








key: cord-323482-kk8iyavj
authors: Muller, Researcher Ashley Elizabeth; Hafstad, Senior advisor Elisabet Vivianne; Himmels, Senior advisor Jan Peter William; Smedslund, Senior researcher Geir; Flottorp, Research director Signe; Stensland, Researcher Synne Øien; Stroobants, Scientific coordinator Stijn; van de Velde, Researcher Stijn; Elisabeth Vist, Senior researcher Gunn
title: The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, and interventions to help them: a rapid systematic review
date: 2020-09-01
journal: Psychiatry Res
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113441
sha: 
doc_id: 323482
cord_uid: kk8iyavj

The covid-19 pandemic has heavily burdened healthcare systems throughout the world. We performed a rapid systematic review to identify, assess and summarize research on the mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on HCWs (healthcare workers). We utilized the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Live map of covid-19 evidence on 11 May and included 59 studies. Six reported on implementing interventions, but none reported on effects of the interventions. HCWs reported low interest in professional help, and greater reliance on social support and contact. Exposure to covid-19 was the most commonly reported correlate of mental health problems, followed by female gender, and worry about infection or about infecting others. Social support correlated with less mental health problems. HCWs reported anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and distress during the covid-19 pandemic. We assessed the certainty of the estimates of prevalence of these symptoms as very low using GRADE. Most studies did not report comparative data on mental health symptoms before the pandemic or in the general population. There seems to be a mismatch between risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among HCWs in the current pandemic, their needs and preferences, and the individual psychopathology focus of current interventions.

The covid-19 pandemic has heavily burdened, and in many cases overwhelmed, healthcare systems 1 ,2 including healthcare workers. The WHO emphasized the extremely high burden on healthcare workers, and called for action to address the immediate needs and measures needed to save lives and prevent a serious impact on physical and mental health of healthcare workers 3 .

Previous viral outbreaks have shown that frontline and non-frontline healthcare workers are at increased risk of infection and other adverse physical health outcomes 4 . Furthermore, healthcare workers reported mental health problems putatively associated with' occupational activities during and up until years after epidemics, including symptoms of post-traumatic stress, burnout, depression and anxiety [5] [6] [7] . Likewise, reports of the mental toll on healthcare workers have persistently appeared during the current global health crisis [8] [9] [10] .

Several reviews have already been conducted on healthcare workers' mental health in the covid-19 pandemic, with search dates up to May 2020. Pappa et al. 11 identified thirteen studies in a search on 17 April 2020 and pooled prevalence rates; they reported that more than one of every five healthcare workers suffered from anxiety and/or depression; nearly two in five reported insomnia. Vindegaard & Benros' 12 review, searching on 10 May 2020, identified twenty studies of healthcare workers in a subgroup analysis, and their narrative summary concluded that healthcare workers generally reported more anxiety, depression, and sleep problems compared with the general population.

In the face of a prolonged crisis such as the pandemic, sustainability of the healthcare response fully relies on its ability to safeguard the health of responders: the healthcare workers 13 ,14 . Yet, the recent findings of psychological distress among healthcare workers might indicate that the healthcare system is currently unable to effectively help the helpers. Understanding the risks and mental health impact(s) that healthcare workers experience, and identifying possible interventions to address adverse effects, is invaluable. Our main aim was to perform an updated and more comprehensive rapid systematic review to identify, assess and summarize available research on the mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, including a) changes over time, b) prevalence of mental health problems and risk/resilience factors, c) strategies and resources used by healthcare providers to protect their own mental health, d) perceived need and preferences for interventions, and e) healthcare workers' understandings of their own mental health during the pandemic. Our second aim was to describe the interventions assessed in the literature to prevent or reduce negative mental health impacts on healthcare workers who are at work during the covid-19 pandemic.

We conducted a rapid systematic review according to the methods specified in our protocol, published on our institution's website 15 .

