Trial reportBMC health services research2025
Health care worker experiences with a brief peer support and well-being intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04723576 (Mental and Physical Well-Being of Frontline Health Care Workers During Coronavirus Disease 2019), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Mental and Physical Well-Being of Frontline Health Care Workers During Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions to Support the Mental Health of Frontline Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Workplace Mental Health Programs for Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of an Online Continuing Professional Development Course on Physicians' Intention to Approach a Colleague in Difficulty: Mixed Methods Convergent Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Observational
- Strengthening the Culture of Well-Being in Rural Hospitals Through RISE Peer Support.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceHealth care workers (HCW) faced chronic stress during the COVID-19 pandemic and were at high risk of illness, death and burnout.
objectiveTo understand the experiences of and assess the acceptability and usability of the "Stress First Aid" (SFA) intervention for HCWs.
designWe used a mixed methods approach to conduct: (1) a quantitative post-intervention survey of experiences with the SFA intervention within a cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT); and (2) a qualitative descriptive analysis. The intervention was rolled out over three waves from March 2021 - October 2022 simultaneously with the sites' COVID-19 response.
settingOur team engaged and recruited eight pairs of hospitals and six pairs of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), balanced across region, including nine states, and matched on size, type, and COVID-19 burden.
participantsA total of 862 HCWs received the SFA intervention and completed both the pre- and post-intervention surveys (FQHC n = 245 and hospital n = 617). For the qualitative analysis, among HCWs who agreed to be contacted for a post-intervention interview, we purposively sampled a subset of 35 HCWs balanced by site, gender, age, race/ethnicity and HCW type.
interventionSFA is an evidence-informed intervention adapted to mitigate the psychosocial impact of COVID-19 on HCWs through individual peer support actions. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): Quantitative measures are binary indicators of agreement with 6 questions about experiences with the SFA intervention. For the qualitative analysis, we utilized a semi-structured interview protocol to provide additional context on experience with SFA and how SFA affects HCW well-being.
resultsBetween 48.2 and 59.4% of HCWs agreed or strongly agreed that they: found SFA helpful (48.2%), felt comfortable supporting colleagues (59.4%), would recommend SFA (51.2%), and would continue to use SFA principles (57.2%). Non-White HCWs (particularly Black HCWs), those in assistant/technician positions and those who reported attending a greater number of booster sessions were more likely to agree with positive statements about SFA experiences. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Given the continued resurgence of public health emergencies, its lasting effects on HCWs, and related emerging challenges, we expect there to be a continued need for support of patient-facing HCWs. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinical Trials.gov Number: NCT04723576 Registered on 01/22/2021 Clinicaltrials.govNCT04723576.
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.