MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Physician Posttraumatic Stress Disorder During COVID-19

2024· review· en· W4400949424 on OpenAlexaff
Mihir Kamra, Shan Dhaliwal, Wenshan Li, Shrey Acharya, Adrian Wong, Andy Z. X. Zhu, Jaydev Vemulakonda, Janet Wilson, Maya Gibb, Courtney Maskerine, Edward G. Spilg, Peter Tanuseputro, Daniel T. Myran, Marco Solmi, Manish M. Sood

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalBruyèreUniversity of OttawaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Posttraumatic stress2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PsychologyStress (linguistics)MedicineClinical psychologyVirologyInternal medicinePhilosophyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Outbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic placed many physicians in situations of increased stress and challenging resource allocation decisions. Insight into the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in physicians and its risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic will guide interventions to prevent its development. Objective: To determine the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and examine variations based on factors, such as sex, age, medical specialty, and career stage. Data Sources: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-compliant systematic review was conducted, searching MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychInfo, from December 2019 to November 2022. Search terms included MeSH (medical subject heading) terms and keywords associated with physicians as the population and PTSD. Study Selection: Peer-reviewed published studies reporting on PTSD as a probable diagnosis via validated questionnaires or clinician diagnosis were included. The studies were reviewed by 6 reviewers. Data Extraction and Synthesis: A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool estimates of PTSD prevalence and calculate odds ratios (ORs) for relevant physician characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of interest was the prevalence of PTSD in physicians, identified by standardized questionnaires. Results: Fifty-seven studies with a total of 28 965 participants and 25 countries were included (of those that reported sex: 5917 of 11 239 [52.6%] were male and 5322 of 11 239 [47.4%] were female; of those that reported career stage: 4148 of 11 186 [37.1%] were medical trainees and 7038 of 11 186 [62.9%] were attending physicians). The estimated pooled prevalence of PTSD was 18.3% (95% CI, 15.2%-22.8%; I2 = 97%). Fourteen studies (22.8%) reported sex, and it was found that female physicians were more likely to develop PTSD (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.56-2.39). Of the 10 studies (17.5%) reporting age, younger physicians reported less PTSD. Among the 13 studies (22.8%) reporting specialty, PTSD was most common among emergency department doctors. Among the 16 studies (28.1%) reporting career stage, trainees were more prone to developing PTSD than attendings (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.12-1.57). Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis examining PTSD during COVID-19, 18.3% of physicians reported symptoms consistent with PTSD, with a higher risk in female physicians, older physiciansy, and trainees, and with variation by specialty. Targeted interventions to support physician well-being during traumatic events like pandemics are required.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207