Stem Cell Research
ebonydovy
The_psychological_impact_risk.PDF
Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-00998-z
RESEARCH
The psychological impact, risk factors and coping strategies to COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers in the sub-Saharan Africa: a narrative review of existing literature Freddy Wathum Drinkwater Oyat1, Johnson Nyeko Oloya1,2, Pamela Atim1,3, Eric Nzirakaindi Ikoona4, Judith Aloyo1,5 and David Lagoro Kitara1,6,7*
Abstract
Background: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the physical and mental health of the general population worldwide, with healthcare workers at particular risk. The pandemic’s effect on healthcare workers’ mental well-being has been characterized by depression, anxiety, work-related stress, sleep disturbances, and post- traumatic stress disorder. Hence, protecting the mental well-being of healthcare workers (HCWs) is a considerable priority. This review aimed to determine risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes and protective or coping measures to mitigate the harmful effects of the COVID-19 crisis among HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa.
Methods: We performed a literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Embase for relevant materials. We obtained all articles published between March 2020 and April 2022 relevant to the subject of review and met pre-defined eligibility criteria. We selected 23 articles for initial screening and included 12 in the final review.
Result: A total of 5,323 participants in twelve studies, predominantly from Ethiopia (eight studies), one from Uganda, Cameroon, Mali, and Togo, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Investigators found 16.3–71.9% of HCWs with depressive symptoms, 21.9–73.5% with anxiety symptoms, 15.5–63.7% experienced work-related stress symptoms, 12.4–77% experienced sleep disturbances, and 51.6–56.8% reported PTSD symptoms. Healthcare workers, working in emer- gency, intensive care units, pharmacies, and laboratories were at higher risk of adverse mental health impacts. HCWs had deep fear, anxious and stressed with the high transmission rate of the virus, high death rates, and lived in fear of infecting themselves and families. Other sources of fear and work-related stress were the lack of PPEs, availability of treatment and vaccines to protect themselves against the virus. HCWs faced stigma, abuse, financial problems, and lack of support from employers and communities.
Conclusion: The prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD in HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic has been high. Several organizational, community, and work-related challenges and interven- tions were identified, including improvement of workplace infrastructures, adoption of correct and shared infection
© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Open Access
*Correspondence: [email protected]
6 Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Gulu University, P.O. Box 166, Gulu City, Uganda Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Page 2 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
Introduction When coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020, healthcare work- ers (HCWs) globally and in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) were unprepared for the scale of the physical and men- tal health devastation that was to follow [1]. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers has been profound, characterized by death, disability, and untenable burden on mental health and well-being [2]. Factors impacting their mental health include high risks of exposure and infection, financial insecurity, separa- tion from loved ones, stigma, difficult triage decisions, stressful work environment, scarcity of supplies includ- ing personal protective equipment (PPEs), exhaus- tion, traumatic experiences due to regular witnessing of deaths among patients and colleagues [2, 3]. Greenberg et al. [4] observed that the COVID-19 pandemic put healthcare professionals worldwide in an unprecedented situation, making difficult decisions to provide care for many severely ill patients with constrained or inadequate resources.
In almost all WHO regions, data indicates that infec- tion rates among healthcare workers are higher than in the general population [5]. Scholars suggest that the end of the COVID-19 pandemic is not yet in sight. Nei- ther are they sure about the virulence of the following variant when it appears as caseloads are still rising, with more than 621 million infections and 6.5 million deaths reported worldwide by 19th October 2022 [6]; mainly driven by the newer omicron variants. However, recently in October 2022, we received with gratitude a reassur- ing message from US President Biden declaring the end of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States of America.
Meanwhile, previous studies found high levels of depression, anxiety, and PTSD in survivors among the general population and healthcare workers (HCWs) one- to-three years after the control of the SARS epidemic [7] and the 2014–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa [8]. In addition, recent surveys [9–14], reviews, and meta-analy- ses [15–18] are pointing to early evidence that a consider- able proportion of healthcare workers have experienced stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns about risks to their long-term mental health.
Studies from the global north countries [19, 20], UK [21], USA [22], and in India [23], and China [24, 25] have shed light on the vulnerability that characterizes frontline healthcare workers during this pandemic, especially regarding their mental health and well-being. However, evidence in sub-Saharan Africa is scanty, and the pattern and prevalence of psychological disorders are not well understood.
