MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412957311 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1628884

Psychological distress is associated with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder among healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: 2021–2023

2025· article· en· W4412957311 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brenda L. Coleman, Iris Gutmanis, Robert Maunder, Allison McGeer

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDistressConfidence intervalPandemicPsychologyPsychiatryPoisson regressionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Mental healthTraumatic stressPsychological distressMedicineHealth careCohortProspective cohort studyClinical psychologyCohort studyInternal medicinePopulationDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, approximately 25% of healthcare providers (HCP) worldwide were reported to have experienced symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While longitudinal studies have identified factors associated with PTSD in this group of essential workers, associations with psychological distress trajectories have not been studied. Methods: Healthcare providers who participated in the prospective Canadian COVID-19 Cohort Study were eligible. Baseline data were collected at enrolment with time-varying measures updated by participants every 12 months. Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) questionnaires were completed in March 2021 or upon their recruitment (whichever came first) and every 6 months thereafter. Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) questionnaires were completed within two weeks of their withdrawal from the study or study termination date (December 2023). Modified Poisson regression was used to assess the association between PTSD symptoms (i.e., IES-R scores of < 24 vs. ≥ 24) and score trajectories of the first four K10 questionnaires that were completed 180 (± 60) days apart. Results: = 111, 25.2%), chronically distressed (131, 29.7%), delayed onset of distress (43, 9.8%), recovery (83, 18.8%), and mutable (73, 16.6%). HCP whose K10 score trajectories were classified as chronically distressed (i.e., all ≥ 16) had rates of IES-R scores indicative of PTSD that were 6.9 times [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7, 13.0] higher than HCP with resilient score trajectories (i.e., all < 16). Participants with scores in the other three K10 trajectories also had higher rates of IES-R scores of ≥ 24 when compared to those with resilient scores, with adjusted incident rate ratios of 2.6 (delayed onset; CI 1.3, 5.1), 3.1 (recovery; CI 1.4, 7.2), and 4.0 (mutable; CI 2.2, 7.3). Conclusion: Early and repeated assessment of HCP distress levels will help identify those who are distressed so that evidence-based mitigation strategies can be provided.

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)0.003
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 score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychology→Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→