Impact of viral epidemic outbreaks on mental health of healthcare workers: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
This study aimed at examining the impact of providing healthcare during health emergencies caused by viral epidemic outbreaks on healthcare workers' (HCWs) mental health; to identify factors associated with worse impact, and; to assess the available evidence base regarding interventions to reduce such impact.Method
Rapid systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (inception to August 2020). We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the prevalence of specific mental health problems, and used GRADE to ascertain the certainty of evidence.Results
We included 117 studies. The pooled prevalence was higher for acute stress disorder (40% (95%CI 39 to 41%)), followed by anxiety (30%, (30 to 31%)), burnout (28% (26 to 31%)), depression (24% (24 to 25%)), and post-traumatic stress disorder (13% (13 to 14%)). We identified factors associated with the likelihood of developing those problems, including sociodemographic (younger age and female gender), social (lack of social support, stigmatization), and occupational (working in a high-risk environment, specific occupational roles, and lower levels of specialised training and job experience) factors. Four studies reported interventions for frontline HCW: two educational interventions increased confidence in pandemic self-efficacy and in interpersonal problems solving (very low certainty), whereas one multifaceted intervention improved anxiety, depression, and sleep quality (very low certainty).Limitations
We only searched three databases, and the initial screening was undertaken by a single reviewer.Conclusion
Given the very limited evidence regarding the impact of interventions to tackle mental health problems in HCWs, the risk factors identified represent important targets for future interventions.
SUBMITTER: Serrano-Ripoll MJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7443314 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionAlthough most countries and healthcare systems worldwide have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, some groups of the population may be more vulnerable to detrimental effects of the pandemic on mental health than others. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise evidence currently available from systematic reviews on the impact of COVID-19 and other coronavirus outbreaks on mental health for groups of the population thought to be at increased risk of detrimental mental health impacts.Materials and methodsWe conducted a systematic review of reviews on adults and children residing in a country affected by a coronavirus outbreak and belonging to a group considered to be at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities. Data were collected on symptoms or diagnoses of any mental health condition, quality of life, suicide or attempted suicide. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the online PROSPERO database prior to commencing the review (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=194264).ResultsWe included 25 systematic reviews. Most reviews included primary studies of hospital workers from multiple countries. Reviews reported variable estimates for the burden of symptoms of mental health problems among acute healthcare workers, COVID-19 patients with physical comorbidities, and children and adolescents. No evaluations of interventions were identified. Risk- and protective factors, mostly for healthcare workers, showed the importance of personal factors, the work environment, and social networks for mental health.ConclusionsThis review of reviews based on primary studies conducted in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic shows a lack of evidence on mental health interventions and mental health impacts on vulnerable groups in the population.
| S-EPMC8336853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Considering the importance of evidence on interventions to tackle mental health problems in healthcare workers (HCWs) during pandemics, we conducted a systematic review, aiming to identify and summarize the implemented interventions to deal with mental health issues of HCWs during infectious disease outbreaks and report their effectiveness. Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycInfo electronic databases were searched until October 2nd, 2020. Primary-data articles, describing any implemented interventions and their effectiveness were considered pertinent. Studies were screened according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria and subsequently data extraction was performed. Twenty-four articles, referring to SARS, Ebola, Influenza AH1N1 and COVID-19 were included. Interventions addressing mental health issues in HCWs during pandemics/epidemics were grouped into four categories: 1) informational support (training, guidelines, prevention programs), 2) instrumental support (personal protective equipment, protection protocols); 3) organizational support (manpower allocation, working hours, re-organization of facilities/structures, provision of rest areas); 4) emotional and psychological support (psychoeducation and training, mental health support team, peer-support and counselling, therapy, digital platforms and tele-support). These results might be helpful for researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers to develop evidence-based sustainable interventions and guidelines, aiming to prevent or reduce the immediate and long-term effect of pandemics on mental health status of HCWs.