Evidence from a systematic review by Pappa S et al. on 33,062 Chinese HCWs in April 2020 found a pooled prevalence rate of mental health problems among respondents; anxiety 23.2%, depression 22.8%, and insomnia 38.9% [26]. Similarly, Singapore study, Tan et al. [27], Li et al. [28], BMA [29] and in China [31] found high levels of psychological disorders among health workers.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, we found one systematic review involving 919 frontline HCWs, 3928 general HCWs, and 2979 medical students conducted in Africa from December 2019 to April 2020 [31]. The study by Chen J et al. reported a high prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among front- line HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) at 45%, 51%, and 28%, respectively. In comparison, the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among the gen- eral population was much lower at 30%, 31%, and 24%, respectively [31]. Furthermore, we found that only a few studies investigated protective and coping meas- ures, given the many uncertainties surrounding the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic [32]. Adequate data are needed to equip frontline HCWs and health- care managers in sub-Saharan Africa to mitigate the medium and long-term adverse effects of the COVID- 19 pandemic [33].
This review aimed to answer three questions (1) What is the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCWs in Sub-Saharan Africa?
(2) What are the associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic?
(3) What interventions (mitigating and coping strate- gies) protect and support the mental health and well- being of HCWs during the ongoing crises and after the pandemic?
control measures, provision of PPEs, social support, and implementation of resilience training programs. Setting up permanent multidisciplinary mental health teams at regional and national levels to deal with mental health and pro- viding psychological support to HCWs, supported with long-term surveillance, are recommended.
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic, Social support, Occupational health and safety, Mental health surveillance, Workplace organization
Page 3 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
Methodology Search methodology and article selection This current article is a mixed-method narrative review of existing literature on mental health disorders, risk factors, and interventions relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic on HCWs in sub-Saharan. A search on the PubMed electronic database was undertaken using the search terms "novel coronavirus", "COVID-19", "nCoV", "mental health", "psychiatry", "psychology", "anxiety", "depression" and "stress" in various permutations and combinations.
Search processes We conducted a comprehensive literature search on original articles published from March 2020 to 30 April 2022 in electronic databases of Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the daily updated WHO COVID- 19 database. Our search terms included but were not limited to (’COVID-19’/exp OR COVID-19 OR ’coro- navirus’/exp OR coronavirus) AND (’psychological’/ exp OR psychological OR ’mental’/exp OR mental OR ’stress’/exp OR stress OR ’anxiety’ OR anxiety OR ’depression’ OR depression OR ’post-traumatic’ OR ’post-traumatic’/exp OR ’trauma’ OR ’trauma’/exp) OR Health care workers, medical workers of health care professionals, sub-Saharan Africa, for Embase. ("COVID-19" [All Fields] OR "coronavirus" [All Fields]) AND ("Stress, Psychological" [Mesh] OR "mental" OR "anxiety" OR "depression" OR "stress" OR "post- traumatic" OR "trauma") for PubMed, for the WHO COVID-19 database, and ("COVID-19" OR "coronavi- rus") AND ("Psychological" OR "mental" OR "anxiety" OR "depression" OR "stress" OR "post-traumatic" OR "trauma") for Google Scholar. On reviewing the above citations, twelve articles met the inclusion criteria rel- evant for this review and are in Table 1. All twelve arti- cles were cross-sectional, with one qualitative and the others quantitative observational studies.
Eligibility criteria We included original qualitative and quantitative stud- ies examining the risk factors, psychological impact of COVID-19 and coping strategies of healthcare workers (HCWs) in sub-Saharan Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. We excluded studies if they were.
1. Not reported in the English language 2. Studies which were not primary research 3. Studies that had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal 4. Stud- ies that did not include data on HCWs’ mental health or psychological well-being 5. Duplicate studies 6. not using validated instruments to measure the risks and psychological impact.
FWDO performed the search of articles. DLK reviewed the articles involving screening of titles, fol- lowed by examination of abstracts. The potential arti- cles identified were further reviewed in full text to examine their eligibility. In addition, four of the authors independently reviewed the full articles to abstract the relevant data required for the review. Thereafter, a meeting to harmonise findings were done and pre- sented in a report.
