Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34020974›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Addressing the psychological impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers: learning from a systematic review of early interventions for frontline responders.

Jasmine Jean Hooper, Lisa Saulsman, Tammy Hall, Flavie Waters

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Stress and Anxiety Among Correctional Health Care Professionals in a U.S. State Prison System During COVID-19.Journal of correctional health care : the official journal of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Psychiatric Issues Among Health Professionals.The Medical clinics of North America · 2023
    Review
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

4 authors.

Jasmine Jean HooperSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia jasminejhooper@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2134-1085
Lisa SaulsmanSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.
Tammy HallClinical Research Centre Gascoyne House, West Wing, Graylands Hospital, Mount Claremont, Western Australia, Australia.
Flavie WatersSchool of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesProtecting healthcare workers from psychological harm is an urgent clinical issue within the current COVID-19 pandemic. Research on early psychological programmes that aim to prevent or reduce mental health symptoms and that have been tested in frontline responders may assist service providers with choosing a suitable intervention for rapid dissemination in healthcare settings. DESIGN AND OUTCOME MEASURES: First, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were searched through a systematic literature review of early psychological interventions administered to frontline responders in the last 15 years. Interventions were included if they were designed to prevent or reduce psychological impact and had outcome measures of psychological distress (eg, general psychopathology, post-traumatic stress disorder and stress) and/or positive mental health domains (eg, resilience, self-efficacy and life satisfaction). Second, the suitability of these programmes for the healthcare workforce was evaluated according to the criteria of effectiveness, content applicability and feasibility.

resultsOf 320 articles retrieved, 12 relevant studies were included that described six early psychological interventions. Although the evidence base is limited, psychological first aid, eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing, and trauma risk management showed effectiveness across at least two studies each with frontline workers. Resilience and coping for the healthcare community; anticipate, plan, and deter; and resilience at work programmes found promising results in single studies. Concerning other suitability criteria, all programmes appear applicable to healthcare settings and have acceptable feasibility for rapid implementation.

conclusionsDespite the limited evidence, several interventions were identified as potentially suitable and useful for improving psychological functioning of healthcare workers across a variety of disaster situations. Service providers should continue to implement and evaluate early psychological interventions in frontline workers in order to refine best practices for managing the psychological impact of future disasters.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHealth PersonnelHumansMental HealthSARS-CoV-2COVID-19health policymental health

Identifiers

PMID34020974
PMCPMC8142676

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.