scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Interventions to support the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic: a mixed methods systematic review

TL;DR: The aim of this review was to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic.
Abstract: Background Evidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the mental well-being of health and social care professionals. Symptoms of mental health problems commonly include depression, anxiety, stress, and additional cognitive and social problems; these can impact on function in the workplace. The mental health and resilience (ability to cope with the negative effects of stress) of frontline health and social care professionals ('frontline workers' in this review) could be supported during disease epidemics by workplace interventions, interventions to support basic daily needs, psychological support interventions, pharmacological interventions, or a combination of any or all of these. Objectives Objective 1: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Objective 2: to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Search methods On 28 May 2020 we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus databases and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing. We also searched ongoing trials registers and Google Scholar. We ran all searches from the year 2002 onwards, with no language restrictions. Selection criteria We included studies in which participants were health and social care professionals working at the front line during infectious disease outbreaks, categorised as epidemics or pandemics by WHO, from 2002 onwards. For objective 1 we included quantitative evidence from randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies, which investigated the effect of any intervention to support mental health or resilience, compared to no intervention, standard care, placebo or attention control intervention, or other active interventions. For objective 2 we included qualitative evidence from studies that described barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions. Outcomes critical to this review were general mental health and resilience. Additional outcomes included psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress; burnout; other mental health disorders; workplace staffing; and adverse events arising from interventions. Data collection and analysis Pairs of review authors independently applied selection criteria to abstracts and full papers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. One review author systematically extracted data, cross-checked by a second review author. For objective 1, we assessed risk of bias of studies of effectiveness using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For objective 2, we assessed methodological limitations using either the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) qualitative study tool, for qualitative studies, or WEIRD (Ways of Evaluating Important and Relevant Data) tool, for descriptive studies. We planned meta-analyses of pairwise comparisons for outcomes if direct evidence were available. Two review authors extracted evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to implementation, organised these around the domains of the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in each finding. We planned to produce an overarching synthesis, bringing quantitative and qualitative findings together. Main results We included 16 studies that reported implementation of an intervention aimed at supporting the resilience or mental health of frontline workers during disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): 2; Ebola: 9; Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): 1; COVID-19: 4). Interventions studied included workplace interventions, such as training, structure and communication (6 studies); psychological support interventions, such as counselling and psychology services (8 studies); and multifaceted interventions (2 studies). Objective 1: a mixed-methods study that incorporated a cluster-randomised trial, investigating the effect of a work-based intervention, provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of training frontline healthcare workers to deliver psychological first aid on a measure of burnout. Objective 2: we included all 16 studies in our qualitative evidence synthesis; we classified seven as qualitative and nine as descriptive studies. We identified 17 key findings from multiple barriers and facilitators reported in studies. We did not have high confidence in any of the findings; we had moderate confidence in six findings and low to very low confidence in 11 findings. We are moderately confident that the following two factors were barriers to intervention implementation: frontline workers, or the organisations in which they worked, not being fully aware of what they needed to support their mental well-being; and a lack of equipment, staff time or skills needed for an intervention. We are moderately confident that the following three factors were facilitators of intervention implementation: interventions that could be adapted for local needs; having effective communication, both formally and socially; and having positive, safe and supportive learning environments for frontline workers. We are moderately confident that the knowledge or beliefs, or both, that people have about an intervention can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementation of the intervention. Authors' conclusions There is a lack of both quantitative and qualitative evidence from studies carried out during or after disease epidemics and pandemics that can inform the selection of interventions that are beneficial to the resilience and mental health of frontline workers. Alternative sources of evidence (e.g. from other healthcare crises, and general evidence about interventions that support mental well-being) could therefore be used to inform decision making. When selecting interventions aimed at supporting frontline workers' mental health, organisational, social, personal, and psychological factors may all be important. Research to determine the effectiveness of interventions is a high priority. The COVID-19 pandemic provides unique opportunities for robust evaluation of interventions. Future studies must be developed with appropriately rigorous planning, including development, peer review and transparent reporting of research protocols, following guidance and standards for best practice, and with appropriate length of follow-up. Factors that may act as barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions should be considered during the planning of future research and when selecting interventions to deliver within local settings.

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors evaluated the prevalence of burnout and satisfaction with work-life integration (WLI) among physicians and US workers in 2020 relative to 2011, 2014, and 2017.
Abstract: To evaluate the prevalence of burnout and satisfaction with work-life integration (WLI) among physicians and US workers in 2020 relative to 2011, 2014, and 2017.Between November 20, 2020, and March 23, 2021, we surveyed US physicians and a probability-based sample of the US working population using methods similar to our prior studies. Burnout and WLI were measured using standard tools. Information about specific work-related COVID-19 experiences was collected.There were 7510 physicians who participated in the survey. Nonresponder analysis suggested that participants were representative of US physicians. Mean emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scores were lower in 2020 than in 2017, 2014, and 2011 (all P<.001). However, emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scores did not improve in specialties most heavily affected by COVID-19. Overall, 38.2% of physicians reported 1 or more symptoms of burnout in 2020 compared with 43.9% in 2017, 54.4% in 2014, and 45.5% in 2011 (all P<.001). Providing care without adequate personal protective equipment (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.72) and having suffered disruptive economic consequences due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.69) were independently associated with risk of burnout. On multivariable analysis, physicians were at increased risk for burnout (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.58) and were less likely to be satisfied with WLI (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.79) than other working US adults.Burnout and satisfaction with WLI among US physicians improved between 2017 and 2020. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physicians varies on the basis of professional characteristics and experiences. Physicians remain at increased risk for burnout relative to workers in other fields.

