For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
22
views
36
references
 Top references
cited by
56
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      338
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Healthcare Workers’ Burdens During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Systematic Review

      review-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

          The global healthcare system is continuing to confront major challenges during the current COVID-19 pandemic, with the second wave the deadliest one to date. This study aimed to identify and explore the challenges and burdens of frontline healthcare workers during the current pandemic, and to help prepare workforce support plans for them now and in the future.

          Methods

          A qualitative systematic review method involving thematic synthesis without meta-analysis was used to analyze relevant studies from five databases from November 2020 to February 2021: MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL Complete, Embase through Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Qualitative Research Checklist appraisal tools. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The informants are healthcare workers working at the frontlines and providing care to COVID-19 patients.

          Results

          Ten studies revealed the burden of healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic, with having the related challenges experienced by 498 participants (doctors, nurses, pediatric nurses, paramedical staff, support staff, and physiotherapists). Our findings fell into four main themes as follows: inadequate preparedness; emotional challenges; insufficient equipment and information; and work burnout.

          Conclusion

          The study results demonstrate that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on all aspects of life, especially for healthcare providers, who work on the frontlines. The pandemic has affected the frontline workers’ physical and psychological health, causing them to experience emotional distress such as fear, anxiety, depression, and stress. In addition, the pandemic can increase posttraumatic stress disorder, leading to burnout and discontinuity of healthcare workloads to ensure the patients’ safety and the high quality of care provided to the patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

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

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)
          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
          Article 0 comments Cited 12957 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Factors Associated With Mental Health Outcomes Among Health Care Workers Exposed to Coronavirus Disease 2019

            Jianbo Lai, Simeng Ma, Ying Wang … (2020)
            Key Points Question What factors are associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers in China who are treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 1257 health care workers in 34 hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 in multiple regions of China, a considerable proportion of health care workers reported experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress, especially women, nurses, those in Wuhan, and front-line health care workers directly engaged in diagnosing, treating, or providing nursing care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Meaning These findings suggest that, among Chinese health care workers exposed to COVID-19, women, nurses, those in Wuhan, and front-line health care workers have a high risk of developing unfavorable mental health outcomes and may need psychological support or interventions.
            Article 0 comments Cited 3385 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews

              James Thomas, Angela Harden (2008)
              Background There is a growing recognition of the value of synthesising qualitative research in the evidence base in order to facilitate effective and appropriate health care. In response to this, methods for undertaking these syntheses are currently being developed. Thematic analysis is a method that is often used to analyse data in primary qualitative research. This paper reports on the use of this type of analysis in systematic reviews to bring together and integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies. Methods We describe thematic synthesis, outline several steps for its conduct and illustrate the process and outcome of this approach using a completed review of health promotion research. Thematic synthesis has three stages: the coding of text 'line-by-line'; the development of 'descriptive themes'; and the generation of 'analytical themes'. While the development of descriptive themes remains 'close' to the primary studies, the analytical themes represent a stage of interpretation whereby the reviewers 'go beyond' the primary studies and generate new interpretive constructs, explanations or hypotheses. The use of computer software can facilitate this method of synthesis; detailed guidance is given on how this can be achieved. Results We used thematic synthesis to combine the studies of children's views and identified key themes to explore in the intervention studies. Most interventions were based in school and often combined learning about health benefits with 'hands-on' experience. The studies of children's views suggested that fruit and vegetables should be treated in different ways, and that messages should not focus on health warnings. Interventions that were in line with these suggestions tended to be more effective. Thematic synthesis enabled us to stay 'close' to the results of the primary studies, synthesising them in a transparent way, and facilitating the explicit production of new concepts and hypotheses. Conclusion We compare thematic synthesis to other methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, discussing issues of context and rigour. Thematic synthesis is presented as a tried and tested method that preserves an explicit and transparent link between conclusions and the text of primary studies; as such it preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviewing.
              Article 0 comments Cited 1379 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Multidiscip Healthc
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Multidiscip Healthc
                Journal ID (publisher-id): jmdh
                Title: Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
                Publisher: Dove
                ISSN (Electronic): 1178-2390
                Publication date (Electronic): 27 October 2021
                Publication date Collection: 2021
                Volume: 14
                Pages: 3015-3025
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Health, Deakin University , Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                [2 ]Faculty of Nursing, HRH Princess Chulabhorn College of Medical Science, Chulabhorn Royal Academy , Bangkok, Thailand
                [3 ]Trudy Busch-Valentine School of Nursing, Saint Louis University , St. Louis, MO, USA
                [4 ]College of Allied Health Sciences, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University , Samut Songkram, Thailand
                [5 ]College of Health Sciences, Mindanao State University , Marawi, Philippines
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Wanich Suksatan Faculty of Nursing, HRH Princess Chulabhorn College of Medical Science, Chulabhorn Royal Academy , Bangkok, Thailand Tel +668-27550027 Email wanich.suk@pccms.ac.th
                Kantapong Prabsangob College of Allied Health Sciences, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University , Samut Songkram, Thailand Tel +66840412068 Email kantapong.pr@ssru.ac.th
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8777-468X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1797-1260
                Article
                Publisher ID: 330041
                DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S330041
                PMC ID: 8558429
                PubMed ID: 34737573
                SO-VID: ef0dd039-cceb-498b-8a95-3fcd8e1dac48
                Copyright © © 2021 Koontalay et al.
                License:

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                Date received : 18 July 2021
                Date accepted : 05 October 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 6, References: 38, Pages: 11
                Categories
                Subject: Review

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Keywords: covid-19,healthcare personnel,qualitative studies,qualitative review,qualitative systematic review
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Keywords: covid-19, healthcare personnel, qualitative studies, qualitative review, qualitative systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content338

                See all similar

                Cited by55

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,165

                See all reference authors