Anxiety and Depression in Health Workers and General Population During COVID‐19 in IRAN: A Cross‐Sectional Study

  1. Leila Hassannia
  2. Fatemeh Taghizadeh
  3. Mahmood Moosazadeh
  4. Mehran Zarghami
  5. Hassan Taghizadeh
  6. Azadeh Fathi Dooki
  7. Mohammad Fathi
  8. Reza Alizadeh‐Navaei
  9. Akbar Hedayatizadeh‐Omran
  10. Niloufar Dehghan

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

The COVID‐19 outbreak has exerted a great deal of psychological pressure on Iranian health workers and the general population. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of pandemic on anxiety and depression in Iranian population.

Methods

An online cross‐sectional study was conducted for the general public and healthcare workers in Iran using a questionnaire comprised of demographic questions and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Chi‐square test and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were conducted.

Results

Of the 2045 participants, 1136 (65.6%) were considered to have moderate and severe anxiety symptoms, and 865 (42.3%) had moderate and severe depression symptoms. The prevalence of anxiety was higher in the females than in the males (OR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.123‐1.643, P  = .002); the prevalence of anxiety was significantly higher in those aged 30‐39 years than in other age‐groups (OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.123‐2.320, P  = .001); furthermore, the prevalence of anxiety and depression was significantly higher in doctors and nurses compared with other occupations ((OR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.367‐2.491, P  < .001) and (OR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.154‐2.021, P  = .003)). In addition, the prevalence of anxiety symptoms in the likely infected COVID‐19 group was higher than in the noninfected COVID‐19 group (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.093‐1.654, P  = .005).

Conclusions

Regarding the high prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms, especially among healthcare workers, appropriate psychological/psychiatric intervention necessitates.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1002/npr2.12153
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.05.20089292: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.05.20089292v1 on medRxiv