ArticleDiscover mental health2025
A cross-sectional study on the comparison of psychological impact among medical staff before and after COVID-19.
Article in Discover mental health, 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
introductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the mental health of medical workers worldwide. While extensive research has investigated pandemic-related mental health challenges, longitudinal analyses of temporal trends remain scarce. This study employs a cross-sectional design to compare mental health outcomes among medical workers in Beijing's Mobile Cabin Hospitals during the Early-Pandemic Era (2020) and Post-Pandemic Era (2022), with a focus on occupational disparities.
methodsThis study utilized a cross-sectional design to compare mental health outcomes among medical workers in Beijing's Mobile Cabin Hospitals during two distinct pandemic phases. Data were collected through anonymized online surveys administered via Wenjuanxing. The questionnaire comprised three domains: demographic characteristics, professional roles within departments and the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Emotional distress was operationally defined as a GHQ-12 total score ≥ 4.
resultsComparative analysis revealed a significant deterioration in mental health outcomes among medical workers during the Post-Pandemic Era compared to the Early-Pandemic Era. The prevalence of emotional distress (GHQ-12 ≥ 4) remained elevated across specific subgroups: medical workers aged 30-39 years, married, working as doctors and other professionals. Statistically significant interphase differences emerged in vulnerable populations, including female (P < 0.001), unmarried (P = 0.004), worked with nurses (P = 0.003) and other professionals (P = 0.021), and aged less than 40 years (< 30 years old, P = 0.009; 30-39 years old, P = 0.021). Qualitative symptom profiling indicated that more people reported clinically meaningful manifestations of psychological distress, characterized by depressive symptoms, anxiety, diminished self-worth, and impaired coping capacity during adversity.
conclusionThe cumulative burden of prolonged pandemic has demonstrably exacerbated mental health deterioration among medical workers. These findings underscore the critical need to sustainably safeguard the mental health of medical workers in future public health crises.
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.