The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, and interventions to help them: a rapid systematic review

Inclusion criteria

We included any type of study about any type of healthcare worker during the covid-19 pandemic, with outcomes relating to their mental health. We extracted information about interventions aimed at preventing or reducing negative mental health impacts on healthcare workers. We had no restrictions related to study design, methodological quality, or language.

Literature search and article selection

We identified relevant studies by searching the Norwegian Institute of Public Health’s (NIPH’s) Live map of covid-19 evidence (https://www.fhi.no/en/qk/systematic-reviews-hta/map/) and database on 11 May 2020, as described in our protocol¹⁵. The live map and database contained 20,738 references screened for covid-19 relevance containing primary, secondary, or modelled data. Two researchers independently categorized these references according to topic (seven main topics, 52 subordinate topics), population (41 available groups), study design, and publication type. We identified references categorized to the population “Healthcare workers”, and to the topic “Experiences and perceptions, consequences; social, political, economic aspects”. In addition, we identified references by searching (title/abstract) in the live map’s database, using the keywords: emo*, psych*, stress*, anx*, depr*, mental*, sleep, worry, somatoform, and somatic symptom disorder. We screened all identified references specifically for the inclusion criteria for this systematic review.

The protocol of the Live map of covid-19 evidence describes the methodology of the map and database ¹⁶. The methodology, including the search, has developed dynamically since March 2020. We performed our first search for the map 12.03.2020 and we have identified references published since 01.12.2019 by searching:

• PubMed (National Library of Medicine), from 01.12.2019 - 03.05.2020

• Embase (Ovid), between 01.12.2019 - 27.03.2020

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 01.12.2019 - 11.05.2020

The last included search for this review was conducted on 11 May 2020. The search strategy is presented in Appendix 1.

Data extraction and methodological quality assessment

We developed a data extraction form to collect data on country and setting, participants, exposure to covid-19, intervention if relevant, and outcomes related to mental health. We extracted data on prevalence of mental health problems as well as correlates (i.e. risk/resilience factors); strategies implemented or accessed by healthcare worker to address their own mental health; perceived need and preferences related to interventions aimed at preventing or reducing negative mental health consequences; and experience and understandings of mental health and related interventions. One researcher (AEM) extracted data and another checked her extraction. Two researchers independently assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR tool ¹⁷ and of qualitative studies using the CASP checklist ¹⁸. One researcher (AEM, SF) assessed the quality of cross-sectional studies using either the JBI Prevalence or the JBI Cross-sectional Analytical checklist, and longitudinal studies using the JIBI Cohort checklist ¹⁹. Results of these checklists are presented in Appendix 2 in the standard risk of bias format.

Data presentation and analyses

We summarized outcomes narratively. For figures without numbers, we extracted numbers using an online software (https://apps.automeris.io/wpd/). We describe interventions and outcomes based on the information provided in the studies. Median prevalence rates were presented as box-and-whisker plots. We decided not to perform a quantitative summary of the associations between the various correlates and mental health factors, due to a combination of heterogeneity in assessment measures and lack of control groups, and an overarching lack of descriptions necessary to confirm sufficient homogeneity. Our included studies not only varied greatly from one another, they most often did not report sufficient information regarding inclusion criteria, population, setting, and exposure to assess potential clinical heterogeneity. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) ²⁰.

Results of the literature search

As of 11 May 2020, the Live map of covid-19 evidence project had screened 20,738 studies for covid-19 relevance, and categorized all studies with empirical data. We identified 557 studies coded to the topic Experiences, and 314 coded to Healthcare workers. Our database keyword search identified a further 218 relevant studies. Of a total of 1089 identified studies, 59 met our inclusion criteria for this systematic review ^{8, 21-78}.

Description of studies

Fifty-nine studies were included. Table 1 displays their summarized characteristics, while Appendix 3 displays characteristics of the individual studies. Thirty-nine studies were conducted in or included participants from China; four in Iran; three in the USA; two each in France, India, and Singapore; and one each from Australia, Germany, Italy, Malaysia, and Taiwan. Two studies reported results of international online surveys; one included respondents from 30 countries and the other from 91 countries. The majority of studies (47) were cross-sectional surveys, four were other cross-sectional designs; two studies reported surveys administered twice over time; three were qualitative studies; and one study searched within a database of existing online surveys. We also identified two systematic reviews ^{29, 31}, which identified five primary studies ^{8, 35, 39, 47, 76}.