Data extraction and appraisal of the study We extracted information from each study, including author, study population, year of publication, coun- try, socio-demographic characteristics, sample size, response rate, gender proportion, age, and study time, areas assessed, the validated instrument used and the prevalence. The appraisal involved assessing the research design, recruitment of respondents, inclusion and exclu- sion criteria, reliability of outcome determination, statis- tical analyses, ethical compliance, strengths, limitations, and clinical implications of the articles.
Our review protocol was not registered on PROSPERO because of the significant variation in the methodologies of the articles used in the review. The results precluded using a meta-analytic approach and made a narrative review the most suitable for this work. In addition, we did not use the Cochrane Collaboration GRADE method to assess the quality of evidence of outcomes included in this narrative review. Instead, we used the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) 22 items checklist to gauge the quality of the twelve articles included in this review. We qualitatively validated the articles based on additional considerations namely study design, sample sizes, sampling procedures, response rates, statistical methods used, measures taken by the authors to deal with bias and confounding factors and ethical consideration.
Definition of healthcare worker (HCW) For this narrative review, we adhered to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition of HCWs, which includes physicians, nurses, emergency medical personnel, dental professionals and students, medical and nursing students, laboratory technicians, pharmacists, hospital volunteers, and administrative staff [34].
Results Search results The search found twenty-three studies of interest. Full texts of potentially relevant studies underwent eligibility assessment, and twelve articles met the inclusion criteria for this narrative review.
Page 4 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
Ta bl
e 1
St ud
y ch
ar ac
te ris
tic s
an d
ou tc
om e
m ea
su re
s
s/ n
A ut
ho rs
Co un
tr y
St ud
y de
si gn
Sa m
pl in
g Pr
oc ed
ur e/
Sa m
pl e
Si ze
(n )
In st
ru m
en t A
pp lie
d M
ai n
ou tc
om e
m ea
su re
s
1 M
uz ya
m ba
e t a
l. [3
5] U
ga nd
a Q
ua lit
at iv
e st
ud y
C ro
ss -s
ec tio
na l
O nl
in e
se lf-
ad m
in is
te re
d qu
es tio
n- na
ire s
Ra nd
om s
el ec
tio n
n =
5 0
Fr on
tli ne
H C
W s,
56 %
m al
es
Q ua
lit at
iv e
O nl
in e
su rv
ey to
ol s
D ep
re ss
io n,
a nx
ie ty
, a nd
P TS
D Ri
sk s:
lo ng
w or
ki ng
h ou
rs , l
ac k
of e
qu ip
- m
en t,
PP Es
, T es
tin g
ki ts
, l ac
k of
s le
ep ,
ex ha
us tio
n, h
ig h
de at
h ra
te s,
de at
h of
co
lle ag
ue s,
hi gh
ra te
s of
tr an
sm is
si on
Co pi
ng s
tr at
eg ie
s: Fa
m ily
n et
w or
ks ,
co m
m un
ity n
et w
or ks
, h el
ps fr
om fa
m ily
, re
sp on
si bi
lit y
to s
oc ie
ty , a
ss is
ta nc
e fro
m
co m
m un
ity m
em be
rs , a
va ila
bi lit
y of
as
si st
an ce
fr om
s tr
an ge
rs a
nd s
ym bi
ot ic
na
tu re
o f a
ss is
ta nc
e in
c om
m un
ity
2 Sa
ga on
T ey
ss ie
r e t a
l. [3
9] M
al i
Q ua
nt ita
tiv e
st ud
y C
ro ss
-s ec
tio na
l N
on -fr
on tli
ne H
C W
s, in
vo lv
ed in
H IV
ca
re
N on
-p ro
ba bi
lit y
sa m
pl in
g n =
1 35
(6 0.
7%
m al
e, m
ea n
ag e
40 yr
s) PH
Q -9
, ( 20
–2 7)
; G A
D -7
, ( 0–
21 ),
7 IS
I ( 0–
28 )
Pr ev
al en
ce : D
ep re
ss io
n at
7 1.
9% , a
nx ie
ty
at 7
3. 5%
, a nd
In so
m ni
a at
7 7%
Ri sk
fa ct
or s:
fe m
al e,
la ck
o f P
PE s,
an d
la ck
of
n ur
se s
21 .5
% h
ad s
ev er
e de
pr es
si on
. D ep
re s-
si on
w as
6 0%
m or
e lik
el y
in fe
m al
es th
an
m al
es
3 G
eb re
Ye su
s FA
e t a
l. [3
6] Et
hi op
ia Q
ua nt
ita tiv
e st
ud y
C ro
ss -s
ec tio
na l,
Se lf-
ad m
in is
te re
d qu
es tio
nn ai
re s
Pr ob
ab ili
ty s
am pl
in g.
