Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33583410›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2021

Family medicine practitioners' stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey.

Marion Dutour, Anna Kirchhoff, Cécile Janssen, Sabine Meleze, Hélène Chevalier, Sandrine Levy-Amon, Marc-Antoine Detrez, Emilie Piet, Tristan Delory

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. GP wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marion DutourInfectious disease department, Annecy-Genevois hospital, Annecy, France. marion.dutour@etu.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr.ORCID 0000-0001-9414-8812
Anna KirchhoffInfectious disease department, Annecy-Genevois hospital, Annecy, France.
Cécile JanssenInfectious disease department, Annecy-Genevois hospital, Annecy, France.
Sabine MelezeInstitut national d'études démographiques (Ined), UR 14, Aubervillers, France.
Hélène ChevalierHelene Chevalier Conseils, Paris, France.
Sandrine Levy-AmonStimulus, Paris, France.
Marc-Antoine DetrezClinical research unit, Annecy-Genevois hospital, Annecy, France.
Emilie PietInfectious disease department, Annecy-Genevois hospital, Annecy, France.
Tristan DeloryInstitut national d'études démographiques (Ined), UR 14, Aubervillers, France.
Centre Hospitalier Annecy Genevois · FRInstitut national d'études démographiques · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the world in early 2020. In France, General Practitioners (GPs) were not involved in the care organization's decision-making process before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This omission could have generated stress for GPs. We aimed first to estimate the self-perception of stress as defined by the 10-item Perceived Stress Score (PSS-10), at the beginning of the pandemic in France, among GPs from the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, a french administrative area severely impacted by COVID-19. Second, we aimed to identify factors associated with a self-perceived stress (PSS-10 ≥ 27) among socio-demographic characteristics of GPs, their access to reliable information and to personal protective equipment during the pandemic, and their exposure to well established psychosocial risk at work.

methodsWe conducted an online cross-sectional survey between 8th April and 10th May 2020. The self-perception of stress was evaluated using the PSS-10, so to see the proportion of "not stressed" (≤20), "borderline" (21 ≤ PSS-10 ≤ 26), and "stressed" (≥27) GPs. The agreement to 31 positive assertions related to possible sources of stress identified by the scientific study committee was measured using a 10-point numeric scale. In complete cases, factors associated with stress (PSS-10 ≥ 27) were investigated using logistic regression, adjusted on gender, age and practice location. A supplementary analysis of the verbatims was made.

resultsOverall, 898 individual answers were collected, of which 879 were complete. A total of 437 GPs (49%) were stressed (PSS-10 ≥ 27), and 283 GPs (32%) had a very high level of stress (PSS-10 ≥ 30). Self-perceived stress was associated with multiple components, and involved classic psychosocial risk factors such as emotional requirements. However, in this context of health crisis, the primary source of stress was the diversity and quantity of information from diverse sources (614 GPs (69%, OR = 2.21, 95%CI [1.40-3.50], p < 0.001). Analysis of verbatims revealed that GPs felt isolated in a hospital-based model.

conclusionThe first wave of the pandemic was a source of stress for GPs. The diversity and quantity of information received from the health authorities were among the main sources of stress.

Indexed as

Communicable Disease ControlCOVID-19General PractitionersOccupational ExposureSelf ConceptStress, PsychologicalAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnostic Self EvaluationDisease Transmission, InfectiousFemaleFranceHumansMaleOccupational HealthCOVID-19Cross-sectional surveyGeneral practitionersPandemicsStress

Identifiers

PMID33583410
PMCPMC7882249
OpenAlexW3129766976

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.