A descriptive analysis of nurses’ self‐reported mental health symptoms during the COVID‐19 pandemic: An international study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the self-reported mental health of nurses from 35 countries who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: There is little occupationally specific data about nurses' mental health worldwide. Studies have documented the impact on nurses' mental health of the COVID-19 pandemic, but few have baseline referents. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional design structured the study. Data reflect a convenience sample of 9,387 participants who completed the opt-in survey between July 31, 2022, and October 31, 2023. Descriptive statistics were run to analyze the following variables associated with mental health: Self-reports of mental health symptoms, burnout, personal losses during the pandemic, access to mental health services, and self-care practices used to cope with pandemic-related stressors. Reporting of this study was steered by the STROBE guideline for quantitative studies. RESULTS: Anxiety or depression occurred at rates ranging from 23%-61%, with country-specific trends in reporting observed. Approximately 18% of the sample reported experiencing some symptoms of burnout. The majority of nurses' employers did not provide mental health support in the workplace. Most reported more frequently engaging with self-care practices compared with before the pandemic. Notably, 20% of nurses suffered the loss of a family member, 35% lost a friend, and 34% a coworker due to COVID-19. Nearly half (48%) reported experiencing public aggression due to their identity as a nurse. CONCLUSIONS: The data obtained establish a basis for understanding the specific mental health needs of the nursing workforce globally, highlighting key areas for service development. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING POLICY: Healthcare organizations and governmental bodies need to develop targeted mental health support programs that are readily accessible to nurses to foster a resilient nursing workforce.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".