P ub
lic h
os pi
ta l
n =
3 22
, R es
po ns
e ra
te 9
6. 5%
M al
es
51 .9
%
PH Q
-9 , P
SS -1
0 Pr
ev al
en ce
: D ep
re ss
io n
at 2
5. 8%
, a nx
ie ty
at
3 6%
, S tr
es s
at 3
1. 4%
. o ve
ra ll
pr ev
a- le
nc e
of M
H D
w as
3 6%
Ri sk
fa ct
or s:
ag e,
g en
de r,
ed uc
at io
n, lo
w
in co
m e,
p re
se nc
e of
in fe
ct ed
m em
be r o
f a
fa m
ily , l
iv in
g w
ith fa
m ily
, a nd
o cc
up a-
tio n
4 M
ul at
u H
A , e
t a l.
[3 7]
Et hi
op ia
Q ua
nt ita
tiv e
st ud
y C
ro ss
-s ec
tio na
l, se
lf- ad
m in
is te
re d
qu es
tio nn
ai re
s
Pr ob
ab ili
ty s
am pl
in g.
S t.
Pa ul
2 nd
L ar
ge st
Pu
bl ic
H os
pi ta
l T er
tia ry
h os
pi ta
l. A
dd is
A
ba ba
n =
4 20
re sp
on se
ra te
9 7.
M al
es
58 .6
% Fr
on tli
ne s
H C
Ps 7
0. 5%
PH Q
-9 , G
A D
-7 , I
SI , I
ES -R
Pr ev
al en
ce : D
ep re
ss io
n at
2 0.
2% , a
nx ie
ty
at 2
1. 9%
, i ns
om ni
a at
1 2.
4% , a
nd d
is tr
es s
at 1
5. 5%
Ri sk
fa ct
or s:
M ar
rie d,
fr on
tli ne
w or
ke rs
, ex
po su
re to
C O
VI D
-1 9
ca se
s, st
ig m
a,
in fe
ct ed
fa m
ily m
em be
rs , w
or k
sh ift
ar
ra ng
em en
t w ith
lo ng
er h
ou rs
, l ac
k of
lo
gi st
ic s
up po
rt s,
PP Es
& p
oo r o
r l ac
k of
ac
co m
m od
at io
n at
th e
w or
kp la
ce
5 A
ya le
w , e
t a l.
[3 8]
Et hi
op ia
Q ua
nt ita
tiv e
st ud
y C
ro ss
-s ec
tio na
l s tu
dy d
es ig
n. S
el f-
ad m
in is
te re
d qu
es tio
nn ai
re s
Pr ob
ab ili
ty s
am pl
in g,
F ro
nt lin
e &
N on
- fro
nt lin
e H
C W
s in
fo ur
P ub
lic H
os pi
ta ls
, n =
3 87
, r es
po ns
e ra
te 9
1. 7%
M al
es
58 .7
% , S
ou th
er n
Et hi
op ia
IE S-
R Pr
ev al
en ce
: P TS
D a
t 5 6.
8% Si
gn ifi
ca nt
ri sk
fa ct
or s
w er
e ag
e, w
or k-
in g
en vi
ro nm
en t,
pr of
es si
on s,
fe m
al e,
m
ar rie
d, a
nd n
ur se
. I n
pa tie
nt s,
w or
ke rs
, em
er ge
nc y
w or
ke rs
, a nd
IC U
, In
de pe
nd en
t p re
di ct
or s
w er
e fe
m al
es ,
m ar
rie d
an d
nu rs
es
6 Je
m al
K , e
t a l.
[4 0]
Et hi
op ia
Q ua
nt ita
tiv e
st ud
y C
ro ss
-s ec
tio na
l Se
lf- ad
m in
is te
re d
Q ue
st io
nn ai
re s
Pr ob
ab ili
ty s
am pl
in g.
F ac
ili ty
b as
ed s
tu dy
n =
4 17
, R es
po ns
e ra
te 9
8. 6%
. N or
th
Sh oa
Z on
e, O
ro m
iy a
PH Q
-9 , G
A D
-7 , I
SI , I
ES -R
Pr ev
al en
ce : D
ep re
ss io
n at
1 6.
