Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38479744›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Would've, could've, should've: a cross-sectional investigation of whether and how healthcare staff's working conditions and mental health symptoms have changed throughout 3 pandemic years.

Julia Reiter, Stephan Weibelzahl, Gesa S Duden

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Julia ReiterDepartment of Occupational, Economic, and Social Psychology, University of Vienna, Wien, Austria julia.reiter@univie.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0002-7451-9441
Stephan WeibelzahlDepartment of Psychology, PFH Private University of Applied Sciences, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5919-6552
Gesa S DudenDepartment of Community Psychology, FernUniversitat in Hagen, Hagen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3196-0755
FernUniversität in Hagen · DEPFH Private University of Applied Sciences · DEUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMental health and well-being of healthcare staff were majorly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Little attention has been devoted to the role employers could choose to play in mitigating long-term negative consequences and how effective organisational measures taken were perceived by the individual healthcare workers. This study aims to investigate (1) whether and how healthcare professionals' mental health has changed from the second to the third pandemic year, (2) whether differences between professional groups (physicians, nurses, paramedics) identified in previous studies persisted and (3) how job demands and resources, for example, work culture and employers' measures, impacted this situation.

designThe study employs an observational, cross-sectional design, using an online survey. SETTING AND

participantsThe study was conducted online from mid-June to mid-August 2022 among healthcare staff in state-run and private healthcare facilities, such as doctor's practices, hospitals and paramedic organisations, in Germany and Austria (n=421). OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured psychological strain using an ICD-10-based symptom checklist, as well as subjective strain and importance of stressors using self-report questions. The ICD-10 was the 10th version of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, a widely used standardized diagnostic manual.

resultsPsychological strain stayed relatively consistent, with nursing staff suffering the most. While the job demands participants felt most affected by were structural issues (eg, staff shortages), employers were far more likely to be perceived as taking action against pandemic-specific job demands (eg, lack of protective gear). Psychological strain was lowest when staff perceived employers' actions as effective. Only 60% of those with severe enough symptoms to require psychological help had intentions of seeking such help, which is in line with past studies. This help-seeking hesitancy was also dependent on different facets of perceived work culture.

conclusionsHealthcare staff and nursing staff in particular continue to suffer in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, while employers were perceived as taking action against pandemic-specific job demands, pre-existing job demands causing stress and psychological strain for staff have remained uncombatted.

Indexed as

COVID-19Occupational StressCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMental HealthPandemicsSurveys and QuestionnairesWorking ConditionsMENTAL HEALTHOccupational StressOrganisation of health servicesQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID38479744
PMCPMC10936481
OpenAlexW4392768239

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.