We included any type of study about any type of healthcare worker during the covid-19 pandemic, with outcomes relating to their mental health. We extracted information about interventions aimed at preventing or reducing negative mental health impacts on healthcare workers; we were therefore interested in quantitative studies examining prevalence of problems and effects of interventions as well as qualitative studies examining experiences. We had no restrictions related to study design, methodological quality, or language.

We identified relevant studies by searching the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's (NIPH's)

Live map of covid-19 evidence (https://www.fhi.no/en/qk/systematic-reviews-hta/map/) and database on 11 May 2020, as described in our protocol 15 . The live map and database contained 20,738 references screened for covid-19 relevance containing primary, secondary, or modelled data. Two researchers independently categorized these references according to topic (seven main topics, 52 subordinate topics), population (41 available groups), study design, and publication type. We identified references categorized to the population "Healthcare workers", and to the topic "Experiences and perceptions, consequences; social, political, economic aspects". In addition, we identified references by searching (title/abstract) in the live map's database, using the keywords: emo*, psych*, stress*, anx*, depr*, mental*, sleep, worry, somatoform, and somatic symptom disorder. We screened all identified references specifically for the inclusion criteria for this systematic review.

The protocol of the Live map of covid-19 evidence describes the methodology of the map and database 16 The last included search for this review was conducted on 11 May 2020. The search strategy is presented in Appendix 1.

We developed a data extraction form to collect data on country and setting, participants, exposure to covid-19, intervention if relevant, and outcomes related to mental health. We extracted data on prevalence of mental health problems as well as correlates (i.e. risk/resilience factors); strategies implemented or accessed by healthcare worker to address their own mental health; perceived need and preferences related to interventions aimed at preventing or reducing negative mental health consequences; and experience and understandings of mental health and related interventions. One researcher (AEM) extracted data and another checked her extraction. Two researchers (AEM, SF/GEV) independently assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR tool 17 and of qualitative studies using the CASP checklist 18 . One researcher (AEM) assessed the quality of cross-sectional studies using either the JBI Prevalence or the JBI Cross-sectional Analytical checklist, and longitudinal studies using the JIBI Cohort checklist 19 . Results of these checklists are presented in Appendix 2 in the standard risk of bias format.

We summarized outcomes narratively. We describe interventions and outcomes based on the information provided in the studies. When studies presented prevalence rates out mental health outcomes in figures without numbers, we extracted numbers using an online software (https://apps.automeris.io/wpd/). We presented mean prevalence rates as box-and-whisker plots. We decided not to perform a quantitative summary of the associations between the various correlates and mental health factors, due to a combination of heterogeneity in assessment measures and lack of control groups, and an overarching lack of descriptions necessary to confirm sufficient homogeneity. Our included studies not only varied greatly from one another, they most often did not report sufficient information regarding inclusion criteria, population, setting, and exposure to assess potential clinical heterogeneity. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation 20 . 

Fifty-nine studies were included. Table 1 displays their summarized characteristics, while Appendix 3 displays characteristics of the individual studies. A total of 54,707 participants were drawn from at least 34 separate countries across the studies (one study reported participants came from 91 countries, but did not specify these). The People's Republic of China was the single most common setting (40 studies and 44,540 participants), followed by Iran (four studies).

Setting was not applicable for the two systematic reviews and the review of online mental health surveys.

The majority of studies (46) were cross-sectional surveys; two studies reported surveys administered twice over time; five were interview studies, of which three were analyzed qualitatively and two quantitatively; and four were other designs, including a case series and a study that searched within a database of existing online surveys. We also identified two systematic reviews 35 ,60 , which included five primary studies 8 ,29 ,42 ,44 ,69 .

The studies reported on healthcare workers working in different settings: 42 studies reported on health care workers in hospitals, two studies were conducted in specialist health services outside hospitals, and three studies in other settings, while 21 studies did not specify the healthcare setting or only partially described multiple settings. No studies reported on nursing homes or primary care settings. In 40 studies, participants were frontline workers, while 26 studies reported on non-frontline workers. Frontline or non-frontline activities were unclear in ten studies.

