ABSTRACT
Objectives To examine the impact of providing healthcare during or after health emergencies caused by viral epidemic outbreaks on healthcare workers′(HCWs) mental health, and to assess the available evidence base regarding interventions to reduce such impact.
Design Systematic rapid review and meta-analysis.
Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, searched up to 23 March 2020.
Method We selected observational and experimental studies examining the impact on mental health of epidemic outbreaks on HCWs. One reviewer screened titles and abstracts, and two reviewers independently reviewed full texts. We extracted study characteristics, symptoms, prevalence of mental health problems, risk factors, mental health interventions, and its impact. We assessed risk of bias for each individual study and used GRADE to ascertain the certainty of the evidence. We conducted a narrative and tabulated synthesis of the results. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the prevalence of specific mental health problems.
Results We included 61 studies (56 examining impact on mental health and five about interventions to reduce such impact). Most were conducted in Asia (59%), in the hospital setting (79%), and examined the impact of the SARS epidemic (69%). The pooled prevalence was higher for anxiety (45%, 95% CI 21 to 69%; 6 studies, 3,373 participants), followed by depression (38%, 95% CI 15 to 60%; 7 studies, 3,636 participants), acute stress disorder (31%, 95% CI 0 to 82%, 3 studies, 2,587 participants), burnout (29%, 95% CI 25 to 32%; 3 studies; 1,168 participants), and post-traumatic stress disorder (19%, 95% CI 11 to 26%, 10 studies, 3,121 participants). Based on 37 studies, we identified factors associated with the likelihood of developing those problems, including sociodemographic (younger age and female gender), social (lack of social support, social rejection or isolation, stigmatization), and occupational (working in a high risk environment (frontline staff), specific occupational roles (e.g., nurse), and lower levels of specialised training, preparedness and job experience) factors. Five studies reported interventions for frontline HCW, two of which were educational and aimed to prevent mental health problems by increasing HCWs′ resilience. These interventions increased confidence in support and training, pandemic self-efficacy, and interpersonal problems solving (very low certainty). One multifaceted intervention implemented training and organisational changes) targeted at hospital nurses during the SARS epidemic, reporting improvements in anxiety, depression, and sleep quality (very low certainty). The two remaining interventions, which were multifaceted and based on psychotherapy provision, did not assess their impact.
Conclusion The prevalence of anxiety, depression, acute and post-traumatic stress disorder, and burnout, was high both during and after the outbreaks. These problems not only have a long-lasting effect on the mental health of HCWs, but also hinder the urgent response to the current COVID-19 pandemic, by jeopardising attention and decision-making. Governments and healthcare authorities should take urgent actions to protect the mental health of HCWs. In light of the limited evidence regarding the impact of interventions to tackle mental health problems in HCWs, the risk factors identified in this study, more so when they are modifiable, represent important targets for future interventions.
What is already known on this topic?
Previous studies showed that healthcare workers involved providing frontline care during viral epidemic outbreaks are at high risk of developing mental health problems.
Given the current COVID-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need to synthesize the evidence regarding the impact of viral epidemic outbreaks on mental health of healthcare workers.
What does this study add?
This timely systematic rapid review offers for the first time pooled estimations of the prevalence of the most common mental health problems experienced by HCWs during and after viral epidemic outbreaks, namely anxiety (45%), depression (38%), and acute stress disorder (31%), among others.
Our study also identifies a broad number of factors associated with these conditions, including sociodemographic factors such as younger age and female gender, social factors such as lack of social support, social rejection or isolation, stigmatization, and occupational factors such as working in a high risk environment, specific occupational roles, and having lower levels of specialised training, preparedness and job experience.
Our study shows that, although educational and multifaceted interventions might mitigate the development of mental health problems, the certainty on the evidence is very low - therefore indicating that further high quality research is urgently needed to inform evidence-based policies for viral pandemics.
