Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 305

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychological impact of COVID‐19 outbreak on frontline nurses: A cross‐sectional survey study

Open access
Nie, Anliu, Su, Xiangfen, Zhang, Shuzeng, Guan, Wenjie, Li, Jianfeng·2020·Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract

Aims and objectives: This study aimed to portray the prevalence and associated factors of psychological distress among frontline nurses during COVID‐19 outbreak. Background: The COVID‐19 outbreak has posed great threat to public health worldwide. Nurses fighting against the epidemic on the frontline might be under great physical and psychological distress. This psychological distress was predominantly described as sleep disturbance, symptoms of anxiety and depression, post‐traumatic stress, inability to make decisions and even somatic symptoms. Design: Cross‐sectional study. Methods: Frontline nurses from designated hospitals for COVID‐19 patients were invited to complete an online survey by convenience sampling, and the survey included six main sections: the General Health Questionnaire, the Perceived Social Support Scale, the Simplified Coping Style Scale, the Impact of Event Scale‐Revised, socio‐demographic, occupation and work history. Multiple logistic analysis was used to identify the potential risk factors of psychological distress. The study methods were compliant with the STROBE checklist. Results: Of the 263 frontline nurses, 66 (25.1%) were identified as psychological distress. Multiple logistic analysis revealed that working in emergency department, concern for family, being treated differently, negative coping style and COVID‐19‐related stress symptom were positive related to psychological distress. Perceived more social support and effective precautionary measures were negatively associated with psychological distress. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that COVID‐19 had a significant psychological impact on frontline nurses. Early detection of psychological distress and supportive intervention should be taken according to the associated factors to prevent more serious psychological impact on frontline nurses. Relevance to clinical practice: This study highlighted that the frontline nurses were suffering from varying degrees of psychological distress, which needed early screening and supportive intervention for preventing more serious psychological impact on frontline nurses. Beside, more specific measurement should be combined with the GHQ‐12 to assess the varying degrees of psychological distress in frontline nurses.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/jocn.15454

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 46 references

Cited by

See all 305

Metadata

Authors
Nie, A., Su, X., Zhang, S., Guan, W., & Li, J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-08-25
Volume
29
Issue
21-22
Pages
4217-4226
ISSN
  • 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2702
OpenAlex
W3048910704
Cited by
305
References
46
FWCI
21.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Psychological impact of COVID‐19 outbreak on frontline nurses: A cross‐sectional survey study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jocn.15454
The paper
Nie, A., Su, X., Zhang, S., Guan, W., & Li, J. (2020). Psychological impact of COVID‐19 outbreak on frontline nurses: A cross‐sectional survey study. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15454

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.