The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, and interventions to help them: A rapid systematic review

  1. Ashley Elizabeth Muller
  2. Elisabet Vivianne Hafstad
  3. Jan Peter William Himmels
  4. Geir Smedslund
  5. Signe Flottorp
  6. Synne Øien Stensland
  7. Stijn Stroobants
  8. Stijn Van de Velde
  9. Gunn Elisabeth Vist

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113441
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.03.20145607: (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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Other weaknesses are those common to rapid reviews due to time pressure, such as fewer details about the included studies’ populations being presented than normally reported. The covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a flood of studies, many of which have been pushed through the peer-review process and published at speeds hitherto unseen (see Glasziou93 for a discussion). It is therefore not surprising that the majority of our included 59 studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias or being of low methodological quality. Lack of information on samples or procedures was a common limitation, leading to serious implications to the generalizability and validity of findings. We also call on journals and researchers to balance the need for rapid publication with properly conducted studies, reviews and guidelines94.

    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 10.1101/2020.07.03.20145607v1 on medRxiv