INTRODUCTION
Infectious disease outbreaks are relatively common,1 often prompting an international response involving thousands of healthcare workers (HCWs).2 Providing frontline healthcare during infectious outbreaks increases the risk of HCWs developing mental health problems, both short and long-term.3 It has been suggested that specific occupational factors are associated with psychological outcomes of HCWs during an infectious disease outbreak.2 Working in a high-risk environment, adhering to quarantine, job-related stress, and belonging to a specific cadre were all considered to aggravate psychological outcomes. Perceived safety, namely through access to protective equipment, and specialised training, mitigated those outcomes.2
During December 2019 a new infectious disease outbreak was reported in Wuhan, Hubei province, China,4 which was named COVID-19.5The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic by March 11th 2020, and by 30 March 2020 it had spread to most countries and territories, with more than 693,000 known cases and a death toll of over 33,000 people.6 Early anecdotal evidence from Wuhan showed how this unprecedented situation impacted the mental health of frontline HCWs, who reported mental problems such as anxiety, depressive symptoms, anger, and fear.7 These problems cannot only have a long-lasting effect on the mental health of HCWs,3 but also hinder the urgent response to COVID-19, by jeopardising attention and decision-making.7 Tackling the mental health of HCWs during this pandemic is essential, and will strengthen healthcare systems’ capacity.8
Previous systematic reviews have explored social and occupational factors associated with psychological outcomes in HCW during an infectious disease outbreak,2 and their perceptions of risk and use of coping strategies towards emerging respiratory infectious diseases.9 However, to date, the impact of viral disease outbreaks on specific mental health problems and the effectiveness of interventions to ameliorate such impact have not been systematically reported. The aim of this rapid systematic literature review is twofold: i) to examine the impact of health emergencies caused by a viral pandemic or epidemic on HCWs mental health; and ii) to assess the effectiveness of interventions to reduce such impact.
METHODS
We conducted a rapid systematic review following WHO guidelines10 and Cochrane’s recommendations for Rapid Reviews in response to COVID-19.11 We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for planning, conducting and reporting this study.12
Data Sources and Searches
We designed specific search strategies for biomedical databases (MEDLINE/Ovid, EMBASE/Elsevier, and PsycInfo/EBSCO), combining MeSH terms and free-text keywords (Online Appendix 1). We searched databases from inception to 23rd March 2020, and checked the list of included studies of relevant systematic reviews.9,13,14 We used EndNote X8™ to create a bibliographical database, and Rayyan to screen relevant records.15
Selection criteria
We included empirical studies examining the impact on mental health of epidemic outbreaks on HCWs, and studies about interventions to reduce such impact. We included observational (cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies), and experimental studies (non-controlled before-after studies, controlled before-after studies, non-randomised controlled trials, and randomised controlled trials).
We included studies on any type of health emergency caused by a viral epidemic or pandemic, and examining its impact on HCWs mental health during or after the crisis. For intervention studies, we included also those that examined interventions to protect mental health of healthcare workers prior, during or after the outbreak onset. All types of settings and healthcare professionals were accepted for inclusion. We included studies measuring any type of mental health problem or psychiatric morbidity. We excluded narrative reviews, thesis, editorials, protocols, letters to the editor, and studies published in languages other than English, Spanish or Portuguese.
Study Selection
One reviewer (of IRC, MJSR, MAFR, RZC, DGB) screened the retrieved references at title and abstract against the selection criteria. Two reviewers (of those aforementioned) independently and blinded against the others’ judgements assessed full-text eligibility. We solved disagreements by consensus or by involving a third reviewer, if needed.
Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
We used structured forms to extract relevant data, such as country, health emergency, setting, population, epidemiological design, number of participants, mental health conditions, clinical outcomes and their measurement tools, and main study results. For observational studies addressing the impact of health emergencies on HCWs mental health, we extracted the prevalence rate of the mental conditions examined in terms of the number of professionals suffering the condition (numerator) out of the total number of study participants (denominator). If available, we extracted information about the risk factors. For intervention studies (i.e., randomised and non-randomised trials), we extracted data about the characteristics of the intervention as well as that reported also for observational studies. We assessed the risk of bias of observational studies (i.e., cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies) by using the set of tools developed by Evidence Partners (McMaster University) 16; whereas ROBINS I 17 was applied to uncontrolled trials, and AMSTAR 18for systematic reviews.
One reviewer (of MJSR, MAFR, AC, DF, JM, GP, RZ) extracted all the data and assessed the risk of bias, while a second reviewer cross-checked the information for accuracy and completeness.
Data Synthesis and Analysis
We conducted a narrative and tabulated synthesis of the results, classifying the studies according to the type of study (i.e., impact of infectious disease outbreaks on HCWs mental health, or interventions to reduce such impact), and timing (i.e., before, during, or after the outbreak). We adapted a taxonomy proposed in a previous study 14 to classify risk factors as social, occupational and sociodemographic.