The studies reported on healthcare workers working in different settings: 43 studies reported on health care workers in hospitals, two studies were conducted in specialist health services outside hospitals, and three studies in other settings, while 21 studies did not specify the healthcare setting or only partially described multiple settings. No studies reported on nursing homes or primary care settings. In 40 studies, participants were frontline workers, while 26 studies reported on non-frontline workers. Frontline or non-frontline activities were unclear in ten studies.

Six studies reported on interventions to reduce mental health problems.

More than half of the studies included nurses (31) and/or doctors (33). Studies reported on a total of 54,707 healthcare workers, ranging from a case study with three participants to a survey of 11,118 participants.

Methodological quality assessment of included studies

Appendix 2 displays the methodological quality assessments of individual studies. Overall assessments are displayed in Appendix 3, the description of included studies. Twenty-five studies were assessed as having low methodological quality (including eleven of 17 cross-sectional studies that provided only prevalence data), twelve medium, and sixteen high. The most common methodological weaknesses across all studies arose from insufficient reporting: samples, settings, and recruitment procedures were often not described thoroughly. While both systematic reviews had low scores on the AMSTAR, all three qualitative studies were assessed on the CASP checklist as valuable. Four studies had designs that we did not assess for quality: Jiang et al. ⁵⁶, and Schulte et al. ²¹ reported on the development or uptake of mental health interventions; Liu et al. surveyed mental health questionnaires available online in China as of 8 February 2020 ⁵²; and Martin presented three short case histories ²⁶.

Mental health interventions

Six studies reported on the implementation of interventions to prevent or reduce mental health problems caused by the covid-19 pandemic among healthcare workers. These interventions can be loosely divided into those targeting organizational structures, those facilitating team/collegial support, and those addressing individual complaints or strategies.

Two interventions involved organizational adjustments. The first intervention was reported on by two studies ^{70, 72}. Hong et al.⁷⁰ called it a “comprehensive psychological intervention” for frontline workers undergoing a mandatory two-week quarantine in a vocational resort, following two- to three-week hospital shifts. The quarantine itself was also described as part of the intervention, explicitly intended “to alleviate worries about the health of one’s family”. Other elements included shortened shifts; involvement of the labor union to provide support to healthcare workers’ families; and a telephone-based hotline that allowed healthcare workers to speak to trained psychiatrists or psychologists. This hotline had already been available to healthcare workers for four hours per week prior to the pandemic, but was made available for twelve hours, seven days a week. Chen et al.⁴⁷ reported a second intervention that attempted to address individual complaints and facilitate collegial support. A telephone hotline was set up to provide immediate psychological support, along with a medical team that provided online courses to help healthcare workers handle psychological problems, and group-based activities to release stress. However, uptake was low, and when researchers conducted interviews with the healthcare workers to understand this, healthcare workers reported needing personal protective equipment and rest, not time with a psychologist. They also requested help addressing their patients’ psychological distress. In response, the hospital developed more guidance on personal protective equipment, provided a rest space, and provided training on how to address patients’ distress.

Schulte et al.²¹ targeted collegial support and building individual strategies through one-hour video “support calls” for healthcare workers called in from their homes, to describe the impact of the pandemic on their lives, to reflect on their strengths, and to brainstorm coping strategies. This intervention was implemented as a response to the hospital redeploying pediatric staff to work as covid-19 frontline staff, and reorganizing pediatric space to accommodate more pediatric and adult covid-19 patients.

The remainder of the interventions focused on individual complaints or strategies. Chung et al.’s⁶⁹ intervention was an online questionnaire available through a hospital mobile phone application that allowed healthcare workers to request psychological support from a psychiatric nurse, and to fill out a short depression screening measure. Jiang et al.’s⁵⁶ intervention began as an onsite, in-person psychological crisis intervention, in which psychiatrists and psychologists provided psychological care to healthcare workers. After in-person care was recognized as a transmission risk to the psychiatrists and psychologists, the intervention was developed to allow for remote provision.