131 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated the effect of government-imposed stringency and timeliness of response to the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence of depressive symptoms across 33 countries (k=114, N=640,037).

124 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses concerning Burnout Syndrome and coronavirus (SARS/MERS/SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks was carried out on PubMed Central/Medline, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, and Epistemonikos databases.
Abstract: The coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic is putting a severe strain on all healthcare systems. Several occupational risk factors are challenging healthcare workers (HCWs) who are at high risk of mental health outcomes, including Burnout Syndrome (BOS). BOS is a psychological syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses concerning BOS and coronavirus (SARS/MERS/SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks was carried out on PubMed Central/Medline, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, and Epistemonikos databases. Data relating to COVID-19 is insufficient, but in previous SARS and MERS outbreaks about one-third of HCWs manifested BOS. This prevalence rate is similar to the figure recorded in some categories of HCWs exposed to chronic occupational stress and poor work organization during non-epidemic periods. Inadequate organization and worsening working conditions during an epidemic appear to be the most likely causes of BOS. Preventive care and workplace health promotion programs could be useful for protecting healthcare workers during pandemics, as well as during regular health activities.

105 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors proposed measures to prevent or reduce burnout at individual level (physical activity, balanced diet, good sleep hygiene, family support, meaningful relationships, reflective practices and small group discussions), organizational level (blame-free environments for sharing experiences and advices, broad involvement in management decisions, multi-disciplinary psychosocial support teams, safe areas to withdraw quickly from stressful situations, adequate time planning, social support), and cultural level (involvement of healthcare workers in the development, implementation, testing, and evaluation of measures against burnout).
Abstract: In the current period of global public health crisis due to the COVID-19, healthcare workers are more exposed to physical and mental exhaustion - burnout - for the torment of difficult decisions, the pain of losing patients and colleagues, and the risk of infection, for themselves and their families. The very high number of cases and deaths, and the probable future "waves" raise awareness of these challenging working conditions and the need to address burnout by identifying possible solutions. Measures have been suggested to prevent or reduce burnout at individual level (physical activity, balanced diet, good sleep hygiene, family support, meaningful relationships, reflective practices and small group discussions), organizational level (blame-free environments for sharing experiences and advices, broad involvement in management decisions, multi-disciplinary psychosocial support teams, safe areas to withdraw quickly from stressful situations, adequate time planning, social support), and cultural level (involvement of healthcare workers in the development, implementation, testing, and evaluation of measures against burnout). Although some progress has been made in removing the barrier to psychological support to cope with work-related stress, a cultural change is still needed for the stigma associated with mental illness. The key recommendation is to address the challenges that the emergency poses and to aggregate health, well-being and behavioral science expertise through long term researches with rigorous planning and reporting to drive the necessary cultural change and the improvement of public health systems.

95 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines by searching PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, and Scopus from 1 January to 24 November 2020 to evaluate the burnout prevalence among healthcare workers (HCWs) in ICUs and emergency departments (EDs) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Abstract: The primary aim was to evaluate the burnout prevalence among healthcare workers (HCWs) in intensive care units (ICUs) and emergency departments (EDs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary aim was to identify factors associated with burnout in this population. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines by searching PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, and Scopus from 1 January to 24 November 2020. Studies with information about burnout prevalence/level during the pandemic regarding ICU/ED HCWs were eligible. A total of 927 records were identified. The selection resulted in 11 studies. Most studies were conducted in April/May 2020. Samples ranged from 15 to 12,596 participants. The prevalence of overall burnout ranged from 49.3% to 58%. Nurses seemed to be at higher risk. Both socio-demographic and work-related features were associated with burnout. Many pandemic-related variables were associated with burnout, e.g., shortage in resources, worry regarding COVID-19, and stigma. This review highlighted a substantial burnout prevalence among ICU/ED HCWs. However, this population has presented a high burnout prevalence for a long time, and there is not sufficient evidence to understand if such prevalence is currently increased. It also outlined modifiable factors and the need to improve emergency preparedness both from an individual and structural level.

86 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

62,157 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
04 Sep 2003-BMJ
TL;DR: A new quantity is developed, I 2, which the authors believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis, which is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta- analysis.
Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …

45,105 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
12 Oct 2016-BMJ
TL;DR: Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions is developed, a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units or clusters of individuals to comparison groups.
Abstract: Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.

8,028 citations