Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34362188›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021

Prevalence of Depression among Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Beatriz Olaya, María Pérez-Moreno, Juan Bueno-Notivol, Patricia Gracia-García, Isabel Lasheras, Javier Santabárbara

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
12.6field-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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 100 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. Review
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Beatriz OlayaResearch, Innovation and Teaching Unit, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Universitat de Barcelona, 08830 Sant Boi de Llobregat, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2046-3929
María Pérez-MorenoHospitalary Pharmacy Service, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Paseo Isabel la Católica, 1-3, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
Juan Bueno-NotivolPsychiatry Service, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Paseo Isabel la Católica, 1-3, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
Patricia Gracia-GarcíaPsychiatry Service, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Paseo Isabel la Católica, 1-3, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
Isabel LasherasDepartment of Microbiology, Pediatrics, Radiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zaragoza, Building A, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
Javier SantabárbaraCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Ministry of Science and Innovation, 28029 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7297-6104
Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet · ESUniversidad de Zaragoza · ESCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental · ES

Funding

Miguel Servet contract, funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III and co-funded by the European Union (ERDF/ESF, "Investing in your future") CP20/00040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is evidence of a high psychological toll from the COVID-19 pandemic in healthcare workers. This paper was aimed at conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting levels of depression among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 and estimating the pooled prevalence of depression.

methodsWe searched for cross-sectional studies listed on PubMed from 1 December 2019 to 15 September 2020 that reported prevalence of depression in healthcare workers, nurses, medical doctors, and COVID-19 frontline professionals. The pooled proportions of depression were calculated with random effects models.

resultsWe identified 57 studies from seventeen countries. The pooled prevalence of depression in healthcare workers was 24% (95% CI: 20-28%), 25% for nurses (95% CI: 18-33%), 24% for medical doctors (95% CI: 16-31%), and 43% for frontline professionals (95% CI: 28-59%).

conclusionsThe proportion of depression in nurses and medical doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic was similar to that found in the general population as previously reported in other meta-analyses conducted with smaller numbers of studies. Importantly, almost half of the frontline healthcare workers showed increased levels of depression. There is need for a comprehensive, international response to prevent and treat common mental health problems in healthcare workers.

Indexed as

COVID-19depressive symptomsfrontlinemedical doctorsnursespooled prevalence

Identifiers

PMID34362188
PMCPMC8348388
OpenAlexW3192820188

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.