Cited by 549COVID-19 and Mental HealthHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutOccupational Health and Burnout

The prevalence and influencing factors in anxiety in medical workers fighting COVID-19 in China: a cross-sectional survey

Open access
Liu, Chen-Yun, Yang, Yun-zhi, Zhang, Xiao-Ming, Xu, Xinying, Dou, Qing-Li, Zhang, Wen-Wu, Cheng, Andy S. K.·2020·Epidemiology and Infection

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2 virus) has been sustained in China since December 2019, and has become a pandemic. The mental health of frontline medical staff is a concern. In this study, we aimed to identify the factors influencing medical worker anxiety in China during the COVID-19 outbreak. We conducted a cross-sectional study to estimate the prevalence of anxiety among medical staff in China from 10 February 2020 to 20 February 2020 using the Zung Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) to assess anxiety, with the criteria of normal (⩽49), mild (50–59), moderate (60–70) and severe anxiety (⩾70). We used multivariable linear regression to determine the factors (e.g. having direct contact when treating infected patients, being a medical staff worker from Hubei province, being a suspect case) for anxiety. We also used adjusted models to confirm independent factors for anxiety after adjusting for gender, age, education and marital status. Of 512 medical staff in China, 164 (32.03%) had had direct contact treating infected patients. The prevalence of anxiety was 12.5%, with 53 workers suffering from mild (10.35%), seven workers suffering from moderate (1.36%) and four workers suffering from severe anxiety (0.78%). After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, education and marital status), medical staff who had had direct contact treating infected patients experienced higher anxiety scores than those who had not had direct contact ( β value = 2.33, confidence interval (CI) 0.65–4.00; P = 0.0068). A similar trend was observed in medical staff from Hubei province, compared with those from other parts of China ( β value = 3.67, CI 1.44–5.89; P = 0.0013). The most important variable was suspect cases with high anxiety scores, compared to non-suspect cases ( β value = 4.44, CI 1.55–7.33; P = 0.0028). In this survey of hospital medical workers during the COVID-19 outbreak in China, we found that study participants experienced anxiety symptoms, especially those who had direct clinical contact with infected patients; as did those in the worst affected areas, including Hubei province; and those who were suspect cases. Governments and healthcare authorities should proactively implement appropriate psychological intervention programmes, to prevent, alleviate or treat increased anxiety.

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 · 10.1017/s0950268820001107

Cites

29 of 29 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?

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
Liu, C.-Y., Yang, Y.-Z., Zhang, X.-M., Xu, X., Dou, Q.-L., Zhang, W.-W., & Cheng, A. S. K.
Affiliations
  • Shenzhen Bao'an District People's Hospital (CN)
  • Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
Venue
Epidemiology and Infection
Published
2020
Volume
148
Pages
e98-e98
ISSN
  • 0950-2688 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-4409
OpenAlex
W3009575892
Cited by
549
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 143 · 2021: 190 · 2020: 74 · 2015: 2
FWCI
48.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epidemiology and Infection (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PolyU Institutional Research Archive (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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, COVID-19 pandemic, mental health, occupational stress, direct patient contact, Hubei Province, risk factors, anxiety prevalence, Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, gender differences in anxiety, age differences in anxiety
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, China, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Personnel, Hospital, Pneumonia, Viral, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Prevalence, Multivariate Analysis, Linear Models, 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