ArticlePloS one2021
The major worldwide stress of healthcare professionals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic - the international COVISTRESS survey.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Individualized Sensory-Based mHealth Interventions to Improve Distress Coping in Healthcare Professionals: A Multi-Arm Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Trial.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Trial
- Implementation of a Web-Based Resilience Enhancement Training for Nurses: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Stress, Resilience, and Sense of Coherence in Healthcare Professionals.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Telework perceptions in hospital workers throughout the COVID-19 pandemic-the ADAPTAWORK2 study.European journal of public health · 2026Observational
- Work-life balance and work engagement: the mediating role of work frustration.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Validation of visual analogue scales to assess occupational stress compared to the Karasek questionnaire: A cross sectional study.PloS one · 2026Observational
- Investigating Factors Associated with Employees' Attitudes Towards Work-Related Infection Control Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study from Seven Different Companies in Germany, July-August 2021.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- "Coping self-efficacy scale" evaluation of the Turkish validity and reliability of the scale.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Impact of Teleworking on Work-Related and Home-Related Stress at During the First Global Lockdown-The International COVISTRESS Study.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Preliminary Assessment of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms Among Emergency Medicine Physicians During the COVID-19 Outbreak.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025Article
- Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Life (MBCT-L) Versus Stress Reduction Psychoeducation (SRP) for the Improvement of Mental Well-Being in Health Care and Other Public Sector Staff: Protocol for the Well at Work Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Article
- Resilience, Anger, and Insomnia in Nurses after the End of the Pandemic Crisis.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Differences in Physician Burnout by Specialty: A Cross-Sectional Survey.The Permanente journal · 2024Article
- Stress of conscience in healthcare in turbulent times: A longitudinal study.Nursing ethics · 2024Article
- Factors affecting implementation of mindfulness in hospital settings: A qualitative meta-synthesis of healthcare professionals' experiences.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024Review
- Workforce wellbeing centres and their positive role for wellbeing and presenteeism in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: secondary analysis of COVID-Well data.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Perceived Stress Among Nurses at a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital in Saudi Arabia During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Cureus · 2024Article
- Occupational stress profiles of prehospital and clinical staff in emergency medicine-a cross-sectional baseline study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-national doctors in Ireland.Irish journal of medical science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 11 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has initiated an upheaval in society and has been the cause of considerable stress during this period. Healthcare professionals have been on the front line during this health crisis, particularly paramedical staff. The aim of this study was to assess the high level of stress of healthcare workers during the first wave of the pandemic. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe COVISTRESS international study is a questionnaire disseminated online collecting demographic and stress-related data over the globe, during the pandemic. Stress levels were evaluated using non-calibrated visual analog scale, from 0 (no stress) to 100 (maximal stress).
resultsAmong the 13,537 individuals from 44 countries who completed the survey from January to June 2020, we included 10,051 workers (including 1379 healthcare workers, 631 medical doctors and 748 paramedical staff). The stress levels during the first wave of the pandemic were 57.8 ± 33 in the whole cohort, 65.3 ± 29.1 in medical doctors, and 73.6 ± 27.7 in paramedical staff. Healthcare professionals and especially paramedical staff had the highest levels of stress (p < 0.001 vs non-healthcare workers). Across all occupational categories, women had systematically significantly higher levels of work-related stress than men (p < 0.001). There was a negative correlation between age and stress level (r = -0.098, p < 0.001). Healthcare professionals demonstrated an increased risk of very-high stress levels (>80) compared to other workers (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.87-2.41). Paramedical staff risk for very-high levels of stress was higher than doctors' (1.88, 1.50-2.34). The risk of high levels of stress also increased in women (1.83, 1.61-2.09; p < 0.001 vs. men) and in people aged <50 (1.45, 1.26-1.66; p < 0.001 vs. aged >50).
conclusionsThe first wave of the pandemic was a major stressful event for healthcare workers, especially paramedical staff. Among individuals, women were the most at risk while age was a protective factor.
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.