Frontline Healthcare workers suffering from psychosomatic disorders during COVID-19 (a pandemic) – A Systematic review

  1. Rhythm Joshi
  2. Nidhi.B. Agarwal
  3. Dinesh Bhurani
  4. Mohd Ashif Khan

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Purpose

The emergence of SARS CoV-2, has imposed high pressure on the healthcare system worldwide. As a consequence, frontline healthcare workers were impacted widely. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the impact of COVID-19 on mental status of FHW during pandemic.

Methods

Databases such as PubMed, Scopus, google scholar were searched extensively from the date of inception till April 2021. All cross-sectional studies published in English assessing the mental condition and well-being of frontline caregivers during COVID-19 were included in the study. The quality assessment was done by Newcastle Ottawa scale.

Results

Ten thousand eight hundred sixty-nine articles were found. After conscientious literature search, total 78 articles were included satisfying the objective of the review. The highest and lowest values for the rates of depression, anxiety and insomnia was found to be 99.51% & 6.07%, 85.7% & 73.6%, and 5.3% & 11.4%, respectively.

Conclusion

It has been found that FHW were psychologically impacted by the pandemic. This could be due to lack of resources such as PPE, organizational support, inefficient relevant knowledge regarding the novel virus, its extremely indelible transmission rates, fear of contamination, stigmatization, and/or due to prevalence of ignorance by government and health policy makers.

Prospero registration no- CRD42021244612

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.09.21266105: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    2.1 Data research strategy: This study was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines using suitable keywords such as [Mental disorders OR Depression OR Anxiety OR Bipolar disorder OR Cognitive impairment OR Neurodegenerative disorders] AND [Healthcare workers OR Medical professional OR Doctors OR Nurses] AND [COVID-19] in PubMed, Embase/Elsevier, Cochrane, Science direct and Google scholar from inception till April 2021.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Google scholar
    suggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)

    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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.11.09.21266105v1 on medRxiv