SynthesisOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2026
Healthcare worker fatigue during COVID-19, SARS, and MERS: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe physical and psychological impact of caring for patients during a coronavirus public health emergency had adverse effects on healthcare workers (HCW), including fatigue.
aimsTo examine the prevalence of fatigue among HCW during severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) or Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) and identify associated risk and protective factors.
methodsSystematic searches of Embase, PsycINFO, Ovid-MEDLINE, CINAHL, HMIC and the Cochrane Library were conducted to July 2024. Inclusion criteria were English-language quantitative reports of fatigue in HCW during COVID-19, SARS and MERS. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate pooled prevalence. Subgroup analyses examined fatigue by role, frontline status and personal protective equipment (PPE).
resultsEighty-eight articles (n = 74 914) met our inclusion criteria; 32 were eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of fatigue was 55% (95% CI 46-65%, k = 32). Mental fatigue was reported by 58% (95% CI 17-90%, k = 4), while 53% (95% CI 38-67%, k = 11) experienced fatigue related to PPE use. No significant differences were observed between doctors and nurses (P = 0.327) or frontline and non-frontline staff (P = 0.103). Risk factors included stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, workload and extended working hours, while resilience, self-efficacy and sufficient rest were protective. Substantial heterogeneity (I2 ∼99%) and reliance on cross-sectional designs limited causal inference.
conclusionsOur study indicated that over half of HCW reported fatigue and highlighted its multifactorial nature. Organizational-level interventions, such as optimized shift patterns, mandated rest breaks and psychological support are essential to mitigate fatigue, safeguard wellbeing and ensure safe healthcare provision.
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.