Cited by 65COVID-19 and Mental HealthHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutOccupational Health and Burnout

Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress among first responders for medical emergencies during COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis

Open access
Huang, Garry, Chu, Hsin, Chen, Ruey, Liu, Doresses, Banda, Kondwani Joseph, O’Brien, Anthony Paul, Jen, Hsiu-Ju, Chiang, Kai-Jo +2 more·2022·Journal of Global Health

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has been shown to cause enormous psychological burden among health care workers, including first responders. However, psychological well-being of first responders, essential in the fight against COVID-19 pandemic, has often been ignored. We performed the first meta-analysis to explore the prevalence of 1) depression, 2) anxiety, and 3) stress among first responders for medical emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: statistics were used to examine heterogeneity. Sub-group analysis was conducted to identify moderator variables. Results: We identified 765 records, from which 17 studies were included with 8096 first responders. The pooled prevalence was 31% (95% CI = 21%-41%) for depression; 67% (95% CI = 64%-70%) for mild depression, 24% (95% CI = 17%-31%) for moderate depression, and 16% (95% CI = 4%-34%) for severe depression. The pooled prevalence for anxiety was 32% (95% CI = 20%-44%); 60% (95% CI = 46%-73%) for mild anxiety, 27% (95% CI = 14%-42%) for moderate anxiety, and 14% (95% CI = 7%-22%) for severe anxiety. The pooled prevalence for stress was 17% (95% CI = 4%-34%); 58% (95% CI = 38%-77%) for mild stress, 22% (95% CI = 5%-44%) for moderate stress, and 19% (95% CI = 5%-37%) for severe stress. The prevalence of depression was 37% (95% CI = 25%-52%) for paramedics, 28% (95% CI = 12%-54%) for EMS personnel and 22% (95% CI = 13%-33%) for police. Similarly, the prevalence of anxiety was 38% (95% CI = 20%-60%) for paramedics, 28% (95% CI = 11%-53%) for EMS personnel, and 19% (95% CI = 10%-32%) for police. Married responders were likely at risk for depression (1.50, 95% CI = 1.26-1.78) and anxiety (1.94, 95% CI = 1.62-2.33), while unmarried responders were less likely at risk for depression (0.67, 95% CI = 0.56-0.79) and anxiety (0.50, 95% CI = 0.43-0.63). Conclusions: High prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic among first responders for medical emergencies emphasizes the need for monitoring their psychological well-being. Early assessment and management of mild depression, anxiety, and stress among first responders are crucial in preventing progression into moderate and severe types.

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 · 10.7189/jogh.12.05028

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • A recent meta-analysis of 8096 first responders reported that 60% met criteria for mild anxiety, 27% for moderate anxiety, and 14% for severe anxiety.

    “A recent meta-analysis assessed 8096 first responders and reported 60% met criteria for mild anxiety, 27% met criteria for moderate anxiety, and 14% met criteria for severe anxiety [52].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, G., Chu, H., Chen, R., Liu, D., Banda, K. J., O’Brien, A. P., Jen, H.-J., Chiang, K.-J., Chiou, J.-F., & Chou, K.-R.
Affiliations
  • Australasian College of Paramedicine (AU)
  • Tri-Service General Hospital (TW)
  • Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital (TW)
  • Wan Fang Hospital (TW)
  • Kamuzu Central Hospital (MW)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Taipei Medical University Hospital (TW)
Venue
Journal of Global Health
Published
2022-07-25
Volume
12
Pages
05028-05028
ISSN
  • 2047-2978 (ISSN-L)
  • 2047-2986
OpenAlex
W4286817040
Cited by
64
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Greater South Information System
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
depression, anxiety, stress, first responders, COVID-19 pandemic, medical emergencies, paramedics, emergency medical personnel, police, psychological well-being, prevalence, workplace mental health, psychological burden, COVID-19 pandemic response, mental health screening, mental health interventions, mental health education
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Anxiety, Depression, Emergencies, Humans, Stress, Psychological, Prevalence, Pandemics, Emergency Responders

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