Mental Health of Healthcare Professionals Compared to Future Healthcare Professionals (Students): A Systematic Review

Introduction Currently, the concept of health encompasses complete physical, mental, and social well-being, based on the principles of universality, comprehensiveness, and equity in access to care. Mental health, an essential component of this concept, is often approached from a psychiatric perspective, linking its absence to crises and psychological disorders [6]. The restrictive measures imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected the population’s emotional health, thus fostering a broader discussion on mental health [7]. Healthcare professionals form a particularly vulnerable group to mental health issues, whether temporary or prolonged, due to high-pressure environments, long working hours, and physical fatigue. The high incidence of anxiety, fear, stress, and especially burnout syndrome is associated with exposure to large numbers of deaths [7,4]. Beyond the professional environment, many cases also involve interpersonal and personal challenges, particularly related to the responsibility of financially supporting their families [9,3]. Healthcare students experience considerable stress levels due to the need to learn a vast amount of information in a short time, changes in lifestyle, separation from their families (in most cases), long study hours, and practical/clinical activities [7,5]. This group becomes vulnerable to developing psychological issues, primarily burnout syndrome [5], due to numerous demands and a lack of leisure [7,1]. This systematic review aims to compare the mental health of healthcare professionals and future professionals (students) in light of sociocultural and occupational factors. By gathering and organizing this body of knowledge, we aim to provide a comprehensive and updated view of the mental health of these groups. Methodology 2.1 Study Design This systematic review (SR) protocol was structured based on evidence-based practice (EBP) [10] and will follow the PRISMA 2020 checklist [8]. The three preliminary stages of SR, according to EBP, include: defining the research question, identifying the databases to be searched, and establishing article selection criteria. After the preliminary stage, five additional stages will be included: conducting the search in selected databases, comparing examiner searches and defining initial article selection, applying selection criteria, critically analyzing and evaluating all included studies, preparing a critical summary, synthesizing the information, and presenting a conclusion reporting the evidence on the intervention’s effects [10]. 2.1.2 Research question The research question was developed using the PICOT framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Type of study) [2], aligned with the objective of the study. The elements of the PICOT acronym reported in this review include: Population/Problem – healthcare workers and future professionals (students); Intervention – exposure to occupational and sociocultural factors; Comparison – different contexts involving trained professionals versus students; Outcome – mental health considerations; Type of study – comparative study. After applying the PICOT framework [2], the following research question emerged: When comparing occupational and sociocultural environments, is the mental health of healthcare professionals equivalent to that of healthcare students? 2.1.3 Definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria according to the research objective/question Only control studies that directly compare the mental health of healthcare professionals and healthcare students will be included. Descriptive studies, systematic reviews, case reports, and in vitro studies will be excluded. The search will be limited to full-text articles published in English, with no publication date restrictions. Additionally, studies that do not employ direct comparison methods between practicing professionals and students will be excluded. Studies focused on career duration or unrelated alternative methods will also be excluded. 2.1.4 Review Planning and Protocol To ensure clearly defined methods, this protocol will be registered on the Open Science Framework platform. Rayyan software (Rayyan Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA) will be used for the systematic search and duplicate detection. 2.1.5 Conducting a clear and reproducible search strategy The main international databases were consulted, including MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and SCIELO. A search was conducted using a combination of descriptors and MeSH-indexed terms, as well as their synonyms and keywords, applying the Boolean operators AND/OR. Additionally, the reference lists of the selected primary studies will be manually reviewed to identify potential relevant studies for inclusion. Selection of studies Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the eligibility phase will begin. Duplicates will be checked in Rayyan. After removal, articles will be imported into Rayyan for screening. Initially, three reviewers (APOP, GSEC, MAOQ) will independently assess titles and abstracts. Then, they will analyze full texts to determine inclusion. In case of disagreement, a fourth reviewer (LSC) will mediate. 2.1.7 Data Extraction, evaluation, and presentation The methodological quality and risk of bias will be assessed using the adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A “Yes” will be assigned if specific criteria are met and reported; otherwise, a “No.” Risk of bias will be classified by the percentage of “Yes” answers: 0–49% (high risk), 50–69% (moderate risk), 70–100% (low risk). A detailed risk of bias evaluation will be conducted. This in-depth methodological analysis is a priority in systematic reviews. Additionally, the significance of the findings will be interpreted in relation to the central question: Mental health of healthcare professionals compared to future healthcare professionals (students). 2.1.8. Ethical Aspects and Patient and Public Involvement This review does not require ethics committee approval since it involves analyzing published evidence and does not include human or animal subjects. Partial Considerations Scientific literature still presents significant gaps in comparing the mental health of professionals versus students. A major limitation is the lack of studies focusing exclusively on adult females. Thus, integrated analysis of current evidence may support the development of future research strategies and reviews—especially those focusing solely on female healthcare professionals and students.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.