42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of hospital staff: An umbrella review of 44 meta-analyses

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Background

          Hospital staff is at high risk of developing mental health issues during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the literature lacks an overall and inclusive picture of mental health problems with comprehensive analysis among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

          Objectives

          To ascertain the prevalence of anxiety, depression and other mental health outcomes as reported in original articles among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

          Design

          A PRISMA 2020 and MOOSE 2000 compliant umbrella review of published meta-analyses of observational studies evaluating the prevalence of mental health problems in hospital staff during the pandemic.

          Review methods

          Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from December 1st, 2019, until August 13th 2021. The random effects model was used for the meta-analysis, and the I 2 index was employed to assess between-study heterogeneity. Publication bias using Egger test and LFK index was examined. Data was analyzed using STATA 17.0 software. AMSTAR-2 was applied for the quality assessment of systematic reviews, while we used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence.

          Results

          Forty-four meta-analyses from 1298 individual studies were included in the final analysis, encompassing the prevalence of 16 mental health symptoms. One-third of hospital workers reported anxiety (Prevalence: 29.9%, 95% CI:27.1% to 32.7%) and depression (Prevalence:28.4%, 95% CI:25.5% to 31.3%) symptomatology, while about 40% (95% CI: 36.9% to 42.0%) suffered from sleeping disorders. Fear-related symptoms, reduced well-being, poor quality of life, and acute stress symptoms had the highest prevalence among hospital staff. However, the quality of evidence in these areas varied from low to very low. Nurses suffered more often from sleep problems and symptoms of anxiety and depression than doctors, whereas doctors reported a higher prevalence of acute stress and post-traumatic disorders. The burden of anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders was higher among female employees than their male counterparts. Remarkably, acute stress and insomnia affected more than half of first-line medical staff.

          Conclusions

          The prevalence of mental health problems among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic is generally high, with anxiety, depression and insomnia symptoms representing the most robust evidence based on a large dataset of prevalence meta-analyses. However, there is no strong confidence in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.

          Registration

          Not registered.

          Tweetable abstract

          The COVID-19 pandemic is having a major impact on the mental health of hospital staff. The need for support must be different for nurses and doctors @eldi12345.

          Related collections

          Most cited references84

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

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

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

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

            The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

              Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Nurs Stud
                Int J Nurs Stud
                International Journal of Nursing Studies
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                0020-7489
                1873-491X
                27 April 2022
                27 April 2022
                : 104272
                Affiliations
                [a ]Pain and Rehabilitation Centre, and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
                [b ]Research Laboratory Psychology of Patients, Families & Health Professionals, Department of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, 45500, Greece
                [c ]Department of Emergency Medicine, 'Hippokration' Hospital, Athens, Greece
                [d ]Department of Education and Social Work, University of Patras, Greece
                [e ]Research Laboratory Integrated Care, Health & Well-being, Department of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, 45500, Greece
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Pain and Rehabilitation Centre, and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
                [1]

                Elena Dragioti and Dimitrios Tsartsalis made equal contributions to this manuscript.

                Article
                S0020-7489(22)00101-8 104272
                10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104272
                9045868
                35576637
                9187db06-8962-4103-b991-1c5b576dfcda
                © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 29 October 2021
                : 22 March 2022
                : 21 April 2022
                Categories
                Article

                Nursing
                covid-19,mental health,systematic review,meta-analysis,prevalence,hospital staff,doctors,nurses,health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article