scholarly journals The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers’ Anxiety Levels: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
lunbo zhang ◽  
YAN MING ◽  
Kaito Takashima ◽  
GUO WENRU ◽  
Yuki Yamada
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anxiety State ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Moderator Analysis ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Anxiety Levels

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic has been declared a public health emergency of international concern; this has caused excessive anxiety among health care workers. In addition, publication bias and low-quality publications have become widespread, which can result in the dissemination of unreliable findings.This paper performed a meta-analysis with the following two aims: (1) to examine the prevalence of anxiety among health care workers and determine whether it has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) to investigate whether there has been an increase in publication bias.Methods. All related studies published/released from 2015 to 2020 were searched in electronic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, PsyArXiv, and medRxiv). The heterogeneity of the studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. The effect size (prevalence rates of anxiety) and a 95% CI for each paper were also calculated. We used a moderator analysis to test for the effect of COVID-19 on health care workers’ anxiety levels and detect publication bias in COVID-19 studies. We also assessed publication bias using the funnel plot and Egger regression.Results.The pooled meta-analysis prevalence was 35.3% (95% CI: 32.2%−38.4%). The moderator analysis revealed no significant difference between articles related to COVID-19 and those unrelated to COVID-19 (p = 0.831). Moreover, no significant difference was found between articles related to COVID-19 and preprints (p = 0.981). Significant heterogeneity was found in each subgroup. Egger’s tests revealed publication bias in articles related to COVID-19 and preprints (p < 0.001).Conclusions. Concluding whether the anxiety state of health care workers is altered by the COVID-19 pandemic currently is difficult. However, we have strong evidence that their anxiety levels are always high, although this could also be a false positive caused by a large publication bias. Moreover, without comparing the results with those of non-health care workers, we cannot be sure that their anxiety is particularly high. Furthermore, we found a large publication bias in studies; however, the quality of the studies is relatively stable and reliable.

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers’ Anxiety Levels: A Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lunbo Zhang ◽  
Ming Yan ◽  
Kaito Takashima ◽  
Wenru Guo ◽  
Yuki Yamada
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anxiety State ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Moderator Analysis ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Anxiety Levels

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic has been declared a public health emergency of international concern; this has caused excessive anxiety among health care workers. In addition, publication bias and low-quality publications have become widespread, which can result in the dissemination of unreliable findings.  OBJECTIVE This paper presents the protocol for a meta-analysis with the following two aims: (1) to examine the prevalence of anxiety among health care workers and determine whether it has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) to investigate whether there has been an increase in publication bias.  METHODS All related studies that were published/released from 2015 to 2020 will be searched in electronic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, PsyArXiv, and medRxiv). The risk of bias in individual studies will be assessed using the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist. The heterogeneity of the studies will be assessed using the I2 statistic. The effect size (prevalence rates of anxiety) and a 95% CI for each paper will also be calculated. We will use a moderator analysis to test for the effect of COVID-19 on health care workers’ anxiety levels and detect publication bias in COVID-19 studies. We will also assess publication bias using the funnel plot and Egger regression. In case of publication bias, if studies have no homogeneity, the trim-and-fill procedure will be applied to adjust for missing studies. RESULTS The pooled meta-analysis prevalence was 35.3% (95% CI: 32.2%−38.4%). The moderator analysis revealed no significant difference between articles related to COVID-19 and those unrelated to COVID-19 (p = 0.831). Moreover, no significant difference was found between articles related to COVID-19 and preprints (p = 0.981). Significant heterogeneity was found in each subgroup. Egger’s tests revealed publication bias in articles related to COVID-19 and preprints (p < 0.001).  CONCLUSIONS Our study found no significant differences in the effect sizes (prevalence of anxiety) between studies related and those unrelated to COVID-19. Concluding whether the anxiety state of health care workers is altered by the COVID-19 pandemic currently is difficult. However, we have strong evidence that their anxiety levels are always high, although this could also be a false positive caused by a large publication bias. Moreover, without comparing the results with those of non-healthcare workers, we cannot be sure that their anxiety is particularly high. The present study highlights the need to generalize valid and reliable measurements to more accurately examine health care workers’ anxiety in the future. Furthermore, we found a large publication bias in studies; however, the quality of the studies is relatively stable and reliable. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/24136

scholarly journals The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers’ Anxiety Levels: Protocol for a Meta-Analysis

10.2196/24136 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e24136
Author(s):  
Lunbo Zhang ◽  
Ming Yan ◽  
Kaito Takashima ◽  
Wenru Guo ◽  
Yuki Yamada
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Start Date ◽  
Anxiety Prevention ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Anxiety Levels ◽  
Trim And Fill