For studies about the impact of outbreaks on mental health, we conducted random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each type of mental health condition, using the STATA command “metaprop”. We conducted subgroup analyses to explore potential differences in the prevalence of mental health disorders during vs. after the outbreak. Heterogeneity was quantified by the I2 statistic, where I2>50% was deemed as substantial heterogeneity.19 Publication bias was examined with funnel plots and presence of asymmetry tested with Begg20 and Egger tests.21 We used Stata, version 12.0 to conduct meta-analyses.
GRADE and ‘Summary of findings’ tables
We used the GRADE approach22 to assess the quality of evidence related to the outcomes included in this rapid review. We used GRADEpro 2011 23 software to create ‘Summary of findings’ tables. For assessments of the overall quality of evidence for each outcome that included pooled data, we downgraded the evidence from ‘high quality’ by one level for serious, or by two levels for very serious, study limitations (risk of bias), indirectness of evidence, inconsistency, imprecision of effect estimates, or potential publication bias.22
Patient and public involvement
We have invited HCW frontline to promote the dissemination of these results, alongside members of the author team who are also frontline HCWs.
RESULTS
Search results
The search resulted in a total of 2,317 records. After 143 duplicates were removed, 2,174 records remained to be screened. We excluded 2,042 records based on title and abstract screening. We assessed full-text 132 articles in full-text, of which we excluded 74. After including three additional studies identified from manual searches, sixty-one published studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic rapid review.13,24-83 Figure 1 illustrates the selection process of the included studies. Online Appendix 2 presents the excluded studies.
PRISMA flow diagram
Characteristics of the studies
This systematic rapid review included 38,415 participants (total). Most of the studies (59%) were conducted in Asian countries, including China (30%), South Korea (18%), Taiwan (15%) or Singapore (12%). The mean number of participants was 612 (range 26 to 10,511). More than two-thirds (69%) examined the impact of Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS epidemic), followed by Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) (11%). Three studies examined the impact of COVID-19.46,53,83 Most studies were conducted during or after the infectious outbreak (92%). Around three quarters took place in the hospital setting. General HCWs was the most common group (70%), followed by nurses (20%) and physicians (10%). Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (38%), anxiety (36%), depression (28%) and stress/distress symptoms (28%) were the mental health conditions most frequently examined. The majority followed a cross-sectional design (82%). The characteristics of the included studies are summarised in Table 1.
Features of the studies selected (N=61)
Risk of bias assessment
In general, main risks of bias in the 50 cross-sectional studies were the lack of use of reliable and valid instruments to measure mental health outcomes (high risk of bias in 22% of the studies) and selection bias (12%). The main sources of bias across the seven cohort studies were selection bias (43%) and inadequate follow-up of the cohorts (29%). Main sources of bias of the two uncontrolled before-after studies were bias in selection of participants, and bias in outcome measurement. The case-control and the systematic review identified did not present serious risks of bias. Results of the risk of bias assessment are provided in Online Appendix 3.
Prevalence of mental health problems in HCWs during and after infectious disease outbreaks
Fifty-six studies examined the mental health problems among frontline HCWs during and/or after an infectious disease outbreak (Online Appendix 4). The great majority of them reported clinically significant mental health symptoms, most frequently PTSD, anxiety, depression, and burnout. For clinically significant symptoms of mental health disorders, the pooled prevalence was higher for anxiety (45%, 95% CI 21 to 69%, I2 99.7%; 6 studies, 3,373 participants), followed by depression (38%, 95% CI 15 to 60%, I2 99.6%; 7 studies, 3,636 participants), and PTSD (19%, 95% CI 11 to 26%, I2 97.6%; 10 studies, 3,121 participants). Three studies reported the prevalence of burnout (29%, 95% CI 25 to 32%; 1,168 participants), and three reported the prevalence of acute stress disorder (31%, 95% CI 0 to 82%, 2,587 participants). Subgroup analyses found little or no differences in prevalence during vs. after the outbreaks (Online Appendix 5). Begg’s and Egger’s tests suggested the absence of publication bias for all the meta-analyses conducted.
Risk factors for mental health problems in HCWs during and after infectious disease outbreaks
Thirty-seven studies examined a large number of occupational, sociodemographic and social factors associated with the likelihood of developing mental health problems while providing frontline healthcare during an infectious disease outbreak (Online Appendix 4).