| S-EPMC7880838 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The covid-19 pandemic has heavily burdened healthcare systems throughout the world. We performed a rapid systematic review to identify, assess and summarize research on the mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on HCWs (healthcare workers). We utilized the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Live map of covid-19 evidence on 11 May and included 59 studies. Six reported on implementing interventions, but none reported on effects of the interventions. HCWs reported low interest in professional help, and greater reliance on social support and contact. Exposure to covid-19 was the most commonly reported correlate of mental health problems, followed by female gender, and worry about infection or about infecting others. Social support correlated with less mental health problems. HCWs reported anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and distress during the covid-19 pandemic. We assessed the certainty of the estimates of prevalence of these symptoms as very low using GRADE. Most studies did not report comparative data on mental health symptoms before the pandemic or in the general population. There seems to be a mismatch between risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among HCWs in the current pandemic, their needs and preferences, and the individual psychopathology focus of current interventions.
| S-EPMC7462563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEpidemics or pandemics, such as the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, pose unique challenges to healthcare professionals (HCPs). Caring for patients during an epidemic/pandemic may impact negatively on the mental health of HCPs. There is a lack of evidence-based advice on what would be effective in mitigating this impact.ObjectivesThis rapid review synthesizes the evidence on the psychological impact of pandemics/epidemics on the mental health of HCPs, what factors predict this impact, and the evidence of prevention/intervention strategies to reduce this impact.MethodAccording to rapid review guidelines, systematic searches were carried out in Embase.com , PubMed, APA PsycINFO-Ovid SP, and Web of Science (core collection). Searches were restricted to the years 2003 or later to ensure inclusion of the most recent epidemic/pandemics, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Papers written in French or English, published in peer-reviewed journals, and of quantitative design using validated measures of mental health outcomes were included. Of 1308 papers found, 50 were included. The full protocol for this rapid review was registered with Prospero (reg.no. CRD42020175985).ResultsResults show that exposed HCPs working with patients during an epidemic/pandemic are at heightened risk of mental health problems in the short and longer term, particularly: psychological distress, insomnia, alcohol/drug misuse, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, burnout, anger, and higher perceived stress. These mental health problems are predicted by organizational, social, personal, and psychological factors and may interfere with the quality of patient care. Few evidence-based early interventions exist so far.DiscussionHCPs need to be provided with psychosocial support to protect their mental wellbeing if they are to continue to provide high quality patient care. Several recommendations relevant during and after an epidemic/pandemic, such as COVID-19, and in preparation for a future outbreak, are proposed.
| S-EPMC7422454 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the psychological effects on clinicians of working to manage novel viral outbreaks, and successful measures to manage stress and psychological distress.DesignRapid review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar, searched up to late March 2020.Eligibility criteria for study selectionAny study that described the psychological reactions of healthcare staff working with patients in an outbreak of any emerging virus in any clinical setting, irrespective of any comparison with other clinicians or the general population.Results59 papers met the inclusion criteria: 37 were of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), eight of coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19), seven of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), three each of Ebola virus disease and influenza A virus subtype H1N1, and one of influenza A virus subtype H7N9. Of the 38 studies that compared psychological outcomes of healthcare workers in direct contact with affected patients, 25 contained data that could be combined in a pairwise meta-analysis comparing healthcare workers at high and low risk of exposure. Compared with lower risk controls, staff in contact with affected patients had greater levels of both acute or post-traumatic stress (odds ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.29) and psychological distress (1.74, 1.50 to 2.03), with similar results for continuous outcomes. These findings were the same as in the other studies not included in the meta-analysis. Risk factors for psychological distress included being younger, being more junior, being the parents of dependent children, or having an infected family member. Longer quarantine, lack of practical support, and stigma also contributed. Clear communication, access to adequate personal protection, adequate rest, and both practical and psychological support were associated with reduced morbidity.ConclusionsEffective interventions are available to help mitigate the psychological distress experienced by staff caring for patients in an emerging disease outbreak. These interventions were similar despite the wide range of settings and types of outbreaks covered in this review, and thus could be applicable to the current covid-19 outbreak.
