Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2026
Healthcare worker fatigue during COVID-19, SARS, and MERS: a meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Poole-Wright K, Woodhall H, Chalder T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The physical and psychological impact of caring for patients during a coronavirus public health emergency had adverse effects on healthcare workers (HCW), including fatigue.
AIMS: To examine the prevalence of fatigue among HCW during severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) or Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) and identify associated risk and protective factors.
METHODS: Systematic searches of Embase, PsycINFO, Ovid-MEDLINE, CINAHL, HMIC and the Cochrane Library were conducted to July 2024. Inclusion criteria were English-language quantitative reports of fatigue in HCW during COVID-19, SARS and MERS. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate pooled prevalence. Subgroup analyses examined fatigue by role, frontline status and personal protective equipment (PPE).
RESULTS: Eighty-eight articles (n = 74 914) met our inclusion criteria; 32 were eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of fatigue was 55% (95% CI 46-65%, k = 32). Mental fatigue was reported by 58% (95% CI 17-90%, k = 4), while 53% (95% CI 38-67%, k = 11) experienced fatigue related to PPE use. No significant differences were observed between doctors and nurses (P = 0.327) or frontline and non-frontline staff (P = 0.103). Risk factors included stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, workload and extended working hours, while resilience, self-efficacy and sufficient rest were protective. Substantial heterogeneity (I2 ∼99%) and reliance on cross-sectional designs limited causal inference.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that over half of HCW reported fatigue and highlighted its multifactorial nature. Organizational-level interventions, such as optimized shift patterns, mandated rest breaks and psychological support are essential to mitigate fatigue, safeguard wellbeing and ensure safe healthcare provision.
AIMS: To examine the prevalence of fatigue among HCW during severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) or Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) and identify associated risk and protective factors.
METHODS: Systematic searches of Embase, PsycINFO, Ovid-MEDLINE, CINAHL, HMIC and the Cochrane Library were conducted to July 2024. Inclusion criteria were English-language quantitative reports of fatigue in HCW during COVID-19, SARS and MERS. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate pooled prevalence. Subgroup analyses examined fatigue by role, frontline status and personal protective equipment (PPE).
RESULTS: Eighty-eight articles (n = 74 914) met our inclusion criteria; 32 were eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of fatigue was 55% (95% CI 46-65%, k = 32). Mental fatigue was reported by 58% (95% CI 17-90%, k = 4), while 53% (95% CI 38-67%, k = 11) experienced fatigue related to PPE use. No significant differences were observed between doctors and nurses (P = 0.327) or frontline and non-frontline staff (P = 0.103). Risk factors included stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, workload and extended working hours, while resilience, self-efficacy and sufficient rest were protective. Substantial heterogeneity (I2 ∼99%) and reliance on cross-sectional designs limited causal inference.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that over half of HCW reported fatigue and highlighted its multifactorial nature. Organizational-level interventions, such as optimized shift patterns, mandated rest breaks and psychological support are essential to mitigate fatigue, safeguard wellbeing and ensure safe healthcare provision.