Predictors of Physical and Mental Health in Healthcare Teams Working with COVID-19 patients: a scoping review protocol

  1. Nelson Aguirre-Duarte
  2. John Øvretveit
  3. Timothy Kenealy

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction

As a result of the current pandemic (COVID-19), many clinical teams are exposed to stressful situations that may lead to physical and mental issues for clinical staff themselves (we exclude the effects of personal infection with the virus). Recent studies suggest some predictors could depend on context, notably country and the type of the health system.

Methods and Analysis

This protocol was follows using the PRISMA-ScR guideline (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews), which was revised and approved by the research team. This study aims to identify factors and evidence of the physical, behavioural and mental consequences of sustained clinical practice in a continuing pandemic. Our research seeks to fill this gap in the literature, and the results may suggest to governments, healthcare authorities and healthcare providers appropriate measures to mitigate risks to healthcare workers during a pandemic response.

Dissemination and ethics

The current research design is based on the use of publicly available information and does not require ethical approval. The findings will be disseminated in conferences. Results will be published and additionally shared with relevant local and national authorities.

Strengths and Limitations of the study

This will be the first scoping review to identify factors and evidence of the physical, behavioural and mental consequences of sustained clinical practice in a continuing pandemic with health impacts for clinical staff.

The search strategy includes six electronic databases with peer-reviewed literature, as well as a broad range of grey literature sources.

Although this study will not require a quality appraisal, which is consistent with the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley, the current study will formally assess the studies quality.

This scoping review study has been registered with Open Science Framework to enhance its transparency.

The search strategy proposed is broad, but the search strategy is limited to articles published in English, Spanish, Portuguese or Italian.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.11.20247304: (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: Thank you for sharing your data.

    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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.11.20247304v1 on medRxiv