SynthesisBMC public health2023
Risk factors of developing psychological problems among frontline healthcare professionals working in the COVID-19 pandemic era: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experiencing stigmatization during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study among healthcare workers.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Burnout, wellbeing and defensive medical practice in obstetricians and gynecologists in the UK before and after the COVID pandemic: A repeated cross-sectional survey study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study sought to evaluate the risk factors behind developing psychological problems as per specific mental health assessment instruments. This study focuses specifically on frontline healthcare professionals of the COVID-19 pandemic era, and evaluated the psychological assessment of frontline healthcare professionals.
methodsStudies reporting on the psychological assessment of frontline healthcare professionals were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases. The recommended method was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. The random-effects method was applied when significant heterogeneity was observed.
resultsThe combined results from the 20 included articles indicated that frontline healthcare professionals had a higher risk of developing anxiety in comparison with non-frontline healthcare workers, with similar levels of depression scoring were observed. Healthcare providers aged > 40 years had a lower probability of developing anxiety and seemed to experience minimal depression. Conversely, frontline workers had a higher incidence of anxiety than that of depression. Being single (not in a relationship) could influence the PHQ-9 scores instead of those concerning the GAD-7. The gender gap was not proven to be significantly wide between healthcare professionals with or without anxiety; however, being male was proven to be positively correlated with depression.
conclusionIn general, the risk factors for susceptibility to psychological problems among frontline healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic concerned those of a lower age, being single, being male, and being engage in frontline healthcare work.
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.