Investigation into Quality of Life and Psychological Status of Different Populations during COVID-19: A study concerning Surrounding Areas of Wuhan
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
To investigate different populations’ quality of life and psychological status in surrounding areas of Wuhan during COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods
The data of 248 residents living in Anhui from February 4 to 6 of 2020 were collected through network surveys including age, gender, occupation, the World Health Organization Quality of Life measurement Scale short form (World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument brief, WHOQOL BREF), Zung Self-rating Anxiety Scale (Self-rating Anxiety Scale, SAS and Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS). Those surveyed, divided into two groups: medical staff (129 cases) and nonmedical staff (119 cases), were made statistic analysis according to the factors mentioned above.
Results
The WHOQOL-BREF of medical staff in this region was lower than that of nonmedical staff in the fields of physiology, psychology, social relations, and environment, among whom female medical staff scored significantly lower than that of male medical staff in four fields. There was no significant statistical difference in SAS and SDS scores between the two groups, and gender had no significant influence on SAS and SDS scores of medical staff.
Conclusion
During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical staff enjoyed a lower quality of life in surrounding areas of Wuhan than that of nonmedical staff, and female medical staff even lower, which should arouse social concerns.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.15.20158725: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.15.20158725: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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.
-
