MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390116643 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075190

Prevalence of psychological distress in nurses, physicians and leaders working in intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national one-year follow-up study

2023· article· en· W4390116643 on OpenAlexaff
Ingvild Strand Hovland, Laila Skogstad, Siv K. Stafseth, Erlend Hem, Lien My Diep, Johan Ræder, Øivind Ekeberg, Irene Lie

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnxietyDepression (economics)DistressPsychiatryIntensive care unitChecklistIntensive careObservational studyClinical psychologyPsychologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To report and compare psychological distress as symptoms of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress among intensive care units' (ICU) nurses, physicians and leaders at 12 months after the baseline survey (spring 2020), during the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway. Furthermore, to analyse which baseline demographic and COVID ICU-related factors have a significant impact on psychological distress at 12 months. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study. SETTING: Nationwide, 27 of 28 hospitals with COVID ICUs in Norway. PARTICIPANTS: Nurses, physicians and their leaders. At 12 month follow-up 287 (59.3%) of 484 baseline participants responded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptoms of anxiety and depression using the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-10 (HSCL-10). Symptoms of post-traumatic stress using the post-traumatic stress disease checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (PCL-5).Demographics (included previous symptoms of anxiety and depression) and COVID ICU-related factors (professional preparations, emotional experience and support) impacting distress at 12 months. RESULTS: Psychological distress, defined as caseness on either or both HSCL-10 and PCL-5, did not change significantly and was present for 13.6% of the participants at baseline and 13.2% at 12 month follow-up. Nurses reported significantly higher levels of psychological distress than physicians and leaders. Adjusted for demographics and the COVID ICU-related factors at baseline, previous symptoms of depression and fear of infection were significantly associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression at 12 months. Previous symptoms of depression, fear of infection and feeling of loneliness was significantly associated with more symptoms of post-traumatic stress. CONCLUSION: One year into the COVID-19 pandemic 13.2% of the ICUs professionals reported psychological distress, more frequently among the nurses. Fear of infection, loneliness and previous symptoms of depression reported at baseline were associated with higher levels of distress. Protective equipment and peer support are recommended to mitigate distress. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04372056.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.378
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→