| S-EPMC7199468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak currently puts health care workers at high risk of both physical and mental health problems. This study aimed to identify the risk and protective factors for mental health outcomes in health care workers during coronavirus epidemics.MethodsA rapid systematic review was performed in three databases (March 24, 2020) and a current COVID-19 resource (May 28, 2020). Following study selection, study characteristics and effect measures were tabulated, and data were synthesized by using vote counting. Meta-analysis was not possible because of high variation in risk factors, outcomes and effect measures. Risk of bias of each study was assessed and the certainty of evidence was appraised according to the GRADE methodology.ResultsOut of 2605 references, 33 observational studies were selected and the identified risk and protective factors were categorized in ten thematic categories. Most of these studies (n = 23) were performed during the SARS outbreak, seven during the current COVID-19 pandemic and three during the MERS outbreak. The level of disease exposure and health fear were significantly associated with worse mental health outcomes. There was evidence that clear communication and support from the organization, social support and personal sense of control are protective factors. The evidence was of very low certainty, because of risk of bias and imprecision.ConclusionSafeguarding mental health of health care workers during infectious disease outbreaks should not be treated as a separate mental health intervention strategy, but could benefit from a protective approach. This study suggests that embedding mental health support in a safe and efficient working environment which promotes collegial social support and personal sense of control could help to maximize resilience of health care workers. Low quality cross-sectional studies currently provide the best possible evidence, and further research is warranted to confirm causality.
| S-EPMC7737991 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are considered at elevated risk of experiencing mental health disorders in working with patients with COVID-19. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of common mental health disorders in HCWs based in hospitals where pandemic-affected patients were treated. Method: Databases were searched for studies published before 30 March 2020. Quantitative synthesis was used to obtain estimates of the prevalence of mental health disorders in four time windows, determined a priori (the acute phase, i.e. during and up to 1.5 months post-pandemic; 1.5-5.9 months; 6-11.9 months; 12 months and later). Results: Nineteen studies met the review criteria. They predominantly addressed the acute phase of the SARS outbreak in Asia. The most studied outcomes were clinically significant post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and general psychiatric caseness. For clinically significant PTSS in the acute phase, the prevalence estimate was 23.4% (95% CI 16.3, 31.2; N = 4147; I2 = 96.2%); in the 12 months plus window, the estimate was 11.9% (8.4, 15.8; N = 1136; I2 = 74.3%). For general psychiatric caseness, prevalence estimates were acute phase, 34.1% (18.7, 51.4; N = 3971; I2 = 99.1%); 6-12 months, 17.9% (13.1, 23.2; N = 223; I2 = 0.0%); 12 months plus, 29.3% (6.0, 61.0; N = 710; I2 = 97.8%). No differences between doctors and nurses with respective to PTSS and general psychiatric caseness were apparent in the acute phase. Conclusions: Mental health disorders are particularly common in HCWs working with pandemic-afflicted patients immediately following a pandemic, but the course of disorders following this period is poorly understood. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies, likely linked to methodological differences. More extended follow up of HCWs is needed.