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has been declared a public health emergency of international concern; this has caused excessive anxiety among health care workers. In addition, publication bias and low-quality publications have become widespread, which can result in the dissemination of unreliable findings. Objective This paper presents the protocol for a meta-analysis with the following two aims: (1) to examine the prevalence of anxiety among health care workers and determine whether it has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) to investigate whether there has been an increase in publication bias. Methods All related studies that were published/released from 2015 to 2020 will be searched in electronic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, PsyArXiv, and medRxiv). The risk of bias in individual studies will be assessed using the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist. The heterogeneity of the studies will be assessed using the I2 statistic. The effect size (prevalence rates of anxiety) and a 95% CI for each paper will also be calculated. We will use a moderator analysis to test for the effect of COVID-19 on health care workers’ anxiety levels and detect publication bias in COVID-19 studies. We will also assess publication bias using the funnel plot and Egger regression. In case of publication bias, if studies have no homogeneity, the trim-and-fill procedure will be applied to adjust for missing studies. Results Database searches will commence in November 2020. The meta-analysis will be completed within 2 months of the start date. Conclusions This meta-analysis aims to provide comprehensive evidence about whether COVID-19 increases the prevalence of anxiety among health care workers and whether there has been an increase in publication bias and a deterioration in the quality of publications due to the pandemic. The results of this meta-analysis can provide evidence to help health managers to make informed decisions related to anxiety prevention in health care workers. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/24136

scholarly journals The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers’ Anxiety Levels: Protocol for a Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lunbo Zhang ◽  
Ming Yan ◽  
Kaito Takashima ◽  
Wenru Guo ◽  
Yuki Yamada
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Start Date ◽  
Anxiety Prevention ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Anxiety Levels ◽  
Trim And Fill

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic has been declared a public health emergency of international concern; this has caused excessive anxiety among health care workers. In addition, publication bias and low-quality publications have become widespread, which can result in the dissemination of unreliable findings. OBJECTIVE This paper presents the protocol for a meta-analysis with the following two aims: (1) to examine the prevalence of anxiety among health care workers and determine whether it has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) to investigate whether there has been an increase in publication bias. METHODS All related studies that were published/released from 2015 to 2020 will be searched in electronic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, PsyArXiv, and medRxiv). The risk of bias in individual studies will be assessed using the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist. The heterogeneity of the studies will be assessed using the I<sup>2</sup> statistic. The effect size (prevalence rates of anxiety) and a 95% CI for each paper will also be calculated. We will use a moderator analysis to test for the effect of COVID-19 on health care workers’ anxiety levels and detect publication bias in COVID-19 studies. We will also assess publication bias using the funnel plot and Egger regression. In case of publication bias, if studies have no homogeneity, the trim-and-fill procedure will be applied to adjust for missing studies. RESULTS Database searches will commence in November 2020. The meta-analysis will be completed within 2 months of the start date. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis aims to provide comprehensive evidence about whether COVID-19 increases the prevalence of anxiety among health care workers and whether there has been an increase in publication bias and a deterioration in the quality of publications due to the pandemic. The results of this meta-analysis can provide evidence to help health managers to make informed decisions related to anxiety prevention in health care workers. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/24136

scholarly journals Hand washing practice among health care workers in Ethiopia: systemic review and meta-analysis, 2020

Heliyon ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. e06972
Author(s):  
Haileyesus Gedamu ◽  
Teshager W/giorgis ◽  
Getasew Tesfa ◽  
Yilkal Tafere ◽  
Minichil Genet
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hand Washing ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Care Workers

scholarly journals Measuring the Quality of Rural-Based, Government Health Care Workers in Nepal

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Knoble ◽  
Anil Pandit ◽  
Bibek Koirala ◽  
Laxmi Ghimire
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Clinical Training ◽  
Health Workers ◽  
Clinical Skills ◽  
Clinical Teacher ◽  
Government Health ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Key Skills ◽  
Significant Difference

A representative, cross-sectional clinical skills assessment of 163 mid-level, rural-based, government health care workers was conducted in four districts of Nepal in June 2007. All Health Assistants and Auxiliary Healthcare Workers within the target districts were scored using checklists of standardized key skills in clinical encounters with model patients or clinical models. Participant scores were reported as a mean percentage in adult medicine 28(%), pediatric medicine 56(%), maternity medicine 35(%), orthopedic medicine 45(%), clinical procedures 59(%), and management 46(%). This was measured against the government’s 60(%) standard on clinical skills. There was little significant difference between categories of health workers by district of posting or years of experience. There was a minor difference in skills by level of facility - workers in higher level facilities scored better across the domains. Reasons for poor performance in clinical skills were attributed to a lack of clinical in-service training programs, training only focusing on prevention and public health, and poor on-sight supervision. Poor pre-service schooling factors included heavy theory concentration in pathophysiology and inadequate clinical exposure opportunities. Recommendations for the improvement of clinical skills and decision-making include the institution of in-service competency-based training with a high emphasis on real patient exposure. Pre-service recommendations include implementation of a national certification program and an expansion of the current government clinical training sites and clinical teacher development programs.

scholarly journals Incidence of COVID-19 infection amongst the high risk versus low risk health care workers: an audit from a tertiary cancer care centre

