MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383371013 · doi:10.7759/cureus.41447

Exploring the Mental Health Challenges of Emergency Medicine and Critical Care Professionals: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4383371013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tarek Ibrahim, Amr Gebril, Mohammed K Nasr, Abdul Samad, Hany A Zaki

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBurnoutDepersonalizationMeta-analysisConfidence intervalEmotional exhaustionOdds ratioCritical appraisalHealth careDepression (economics)Family medicineMental healthMEDLINEEmergency departmentNursingPsychiatryAlternative medicineInternal medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burnout and depression are global problems affecting healthcare providers, especially those working in stressful departments such as emergency departments (EDs) and critical care units (CCUs). However, pooled data analysis comparing healthcare providers operating in the ED and CCU is yet to be conducted. Therefore, this meta-analysis was systematically conducted to investigate and compare the prevalence of burnout and depression among emergency medicine (EM) and critical care medicine (CCM) professionals. We systematically searched for articles related to our research topic using the database search method and manual search method, which involved reviewing the reference lists of articles from electronic databases for additional studies. After screening the literature from the databases using the eligibility criteria, a quality appraisal using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was performed on the eligible studies. In addition, a meta-analysis using the Review Manager software was performed to investigate the prevalence rates of burnout and depression. A total of 10 studies with 1,353 EM and 1,250 CCM professionals were included for analysis in the present study. The pooled analysis did not establish any considerable differences between EM and CCM healthcare workers on the prevalence of high emotional exhaustion (EE) (odds ratio (OR) = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.46-2.19; p = 0.98), high depersonalization (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.61-2.21; p = 0.64), low personal accomplishment (PA) (OR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.67 - 1.12; p = 0.28), and depression (OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 0.74-1.95; p = 0.45). Moreover, pooled data showed no considerable differences in EE scores (mean difference (MD) = -1.07; 95% CI = -4.24-2.09; p = 0.51) and depersonalization scores (MD = -0.31; 95% CI = -1.35-0.73; p = 0.56). However, EM healthcare workers seemed to have considerably lower PA scores than their CCM counterparts (MD = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.08-0.16; p < 0.00001). No considerable difference was recorded in the prevalence of burnout and depression between EM and CCM healthcare workers. However, our findings suggest that EM professionals have lower PA scores than CCM professionals; therefore, more attention should be paid to the mental health of EM professionals to improve their PA.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.034
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.783
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207