Impact of viral epidemic outbreaks on mental health of healthcare workers: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis

  1. Maria J. Serrano-Ripoll
  2. Jose F. Meneses-Echavez
  3. Ignacio Ricci-Cabello
  4. David Fraile-Navarro
  5. Maria A. Fiol-deRoque
  6. Guadalupe Pastor-Moreno
  7. Adoración Castro
  8. Isabel Ruiz-Pérez
  9. Rocío Zamanillo Campos
  10. Daniela C. Gonçalves-Bradley

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.034
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.02.20048892: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    BlindingTwo reviewers (of those aforementioned) independently and blinded against the others’ judgements assessed full-text eligibility.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    12 Data Sources and Searches: We designed specific search strategies for biomedical databases (MEDLINE/Ovid, EMBASE/Elsevier, and PsycInfo/EBSCO), combining MeSH terms and free-text keywords (Online Appendix 1).
    MeSH
    suggested: (MeSH, RRID:SCR_004750)
    9,13,14 We used EndNote X8™ to create a bibliographical database, and Rayyan to screen relevant records.
    EndNote
    suggested: (EndNote, RRID:SCR_014001)
    For studies about the impact of outbreaks on mental health, we conducted random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each type of mental health condition, using the STATA command “metaprop”.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Strengths and limitations of the review: This is a timely and comprehensive rapid review of the current literature on the impact of infectious disease outbreaks on the mental health of HCWs. We examined three relevant areas, namely the prevalence of mental health problems, factors associated with an increased likelihood of developing those problems, and the effects of interventions to improve mental health of HCWs. We followed the highest methodological standards when undertaking the current rapid review,10 and we used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence, in order to facilitate evidence-informed decision making processes. Our review team is also a strength, as it included experts in evidence synthesis, Cochrane authors, members of the GRADE Working Group, physicians, nurses, editors, psychologists, and psychiatrists. There were also some limitations underlying this work. Despite searching three major databases and manually searching references of previously published systematic reviews, we did not examine gray literature; hence, we cannot discard that relevant references may have been missed out. We observed high heterogeneity when pooling data, which could be partially attributed to the high variability across studies in terms of study population (e.g. occupational role), context (e.g. magnitude of the health emergency caused by epidemic) and outcome measures. In light of this, our results should be interpreted with caution. Some of the risk factors ...

    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 10.1101/2020.04.02.20048892v1 on medRxiv