Cited by 343COVID-19 and Mental HealthHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutOccupational Health and Burnout

Investigating the psychological impact of COVID-19 among healthcare workers: a meta-analysis

Open access
Batra, Kavita, Singh, Tejinder Pal, Sharma, Manoj, Batra, Ravi, Schvaneveldt, Nena·2020·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract

Previous meta-analyses were conducted during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, which utilized a smaller pool of data. The current meta-analysis aims to provide additional (and updated) evidence related to the psychological impact among healthcare workers. The search strategy was developed by a medical librarian and bibliographical databases, including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched for studies examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological health of healthcare workers. Articles were screened by three reviewers. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by I2 statistic. The random-effects model was utilized to obtain the pooled prevalence. A subgroup analysis by region, gender, quality of study, assessment methods, healthcare profession, and exposure was performed. Publication bias was assessed by Funnel plot and Egger linear regression test. Sixty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and the total sample constituted 79,437 participants. The pooled prevalence of anxiety, depression, stress, post-traumatic stress syndrome, insomnia, psychological distress, and burnout was 34.4%, 31.8%, 40.3%, 11.4%, 27.8%, 46.1%, and 37.4% respectively. The subgroup analysis indicated higher anxiety and depression prevalence among females, nurses, and frontline responders than males, doctors, and second-line healthcare workers. This study highlights the need for designing a targeted intervention to improve resilience and foster post-traumatic growth among frontline responders.

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 · 10.3390/ijerph17239096

Cites

113 of 113 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?

  • The pooled prevalence rate of psychological distress among nurses during the COVID-19 outbreak was 46.1%.

    “A systematic review showed that the pooled prevalence rate of psychological distress among nurses during the COVID-19 outbreak was 46.1% (7).”

    From Translation, adaptation, and initial evaluation of a guided self-help intervention to reduce psychological distress among nurses during COVID-19 in China (2023) · cites this paper as [7]

    Section 3.4.5 reports a pooled psychological-distress prevalence of 46.1% across 12 studies of healthcare workers. It does not identify 46.1% as a nurses-only estimate; the nurse-specific estimates elsewhere in Section 3.4 concern anxiety and depression. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [84]Higgins J.P. Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions John Wiley & Sons Hoboken, NJ, USA 2011

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Batra, K., Singh, T. P., Sharma, M., Batra, R., & Schvaneveldt, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Department of Information Technology and Testing Center of Excellence, Coforge, Atlanta, GA 30338, USA
Corresponding author
Batra, Kavita
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-12-05
Volume
17
Issue
23
Pages
9096
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3111432422
Cited by
342
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 108 · 2021: 73
FWCI
5.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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
COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers, psychological impact, anxiety, depression, stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, insomnia, psychological distress, burnout, nurses, gender differences, prevalence
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Anxiety, Depression, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Stress, Psychological, 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