The main occupational factors were working in a high risk environment, higher perception of threat and risk, specialised training received, and specific occupational role. Working in a high risk environment was associated with different mental health problems, namely depression,46 anxiety,46,52,60,77 PTSD,28,72,75,81,82 and burnout.76 The definition of high risk environment varied across studies, but usually included being in direct contact with infected patients, either providing care,28,77 or being responsible for cleaning and disinfection.52
Likewise, higher perception of threat and risk was also associated with a higher prevalence of a number of different mental health problems, including depression,55 anxiety,25 and PTSD.63,72,81 Lack of specialised training was a risk factor for anxiety,60,79 PTSD,75 and burnout.63
Some of the studies that recruited more than one cadre reported that specific HCWs were at higher risk of developing mental health problems. One study each found that nurses were more likely to develop PTSD 75 and burnout,76 whereas one study 26 reported that resident pulmonologists were at higher risk of burnout.
Other occupational risk factors for PTSD were job stress,63 and less job experience,75 whereas lower levels of organisational support increased the risk of burnout.59
Studies addressing sociodemographic and social risk factors focused on PTSD and burnout. Younger age was a risk factor for both PTSD 75 and burnout,26 while female gender was associated with higher levels of PTSD in HCWs.75 Feelings of social rejection or isolation,63 and higher impact of the outbreak on daily life 72 increased the likelihood of developing PTSD, whereas lack of family and friends support were associated with burnout.43 In addition, stigmatisation,44 social rejection,67 and lower levels of social support were identified as risk factors for stress.83
Interventions to reduce the mental health impact of viral outbreaks in HCWs
Five studies 24,33,40,62,70 described five different interventions to reduce the mental health impact of viral outbreaks in HCWs (Online Appendix). Two studies implemented in Canada evaluated two educational interventions for improving HCWs mental health by increasing resilience.24,62 Aiello and colleagues24 described an educational intervention targeted to HCWs during the SARS epidemic, which consisted of a face-to-face group training session based on Folkman and Greer’s model of coping.84 The session focused on stressors associated with pandemic influenza and on organisational and individual approaches to building resilience and reducing stress. While most participants did not feel prepared to deal confidently with the pandemic before the session (35%), there was a higher proportion of participants who felt better able to cope after the session (76%).
Maunder and colleagues explored the impact of a computer-assisted resilience training to prepare HCWs for a potential pandemic influenza.62 The course consisted of modules incorporating different modalities of learning (knowledge-based modules, relaxation skills, and self-assessment modules using questionnaires to characterize interpersonal problem and coping style). The intervention improved confidence in support and training, pandemic self-efficacy and interpersonal problems (p<0.05). We have very low confidence on the evidence of educational interventions for preventing the psychological impact of infectious epidemic outbreaks in HCWs (detailed in Online Appendix 7) due to the study design (uncontrolled before-after studies) and very serious risk of bias with regard to confounding and measurement of outcomes.
Two studies examined two multifaceted interventions combining training and implementation of organizational changes.33,70 A study in Taiwan 33 evaluated the effects of a multifaceted intervention to prevent depression and anxiety in hospital nurses during the SARS epidemic. The intervention included in-service training, manpower allocation, gathering sufficient protective equipment, and establishment of a mental health team. The authors observed statistically significant improvements in nurses’ anxiety and depression along with sleep quality at two weeks follow-up. Another study described a multifaceted intervention to improve resilience and prevent PTSD in HCWs during the Ebola epidemic in the USA, Philippines, and West Africa.70 The intervention, based on the Anticipate, Plan and Deter Responder Risk and Resilience model, included pre-deployment development of an individualized resilience plan and an in-theatre, real-time self-triage system, to allow HCWs to assess and manage the full range of psychological risk and resilience for themselves and their families. The potential effectiveness of this intervention was not studied. Our confidence on the evidence for multifaceted interventions for preventing the psychological impact during infectious epidemic outbreaks in HCWs was very low (Online Appendix 7) due to limitations in the study design (uncontrolled before after studies) and very serious risk of bias (high risk of selection bias and high risk of bias in measurement of outcomes).
Finally, Khee et al. 2004 reported an intervention in 188 hospital nurses in Singapore, consisted in the provision of psychological support during the SARS outbreak.40 The intervention, not based on any specific psychotherapeutic model, comprised multiple sessions (75 minutes per session) and was aimed at preserving their mental health. The primary goal of therapy was to externalise all their emotions, and bring support to each other. The effectiveness of this intervention was not studied.
