ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparison of mental health indicators in clinical psychologists with the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Burdens and resources of Austrian clinical psychologists: results of a qualitative study two years into the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Psychological Preparedness of Psychologists during the COVID-19 Emergency: Are There Any Individual Differences?Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Prevalence of mental health symptoms and potential risk factors among Austrian psychotherapists.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work of clinical psychologists in Austria: results of a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Understanding pandemic resilience: a mixed-methods exploration of burdens, resources, and determinants of good or poor well-being among Austrian psychotherapists.Frontiers in public health · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental healthcare professionals face diverse challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may augment their risk of experiencing adverse mental health outcomes themselves. We aimed to compare depressive, anxiety, insomnia, and stress symptoms in Austrian clinical psychologists during the COVID-19 pandemic with the Austrian general population. A total of N = 172 Austrian clinical psychologists (91.9% women; mean age: 44.90 ± 7.97 years) participated in an online survey in spring 2022. A representative sample (N = 1011) of the Austrian general population was surveyed simultaneously. Symptoms of depression (PHQ-2), anxiety (GAD-2), insomnia (ISI-2), and stress (PSS-10) were assessed. Differences in the prevalence of clinically relevant symptoms were analyzed using univariate (Chi-squared tests) and multivariable (binary logistic regression including covariates age and gender) analyses. Clinical psychologists showed lower adjusted odds for exceeding the cut-offs for clinically relevant depression (aOR 0.37), anxiety (aOR 0.50), and moderate to high stress levels (aOR 0.31) compared to the general population (p < 0.01). No difference was observed for insomnia (aOR 0.92; p = 0.79). In conclusion, clinical psychologists experience better mental health than the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies are needed to analyze the underlying reasons.
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.