ArticleEmergency and critical care medicine2022
Comparison of the anxiety level between the medical staff and the public during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
Article in Emergency and critical care medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A sudden outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) started in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. Up-to-date, there have been limited studies examining the anxiety status of Chinese individuals in the early phase of the pandemic period (January 30, 2020-February 15, 2020). This survey aimed to compare the level of anxiety of the medical staff with that of the public and to provide a theoretical basis for developing an effective psychological intervention. Method: Questionnaires were sent on the Internet (http://www.wjx.cn) during this period. The anxiety levels of Chinese people were investigated using the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), and the demographic data were collected simultaneously. Results: A total of 1110 participants were enrolled in this study, with an effective response rate of 100%. A total of 482 respondents were medical staff (43.4%), while 628 were members of the general public (56.6%). The medical staff itself had a higher SAS score than the general public (48.36±13.40 Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the anxiety levels of the medical staff and the public, with the medical personnel showing a higher anxiety level than the public, especially female medical staff in Wuhan. Therefore, urgent intervention programs to reduce anxiety should be implemented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.