Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33298229›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2020

Mental health and well-being of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: contrasting guidelines with experiences in practice.

Norha Vera San Juan, David Aceituno, Nehla Djellouli, Kirsi Sumray, Nina Regenold, Aron Syversen, Sophie Mulcahy Symmons, Anna Dowrick, Lucy Mitchinson, Georgina Singleton and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Norha Vera San JuanDepartment of Health Service and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; and Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8677-7341
David AceitunoDepartment of Health Service and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; and Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2967-5816
Nehla DjellouliInstitute for Global Health, University College London, UK; and Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab, University College London, UK.
Kirsi SumrayInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, UK.
Nina RegenoldDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, UK.
Aron SyversenInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, UK.
Sophie Mulcahy SymmonsInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, UK.
Anna DowrickInstitute of Population Health Science, Queen Mary University of London, UK.
Lucy MitchinsonMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, UK.
Georgina SingletonHealth Services Research Centre, National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia, London, UK; and Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab, University College London, UK.
Cecilia Vindrola-PadrosDepartment of Targeted Intervention, University College London, UK; and Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab, University College London, UK.

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-FCH-18-UMarie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-U
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubstantial evidence has highlighted the importance of considering the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and several organisations have issued guidelines with recommendations. However, the definition of well-being and the evidence base behind such guidelines remain unclear.

aimsThe aims of the study are to assess the applicability of well-being guidelines in practice, identify unaddressed healthcare workers' needs and provide recommendations for supporting front-line staff during the current and future pandemics.

methodThis paper discusses the findings of a qualitative study based on interviews with front-line healthcare workers in the UK (n = 33), and examines them in relation to a rapid review of well-being guidelines developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 14).

resultsThe guidelines placed greater emphasis on individual mental health and psychological support, whereas healthcare workers placed greater emphasis on structural conditions at work, responsibilities outside the hospital and the invaluable support of the community. The well-being support interventions proposed in the guidelines did not always respond to the lived experiences of staff, as some reported not being able to participate in these interventions because of understaffing, exhaustion or clashing schedules.

conclusionsHealthcare workers expressed well-being needs that aligned with socio-ecological conceptualisations of well-being related to quality of life. This approach to well-being has been highlighted in literature on support of healthcare workers in previous health emergencies, but it has not been monitored during this pandemic. Well-being guidelines should explore the needs of healthcare workers, and contextual characteristics affecting the implementation of recommendations.

Indexed as

COVID-19healthcare workersqualitative researchrapid reviewwell-being

Identifiers

PMID33298229
PMCPMC7844154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.