Skip to main content

Table 3 Effect size estimates of the outcomes (total and per region), test of homogeneity (I2) and GRADE quality of the evidence (below the outcome is the total number of studies mentioning the outcome)

From: Impacts for health and care workers of Covid-19 and other public health emergencies of international concern: living systematic review, meta-analysis and policy recommendations

Outcome

Effect size estimates

I2

GRADE quality of the evidence

Included in meta-analysis

For subgroup analysis

East Asia and Pacific

Europe and Central Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

Middle East and North Africa

North America

South Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Multi-country studies

Anxietya (N = 518)

n

350

106

83

23

44

38

32

13

11

1.00

Very low—346 cross-sectional studies, 3 cohorts and 1 case–control, 57% medium quality/risk of bias, 43% high quality/low risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious imprecision, unlikely publication bias, no large effect, no evidence of a dose–response gradient, all plausible confounding would suggest a spurious effect

P

39%

31%

40%

44%

48%

37%

45%

49%

32%

95CI

[37; 41]

[27; 34]

[36; 45]

[36; 52]

[41; 54]

[31; 43]

[38; 52]

[35; 62]

[17; 47]

Depression (N = 503)

Before 2020

n

3

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.98

Very low—3 cross-sectional studies, 1 medium quality/risk of bias, 2 high quality/low risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious imprecision, unlikely publication bias, no large effect, no evidence of a dose–response gradient, all plausible confounding would suggest a spurious effect

P

21%

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

95CI

[5; 37]

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

From 2020 onwards

n

370

108

90

22

48

45

34

13

10

1.00

Very low—367 cross-sectional studies, 2 cohorts and 1 case–control, 55% medium quality/risk of bias, 45% high quality/low risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious imprecision, unlikely publication bias, no large effect, no evidence of a dose–response gradient, all plausible confounding would suggest a spurious effect

P

35%

32%

35%

34%

44%

31%

39%

41%

20%

95CI

[33; 37]

[29; 35]

[31; 39]

[26; 42]

[39; 50]

[26; 36]

[32; 45]

[31; 51]

[11; 29]

Stressb (N = 486)

Before 2020

n

2

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1.00

Very low—2 cross-sectional studies, 1 medium quality/risk of bias, 1 high quality/low risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious imprecision, unlikely publication bias, no large effect, no evidence of a dose–response gradient, all plausible confounding would suggest a spurious effect

P

40%

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

95CI

[0; 79]

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

From 2020 onwards

n

158

41

38

9

25

11

23

7

4

1.00

Very low—157 cross-sectional studies and 1 case–control, 63% medium quality/risk of bias, 37% high quality/low risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious imprecision, unlikely publication bias, no large effect, no evidence of a dose–response gradient, all plausible confounding would suggest a spurious effect

P

44%

39%

46%

34%

50%

38%

48%

51%

35%

95CI

[40; 48]

[32; 46]

[38; 54]

[22; 47]

[41; 60]

[25; 50]

[37; 59]

[39; 63]

[3; 67]

Burnouta (N = 235)

n

94

24

23

8

12

20

1

4

2

1.00

Very low—90 cross-sectional studies and 4 cohort, 52% medium quality/risk of bias, 48% high quality/low risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious imprecision, unlikely publication bias, no large effect, no evidence of a dose–response gradient, all plausible confounding would suggest a spurious effect

P

46%

52%

46%

34%

55%

42%

–

41%

46%

95CI

[42; 51]

[43; 61]

[38; 55]

[18; 49]

[43; 66]

[32; 51]

–

[16; 67]

[18; 75]

PTSDa (N = 84)

n

53

12

23

4

2

8

1

2

1

1.00

Very low—52 cross-sectional, 1 cohort, 89% medium quality/risk of bias, 43% high quality/low risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious imprecision, unlikely publication bias, no large effect, no evidence of a dose–response gradient, all plausible confounding would suggest a spurious effect

P

26%

26%

25%

22%

44%

24%

–

56%

–

95CI

[22; 31]

[16; 36]

[18; 31]

[6; 38]

[16; 72]

[15; 32]

–

[52; 59]

–

Suicidal ideationa (N = 18)

n

15

4

7

1

–

3

–

–

–

0.98

Very low—12 cross-sectional, 60% medium quality/risk of bias, 40% high quality/low risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious imprecision, unlikely publication bias, no large effect, no evidence of a dose–response gradient, all plausible confounding would suggest a spurious effect

P

7%

9%

5%

–

–

8%

–

–

–

95CI

[5; 8]

[6; 12]

[3; 7]

–

–

[8; 9]

–

–

–

Headachesa,c (N = 12)

n

12

2

2

1

–

1

5

–

1

0.99

Very low—12 cross-sectional studies, 92% medium quality/risk of bias, 8% high quality/low risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious imprecision, unlikely publication bias, no large effect, no evidence of a dose–response gradient, all plausible confounding would suggest a spurious effect

P

53%

43%

36%

–

–

–

53%

–

–

95CI

[38; 67]

NA

[23; 49]

–

–

–

[39; 77]

–

–

Sleep disorders (N = 90)

n

54

13

9

3

12

6

4

5

2

0.99

Very low—54 cross-sectional studies, 52% medium quality/risk of bias, 48% high quality/low risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious imprecision, unlikely publication bias, no large effect, no evidence of a dose–response gradient, all plausible confounding would suggest a spurious effect

P

36%

40%

31%

33%

38%

50%

34%

24%

32%

95CI

[31; 41]

[30; 50]

[21; 41]

NA

[29; 46]

[33; 67]

[17; 51]

[12; 37]

[12; 52]

Skin-related morbidity (N = 19)

n

14

4

6

1

1

1

1

–

–

1.00

Very low—14 cross-sectional studies, 86% medium quality/risk of bias, 14% high quality/low risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious imprecision, unlikely publication bias, no large effect, no evidence of a dose–response gradient, all plausible confounding would suggest a spurious effect

P

51%

48%

64%

–

–

–

–

–

–

95CI

[39; 64]

[43; 53]

[43; 84]

–

–

–

–

–

–

Violence (N = 32)

n

11

1

2

3

2

–

2

–

1

1.00

Very low—11 cross-sectional studies, 64% medium quality/risk of bias, 36% high quality/low risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, very serious imprecision, unlikely publication bias, no large effect, no evidence of a dose–response gradient, all plausible confounding would suggest a spurious effect

P

48%

–

30%

58%

81%

–

19

–

–

95CI

[32; 64]

–

[28; 32]

[31; 84]

NA

–

[17; 21]

–

–

  1. N total number of studies included in the LSR for a given outcome, n studies included in the meta-analysis, P prevalence of the outcome in percentage, 95CI 95% confidence interval for the prevalence, NA not available
  2. aNone of the included studies in the meta-analysis were published before 2020
  3. bOnly studies measuring stress were considered for meta-analysis
  4. cOnly data on the prevalence of de novo headaches are included in the meta-analysis