Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2020
Mental health of clinical staff working in high-risk epidemic and pandemic health emergencies a rapid review of the evidence and living meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Bell Vaughan, Wade Dorothy
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about the potential mental health impact on frontline clinical staff. However, given that poor mental health is common in acute medical staff, we aimed to estimate the additional burden of work involving high exposure to infected patients.
METHODS: We report a rapid review, meta-analysis, and living meta-analysis of studies using validated measures from outbreaks of COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1 influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
RESULTS: A random effects meta-analysis found that high-exposure work is not associated with an increased prevalence of above cut-off scoring (anxiety: RR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.87-1.93, Total N = 12,473; PTSD symptoms: RR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.75-1.78, Total N = 6604; depression: RR = 1.50, 95% CI 0.57-3.95, Total N = 12,224). For continuous scoring, high-exposure work was associated with only a small additional burden of acute mental health problems compared to low-exposure work (anxiety: SMD = 0.16, 95% CI 0.02-0.31, Total N = 6493; PTSD symptoms: SMD = 0.20, 95% CI 0.01-0.40, Total N = 5122; depression: SMD = 0.13, 95% CI -0.04-0.31, Total N = 4022). There was no evidence of publication bias.
CONCLUSION: Although epidemic and pandemic response work may add only a small additional burden, improving mental health through service management and provision of mental health services should be a priority given that baseline rates of poor mental health are already very high. As new studies emerge, they are being added to a living meta-analysis where all analysis code and data have been made freely available: https://osf.io/zs7ne/ .
METHODS: We report a rapid review, meta-analysis, and living meta-analysis of studies using validated measures from outbreaks of COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1 influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
RESULTS: A random effects meta-analysis found that high-exposure work is not associated with an increased prevalence of above cut-off scoring (anxiety: RR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.87-1.93, Total N = 12,473; PTSD symptoms: RR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.75-1.78, Total N = 6604; depression: RR = 1.50, 95% CI 0.57-3.95, Total N = 12,224). For continuous scoring, high-exposure work was associated with only a small additional burden of acute mental health problems compared to low-exposure work (anxiety: SMD = 0.16, 95% CI 0.02-0.31, Total N = 6493; PTSD symptoms: SMD = 0.20, 95% CI 0.01-0.40, Total N = 5122; depression: SMD = 0.13, 95% CI -0.04-0.31, Total N = 4022). There was no evidence of publication bias.
CONCLUSION: Although epidemic and pandemic response work may add only a small additional burden, improving mental health through service management and provision of mental health services should be a priority given that baseline rates of poor mental health are already very high. As new studies emerge, they are being added to a living meta-analysis where all analysis code and data have been made freely available: https://osf.io/zs7ne/ .