Cited by 112COVID-19 and Mental HealthStress and Burnout ResearchOccupational Health and Burnout

Association between resilience and burnout of front‐line nurses at the peak of the COVID‐19 pandemic: Positive and negative affect as mediators in Wuhan

Open access
Zhang, Xiaoning, Jiang, Xue, Ni, Pingping, Li, Haiyang, Li, Chong, Zhou, Qiong, Ou, Zhengyan, Guo, Yuqing +1 more·2021·International Journal of Mental Health Nursing

Abstract

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is having a dramatic effect on the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs). Upon the emergence of the COVID‐19 pandemic, the Chinese government dispatched about 42 000 HCWs to Wuhan City and Hubei Province to fight this pandemic. This study briefly examines front‐line nurses who experienced burnout, with the main objective of investigating the mediating roles of positive and negative affect in the relationship between resilience and burnout in Wuhan hospitals at the peak of the COVID‐19 pandemic. A total of 180 front‐line nurses voluntarily participated via a social media group. They completed the online questionnaires, including the Maslach Burnout Inventory‐General Survey (MBI‐GS), the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD‐RISC), demographics, and work‐related characteristics. Structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis was used to examine the mediating effect of positive and negative affect on the relationship between resilience and burnout. The total prevalence of burnout was 51.7%, of which 15.0% were severe burnout. These preliminary results revealed that positive and negative affect fully mediated the effects of resilience on burnout, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment of front‐line nurses. It is necessary to know the impact of resilience on HCWs with burnout through the positive and negative affect of individual backgrounds and situations, and how policymakers can deploy resilience interventions to support front‐line HCWs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/inm.12847

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, X., Jiang, X., Ni, P., Li, H., Li, C., Zhou, Q., Ou, Z., Guo, Y., & Cao, J.
Affiliations
Xuzhou Medical College (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Zhang, Xiaoning
  • Cao, Junli
Venue
International Journal of Mental Health Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-04-23
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
939-954
ISSN
  • 1445-8330 (ISSN-L)
  • 1447-0349
OpenAlex
W3155921090
Cited by
112
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 14
FWCI
14.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Mental Health Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • China Postdoctoral Science Foundation ((2020M670077ZX))
  • Jiangsu Planned Projects for Postdoctoral Research Funds
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Burnout
Keywords
resilience, burnout, frontline nurses, positive affect, negative affect, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, personal accomplishment, healthcare workers, COVID-19 pandemic, Wuhan, mediating effect
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Burnout, Professional, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Nurses, Surveys and Questionnaires, 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