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 3474
Author(s):  
Nitin Shetty ◽  
Nivedita Chakrabarty ◽  
Amit Joshi ◽  
Amar Patil ◽  
Suyash Kulkarni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Care Centre ◽  
Protective Measures ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Treatment Research

Background: Theoretically, health care workers (HCW) are at increased risk of getting infected with COVID-19 compared to the general population. Limited data exists regarding the actual incidence of COVID-19 infection amongst the high risk and low risk HCW of the same hospital. We present an audit from our tertiary cancer care centre comparing the COVID-19 infection rate between the high risk and low risk HCW, all of whom had been provided with adequate protective measures and health education.Methods: This is a retrospective observational study from 01 April 2020 to 30 September 2020, in which all the 970 HCW of Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer were divided into high risk and low risk groups. High risk HCW included all the medical and non-medical staff directly involved with the care of COVID-19 patients, and rest were low risk HCW. Adequate protective measures and classes for infection prevention were provided to all the HCW. We calculated the incidence of COVID-19 infection in both these groups based on the positive real time-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) result and also looked for any significant difference in incidence between these two groups.Results: The incidence of COVID-19 infection amongst the high risk HCW was 13% and that of low risk HCW was 14%.Conclusions: We found no significant difference in COVID-19 infection between the high risk and low risk HCW. Thus, along with protective measures, behavior modifications induced by working in high risk areas, prevented the high risk HCW from getting increased COVID-19 infection compared to the low risk HCW.

Prevalence and causes of unreported needle stick injuries among health care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Razieh Behzadmehr ◽  
Abbas Balouchi ◽  
Mehran Hesaraki ◽  
Farshid Alazmani Noodeh ◽  
Hosein Rafiemanesh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Health Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Needle Stick ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Needle Stick Injuries

Abstract Objectives Health care workers (HCWs) are exposed to needle needles daily. Despite individual studies, there is no statistics on the prevalence of unreported needle stick injuries (NSIs) have been reported. This study was performed to determine the prevalence and causes of unreported NSIs among HCWs. Content In present systematic review and meta-analysis study, three international databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed) were searched from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2018. The random model was used to determine the prevalence of unreported needle stick among HCWs. Summary and outlook Forty-one studies performed on 19,635 health care workers entered the final stage. Based-on random effect model, pooled prevalence of unreported needle stick injuries was 59.9% (95% CI: 52.0, 67.7; I2=98.9%). The most common cause of unreported NSIs was: They were not worried about NSIs (n=12). The high prevalence of unreported needle sticks injuries indicates the urgency and necessity of paying attention to strategies to improve reporting among health workers.

scholarly journals Consideration for the asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaiwal Ravindra ◽  
Vivek Singh Malik ◽  
Bijaya K Padhi ◽  
Sonu Goel ◽  
Madhu Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chest Ct ◽  
Nucleic Acid Testing ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Children Health ◽  
Chest Ct Scan

AbstractObjectiveWorldwide countries are experiencing viral load in their population, leading to potential infectivity of asymptomatic COVID-19. Current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of asymptomatic infection worldwide reported in family-cluster, adults, children, health care workers, and travelers.DesignOnline literature search (PubMed, Google Scholar, medRixv, and BioRixv) was accomplished using standard Boolean operators, studies published till 07th June 2020.SettingStudies were included from case reports, short communication, and retrospective to cover sufficient asymptomatic COVID-19 transmission reported.ParticipantsFamilial-clusters, adults, children, health care workers, and travelers.ResultsWe observed asymptomatic transmission among familial-cluster, adults, children, health care workers, and travelers with a proportion of 32% 37%, 26%, 6%, and 32%, respectively. This study observed an overall proportion of 31% (95%CI: 0.19-0.44) with heterogeneity of I2 (97.28%, p=<0.001) among all asymptomatic populations mentioned in this study. Among children and healthcare workers, this study showed no heterogeneity; to overcome the interpretation from a fixed model, the random effect model was also applied to estimate the average distribution across studies included in the meta-analysis.ConclusionWe found and suggest the rigorous epidemiological history, early isolation, social distancing, and increased quarantine period (at least 28 days) after screening asymptomatic cases as well as their close contacts for chest CT scan even after their negative nucleic acid testing to minimize the spread among the community. This systematic review and meta-analysis support asymptomatic COVID-19 transmission between person to person depending on the variation of virus incubation period among individuals. Children especially, school-going aged <18 years, need to be monitored and prevention strategy, e.g., chest CT and social distancing required to prevent the community transmission of COVID-19 in asymptomatic mode.Strengths and limitations of this studyExamine the possibility of asymptomatic COVID-19 transmission in the community at different levels.Supports contact tracing, social distancing, early isolation, and increased quarantine period to minimize the risk of virus spread.Supports chest CT scan and viral nucleic acid testing to identify the asymptomatic cases in the community.Supports rigorous epidemiological history with multiple detection methods.A higher proportion of asymptomatic incidence was seen, suggests monitoring, and maintaining social distancing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document