DISCUSSION
Summary of findings
In this timely systematic rapid review we synthesized evidence from 61 studies examining the impact on mental health of providing frontline healthcare during infectious disease outbreaks. Results showed that HCWs commonly present high levels of anxiety, depression, PTSD, acute disorder and burnout, both during and after the outbreaks. We identified a broad number of risk factors for these conditions, including sociodemographic factors such as younger age and female gender, and social factors such as lack of social support, social rejection or isolation, stigmatization. Occupational factors entailed working in a high risk environment (frontline staff), specific occupational roles (e.g., nurse), and having lower levels of specialized training, preparedness and job experience. In contrast with the high number of studies examining impact on mental health, there is limited evidence regarding the impact of interventions to reduce mental health problems in this particularly vulnerable population, and overall its certainty is very low, mainly due to study design and serious risk of bias.
Strengths and limitations of the review
This is a timely and comprehensive rapid review of the current literature on the impact of infectious disease outbreaks on the mental health of HCWs. We examined three relevant areas, namely the prevalence of mental health problems, factors associated with an increased likelihood of developing those problems, and the effects of interventions to improve mental health of HCWs. We followed the highest methodological standards when undertaking the current rapid review,10 and we used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence, in order to facilitate evidence-informed decision making processes. Our review team is also a strength, as it included experts in evidence synthesis, Cochrane authors, members of the GRADE Working Group, physicians, nurses, editors, psychologists, and psychiatrists. There were also some limitations underlying this work. Despite searching three major databases and manually searching references of previously published systematic reviews, we did not examine gray literature; hence, we cannot discard that relevant references may have been missed out. We observed high heterogeneity when pooling data, which could be partially attributed to the high variability across studies in terms of study population (e.g. occupational role), context (e.g. magnitude of the health emergency caused by epidemic) and outcome measures. In light of this, our results should be interpreted with caution.
Discussion of the main findings
Some of the risk factors associated with mental health problems while providing frontline care during infectious disease outbreaks cannot be modified. In this way, working in a high risk environment increases the risk of developing clinically significant symptoms, namely depression,46 anxiety,46,52,60,77 PTSD,28,72,75,81,82 and burnout.76 Likewise, it seems like specific cadres are more likely to report mental health problems, namely PTSD,75 and burnout.26,76
However this review also identified specific modifiable factors that can be addressed in advance and mitigate the risk brought by the aforementioned factors. Lack of specialized training was associated with anxiety, 60,79 PTSD,75 and burnout,63 and higher perception of threat and risk was associated with depression,55 anxiety,25 and PTSD 38,63,72,81. Long-term institutional preparedness is possible for both factors, through the development and implementation of specialized training that includes infection prevention, diagnostics, patient care, staff, and communication.85
Continuous communication between HCWs and managers, including the provision of up-to-date facts about the progression of the outbreak, can convey institutional support,59 and promote the acquisition of knowledge and confidence for those HCWs who have less job experience.75 Likewise, managers are essential to mitigate feelings of social isolation 50,63 and stigmatization, 44 especially among those HCWs who have to be quarantined.13 The proliferation of online mobile-based technologies will play an essential role in promoting connectedness and decrease the feelings of isolation and stigmatization,86 and can also be used for informal contacts between HCWs who are quarantined.
Although limited, evidence from intervention studies indicates that educational interventions have the potential to increase knowledge and resilience, 24,62 even when implemented during an outbreak.33
Limitations of available evidence and future research needs
We identified 56 studies reporting on the impact on mental health of providing frontline healthcare during an infectious disease outbreak, however most of the studies did not use validated methods to assess mental health, which limits the generalizability of our findings. Furthermore, only a handful of studies assessed the efficacy of interventions to ameliorate the impact of health emergencies on mental health of HCWs.
It is expected the proliferation of a large volume of studies examining the impact of COVID-19 on HCWs′ mental health during the near future. To make progress in this area, future studies should address these limitations of the available literature. The use of validated measurement tools and more representative sample sizes are warranted in order to strengthen the quality of the evidence in this area. Intervention studies should also adhere to international reporting standards such as CONSORT 85 and TIDieR.87
Conclusions
As we demonstrated in our review, the mental health burden for HCWs during pandemics is especially high both during and after the outbreak. Of note for its similarity to the current COVID-19 crisis, are the experiences gained from the previous SARS outbreak. This time, given the size, scale and importance of the current pandemic, these trends could be much worse.