Changes in mental health during the pandemic

None of the studies that implemented mental health interventions reported on the effects of the interventions on healthcare workers. The only data available to approximate the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of Healthcare workers come from two longitudinal survey studies reporting on changes over time, both of low methodological quality.

Lv et al.²² surveyed healthcare workers before and during the outbreak, reporting no further information about the timeline. The study included both those working on the frontline and those with unclear exposure to covid-19. However, it is unclear whether respondents were the same at both time points. The prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia increased over time, whether mild, moderate, moderate to severe, or severe (see Figure 2). During the outbreak, one out of every four healthcare workers reported at least mild anxiety, depression, or insomnia.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Live evidence map flow diagram of study inclusion

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Anxiety, depression, and insomnia before and during the pandemic among Lv et al.’s sample of 8,028 Chinese healthcare workers before and during the pandemic

Yuan et al.²⁷ also administered a survey twice to 939 respondents during the pandemic (in February 2020), with two weeks between the surveys, and no attrition reported. Each respondent answered the same questions: “I feel worried, I feel anxious, fidgeting and not knowing what to do, I feel frightened, I feel nervous and uneasy, I don’t think I can succeed even if I try hard, and I’ve been smoking or drinking a lot lately.” The authors presented the changes per item after two weeks, rather than answers at both time points, and the answer scale was not reported. Worry worsened for 30% of participants, anxiety for 12%, fidgeting for 9%, fear for 15%, feeling nervous and uneasy for 13%, not thinking one can succeed for 4%, and an increase in smoking and drinking for only 1%. The proportion reporting improvement was similar for fidgeting, fear, and feeling nervous and uneasy, and more improved in not thinking one can succeed and for a reduction in smoking and drinking.

Two cross-sectional studies reported healthcare workers’ self-reported changes in mental health; both were also of low methodological quality due to insufficient reporting. In Benham et al.⁷⁸, twelve Iranian psychiatry residents were re-deployed to work one frontline shift. Half of the residents reported that they experienced more distress after this shift. Abdessater et al.^{28, 32} studied 275 urology residents not working on the frontline. When asked to report the level of stress caused by covid-19, 56% reported a medium to high amount of stress, and the remaining reported none to low. Less than 1% had initiated a psychiatric treatment during the pandemic.

A third cross-sectional study⁶⁴, also of low methodological quality, surveyed 60 healthcare workers in China in February, during the “outbreak period”. A different cohort of 60 healthcare workers were surveyed in March, during the “non-epidemic outbreak period”. The healthcare workers in to the second phase of the survey reported less symptoms of anxiety and depression, and higher health-related quality of life.

Prevalence of mental health problems, and risk and resilience factors

Twenty-nine studies reported prevalence data of mental health variables as proportions or percentages. (Seventeen additional studies reported data as average scores on various instruments, and we did not extract this data.) We present box-and-whisker plots in Figure 3 to show the distribution of anxiety, depression, distress, and sleeping problems among the healthcare workers investigated in the 29 studies, using the authors’ own methods of assessing these outcomes

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Boxplots of prevalence of anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and distress

For anxiety, there were data from 22 studies. The percentage of healthcare workers with anxiety ranged from 9-90% with a median of 24%. For depression, there were data from 19 studies. The percentage with depression ranged from 5-51%, with a median of 21%. For sleep problems, there were data from six studies. The percentage with sleeping problems ranged from 34-65%, with a median of 37%. For distress, there were data from 13 studies. The percentage with distress ranged from 7-97%, with a median of 37%. Only one study⁶⁵ reported prevalence of somatic symptoms, including decreased appetite or indigestion (59%) and fatigue (55%).

The summary of findings table below displays median prevalence rates across the studies contributing to each mental health outcome.

Our confidence in the reported results of levels of anxiety, depression, distress and sleep problems in health care workers during the covid-19 pandemic was assessed using the GRADE approach to be very low. Our confidence was reduced (downgraded), as shown in Table 2, due to high risk of bias, large heterogeneity and imprecision.