Six studies reported on interventions to reduce mental health problems.

More than half of the studies included nurses (31) and/or doctors (33) . Study sizes ranged from a case study with three participants to a survey of 11,118 participants. 

Six studies reported on the implementation of interventions to prevent or reduce mental health problems caused by the covid-19 pandemic among healthcare workers. These interventions can be loosely divided into those targeting organizational structures, those facilitating team/collegial support, and those addressing individual complaints or strategies.

Two interventions involved organizational adjustments. The first intervention was reported on by two studies 28 ,37 . Hong et al. 37 called it a "comprehensive psychological intervention" for frontline workers undergoing a mandatory two-week quarantine in a vocational resort, following two-to three-week hospital shifts. The quarantine itself was also described as part of the intervention, explicitly intended "to alleviate worries about the health of one's family". Other elements included shortened shifts; involvement of the labor union to provide support to healthcare workers' families; and a telephone-based hotline that allowed healthcare workers to speak to trained psychiatrists or psychologists. This hotline had already been available to healthcare workers for four hours per week prior to the pandemic, but was made available for twelve hours, seven days a week. Chen et al. 29 reported a second intervention that attempted to address individual complaints and facilitate collegial support. A telephone hotline was set up to provide immediate psychological support, along with a medical team that provided online courses to help healthcare workers handle psychological problems, and group-based activities to release stress. However, uptake was low, and when researchers conducted interviews with the healthcare workers to understand this, healthcare workers reported needing personal protective equipment and rest, not time with a psychologist. They also requested help addressing their patients' psychological distress. In response, the hospital developed more guidance on personal protective equipment, provided a rest space, and provided training on how to address patients' distress.

Schulte et al. 61 targeted collegial support and building individual strategies through one-hour video "support calls" for healthcare workers called in from their homes, to describe the impact of the pandemic on their lives, to reflect on their strengths, and to brainstorm coping strategies.

This intervention was implemented as a response to the hospital redeploying pediatric staff to work as covid-19 frontline staff, and reorganizing pediatric space to accommodate more pediatric and adult covid-19 patients. 

None of the studies that implemented mental health interventions reported on the effects of the interventions on healthcare workers. The only data available to approximate the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of Healthcare workers come from two longitudinal survey studies reporting on changes over time, both of low methodological quality.

Lv et al. 52 surveyed healthcare workers before and during the outbreak, reporting no further information about the timeline. The study included both those working on the frontline and those with unclear exposure to covid-19. However, it is unclear whether respondents were the same at both time points. The prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia increased over time,

whether mild, moderate, moderate to severe, or severe (see Figure 2 ). During the outbreak, one out of every four healthcare workers reported at least mild anxiety, depression, or insomnia.

***Insert Figure 2 about here *** Yuan et al. 73 and an increase in smoking and drinking for only 1%. The proportion reporting improvement was similar for fidgeting, fear, and feeling nervous and uneasy, and more improved in not thinking one can succeed and for a reduction in smoking and drinking.

Two cross-sectional studies reported healthcare workers' self-reported changes in mental health; both were also of low methodological quality due to insufficient reporting. In Benham et al. 24 , twelve Iranian psychiatry residents were re-deployed to work one frontline shift. Half of the residents reported that they experienced more distress after this shift. Abdessater et al. 21 ,22 studied 275 urology residents not working on the frontline. When asked to report the level of stress caused by covid-19, 56% reported a medium to high amount of stress, and the remaining reported none to low. Less than 1% had initiated a psychiatric treatment during the pandemic.

A third cross-sectional study 70 , also of low methodological quality, surveyed 60 healthcare workers in China in February, during the "outbreak period". A different cohort of 60 healthcare workers were surveyed in March, during the "non-epidemic outbreak period". The healthcare workers in to the second phase of the survey reported less symptoms of anxiety and depression, and higher health-related quality of life.

