MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415155616 · doi:10.1186/s12961-025-01395-9

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Canadian healthcare workforce: a rapid evidence synthesis of key considerations, lessons learned, and promising practices to address the healthcare workforce crisis

2025· article· en· W4415155616 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gail Tomblin Murphy, Tara Sampalli, Andrea Carson, Mark Embrett, Meaghan Sim, Caroline Chamberland-Rowe, Alyssa Indar, Marta MacInnis, Kaylee Murphy-Boyle, Janet Rigby, Julia Guk, Leah Boulos, Kristy Hancock, Jayden Altman-Prezioso, Shirin Mehrpooya

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Research Policy and Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkDiscovery CentreLondon Health Sciences CentreIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsWorkforceHealth carePsychological interventionHealth services researchPandemicHealth administrationPublic healthWorkforce developmentHealth policyResilience (materials science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canada's healthcare workforce and service delivery necessitate focused health system planning and delivery that prioritizes coordination, collaboration, and evidence-based strategies. A rapid evidence synthesis was commissioned by Health Canada to determine the impacts of the pandemic on the healthcare workforce and to identify promising strategies and innovations that mitigate these challenges. METHODS: Two, sequential rapid evidence syntheses were conducted between October 2022 and March 2023 using methodologies aligned with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S) guidelines. The first review (October-November 2022) focused on the impacts of COVID-19 on Canadian healthcare workers and mitigation strategies, while the second (November 2022-March 2023) broadened the scope to international interventions. Findings were organized by impact level (individual, organizational, system). Quality assessment of sources was not performed. RESULTS: We included 176 and 31 sources, respectively in the analysis. Sources identifying impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic described significant mental health impacts on healthcare workers, alongside changes in demand and supply of services, physical health challenges, and shifts in scopes of practice or care models. Interventions were primarily targeted at the individual or organizational level and included mental health support, training and upskilling, enhanced organizational communication and workforce planning initiatives. System-level interventions were less common, and most interventions lacked robust evaluation or evidence-informed design. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights a significant gap in literature regarding evaluated interventions to address healthcare workforce challenges during the pandemic. While numerous sources document the adverse impacts on healthcare workers, detailed reports on specific interventions are scarce. Most interventions focus on workforce planning, education, practice scopes, recruitment and technology integration. The research underscores the need for comprehensive recommendations addressing social and mental health support, workplace safety, organizational communication and pandemic preparedness. These recommendations are vital for developing future workforce strategies, thus enabling policymakers and healthcare leaders to effectively respond to current and future healthcare challenges. This strategic approach will enhance system resilience and improve healthcare delivery across Canada.

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)0.170
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.324
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1700.324
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.012
Bibliometrics0.0300.028
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0150.007
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.734
GPT teacher head0.652
Teacher spread0.082 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Research Policy and SystemsSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207