Twenty-two studies reported one or more variables associated with mental health problems in health care workers during the pandemic. The most common risk factors correlated with increased risk of mental health problems were exposure to covid-19 patients ^{28, 39, 46, 49, 60, 63, 74}, being female^{8, 25, 39, 46, 54, 60}, and worry about being infected ^{25, 46, 58, 63}. In three studies, worrying about family members being infected was a risk factor^{42, 58,62}. The 22 studies mentioned a number of other factors once each, that we do not report here.

The most commonly reported protective factor associated with reduced risk of mental health problems was having social support^{35, 49, 53, 74}. Two studies directly measured self-perceived resilience. Bohlken et al.³⁸ asked their sample of psychiatrists and neurologists to assess how resilient they were on a Likert scale from 1-5 (“not applicable” to “completely applicable”), and 86% selected the two highest categories. Cai et al. ³⁴ compared experienced frontline workers with inexperienced frontline workers, and found that inexperienced workers scored lower on total resilience on the Connor-David resilience scale as well as within each of three subscales, and had more mental health symptoms. Inexperienced workers were also younger and had less social support available to them.

Strategies and resources used

Ten studies reported that healthcare workers utilized other resources or had individual strategies to address their own mental health during the pandemic, separate from formal interventions.

Six studies reported healthcare workers’ utilized support from family/friends during the pandemic. “Family” was the most common stress coping mechanism utilized by Louie et al.’s⁴² sample (78.5%). Sixty-five percent of Sun et al.’s⁶⁷ sample sought social support to relieve stress. Forty-three percent of Cai et al.’s⁵⁸ sample rated social support from friends and family as a “very important” strategy, on a scale from “not at all” to “very important”; a similar proportion of Louie et al.’s sample said they used telecommunication with friends as a coping mechanism (43.8%). Cao et al.⁷², reporting themes from interviews, wrote that telecommunication with family members was the most frequently utilized coping mechanism, while a majority identified talking with friends as important. Mohindra et al.’s⁴⁵ narrative report of an unreported amount of interviews also identified support from family and colleagues as a main emotional motivational factor for healthcare workers to continue working.

Professional and informal help were strategies reported by two studies each. A minority of healthcare workers in Cai et al.⁵⁸ said that seeking help from a psychologist was important. Counselling, therapy, or other professional interventions were used by 18-36% of Kang et al.’s⁴³ and Liu et al.’s⁴⁸ samples, respectively. Half of Kang et al.’s sample used psychological resources available through the media, and 36% used other psychological materials. Less than one third of Zhang et al.’s⁷⁴ sample reported that psychological support from news or social media was helpful, although the amount who utilized news or social media was not reported.

In Sun et al.’s⁶⁷ qualitative study of nurses’ psychological experience of treating patients with covid-19, coping and self-care styles was an emergent theme, and subsequently described quantitatively. All nurses utilized active psychological defense mechanisms (such as mindfulness) or more passive strategies (such as distraction). Seventy percent made “life adjustments” such as sleeping, exercising, or eating more. Sixty-five percent sought social support for stress relief. Just under half (45%) sought or used external information to adjust their thought patterns.

Perceived need and preferences for interventions aimed at preventing or reducing negative impact on mental health

Utilization of formal and informal strategies can be interpreted as an indicator of healthcare workers’ preferences. Seven studies asked healthcare workers directly about whether they needed mental health help, and their preferences regarding such help.

Several studies reported a low level of interest in professional psychological services. Five percent in Cao et al.⁷² explicitly said they would not want professional help. Similarly, Guo et al.⁵⁷ asked their sample “how to deal with psychological distress”, and only 14% selected psychological counselling. The majority said distress could be endured or solved individually, and a majority also said talking to friends or family could help. Nineteen percent said online information could help.

Kang et al.⁴³ found slightly higher levels of interest in professional resources. When asked from whom they prefer to receive “psychological care” or “resources”, 40% answered psychologists or psychiatrists, 14% answered family or relatives, 15% answered friends or colleagues, 2% answered others, and 30% said they did not need help. The authors found that preferred sources of psychological resources were related to the level of psychological distress. In a structural equation model that uncovered clusters of healthcare workers with different distress levels (subthreshold, mild, moderate, and severe), those with moderate and severe distress more often preferred to receive care from psychologists or psychiatrists, while those with subthreshold and mild distress more often preferred to seek care from family or relatives.

