with the 2019 novel coronavirus. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(3):e14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xie, XF, Stone, E, Zheng, R, Zhang, RG. The ‘typhoon eye effect’: determinants of distress during the SARS epidemic. J Risk Res. 2011;14(9):1091–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, DT, Lieberman, MD, Morewedge, CK, Wilson, TD. The peculiar longevity of things not so bad. Psychol Sci. 2004;15(1):1419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, L, Ma, M, Li, D, Xin, Z. The psychological typhoon eye effect during the COVID-19 outbreak in China: the role of coping efficacy and perceived threat. Glob Health. 2020;16(1):105–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hook, CJ, Rose Markus, H. Health in the United States: are appeals to choice and personal responsibility making Americans sick? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2020 15(3):643–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jung, RG, Di Santo, P, Clifford, C, Prosperi-Porta, G, Skanes, S, Hung, A, et al. Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):943–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. PRISMA 2009 flow diagram [26].

Figure 1

Table 1. Prevalence of mental health impacts across each of the domains and scales studied.

Supplementary material: File

Aymerich et al. supplementary material

Aymerich et al. supplementary material

Download Aymerich et al. supplementary material(File)
File 565.2 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.