Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34982281›Full record

ArticlePsicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS2022

Psychological demands of health professionals in the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Miryam Cristina Mazieiro Vergueiro da Silva, Bruno Ioschpe, Fernanda Santos Diniz, Graça Maria Ramos de Oliveira, Fabiana Saffi, Amanda Rafaella Abreu Soares, Cristiana Castanho de Almeida Rocca, Antonio de Pádua Serafim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 50% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Miryam Cristina Mazieiro Vergueiro da SilvaDepartment and Institute of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Bruno IoschpeDepartment and Institute of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Fernanda Santos DinizDepartment and Institute of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Graça Maria Ramos de OliveiraDepartment and Institute of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Fabiana SaffiDepartment and Institute of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Amanda Rafaella Abreu SoaresDepartment and Institute of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Cristiana Castanho de Almeida RoccaDepartment and Institute of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Antonio de Pádua SerafimDepartment and Institute of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. a.serafim@hc.fm.usp.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0676-1500
Universidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent literature emphasizes how the specific stressors of the COVID-19 outbreak affect the general population and frontline professionals, including those conducting support or backup activities in health units, which can lead to vicarious traumatization. Vicarious traumatization has been used to describe negative emotional reactions in mental health professionals who assist or treat victims of traumatic events. Thus, the aim of this article is to report the actions used in the face of the psychological demands of professionals in a hospital, who were not on the frontline of COVID-19. We collected their sociodemographic information and checked the psychological impact using the depression, anxiety, and stress scale (DASS-21), which was followed by a psychoeducational program (topics related to COVID-19 control and prevention), and individual psychological care for the most severe cases. A total of 118 professionals participated in this study; they were between 20 and 67 years old. Mild to moderate anxiety was observed in 36.5% of the medical teams, 83.3% of the administrative staff, and 65.7% of general service workers, while stress symptoms were observed in 80.2%, 83.3%, and 59.9%, respectively. Depressive symptoms (35.3%) were more frequent in general service workers. The medical teams reported the benefits of primary psychological care, while the other professionals demanded more institutional support services related to the prevention and use of personal protective equipment. This study highlights relevant psychological demands that have repercussions on the daily lives of professionals. The psychoeducational program was considered positive regarding clarification actions. However, it was not perceived as effective in reducing fear, which may result from vicarious traumatization and requires other intervention modalities.

Indexed as

COVID-19Mental healthPandemicPsychoeducationPsychological impact

Identifiers

PMID34982281
PMCPMC8724226
OpenAlexW4205824428

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.