| S-EPMC7678680 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may aggravate workplace conditions that impact healthcare workers' mental health. However, it can also place other stresses on workers outside of their work. This study determines the effect of COVID-19 on symptoms of negative and positive mental health and the workforce's experience with various sources of support. Effect modification by demographic variables was also studied.MethodsA cross-sectional survey study, conducted between April 2nd and May 4th 2020 (2 waves), led to a convenience sample of 4509 healthcare workers in Flanders (Belgium), including paramedics (40.6%), nurses (33.4%), doctors (13.4%) and management staff (12.2%). About three in four were employed in university and acute hospitals (29.6%), primary care practices (25.7%), residential care centers (21.3%) or care sites for disabled and mental healthcare. In each of the two waves, participants were asked how frequently (on a scale of 0 to 10) they experienced positive and negative mental health symptoms during normal circumstances and during last week, referred to as before and during COVID-19, respectively. These symptoms were stress, hypervigilance, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, unable to relax, fear, irregular lifestyle, flashback, difficulty concentrating, feeling unhappy and dejected, failing to recognize their own emotional response, doubting knowledge and skills, and feeling uncomfortable within the team. Associations between COVID-19 and mental health symptoms were estimated by cumulative logit models and reported as odds ratios. The needed support was our secondary outcome and was reported as the degree to which healthcare workers relied on sources of support and how they experienced them.ResultsAll symptoms were significantly more pronounced during versus before COVID-19. For hypervigilance there was a twelvefold odds (OR 12.24, 95% CI 11.11-13.49) during versus before COVID-19. Positive professional symptoms such as the feeling that one can make a difference were less frequently experienced. The association between COVID-19 and mental health was generally strongest for the age group 30-49 years, females, nurses, and residential care centers. Healthcare workers reported to rely on support from relatives and peers. A considerable proportion, respectively 18% and 27%, reported the need for professional guidance from psychologists and more support from their leadership.ConclusionsThe toll of the crisis has been heavy on healthcare workers. Those who carry leadership positions at an organizational or system level should take this opportunity to develop targeted strategies to mitigate key stressors of healthcare workers' mental wellbeing.
| S-EPMC7799030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is necessary to train a large number of healthcare workers (HCW) within a limited time to ensure adequate human resources during an epidemic. There remains an urgent need for best practices on development and implementation of training programmes.ObjectiveTo explore published literature in relation to training and education for viral epidemics as well as the effect of these interventions to inform training of HCW.Data sourcesSystematic searches in five databases performed between 1 January 2000 and 24 April 2020 for studies reporting on educational interventions in response to major viral epidemics.Study eligibility criteriaAll studies on educational interventions developed, implemented and evaluated in response to major global viral outbreaks from 2000 to 2020.ParticipantsHealthcare workers.InterventionsEducational or training interventions.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsDescriptive information were extracted and synthesised according to content, competency category, educational methodology, educational effects and level of educational outcome. Quality appraisal was performed using a criterion-based checklist.ResultsA total of 15 676 records were identified and 46 studies were included. Most studies were motivated by the Ebola virus outbreak with doctors and nurses as primary learners. Traditional didactic methods were commonly used to teach theoretical knowledge. Simulation-based training was used mainly for training of technical skills, such as donning and doffing of personal protective equipment. Evaluation of the interventions consisted mostly of surveys on learner satisfaction and confidence or tests of knowledge and skills. Only three studies investigated transfer to the clinical setting or effect on patient outcomes.Conclusions and implications of findingsThe included studies describe important educational experiences from past epidemics with a variety of educational content, design and modes of delivery. High-level educational evidence is limited. Evidence-based and standardised training programmes that are easily adapted locally are recommended in preparation for future outbreaks.
| S-EPMC8166630 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When a disease breaks out in a human population, changes in behavior in response to the outbreak can alter the progression of the infectious agent. In particular, people aware of a disease in their proximity can take measures to reduce their susceptibility. Even if no centralized information is provided about the presence of a disease, such awareness can arise through first-hand observation and word of mouth. To understand the effects this can have on the spread of a disease, we formulate and analyze a mathematical model for the spread of awareness in a host population, and then link this to an epidemiological model by having more informed hosts reduce their susceptibility. We find that, in a well-mixed population, this can result in a lower size of the outbreak, but does not affect the epidemic threshold. If, however, the behavioral response is treated as a local effect arising in the proximity of an outbreak, it can completely stop a disease from spreading, although only if the infection rate is below a threshold. We show that the impact of locally spreading awareness is amplified if the social network of potential infection events and the network over which individuals communicate overlap, especially so if the networks have a high level of clustering. These findings suggest that care needs to be taken both in the interpretation of disease parameters, as well as in the prediction of the fate of future outbreaks.
| S-EPMC2672559 | biostudies-other