Cited by 1,516COVID-19 and Mental HealthMental Health Treatment and AccessHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout

Impact on mental health and perceptions of psychological care among medical and nursing staff in Wuhan during the 2019 novel coronavirus disease outbreak: A cross-sectional study

Open access
Kang, Lijun, Ma, Simeng, Chen, Min, Yang, Jun, Wang, Ying, Li, Ruiting, Yao, Lihua, Bai, Hanping +7 more·2020·Brain, Behavior, and Immunity

Abstract

The severe 2019 outbreak of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which was first reported in Wuhan, would be expected to impact the mental health of local medical and nursing staff and thus lead them to seek help. However, those outcomes have yet to be established using epidemiological data. To explore the mental health status of medical and nursing staff and the efficacy, or lack thereof, of critically connecting psychological needs to receiving psychological care, we conducted a quantitative study. This is the first paper on the mental health of medical and nursing staff in Wuhan. Notably, among 994 medical and nursing staff working in Wuhan, 36.9% had subthreshold mental health disturbances (mean PHQ-9: 2.4), 34.4% had mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9: 5.4), 22.4% had moderate disturbances (mean PHQ-9: 9.0), and 6.2% had severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9: 15.1) in the immediate wake of the viral epidemic. The noted burden fell particularly heavily on young women. Of all participants, 36.3% had accessed psychological materials (such as books on mental health), 50.4% had accessed psychological resources available through media (such as online push messages on mental health self-help coping methods), and 17.5% had participated in counseling or psychotherapy. Trends in levels of psychological distress and factors such as exposure to infected people and psychological assistance were identified. Although staff accessed limited mental healthcare services, distressed staff nonetheless saw these services as important resources to alleviate acute mental health disturbances and improve their physical health perceptions. These findings emphasize the importance of being prepared to support frontline workers through mental health interventions at times of widespread crisis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028

Cites

26 of 27 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a survey of 994 medical and nursing staff in Wuhan, 36% used mental health books, 50.4% used online coping methods, and 17.5% had participated in counseling or psychotherapy.

    “To manage distress, 36% accessed books on mental health, 50.4% sought online coping methods, and 17.5% had participated in counseling or psychotherapy.”

    From Overview of sleep management during COVID-19. (2022) · cites this paper as [42]

    The Results (‘Accessed mental healthcare services’; page not provided) report 36.3% receiving psychological materials, 50.4% obtaining resources through media, and 17.5% participating in counseling or psychotherapy. The Methods (‘Questionnaire’; page not provided) define those materials as leaflets, brochures or books, and media as online platforms or TV news. The claim correctly conveys the percentages approximately, but the source does not establish that all 36% accessed books or that all 50.4% used online methods. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A large proportion of healthcare workers in Wuhan were affected and mental health support was necessary even for mild psychological reactions.

    “another study performed in the original center of the epidemic, Wuhan, showed that a large proportion of HCW in Wuhan were affected and that mental health support was necessary even for mild psychological reactions (Kang et al., 2020).”
  • The included studies had higher percentages of females (64.3-82.7%) and nurses (up to 82.7%), with average ages ranging from 26 to 40 years.

    “All studies found higher percentages of females (64.3–82.7%) and nurses (up to 82.7%), with average ages ranging from 26 to 40 years (Chew et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2020; Lai et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020).”
  • In Kang et al. (2020), healthcare workers were assigned to four groups with subthreshold, mild, moderate, and severe disturbances comprising 36%, 34%, 22.4%, and 6.2% of the sample, with mean IES-R scores of 6.1, 22.9, 39.9, and 60, respectively.

    “Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 had subthreshold, mild, moderate, and severe disturbances (36, 34, 22.4, and 6.2% of the sample, respectively) and mean IES-R scores of 6.1, 22.9, 39.9, and 60, respectively.”
  • Chew et al. (2020) and Kang et al. (2020) associated having physical symptoms with an increased probability of high scores for trauma-related stress.

    “Like to the finding of Chew et al. (2020) and Kang et al. (2020) associated having physical symptoms with an increased probability of high scores for trauma-related stress.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kang, L., Ma, S., Chen, M., Yang, J., Wang, Y., Li, R., Yao, L., Bai, H., Cai, Z., Xiang Yang, B., Hu, S., Zhang, K., Wang, G., Ma, C., & Liu, Z.
Affiliations
  • Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University (CN)
  • Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
  • First Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Shanxi Medical University (CN)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
  • Ma, Simeng
  • Ma, Ci
  • Liu, Zhongchun
Venue
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
87
Pages
11-17
ISSN
0889-1591 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3013752275
Cited by
1,516
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 123 · 2023: 200 · 2022: 348 · 2021: 479 · 2020: 296 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
132.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain Behavior and Immunity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (81771472)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFC1314600)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, mental health, psychological distress, doctors and nurses, frontline workers, help-seeking, PHQ-9, young women, Wuhan
MeSH terms
Patient Health Questionnaire, Betacoronavirus, Psychological Distress, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, China, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Disease Outbreaks, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Male, Mental Health, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Nurses, Physicians, Pneumonia, Viral, Surveys and Questionnaires, Coronavirus Infections, Young Adult, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review