Prevalence and predictors of anxiety among healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: During pandemics, healthcare workers (HCWs) may be prone to higher levels of anxiety than those of the general population. This study aimed to explore the anxiety levels among HCWs in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic and the predictors of increased anxiety levels. METHOD: HCW participants in this cross-section study were solicited by email from the database of registered practitioners of the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties between 15 May and 18 May 2020. Sociodemographic characteristics, work-related factors, and organization-related factors were collected. RESULTS: Four thousand nine hundred and twenty HCWs (3.4%) responded. Reported levels of anxiety were low anxiety (31.5%; n = 1552), medium (36.1%; n = 1778), and high (32.3%; n = 1590). Participants reporting high anxiety levels were more likely to be unmarried (OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.14-1.52); nurses (OR = 1.54, 95% 1.24-1.91); workers in radiology (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.01-2.28); or respiratory therapists (OR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.14-4.54). Social factors associated with high anxiety levels were: living with a person who is elderly (p = 0.01), has a chronic disease (p < 0.0001), has immune deficiency (p < 0.0001), or has a respiratory disease (p-value <0.0001). Organization-related factors associated with a high level of anxiety were: working in an organization that hosts COVID-19 patients and working with such patients (p-value <0.0001). CONCLUSION: Self-reported medium and high levels of anxiety were present in 68.5% of HCWs in the COVID-19 pandemic. This highlights the urgent need to identify high-risk individuals to offer psychological support and provide up to date information on the pandemic. These data should help policymakers drive initiatives forward to protect and prepare HCWs psychological wellbeing.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
There were no significant differences in the prevalence of stress and depression according to marital status, sex, length of working, and educational level.
“There were no significant differences in the prevalence of stress and depression according to marital status, sex, length of working, and educational level, in contradiction with previous literature [51,52].”
From Seroprevalence of COVID-19 and Psychological Distress among Front Liners at the Universiti Malaysia Sabah Campus during the Third Wave of COVID-19 (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
The citation is attached to the contrast with previous literature, not to the citing authors’ finding of no differences. In the Results (Table 1; page unavailable), this paper reports differences in anxiety by sex, marital status, and years of experience. It does not establish corresponding differences in stress or depression, or address educational level in the cited results. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 136
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [11]Bohlken J. Schömig F. Lemke M.R. Pumberger M. Riedel-Heller S.G. COVID-19 pandemic: stress experience of healthcare workers — a short current review Psychiatr Prax 47 2020 190 197 10.1055/a-1159-5551 32340048 PMC7295275 · DOI
- [15]Bindhim N.F. Shaman A.M. Alhawassi T.M. Confirming the one-item question Likert scale to measure Anxiety vol. 11 2013
- [21]Yalom Irvin D. Existential psycotherapy 1st edition 1980 Basic Books, A division of Harper Collins Publishers
- Authors
- Alenazi, T. H., BinDhim, N. F., Alenazi, M. H., Tamim, H., Almagrabi, R. S., Aljohani, S. M., H Basyouni, M., Almubark, R. A., Althumiri, N. A., & Alqahtani, S. A.
- Affiliations
- King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (SA)
- Alfaisal University (SA)
- King Saud Medical City (SA)
- American University of Beirut Medical Center (LB)
- King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre (SA)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Alenazi, Thamer H.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Infection and Public Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-11
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1645-1651
- ISSN
- 1876-0341 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7535800
- OpenAlex
- W3089448993
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 47
- FWCI
- 10.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Infection and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Burnout
- Keywords
- anxiety, healthcare workers, COVID-19 pandemic, prevalence, risk factors, psychological well-being, nurses, respiratory therapists, radiology workers, chronic disease, immunodeficiency, respiratory diseases, psychological support, Saudi Arabia
- MeSH terms
- Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Anxiety, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Pneumonia, Viral, Surveys and Questionnaires, Saudi Arabia, Prevalence, Coronavirus Infections, 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