You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 12, Issue 11
  • Interventions to support the mental health and well-being of front-line healthcare workers in hospitals during pandemics: an evidence review and synthesis

Article Text

Article menu
Mental health
Original research
Interventions to support the mental health and well-being of front-line healthcare workers in hospitals during pandemics: an evidence review and synthesis
  1. Kate Robins-Browne1,
  2. Matthew Lewis1,2,
  3. Luke James Burchill2,3,4,
  4. Cecily Gilbert5,
  5. Caroline Johnson1,2,
  6. Meaghan O'Donnell6,
  7. Aneta Kotevski3,
  8. Jasmine Poonian7,
  9. Victoria J Palmer1,2
  1. 1Primary Care Mental Health Research Program, Department of General Practice, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2The ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, Department of General Practice, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4Department of Cardiology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5The Centre for Digital Transformation of Health Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic, Australia
  6. 6The Department of Psychiatry, Melbourne Medical School, Facutly of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic, Australia
  7. 7Emergency Medicine, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Professor Victoria J Palmer; v.palmer{at}unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

Objective Pandemics negatively impact healthcare workers’ (HCW’s) mental health and well-being causing additional feelings of anxiety, depression, moral distress and post-traumatic stress. A comprehensive review and evidence synthesis of HCW’s mental health and well-being interventions through pandemics reporting mental health outcomes was conducted addressing two questions: (1) What mental health support interventions have been reported in recent pandemics, and have they been effective in improving the mental health and well-being of HCWs? (2) Have any mobile apps been designed and implemented to support HCWs’ mental health and well-being during pandemics?

Design A narrative evidence synthesis was conducted using Cochrane criteria for synthesising and presenting findings when systematic review and pooling data for statistical analysis are not suitable due to the heterogeneity of the studies.

Data sources Evidence summary resources, bibliographic databases, grey literature sources, clinical trial registries and protocol registries were searched.

Eligibility criteria Subject heading terms and keywords covering three key concepts were searched: SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (or similar infectious diseases) epidemics, health workforce and mental health support interventions. Searches were limited to English-language items published from 1 January 2000 to 14 June 2022. No publication-type limit was used.

Data extraction and synthesis Two authors determined eligibility and extracted data from identified manuscripts. Data was synthesised into tables and refined by coauthors.

Results 2694 studies were identified and 27 papers were included. Interventions were directed at individuals and/or organisations and most were COVID-19 focused. Interventions had some positive impacts on HCW’s mental health and well-being, but variable study quality, low sample sizes and lack of control conditions were limitations. Two mobile apps were identified with mixed outcomes.

Conclusion HCW interventions were rapidly designed and implemented with few comprehensively described or evaluated. Tailored interventions that respond to HCWs’ needs using experience co-design for mental health and well-being are required with process and outcome evaluation.

  • mental health
  • COVID-19
  • adult psychiatry
  • accident & emergency medicine

Data availability statement

No data are available.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061317

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    No data are available.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • KR-B and ML are joint first authors.

    • Twitter @VictoriaJPalmer

    • Contributors VJP and LJB conceptualised the evidence review and synthesis. VJP, LJB, KR-B and CG developed the search criteria. KR-B and CG performed the searches. CG performed the updated search and wrote the literature synthesis search strategies. KR-B, CG, VJP and ML screened abstracts and manuscripts and extracted the data using Covidence. JP supported data extraction. KR-B analysed the data, with input from CG, VJP, LJB, ML and AK. KR-B drafted the manuscript with ML and input from CG, VJP, LJB, AK, JP, MO and CJ. All authors (KR-B, CG, VJP, LJB, ML, AK, JP, MO and CJ) read and revised the whole manuscript. VJP is the gaurantor of the data.

    • Funding This research was funded by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health, the Peter Doherty Philanthropic Trust Fund, the Royal Melbourne Hospital and the University of Melbourne.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.