We urge governments, policy makers and relevant stakeholders to monitor and follow these outcomes and conduct scientifically sound interventional research, in order to mitigate mental health impact on HCWs.
The physical health of HCWs is already at stake from the virus, and once we tackle the current pandemic, we will need to heal the healers, not only for the sake of having a prepared and resilient work-force, but as we owe them from the tremendous sacrifices they are doing. If we want to address these concerns and be able to mitigate its impact, we need to act soon.
Data Availability
No additional data available
Contributors
IRC, IRP and MJSR had the idea for the study. IRC designed the search strategy. IRC, MJSR, MAFR, RZC, DGB screened abstracts and full texts. MJSR, MAFR, AC, DFN, JM, GP, RZ, DGB acquired data, and assessed risk of bias in studies. IRC did the data analysis. All authors interpreted the data analysis. IRC and DGB wrote the manuscript, with revisions from all authors. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. IRC is the guarantor.
Funding
No specific funding for this study. IRC is a recipient of a Miguel Servet Fellowship (project number CP17/00017) funded by the Spanish Government. The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Competing interests
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Ethical approval
Not required
Data sharing
No additional data available.
Transparency
The lead author affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.
Online Appendix 1 Search strategies
Medline (Ovid): 23 March 2020
PsycINFO (EBSCO): 23 March 2020
Embase (Elsevier): 23 March 2020
Online Appendix 2 List of excluded papers after full-text screening
Online Appendix 3 Risk of bias assessment
A. Risk of bias of cross-sectional, assessed with the “Risk of Bias Instrument for Cross-Sectional Surveys of Attitudes and Practices” (Evidence Partners)
B. Risk of bias of uncontrolled before-after studies (assess with ROBINS - I)
C. Risk of bias of the systematic review identified (Brooks 2018), assessed with AMSTAR.
D. Risk of bias of cohort studies, assessed with the “Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Cohort Studies” (Evidence Partners)
E. Risk of bias of case control studies, assessed with the “Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Case Control Studies” (Evidence Partners)
Online Appendix 4 Summary of Findings table of studies examining the impact on mental health problems in healthcare workers during and after viral epidemics
A. Summary of Findings table of studies examining the impact on mental health problems in healthcare workers during viral epidemics (N= 27)
B. Summary of Findings table of studies examining the impact on mental health problems in healthcare workers after viral epidemics (N= 27)
C. Summary of Findings table of studies examining the impact on mental health problems in healthcare workers during and after viral epidemics (N= 2)
Online Appendix 5 Forest plots
Online Appendix 6 Summary of Findings table of studies of interventions to reduce impact of epidemic outbreaks on mental health of healthcare professionals
Online Appendix 7 Evidence profiles of the certainty of evidence concerning interventions for preventing the psychological impact of infectious epidemic outbreaks in healthcare workers
Evidence profile 1: Educational interventions compared to usual care for preventing the psychological impact of infectious epidemic outbreaks in healthcare workers
Evidence profile 2. Multifaceted interventions compared to usual care for reducing the psychological impact during infectious epidemic outbreaks in healthcare workers
Online Appendix 8 PRISMA checklist
REFERENCES
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- 4.↵
- 5.↵
- 6.↵
- 7.↵
- 8.↵
- 9.↵
- 10.↵
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.↵
- 14.↵
- 15.↵
- 16.↵
- 17.↵
- 18.↵
- 19.↵
- 20.↵
- 21.↵
- 22.↵
- 23.↵
- 24.↵
- 25.↵
- 26.↵
- 27.
- 28.↵
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.↵
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.↵
- 39.
- 40.↵
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.↵
- 44.↵
- 45.
- 46.↵
- 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.↵
Excluded due to wrong study population (i.e., not healthcare professionals)
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
Excluded due to wrong outcome (i.e., impact on mental health not examined)
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
Excluded due to wrong context (i.e., not during or after a health emergency caused by an epidemic/pandemic).
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
Excluded due to wrong study design (e.g. qualitative studies, case studies, etc.)
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
Excluded due to wrong publication type (narrative reviews, thesis, editorials, protocols, and editor letters)
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
Excluded due to language (publication not in English, Spanish, or Portuguese)
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Excluded due to full text not available (we did not contact authors due to time constraints)
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
REFERENCES
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
- 57.
- 58.
- 59.
- 60.
- 61.
REFERENCES
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
