ReviewDiscover mental health2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis of depressive symptoms and work-ralated psychoacial factors among healthcare workers.
Review in Discover mental health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies that synthesised the pooled prevalence of depressive symptoms and work-related psycho-social factors among HCWs exposed to these factors are scarce. Therefore, this review aimed to synthesise information on pooled prevalence and association with work-related psychosocial factors with depressive symptoms in healthcare workers. DATA SOURCES: Observational studies reporting prevalence and measures of effect sizes for work-related psychosocial factors of depressive symptoms were searched from PubMed, Scopus, CINHAL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Psychology and Behavioural Sciences. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Primary studies that reported prevalence of depressive symptoms and effect sizes for work-related psychosocial factors (job-strain, workplace social support, effort reward ratio, and overcommitment were included in the review.
participantsHealthcare workers.
methodsThe random-effects model was used due to significant anticipated heterogeneity. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Cochran’s Q test and quantified using the I2 statistic. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots, Egger’s and Begg’s test.
resultsThirty-one studies with 57,847 participants were included in the review. The pooled prevalence of depressive symptoms was 30.9% (95% CI 22.7–40.6%) with significant heterogeneity of I-Squared = 99.6% with p-value < 0.001. Those healthcare workers who perceived effort-reward imbalance (ERR > 1) had higher odds of experiencing depressive symptoms (pOR 4.11, 95% CI 2.93, 5.77). Similarly, over-commitment (pOR 2.88, 95% CI 1.87, 4.44), higher job strain (pOR 2.47, 95% CI 1.60, 3.80), and lower social support (pOR 2.36, 95% CI 1.58–3.51) were associated with higher odds of depressive symptoms.
conclusionsThe review highlights the need to consider workplace interventions that may reduce depressive symptoms among HCWs and enhance rewards, optimising commitments, reducing job strain and improving social support in healthcare settings. Future longitudinal studies and intervention studies for low-income countries are required to establish causal relationships.
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.