A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Burnout Among Healthcare Workers During COVID-19
Open accessAbstract
Burnout among healthcare personnel has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic's unique features. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide a complete assessment of the prevalence of burnout across various healthcare personnel. Until January 2021, systematic searches for English language papers were conducted using PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest. Thirty observational studies were found after conducting systematic searches. The pooled overall prevalence of burnout was 52% [95% confidence interval (CI) 40-63%]. Pooled emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and lack of personal accomplishment (PA) were 51% (95% CI 42-61%), 52% (95% CI 39-65%), and 28% (95% CI 25-31%), respectively. This study demonstrated that nearly half of the healthcare workers experienced burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the studies that were included, non-frontline COVID-19 exposed healthcare personnel also experienced burnout. From high to lower middle-income countries, there was a gradient in the prevalence of total burnout, EE, and lack of PA. Further studies on burnout in low and lower-middle-income countries are suggested. A uniform diagnostic tool for the assessment of burnout is warranted.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
More than half of healthcare professionals worldwide experience burnout, with particularly high rates of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.
“Recent meta-analyses have reported that more than half of the healthcare professionals (HPs) worldwide experience burnout, with particularly high rates of EE and DP [4].”
From Effects of Third-Wave Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Healthcare Professionals’ Burnout: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
The Results (Synthesized Findings) report pooled burnout of 52%, with emotional exhaustion at 51% and depersonalization at 52%. The Abstract limits the review to healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic; it does not establish that more than half of healthcare professionals worldwide experience burnout generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBurnout prevalence in healthcare settings is 50% or higher.
“Various studies indicate burnout prevalence of 50% and higher in healthcare settings (1–4)”
From Digital resilience interventions for healthcare workers: a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
The Results (Synthesized Findings) report a pooled burnout prevalence of 52% among healthcare workers, supporting the numerical claim. But the estimate is specifically for the COVID-19 pandemic; the Discussion (Summary of the Main Findings) contrasts it with lower rates of 32–34% reported in earlier studies. The citing sentence omits that time-specific qualification. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 74 · Cited by 293
- Authors
- Ghahramani, S., Lankarani, K. B., Yousefi, M., Heydari, K., Shahabi, S., & Azmand, S.
- Affiliations
- Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Semnan University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Corresponding author
- Azmand, Sajjad
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2021-11-10
- Volume
- 12
- Pages
- 758849-758849
- ISSN
- 1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8631719
- OpenAlex
- W3213143965
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 63 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 40
- FWCI
- 9.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Burnout
- Keywords
- burnout, healthcare workers, COVID-19 pandemic, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, personal accomplishment, burnout prevalence, middle-income countries, Burnout Assessment Tool
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
