ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Workers' Psychological Distress During the Early Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Brazil: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Psychosocial risks in Latin America: trends and research gaps.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the mental health of workers. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of psychological distress among Brazilian workers during the early months of the pandemic and explore its associated factors. A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire administered to 2903 Brazilian workers, including 1752 non-healthcare workers (NHCWs) and 1151 healthcare workers (HCWs), between April and May 2020. Snowball sampling was employed for participant recruitment, and the research questionnaire was adapted for use with the Brazilian population through a process of translation and cultural adaptation, based on an instrument initially created and validated for use in Spain. Differences between NHCWs and HCWs were tested using the chi-square or Fisher's Exact test and Mann-Whitney test followed by effect size measurement. Multiple linear regression models were used to analyze the association between psychological distress and the predictor variables. Psychological distress was observed in 72.6% (95% CI 70.1-74.2%) of the participants, with no significant difference observed between NHCWs and HCWs. Although 32 variables showed statistically significant differences between NHCWs and HCWs, only 7 demonstrated clinical-epidemiological relevance, primarily related to occupational factors. Work-related stress was positively associated with psychological distress, but this relationship diminished in the absence of family members infected with COVID-19. Conversely, a higher sense of coherence was protective against psychological distress, although this effect weakened in the absence of family members infected with COVID-19. The study highlights the high prevalence of psychological distress among Brazilian workers during the pandemic's early months. Work stress played a significant role, while sense of coherence appeared to mitigate mental health challenges. These findings highlight the need for targeted mental health interventions, particularly for workers facing both professional and family-related stressors during crises.
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.