ArticleBMC psychology2025
Anxiety, depression, and their associations with COVID-19-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices among healthcare professionals: a multinational cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the levels of anxiety and depression (A&D) and the association with knowledge, attitudes, and practices among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Taiwan, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
methodsA multinational cross-sectional survey was performed to collect data from 3,556 HCPs through online platforms. The Likert scale questionnaire covered sociodemographic factors, work-related information, and COVID-19-related domains, including knowledge, attitudes, practices, working conditions and availability of personal protective equipment, changes in work and life routines due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and experiences of A&D. Multiple logistic regression models were used to evaluate the potential impact of the aforementioned domains on the levels of A&D across and between countries.
resultsDistinct A&D profiles emerged among the three countries. Taiwan exhibited higher A&D scores (average 2.31) than Vietnam (1.61) and Indonesia (1.93) (p < 0.001). Taiwan also showed elevated knowledge and attitudes scores. Consistent patterns were observed in responses on practices, working conditions, and pandemic impact on daily routines. Multivariate analysis showed that higher knowledge and attitudes scores were significantly associated with reduced A&D risk in Taiwan. Experiencing the greatest changes in work and daily routines was strongly linked to higher A&D risk, with adjusted odds ratios of 3.64 (95% CI: 1.41-9.45) in Indonesia, 4.13 (95% CI: 2.96-5.75) in Taiwan, and 5.14 (95% CI: 3.18-8.31) in Vietnam. Further analysis revealed that factors such as transportation, work dynamics, family time, dietary habits, and income level, but not leisure time, had varying impacts on A&D across the three countries.
conclusionA&D and COVID-19-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices vary across countries. Thus, personalized support mechanisms and interventions are needed to address the diverse needs of HCPs within specific policy and country contexts.
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.