Cited by 219COVID-19 and Mental HealthHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutOccupational Health and Burnout

Psychological effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in health professionals: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Open access
da Silva Neto, Raimundo Monteiro, Benjamim, Cicero Jonas Rodrigues, de Medeiros Carvalho, Poliana Moreira, Neto, Modesto Leite Rolim·2021·Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Psychological suffering by health professionals may be associated with the uncertainty of a safe workplace. Front-line professionals exposed and involved in the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 patients are more susceptible.Method This review was conducted based on papers that were published at MEDLINE, BMJ, PsycINFO, and LILACS, the according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA).Results Health professionals had a higher level of anxiety (13.0 vs. 8.5%, p < 0.01, OR = 1.6152; 95%CI 1.3283 to 1.9641; p < 0.0001) and depression 12.2 vs. 9.5%; p = 0.04; OR = 1.3246; 95%CI 1.0930 to 1.6053; p = 0.0042), besides somatizations and insomnia compared to professionals from other areas.Conclusion Health professionals, regardless of their age, showed significant levels of mental disorders. We observed a prevalence of anxiety and depression. Insomnia was a risk factor for both.

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.pnpbp.2020.110062

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 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?

  • Frontline health workers have higher rates of insomnia and posttraumatic stress.

    “Frontline health workers have higher rates of insomnia and posttraumatic stress [40]”

    From Overview of sleep management during COVID-19. (2022) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Results (page unavailable) report higher insomnia prevalence among medical health workers than non-medical health workers, and the Introduction says frontline professionals are more susceptible to psychological suffering than those not directly treating patients. The Discussion (page unavailable) mentions posttraumatic stress among health professionals, but does not establish a higher rate of it among frontline workers. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Health workers have a significantly higher incidence of insomnia, anxiety, and depression symptoms than other professionals.

    “A literature review by da Silva and Neto showed health workers to have a significantly higher incidence of insomnia, anxiety and depression symptoms than other professionals [40].”

    From Overview of sleep management during COVID-19. (2022) · cites this paper as [40]

  • The stressful situation of healthcare workers may lead to depressive symptoms (12.2-26.3%), anxiety (13-29%), and PTSS (3-20.7%).

    “The stressful situation of healthcare workers, specially the fear to infect relatives, may lead to depressive symptoms (12.2–26.3%), anxiety (13–29%), and PTSS (3–20.7%) as well.”

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

8 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
da Silva Neto, R. M., Benjamim, C. J. R., de Medeiros Carvalho, P. M., & Neto, M. L. R.
Affiliations
  • Universidade de Pernambuco (BR)
  • Universidade Federal do Cariri (BR)
Corresponding author
Neto, Modesto Leite Rolim
Venue
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
104
Pages
110062
ISSN
0278-5846 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3046942365
Cited by
219
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 9
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Suicidology Research Group from Universidade Federal do Ceará
  • Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development
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
COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers, psychological distress, anxiety, depression, insomnia, somatization, workplace mental health, frontline workers, risk factors
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Mental Disorders, Health Personnel, Humans, Occupational Diseases, Pneumonia, Viral, Stress, Psychological, 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