In two studies, participants specified that they had a greater need for personal protective equipment than for psychological help. Chung et al.⁶⁹ reported this in a survey that allowed healthcare workers to describe their needs and concerns in free text and to request contact with a psychiatric nurse. While 3% requested such contact, nearly half of those who answered the free text question about their psychiatric needs wrote that they needed personal protective equpiment instead, and 20% said they were worried about infection. Chen et al.’s ⁴⁷ study was to understand why uptake of their psychological intervention was so low, and findings were identical to Chung et al.’s: “Many staff mentioned that they did not need a psychologist, but needed more rest without interruption and enough protective supplies” (p. e15).

Only one study explored how healthcare workers would be willing to provide mental health services to other healthcare workers: twelve psychiatry residents were re-deployed as frontline workers for one shift in Benham et al.’s⁷⁸ study. After that shift, none were willing to provide face-to-face mental health services to other healthcare workers, although 75% said they would provide online services. They identified healthcare workers of deceased patients as possible target populations for online services.

Experience and understanding of mental health and related interventions

Three qualitative studies assessed as valuable were included. Two interconnected themes across all three studies were distress stemming both from concern for infecting family members, and from being aware of family members’ concern for the healthcare workers.

Wu et al.⁷¹ explored reasons for stress during interviews with healthcare workers at a psychiatric hospital. While these healthcare workers were not on the frontline, they felt they were at higher risk of exposure than healthcare workers at a general hospital. Their wards were crowded, and several patients were admitted from emergency rooms with aggressive behaviors that made social distancing difficult or that posed direct challenges to healthcare workers’ use of personal protective equipment (such as tearing masks). Healthcare workers felt unprepared because psychiatric hospitals had no plans in place. At the same time, they also felt that their peers on the frontline were providing more valuable care. An additional source of stress was knowledge of their own risk of infection and transmission to family members, particular to elderly parents in their care, and to children who were at home and whose schoolwork had to additionally be managed. The disruption of the pandemic to nurses’ personal lives and career plans was another stressor.

Sun et al.⁶⁷ interviewed twenty frontline nurses about their psychological experiences of frontline work. Similar themes as Wu et al.’s sources of stress were reported, particularly the fear of infecting friends and family. Elderly parents and children at home were again mentioned, and concern was great enough that several respondents did not tell their family they were working on the frontline, while others did not live at home during this period. As with Wu et al.’s non-frontline workers, these healthcare workers also reported fear and anxiety of a new infectious disease that they felt unprepared to handle on a hospital-level, unprepared to treat on a patient-level, and from which they were unable to protect themselves. The first week of training and the first week of actual frontline work was characterized by these negative emotions, which were then joined – not necessarily replaced – by more positive emotions such as pride at being a frontline nurse, confidence in the hospital’s capacity, and recognition by the hospital.

Yin et al.⁷³ used a framework of existence, relatedness, and growth theory to analyze nurses’ psychological needs. They reported nurses’ identification of existence needs as primarily health and security: their own physical and mental health, personal protective equipment, and emotional stability for their family. Their need for relatedness was represented by needs for relationships and affection, as well as for care, help, and support from colleagues and bosses, as well as from outside the hospital. Finally, growth needs referred to needing knowledge of covid-19 infection prevention and control, particularly from the authorities.

Mohindra et al.’s⁴⁵ cross-sectional survey also reported experiences of mental health promotion narratively, with similar results as Yin et al: more knowledge of covid-19 could strengthen motivation, as could emotional support. Affecting them negatively were fears of infecting their families, particularly because their families would suffer more financially from needing to be quarantined than they already were suffering under the lockdown; fears of using personal protective equipment incorrectly; and feeling unequipped to handle patients’ non-medical needs. Healthcare workers reported that stigma suppressed patients’ provision of accurate travel and quarantine history. This was an issue they were ill-equipped to help patients address when they returned to the community. Healthcare workers also reported that they were stigmatized, because they were potential sources of infection.