Twenty-nine studies reported prevalence data of mental health variables as proportions or percentages. (Seventeen additional studies reported data as average scores on various instruments, and we did not extract this data.) We present box-and-whisker plots in Figure 3 to

show the distribution of anxiety, depression, distress, and sleeping problems among the healthcare workers investigated in the 29 studies, using the authors' own methods of assessing these outcomes The most commonly reported protective factor associated with reduced risk of mental health problems was having social support 48 ,58 ,69 ,74 . Two studies directly measured self-perceived resilience. Bohlken et al. 25 asked their sample of psychiatrists and neurologists to assess how resilient they were on a Likert scale from 1-5 ("not applicable" to "completely applicable"), and 86% selected the two highest categories. Cai et al. 27 compared experienced frontline workers with inexperienced frontline workers, and found that inexperienced workers scored lower on total resilience on the Connor-David resilience scale as well as within each of three subscales, and had more mental health symptoms. Inexperienced workers were also younger and had less social support available to them.

Ten studies reported that healthcare workers utilized other resources or had individual strategies to address their own mental health during the pandemic, separate from formal interventions.

Six studies reported that healthcare workers utilized support from family/friends during the pandemic. "Family" was the most common stress coping mechanism utilized by Louie et al. Kang et al. 40 found slightly higher levels of interest in professional resources. When asked from whom they prefer to receive "psychological care" or "resources", 40% answered psychologists or psychiatrists, 14% answered family or relatives, 15% answered friends or colleagues, 2% answered others, and 30% said they did not need help. The authors found that the preferred sources of psychological resources were related to the level of psychological distress. In a structural equation model that uncovered clusters of healthcare workers with different distress levels (subthreshold, mild, moderate, and severe), those with moderate and severe distress more often preferred to receive care from psychologists or psychiatrists, while those with subthreshold and mild distress more often preferred to seek care from family or relatives.

In two studies, participants specified that they had a greater need for personal protective equipment than for psychological help. Chung et al. 32 reported this in a survey that allowed healthcare workers to describe their needs and concerns in free text and to request contact with a psychiatric nurse. While 3% requested such contact, nearly half of those who answered the free text question about their psychiatric needs wrote that they needed personal protective equpiment instead, and 20% said they were worried about infection. Chen et al.'s 29 study was to understand why uptake of their psychological intervention was so low, and findings were identical to Chung et al.'s: "Many staff mentioned that they did not need a psychologist, but needed more rest without interruption and enough protective supplies" (p. e15).

Only one study explored how healthcare workers would be willing to provide mental health services to other healthcare workers: twelve psychiatry residents were re-deployed as frontline workers for one shift in Benham et al.'s 24 study. After that shift, none were willing to provide face-to-face mental health services to other healthcare workers, although 75% said they would provide online services. They identified healthcare workers of deceased patients as possible target populations for online services.

Three qualitative studies assessed as valuable were included. Two interconnected themes across all three studies were distress stemming both from concern for infecting family members, and from being aware of family members' concern for the healthcare workers.

Wu et al. 67 explored reasons for stress during interviews with healthcare workers at a psychiatric hospital. While these healthcare workers were not on the frontline, they felt they were at higher risk of exposure than healthcare workers at a general hospital. Their wards were crowded, and several patients were admitted from emergency rooms with aggressive behaviors that made social distancing difficult or that posed direct challenges to healthcare workers' use of personal protective equipment (such as tearing masks). Healthcare workers felt unprepared because psychiatric hospitals had no plans in place. At the same time, they also felt that their peers on the frontline were providing more valuable care. An additional source of stress was knowledge of their own risk of infection and transmission to family members, particular to elderly parents in their care, and to children who were at home and whose schoolwork had to additionally be managed. The disruption of the pandemic to nurses' personal lives and career plans was another stressor.

