The prevalence of common mental disorders among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic at a tertiary Hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.29.20222430: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Healthcare workers who had previous mental illnesses, not involved in the diagnosis or treatment of patients, and those who did not give consent were excluded from the study.
    IRB: 2.6 Ethical approval: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of St.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    BlindingThe code was blinded to both data collectors and data entry clerks.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableDemographic data were self-reported by the participants, including educational level (graduate, post-graduate), profession (physician, nurse/midwife, the laboratory professional or pharmacy professional), sex (male or female), age (18-25, 26-30, 31-40, or >40 years), marital status, monthly net salary, educational level (undergraduate or postgraduate), and technical title (junior or senior).

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    2.5 Data processing and analysis: Each completed questionnaire was entered into EPI data version 7, cleaned, and exported into SPSS version 23 for statistical analysis.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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:
    However, our study has several limitations which should be addressed in the future. First, it was a single-centre study and the findings may not be nationally representative. Second, it was a cross-sectional study and was not the best method of determining correlation and causation. Third, all the data collected were self-reported by the respondents and could be exposed to social desirability bias and more objective data can be used in future similar research.

    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.