Prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress among teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic

  1. David Franciole Oliveira Silva
  2. Ricardo Ney Cobucci
  3. Severina Carla Vieira Cunha Lima
  4. Fábia Barbosa de Andrade

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background:

Identifying the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress among teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods:

Systematic review of original studies published in any language. Protocol published in PROSPERO under number CRD42021240543. The search was carried out in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, Pubmed, Embase, LILACS, and SciELO databases, using the descriptors: anxiety, depression, stress, teacher, faculty, COVID-19, and their synonyms. Narrative synthesis was carried out in line with the synthesis without meta-analysis in systematic reviews.

Results:

Of the 1372 records identified, 6 studies, all cross-sectional, were included in the review. The studies were carried out in China, Brazil, the United States of America, India, and Spain. Five studies included more women than men. The participants were aged from 24 to 60 years. Three studies included only school teachers, 2 included schools and universities teachers, and 1 only university teachers. Of the 5 studies, all dealt with remote activities and only 1 included teachers who returned to face-to-face classes 1 to 2 weeks ago. The prevalence of anxiety ranged from 10% to 49.4%, and depression from 15.9% to 28.9%, being considerably higher in studies with teachers who worked in schools. The prevalence of stress ranged from 12.6% to 50.6%.

Conclusion:

The prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress was high among teachers during the pandemic, with great variation between studies. Anxiety and stress were more prevalent in the Spanish study. The results show the need for measures for the care of teachers’ mental health, especially when returning to face-to-face classes.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1097/md.0000000000027684
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.01.21256442: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsField Sample Permit: Thus, the classification of the methodological quality of the studies was carried out considering the total number of points received: ≥ 4 – good quality and <4 – low quality.
    Sex as a biological variableThe recommendations of the synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews were also considered.[16] With this, the number of studies that found a higher prevalence of anxiety in women was counted and compared with the number of studies that identified a higher prevalence in men.
    RandomizationInclusion criteria: Original studies, published between 2020 and 2021 in any language, which met the following criteria, according to the acronym PICoS, were considered eligible: Population (P): Nursery, pre-school, elementary, high school, or higher education teachers; Interest (I): Anxiety, depression, and stress; Context (Co): COVID-19 pandemic; Study type (S): Observational studies (cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort); Exclusion criteria: Report and case series, randomized clinical trials, literature reviews, books, and conference abstracts were excluded.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Database search: The virtual search was carried out in the databases Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, LILACS and SciELO, using the descriptors teacher, faculty, professor, anxiety, depression, stress, insomnia, COVID-19, and their synonyms.
    Pubmed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    PsycINFO
    suggested: (PsycINFO, RRID:SCR_014799)

    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:
    In addition, the search for studies was carried out on six databases, in order to seek comprehensive coverage of the literature on the topic and the narrative synthesis following the pattern recommended by SWiM.[16] However, this review has some possible limitations, such as the limited number of studies and the high heterogeneity among them, which limited us to carry out the meta-analysis. Furthermore, considering the cross-sectional nature of the included studies, it is not possible to infer causality in factors related to anxiety, depression, and stress. Regarding the prevalence of anxiety, the different diagnostic criteria and cutoff points used in the studies may have influenced the different prevalence levels. Finally, it was not possible to separate the analysis of prevalence among teachers from public and private schools where differences in structure, remuneration and teaching resources could influence the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress. The results cannot be extrapolated to countries with different cultures, economies and educational systems that were not included in the studies considered in this review. In addition, the review has practical implications, as it indicates the need for better training of teachers to work in the remote education model, with pedagogical and psychological support that prevents work overload and mental problems. Likewise, the return of face-to-face classes can increase the prevalence of stress and anxiety, indicating that ...

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.05.01.21256442v1 on medRxiv