Sun et al. 65 concern was great enough that several respondents did not tell their family they were working on the frontline, while others did not live at home during this period. As with Wu et al.'s 67 nonfrontline workers, these healthcare workers also reported fear and anxiety of a new infectious disease that they felt unprepared to handle on a hospital-level, unprepared to treat on a patientlevel, and from which they were unable to protect themselves. The first week of training and the first week of actual frontline work was characterized by these negative emotions, which were then joinednot necessarily replacedby more positive emotions such as pride at being a frontline nurse, confidence in the hospital's capacity, and recognition by the hospital.

Yin et al. 72 families, particularly because their families would suffer more financially from needing to be quarantined than they already were suffering under the lockdown; fears of using personal protective equipment incorrectly; and feeling unequipped to handle patients' non-medical needs.

Healthcare workers reported that stigma suppressed patients' provision of accurate travel and quarantine history. This was an issue they were ill-equipped to help patients address when they returned to the community. Healthcare workers also reported that they were stigmatized, because they were potential sources of infection.

This systematic review identified 59 heterogeneous studiesincluding three qualitative, fifty quantitative, two narrative reviews, and four other designsthat examined the mental health of Between one and two of every five healthcare worker reported anxiety, depression, distress, and/or sleep problems. Only one study reported on somatic symptoms such as changes in appetite. Our confidence in these broad estimates, assessed using GRADE, was very low, which leads us to caution that the true prevalence of anxiety, depression, distress, and sleep problems among healthcare workers are likely different than our estimates. At the same time, is also common in interventions for healthcare worker burn-out before the pandemic 83 . The most striking illustration of this was the finding shared by two studies 29 ,32 that healthcare workers said personal protective equipment would benefit their mental health more than professional help.

On the other hand, it is possible that healthcare workers could benefit from professional mental health interventions more than they recognize or report, and that under-recognition is related to occupational culture, or fear of stigma or being perceived as weak 84 . While a variety of countries were represented, four of every five participants were Chinese, and Chinese occupational culture may be a salient mediator of healthcare workers' expressed preferences 85 , although this must be explored further. Health's rigorous methodological standards for systematic reviews, such as two researchers screening and assessing eligibility. An additional methodological strength is our utilization of the Live map of covid-19 evidence, one of the first reviews to do so (see also two reports 88 ,89 and one diagnostic accuracy study 90 ). By using our map, we quickly identified 871 studies that had already been categorized to our topic and population of interest, without having to search in academic databases and screen again.

While not being able to conduct a meta-analysis is unfortunate, it was appropriate not to assume that poorly reported studies were homogenous enough. The principle of homogeneity tends to be overlooked by systematic reviewers eager to produce a summary estimate, but if met, means that all studies included were similar enough that their participants can be considered participants of one large study 91 . The result, however, is that the prevalence data about mental health problems does not provide a summary estimate that can be generalized.

Other weaknesses are those common to rapid reviews due to time pressure, such as fewer details about the included studies' populations being presented than normally reported.

The covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a flood of studies, many of which have been pushed through the peer-review process and published at speeds hitherto unseen (see Glasziou 92 for a discussion). It is therefore not surprising that the majority of our included 59 studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias or being of low methodological quality. Lack of information on samples or procedures was a common limitation, leading to serious implications to the generalizability and validity of findings. We also call on journals and researchers to balance the need for rapid publication with properly conducted studies, reviews and guidelines 93 .

Healthcare workers in a variety of fields, positions, and exposure risks are reporting anxiety, depression, distress, and sleep problems during the covid-19 pandemic. Causes vary, but for those on the frontline in particular, a lack of opportunity to adequately rest and sleep is likely related to extremely high burdens of work, and a lack of personal protective equipment or training may exacerbate mental health impacts. Provision of appropriate personal protective equipment and work rotation schedules to enable adequate rest in the face of long-lasting disasters such as the covid-19 pandemic seem paramount. Over time, many more healthcare workers may struggle with mental health and somatic complaints. The six studies exploring mental health interventions mainly focused on individual approaches, most often requiring healthcare workers to initiate contact. Proactive organizational approaches could be less stigmatizing and more effective, and generating evidence on the efficacy of interventions/strategies of either nature is needed. As the design of most studies was poor, reflecting the urgency of the pandemic, there is also a need to incorporate high-quality research in pandemic preparedness planning. 

