Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32371466›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2020

Occurrence, prevention, and management of the psychological effects of emerging virus outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review and meta-analysis.

Steve Kisely, Nicola Warren, Laura McMahon, Christine Dalais, Irene Henry, Dan Siskind

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 589 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
589citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
85.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

589 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

529 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Steve KiselyMetro South Mental Health and Addiction Services, Brisbane, Australia.
Nicola WarrenMetro South Mental Health and Addiction Services, Brisbane, Australia.
Laura McMahonSchool of Clinical Medicine, The University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Australia.
Christine DalaisSchool of Clinical Medicine, The University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Australia.
Irene HenryMetro South Mental Health and Addiction Services, Brisbane, Australia.
Dan SiskindMetro South Mental Health and Addiction Services, Brisbane, Australia d.siskind@uq.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2072-9216
The University of Queensland · AUDalhousie University · CAMetro South Health · AUPark Centre for Mental Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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 SOURCES: Cochrane 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 SELECTION: Any 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.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralCOVID-19FemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleQuarantineSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID32371466
PMCPMC7199468
OpenAlexW3022406948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.