Cited by 121COVID-19 and Mental HealthHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutOccupational Health and Burnout

Mental health and well-being of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: contrasting guidelines with experiences in practice

Open access
Vera San Juan, Norha, Aceituno, David, Djellouli, Nehla, Sumray, Kirsi, Regenold, Nina, Syversen, Aron, Mulcahy Symmons, Sophie, Dowrick, Anna +3 more·2021·BJPsych Open

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Substantial evidence has highlighted the importance of considering the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and several organisations have issued guidelines with recommendations. However, the definition of well-being and the evidence base behind such guidelines remain unclear. Aims: The aims of the study are to assess the applicability of well-being guidelines in practice, identify unaddressed healthcare workers’ needs and provide recommendations for supporting front-line staff during the current and future pandemics. Method: This paper discusses the findings of a qualitative study based on interviews with front-line healthcare workers in the UK ( n = 33), and examines them in relation to a rapid review of well-being guidelines developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic ( n = 14). Results: The guidelines placed greater emphasis on individual mental health and psychological support, whereas healthcare workers placed greater emphasis on structural conditions at work, responsibilities outside the hospital and the invaluable support of the community. The well-being support interventions proposed in the guidelines did not always respond to the lived experiences of staff, as some reported not being able to participate in these interventions because of understaffing, exhaustion or clashing schedules. Conclusions: Healthcare workers expressed well-being needs that aligned with socio-ecological conceptualisations of well-being related to quality of life. This approach to well-being has been highlighted in literature on support of healthcare workers in previous health emergencies, but it has not been monitored during this pandemic. Well-being guidelines should explore the needs of healthcare workers, and contextual characteristics affecting the implementation of recommendations.

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 · 10.1192/bjo.2020.148

Cites

35 of 35 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

2 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [37]Slade M. Personal Recovery and Mental Illness: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  2. [44]Adame AL, Knudson RM. Beyond the counter-narrative. Narrat Inq 2007; 17: 157–78.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vera San Juan, N., Aceituno, D., Djellouli, N., Sumray, K., Regenold, N., Syversen, A., Mulcahy Symmons, S., Dowrick, A., Mitchinson, L., Singleton, G., & Vindrola-Padros, C.
Affiliations
  • Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (GB)
Venue
BJPsych Open
Published
2020-12-10
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
e15-e15
ISSN
2056-4724 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3112124317
Cited by
121
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 2
FWCI
9.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BJPsych Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Queen Mary University of London
  • National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia
  • Marie Curie (MCCC-FCO-11-U, MCCC‐FCH‐18‐U)
  • King's College London
  • University College London
  • Universidad de Chile
  • Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London
  • Economic and Social Research Council (2252537)
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
mental health of healthcare workers, well-being, COVID-19 pandemic, frontline workers, socio-ecological model, quality of life, psychological support, understaffing, work exhaustion, community support, guideline implementation, health emergencies

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