Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35858867›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Public health emergency and psychological distress among healthcare workers: a scoping review.

Jennifer Palmer, Michael Ku, Hao Wang, Kien Crosse, Alexandria Bennett, Esther Lee, Alexander Simmons, Lauren Duffy, Jessie Montanaro, Khalid Bazaid

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.1field-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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer PalmerCo-Primary Investigator, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Michael KuFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Hao WangFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Kien CrosseFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Alexandria BennettSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Esther LeeFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Alexander SimmonsFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lauren DuffyFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jessie MontanaroFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Khalid BazaidCo-Primary Investigator, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada. khalid.bazaid@theroyal.ca.
University of Ottawa · CARoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPandemics and natural disasters are immensely stressful events for frontline healthcare workers, as they provide patient care to a population undergoing the impacts of the disaster while experiencing such impacts to their personal lives themselves. With increased stressors to an already demanding job, frontline healthcare workers are at a higher risk of adverse effects to their mental health. The current COVID-19 pandemic has already shown to have had significant impact on the mental health of healthcare workers with increased rates of burnout, anxiety and depression. There is already literature showing the utility of individual programs at improving mental health, however, interventions at the organizational level are not well explored. This scoping review aims to provide an overview and determine the utility of a systematic review of the current body of literature assessing the effectiveness of mental health interventions at the organizational level for healthcare workers during or after a public health emergency.

methodsElectronic databases such as Medline on OVID, CENTRAL, PsycINFO on OVID and Embase on OVID were searched. A targeted search of the grey literature was conducted to identify any non-indexed studies. The population, concept and context approach was used to develop the eligibility criteria. Articles were included if (1) they assessed the impact of interventions to improve wellbeing or reduce the distress on healthcare personnel, first responders or military actively providing medical care; (2) provided quantitative or qualitative data with clearly defined outcomes that focused on established mental health indicators or qualitative descriptions on distress and wellbeing, validated scales and workplace indicators; (3) focused on organizational level interventions that occurred in a public health crisis.

resultsThe literature search resulted in 4007 citations and 115 potentially relevant full-text papers. All except 5 were excluded. There were four review articles and one experimental study. There were no other unpublished reports that warranted inclusion.

conclusionsThere is a distinct lack of research examining organizational interventions addressing mental resilience and well-being in healthcare workers in disaster settings. A systematic review in this area would be low yield. There is a clear need for further research in this area.

Indexed as

COVID-19Psychological DistressHealth PersonnelHumansPandemicsPublic HealthHealthcare workersMental healthOrganizational researchPandemicsScoping review

Identifiers

PMID35858867
PMCPMC9299961
OpenAlexW4286009261

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.