ArticleBMC public health2021
Dynamic monitor on psychological problems of medical aid teams in the context of corona virus disease 2019: a multi-stage and multi-factor quantitative study.
Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment and Evaluation of Influencing Factors and Risk Prediction Model of Severe Neonatal Hyperbilirubinemia Complicated with Acute Bilirubin Encephalopathy.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Effects of Online Psychological Crisis Intervention for Frontline Nurses in COVID-19 Pandemic.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo explore the psychological status and vulnerability characteristics of medical staff with the progress of the epidemic.
methodsThis study investigated the prevalence of mental problems of 2748 medical staff in four stages. The PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire), GAD-7 (Generalized Anxiety Disorder questionnaire), SSS (Somatization Symptom Checklist), Pittsburgh sleep quality index, and PCL-C (Self-rating scale for post-traumatic stress disorder) were used for the psychological evaluation, and univariate logistic standardised analysis, and multivariate logistic regression for data analysis.
resultsThe prevalence of mental problems showed a statistically significant difference. In Stage 1, mild anxiety and mild depression reached the highest value of 41.4 and 40.72% respectively. Between 4 and 17 March that of mild depression rose from 16.07 to 26.7%, and between 17 and 26 March the prevalence of mild anxiety increased from 17.28 to 20.02%. Female, unmarried, and working in Wuhan are the risk factors of mental health of medical staff (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe psychological status of the medical staff has changed dynamically. Stage 1 and the latter period of Stages 2 and 3 are the high-risk stages. Female and unmarried are the dangerous characteristics of psychological vulnerability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.