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The protocol for this review is available online. No funding was received. 

The Italian health system and the COVID-19 challenge

Critical care crisis and some recommendations during the COVID-19 epidemic in China

COVID 19 Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) Global research and innovation forum: towards a research roadmap

MERS and COVID-19 among healthcare workers: A narrative review

Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among Toronto hospital workers one to two years after the SARS outbreak

Long-term psychological and occupational effects of providing hospital healthcare during SARS outbreak

Mental Health of Nurses Working at a Governmentdesignated Hospital During a MERS-CoV Outbreak: A Cross-sectional Study

Mental health survey of 230 medical staff in a tertiary infectious disease hospital for COVID-19

COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on mental health of healthcare professionals

The experiences of health-care providers during the COVID-19 crisis in China: a qualitative study

Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence

COVID-19 and Italy: what next?

Protect our healthcare workers

The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on mental health of health care workers: protocol for a rapid systematic review

A systematic and living evidence map on COVID-19

AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

CASP checklist for qualitative research

GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables

COVID19 pandemic impacts on anxiety of French urologist in training: Outcomes from a national survey

COVID-19 outbreak situation and its psychological impact among surgeon in training in France

Fear and Practice Modifications among Dentists to Combat Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak

Working in the emergency and inpatient COVID-19 special wards: a different experience for Iranian psychiatric trainees amid the outbreak: Running title: Experience of Iranian psychiatric trainees in COVID-19 special wards

Psychological Impact and Coping Strategies of Frontline Medical Staff in Hunan Between

A cross-sectional study on mental health among health care workers during the outbreak of Corona Virus Disease

A Study of Basic Needs and Psychological Wellbeing of Medical Workers in the Fever Clinic of a Tertiary General Hospital in Beijing during the COVID-19 Outbreak

Mental health care for medical staff in China during the COVID-19 outbreak. The lancet Psychiatry

Prevalence of self-reported depression and anxiety among pediatric medical staff members during the COVID-19 outbreak in Guiyang, China

Multicentre Study on the Psychological Outcomes and Associated Physical Symptoms Amongst Healthcare Workers During COVID-19 Outbreak

Staff Mental Health Self-Assessment During the COVID-19 Outbreak

Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Adults and Their Children in Italy

COVID-19 and paediatric health services: A survey of paediatric physicians in Australia and New Zealand

COVID-19 associated psychiatric symptoms in healthcare workers: viewpoint from internal medicine and psychiatry residents

Psychological Effects of COVID-19 on Hospital Staff: A National Cross-Sectional Survey of China Mainland

The Stress and Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak on Medical Workers at the Fever Clinic of a Tertiary General Hospital in Beijing: A Cross-Sectional Study

Assessment of the Mental Health of Front Line Healthcare Workers in a COVID-19 Epidemic Epicenter of China

Psychological crisis intervention during the outbreak period of new coronavirus pneumonia from experience in Shanghai

Impact on mental health and perceptions of psychological care among medical and nursing staff in Wuhan during the 2019 novel coronavirus disease outbreak: A cross-sectional study

COVID-19-Related Information Sources and Psychological Well-being: An Online Survey Study in Taiwan

Factors Associated With Mental Health Outcomes Among Health Care Workers Exposed to Coronavirus Disease

Psychological impact on women health workers involved in COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan: a cross-sectional study

Vicarious traumatization in the general public, members, and nonmembers of medical teams aiding in COVID-19 control

Screening for Chinese medical staff mental health by SDS and SAS during the outbreak of COVID-19

Psychological Impact and Predisposing Factors of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic on General Public in China

Online mental health services in China during the COVID-19 outbreak. The lancet Psychiatry

Perceived Social Support and Its Impact on Psychological Status and Quality of Life of Medical Staffs After Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Mental Health Status of Doctors and Nurses During COVID-19 Epidemic in China

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Spine Surgeons Worldwide

Psychological status of medical workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study

Anxiety and Depression Survey of Chinese Medical Staff Before and During COVID-19 Defense

Brief Psychotic Disorder Triggered by Fear of Coronavirus?

