ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and a SARS-CoV-2 testing programme on obstetric patients and healthcare workers.
Article in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Canadian healthcare workforce: a rapid evidence synthesis of key considerations, lessons learned, and promising practices to address the healthcare workforce crisis.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza: similarities and disparities.Archives of virology · 2022Article
- Maternal Health Considerations: Highlighting and advancing opportunities for improved maternal health.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to describe the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the specific impact of a universal SARS-CoV-2 testing programme on obstetric patients and healthcare workers at The Ottawa Hospital.
methodsThis was a follow-up survey study of obstetric healthcare workers and then-pregnant patients who participated in a SARS-CoV-2 testing programme conducted in The Ottawa Hospital obstetrical triage units from 19 October to 17 November 2020. Surveys explored the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the testing programme on participants' psychological well-being. Responses were collected from April to September 2021. Descriptive summary statistics were calculated for both groups.
resultsDuring hospitalization for delivery, obstetric patients (n = 143) worried about giving COVID-19 to their new baby (88.11%), catching COVID-19 (83.22%), and giving COVID-19 to their partner (76.22%). Patients felt relief at being tested for COVID-19 during the universal testing programme (24.65%) and at getting their results (28.87%). Patients also believed that universal SARS-CoV-2 testing was a good way to slow COVID-19 spread (79.72%), reduce anxiety (75.52%), and increase relief (76.22%). In addition, patients felt good about participating in research that could help others (91.61%). Among obstetric healthcare workers (n = 94), job satisfaction decreased and job stress increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The universal testing programme led to minor increases in healthcare worker job stress and burden, particularly among nurses, but the majority (85.23%) believed it was a valuable research initiative.
conclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative psychological impact on obstetric patients and healthcare workers. Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing was generally viewed favourably and may serve as an effective strategy for estimating COVID-19 prevalence without adding undue stress onto patients and healthcare workers during the pandemic.
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.