ArticleBMJ open2023
Effects of working in vulnerable contexts on the mental health of primary healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder risk post-COVID-19 in 12 countries in Latin America: a cross-sectional survey.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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is to analyse the relationship and psychosocial issues between working during the COVID-19 pandemic in primary healthcare (PHC) facilities located in the most vulnerable health region (HR) of the Federal District of Brazil (FDB) compared with a lesser region.
designMixed-method study data. The questionnaire was based on the World Health Survey and the Convid Behavioural Survey. Quantitative data were described in absolute and relative frequency. Pearson's χ
settingA representative sample of PHC professionals working at the Western HR and Central HR of the FDB.
participants111 women and 27 male PHC professionals, aged ≥ 18 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Psychosocial variables-personal emotions towards the clients, social relationships and use of psychoactive substances (PAS).
interventionAn online questionnaire (27 questions) and 1 open-ended question.
resultsThe sample comprised 138 PHC professionals; 80.40% were female aged between 40 and 49 years old (27.3%); declared themselves as black/pardo (58.7%); were married (53.60%), and worked in family healthcare teams (47.80%). No association between working in the most vulnerable HR compared with the least one and presenting psychosocial issues, except for anger towards clients (p=0.043). 55.10% worked much more than usual, 60.80% reported being depressed, 78.20% anxious, 76.80% stressed, 77.50% had no empathy and 78.30% felt isolated from family/friends. Towards the clients, 59.40% reported empathy and 72.5% no affection/care. The consume of psychotropic medications was reported by 34.80%, and 14.50% increased alcohol/PAS use. Qualitative data leverage quantitative findings: work overload, the indifference of the Federal Government and distance from family/friends.
conclusionWorking in the most vulnerable region and in the least one affects the psychosocial aspects of the PHC professionals equally.
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.