Work stress among Chinese nurses to support Wuhan for fighting against the COVID-19 epidemic

Issues relevant to mental health promotion in frontline health care providers managing quarantined/isolated COVID19 patients

Evaluation of the Level of Anxiety among Iranian Multiple Sclerosis Fellowships During the Outbreak of COVID-19

Assessment of Iranian nurses′ knowledge and anxiety toward COVID-19 during the current outbreak in Iran

Mental health, risk factors, and social media use during the COVID-19 epidemic and cordon sanitaire among the community and health professionals in Wuhan

Investigation and analysis of the psychological status of the clinical nurses in a class A hospital facing the novel coronavirus pneumonia

COVID-19 and mental health: A review of the existing literature

Addressing Faculty Emotional Responses During the COVID19 Pandemic

Psychological stress of ICU nurses in the time of COVID-19

Emergency Responses to COVID-19 Outbreak: Experiences and Lessons from a General Hospital in Nanjing

Novel Coronavirus and Related Public Health Interventions Are Negatively Impacting Mental Health Services

A Qualitative Study on the Psychological Experience of Caregivers of COVID-19 Patients

Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers in Singapore

Stressors of nurses in psychiatric hospitals during the COVID-19 outbreak

Psychological stress of medical staffs during outbreak of COVID-19 and adjustment strategy

The Effects of Social Support on Sleep Quality of Medical Staff Treating Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in January and February 2020 in China

Psychological status of surgical staff during the COVID-19 outbreak

Symptom Cluster of ICU nurses treating COVID-19 pneumonia patients in Wuhan

A study on the psychological needs of nurses caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 from the perspective of the existence, relatedness, and growth theory

Comparison of the Indicators of Psychological Stress in the Population of Hubei Province and Non-Endemic Provinces in China During Two Weeks During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in February 2020

Survey of Insomnia and Related Social Psychological Factors Among Medical Staffs Involved with the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak

At the height of the storm: Healthcare staff's health conditions and job satisfaction and their associated predictors during the epidemic peak of COVID-19

Mental Health and Psychosocial Problems of Medical Health Workers during the COVID-19 Epidemic in China

Prevalence and Influencing Factors of Anxiety and Depression Symptoms in the First-Line Medical Staff Fighting Against the COVID-19 in Gansu

The immediate mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic among people with or without quarantine managements

Impact of coronavirus syndromes on physical and mental health of health care workers: Systematic review and meta-analysis

The sleep-deprived human brain

Job Decision Latitude, Job Demands, and Cardiovascular Disease: A Prospective Study of Swedish Men

Health workforce burn-out

Systematic literature review of psychological interventions for first responders

Stigmatizing Attitudes Towards Mental Disorders Among Non-Mental Health Professionals in Six General Hospitals in Hunan Province

Occurrence, prevention, and management of the psychological effects of emerging virus outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review and meta-analysis

Factors affecting mental health of health care workers during coronavirus disease outbreaks: a rapid systematic review

Should healthcare personnel in nursing homes without respiratory symptoms wear facemasks for primary prevention of COVID-19? -a rapid review

Social and economic vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

Mixed and Indirect Treatment Comparisons. Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making in Healthcare

Waste in covid-19 research

Using GRADE in situations of emergencies and urgencies: Certainty in evidence and recommendations matters during the COVID-19 pandemic, now more than ever and no matter what



