ArticleBMJ open2025
Sex differences and anti-epidemic work in psychological symptoms of healthcare workers in intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSex-based differences in psychological symptoms have been well documented but remain significantly underexplored among healthcare workers who work in intensive care units (ICUs). This study aimed to explore the sex-based differences in psychological symptoms among Chinese ICU healthcare workers and compare psychological symptoms between those who directly participated in COVID-19 anti-epidemic work and those who did not.
methodsThis cross-sectional study evaluated the psychological symptoms of ICU healthcare workers using the Chinese version of the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), with higher scores indicating more severe psychological symptoms. Generalised linear models were applied to explore sex-based differences and compare those who directly participated in COVID-19 anti-epidemic work and those who were not psychologically symptomatic after controlling for sociodemographic variables.
resultsA total of 3871 ICU healthcare workers, consisting of 2186 women and 1685 men, were included. There were significant differences between male and female scores of somatisation (adjusted unstandardised regression coefficients (B)=-0.611; 95% CI=-1.190 to -0.032; p=0.039), depression (adjusted B=-0.765; 95% CI=-1.484 to -0.046; p=0.037) and paranoid ideation (adjusted B=0.318; 95% CI=0.023 to 0.613; p=0.035), adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Participants who had directly engaged in COVID-19 anti-epidemic work had significantly lower scores on the 10 SCL-90 subscales and total scores than did those who had not (all p<0.05).
conclusionFemale ICU healthcare workers presented more severe somatisation and depression, whereas men presented more severe paranoid ideation. Healthcare workers directly involved in COVID-19 anti-epidemic work had better mental health status than those who were not. Scheduling rest time reasonably helps alleviate somatisation and depression. More optimistic attitudes and better communication skills are beneficial for reducing paranoid ideation.
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.