39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Scoping Review of Psychosocial Risks to Health Workers during the Covid-19 Pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed health workers to a diverse set of hazards impacting their physical, psychological and social wellbeing. This review aims to provide an overview of the categories of the psychosocial risk factors and hazards affecting HCWs during the Covid-19 pandemic and the recommendations for prevention. We used the scoping review methodology to collate categories of psychosocial risks, the related health outcomes, interventions, and data gaps. The review was conducted on global peer-reviewed academic and authoritative grey literature, published between 1. January–26. October 2020; in total, 220 articles were included into the review and the subsequent analysis. Analysis of the extracted data found PSRs related to four sources: personal protective equipment (PPE), job content, work organisation, and social context. is. Women health workers and nurses reported worst health outcomes. Majority of the research to date concerns health workers in secondary care, while data on psychosocial risks at primary and community-based settings are scarce. However, the emerging research implies that the pandemic creates psychosocial risks also to non-clinical health workers. The intervention and mitigation measures address individual and organisational levels. Preventative and mitigating measures for social and societal risks—such as staff shortages, intersecting inequalities, and financial stressors require further research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references132

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Understanding and Addressing Sources of Anxiety Among Health Care Professionals During the COVID-19 Pandemic

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                02 March 2021
                March 2021
                : 18
                : 5
                : 2453
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Occupational Safety & Health and Working Conditions Unit, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), Boulevard du Roi Albert II, 1210 Brussels, Belgium
                [2 ]Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; ag2192@ 123456medschl.cam.ac.uk
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: pfranklinl@ 123456etui.org ; Tel.: +32-477-411-910
                Article
                ijerph-18-02453
                10.3390/ijerph18052453
                7967576
                33801517
                4797beb5-3096-4f16-9b20-d2a2087afb05
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 29 January 2021
                : 25 February 2021
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                healthcare workers,occupational health,psychosocial risks,scoping review,covid-19
                Public health
                healthcare workers, occupational health, psychosocial risks, scoping review, covid-19

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content587

                Cited by39

                Most referenced authors1,606