Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36786712›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of occupational medicine and environmental health2023

Working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic in primary and tertiary healthcare: a comparative cross-sectional study.

Ida Aulanko, Enni Sanmark, Lotta Oksanen, Sampo Oksanen, Laura Lahdentausta, Anne Kivimäki, Susanna Paju, Milla Pietiäinen, Pirkko Pussinen, Ahmed Geneid

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Ida AulankoHelsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland (COVID19VATEHY Research Group, Head and Neck Center).
Enni SanmarkHelsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland (COVID19VATEHY Research Group, Head and Neck Center).
Lotta OksanenHelsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland (COVID19VATEHY Research Group, Head and Neck Center).
Sampo OksanenAalto University, Helsinki, Finland (School of Business).
Laura LahdentaustaHelsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland (COVID19VATEHY Research Group, Head and Neck Center).
Anne KivimäkiHelsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases).
Susanna PajuHelsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases).
Milla PietiäinenHelsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases).
Pirkko PussinenHelsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases).
Ahmed GeneidHelsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland (COVID19VATEHY Research Group, Head and Neck Center).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has globally affected healthcare workers' (HCWs) health and wellbeing. Most studies on COVID-19 have focused on tertiary healthcare. The aim of this study was to increase the knowledge on the effects of the pandemic on working conditions in tertiary and primary healthcare. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe comparative cross-sectional study consisted of an online questionnaire sent to HCWs of the City of Helsinki (primary healthcare) and Helsinki University Hospital (tertiary healthcare). Altogether 1580 HCWs with direct patient contact participated in the study: 895 from tertiary and 685 from primary healthcare. Statistical analysis used SPSS 25 from IBM. The tests used were the χ2 test, Fisher's exact test, and binary logistic regression analysis.

resultsPrimary HCWs were less likely to treat COVID-19 patients (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.37-0.56). However, both groups reported a similar number of COVID-19 infections, primary HCWs 4.9% and tertiary HCWs 5.0%, and workrelated quarantine was significantly more prevalent (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.38-2.79) among primary HCWs. In addition, work-related wellbeing was poorer among primary HCWs than tertiary HCWs in terms of feeling more stressed at work (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 2.55-4.02), not recovering from work (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39-0.62), reported mental wellbeing below normal levels (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.26-2.00), and increased working hours (OR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.25-2.12).

conclusionsThe study demonstrates how the pandemic has affected the wellbeing and working conditions of not only tertiary but also less studied primary HCWs. The authors' findings suggest that the challenges identified during the COVID-19 pandemic in the health and wellbeing of healthcare workers are even greater in primary care than in tertiary care. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2023;36(1):139-50.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesHealth PersonnelHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Tertiary Health CareWorking ConditionsCOVID-19cross-sectional studieshealth personnelpandemicsSARS-CoV-2surveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36786712
PMCPMC10464802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.