ArticlePeerJ2023
Change in depression during the COVID-19 pandemic among healthcare providers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased mental health problems among healthcare workers globally. However, studies from low- and middle-income countries on this matter were minimal. This study assessed the change in depression prevalence during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated factors among healthcare providers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Methods: We conducted surveys among healthcare workers in Addis Ababa at two-time points, September 2020 and October 2021. A total of 577 study participants were randomly selected based on registers obtained from professional associations. Computer-assisted telephone interviewing technique was used for data collection. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was used to screen for depression. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify potential factors associated with depression. Result: The prevalence of depression among healthcare workers was 2.3% (95% CI [1.1-4.8]) in Time 1 and 6.5% (95% CI [4.1-10.1]) in Time 2; nearly a three-fold increase in Time 2 compared to Time 1. The most frequently reported symptoms at both times based on the PHQ-9 item were having poor energy, sleep problem, and anhedonia, while reported suicidal ideation was less than 5%. Depression showed a positive and significant association with a positive COVID-19 test result (AOR 7.25 95% CI [1.32-39.4]) in Time 1, and with being a female healthcare provider (AOR 3.96 95% CI [1.08-14.51]) and lack of COVID-19 related policy or guidelines at the workplace (AOR 3.22 95% CI [1.11-9.35]) in Time 2. Conclusion: The prevalence of depression among healthcare workers tripled during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Panic reaction to positive COVID-19 test result seems to have a negative effect at the beginning while lack of disease-specific prevention guidelines and comprehensive psychological interventions for healthcare providers had an adverse effect on the mental health of health workers.
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.