ArticleScientific reports2023
Lessons on the COVID-19 pandemic: who are the most affected.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A data-driven typology of individually perceived workplace environments and employee well-being.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing hospital protection measures reduces frontline medical workers' stress during the pandemic.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Public health care staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparison of job demands and work functioning between temporary and permanent staff.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- A longitudinal study on impact of emergency cash transfer payments during the COVID pandemic on coping among Australian young adults.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Experiences of Registered Nurses Providing Care to COVID-19 Patients at Sir Ketumile Masire Teaching Hospital and Sekgoma Memorial Isolation Centre.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant changes in work and lifestyle, impacting occupational mental health. This study examines the time and individual heterogeneity in the pandemic's effects on occupational mental health using panel data from job stress checks spanning 2018 to 2021. On average, there was an initial alleviation of high-stress risk in 2020, followed by a deterioration in 2021. Based on the job demand-resource theory, we identify the group of employees most affected by the pandemic. The findings highlight that employees in unfavorable workplace conditions are more likely to experience substantial adverse impacts. Adequate workplace support, including factors like interpersonal relationships, managerial support, job meaning, control, and work-life balance, is crucial for mitigating high-stress risk. Additionally, during the early phase of the pandemic, engaged employees experienced a slight decline in occupational mental health, while those lacking job resources at their worksite faced higher levels of occupational stress in the subsequent year. These findings offer practical suggestions for person-centered coping strategies to mitigate the pandemic's adverse impact.
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.