3% , a
nx ie
ty
at 3
0. 7%
, I ns
om ni
a at
1 5.
9% , a
nd S
tr es
s at
5 8%
Page 5 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
Ta bl
e 1
(c on
tin ue
d)
s/ n
A ut
ho rs
Co un
tr y
St ud
y de
si gn
Sa m
pl in
g Pr
oc ed
ur e/
Sa m
pl e
Si ze
(n )
In st
ru m
en t A
pp lie
d M
ai n
ou tc
om e
m ea
su re
s
7 C
he ko
le Y
A .,
et a
l. [4
1] Et
hi op
ia Q
ua nt
ita tiv
e st
ud y
C ro
ss -s
ec tio
na l
Se lf-
ad m
in is
te re
d qu
es tio
nn ai
re s
Pr ob
ab ili
ty s
am pl
in g,
In st
itu tio
na l H
C Ps
n =
2 44
re sp
on se
ra te
1 00
% , M
al es
6 6%
PS S-
10 PT
SD P
re va
le nc
e w
as 5
1. 6%
Ri sk
fa ct
or s
w er
e ag
e, a
nd e
du ca
tio na
l qu
al ifi
ca tio
ns A
ge a
nd p
ro fe
ss io
n w
er e
in de
pe nd
en t
pr ed
ic to
rs o
f s tr
es s.
Fr on
tli ne
H C
W s
ha d
a st
ro ng
s ta
tis tic
al a
ss oc
ia tio
n w
ith
st re
ss , n
ur se
s, ph
ar m
ac is
ts , f
ro nt
lin es
, an
d m
as te
r’s d
eg re
e
8 A
sn ak
ew e
t a l.
[4 3]
Et hi
op ia
Q ua
nt ita
tiv e
st ud
y C
ro ss
-s ec
tio na
l s tu
dy d
es ig
n, M
ul tic
en -
tr e
se lf-
ad m
in is
te re
d qu
es tio
nn ai
re s
to
H os
pi ta
l w or
ke rs
Pr ob
ab ili
ty s
am pl
in g,
n =
3 96
re sp
on se
ra
te 9
3. 6%
. M al
es 6
9. 2%
fe m
al es
30 .8
% N
or th
w es
t E th
io pi
a
IE S-
R- 22
PT SD
p re
va le
nc e
w as
5 5.
1% Ri
sk fa
ct or
s w
er e
la ck
o f s
ta nd
ar d
PP Es
, ag
e >
4 0,
m ed
ic al
il ln
es s,
fe m
al es
, pe
rc ei
ve s
tig m
a, h
is to
ry o
f m en
ta l i
ll- ne
ss , p
oo r s
oc ia
l s up
po rt
, a nd
b ei
ng a
ph
ys ic
ia n
9 A
sn ak
ew e
t a l.
[4 2]
Et hi
op ia
Q ua
nt ita
tiv e
st ud
y C
ro ss
-s ec
tio na
l s tu
dy d
es ig
n Se
lf- ad
m in
is te
re d
qu es
tio nn
ai re
s M
ul tic
en tr
e in
e ig
ht h
os pi
ta ls
Pr ob
ab ili
ty s
am pl
in g.
n =
4 19
; r es
po ns
e ra
te 9
9. 1%
; M al
es 6
9% , f
em al
es 3
1% N
ur se
s 52
% (2
18 ).
Pu bl
ic H
os pi
ta ls
S ou
th
G on
da r N
or th
w es
t E th
io pi
a
D A
SS -2
1 O
sl o
3 ite
m s
(O SS
-3 fo
r s oc
ia l s
up po
rt )
Pr ev
al en
ce : D
ep re
ss io
n at
5 8.
2% , a
nx ie
ty
at 6
4. 7%
, s tr
es s
at 6
3. 7%
Ri sk
fa ct
or s:
Fr on
tli ne
rs , C
hr on
ic m
ed i-
ca l i
lln es
s, m
en ta
l i lln
es s,
co nt
ac t w
ith
CO VI
D -1
9 ca
se , p
oo r s
oc ia
l s up
po rt
, a nd
fe
m al
es
10 A
ya le
w e
t a l.
[4 5]
Et hi
op ia
Q ua
nt ita
tiv e
st ud
y C
ro ss
-s ec
tio na
l s tu
dy d
es ig
n Se
lf- ad
m in
is te
re d
qu es
tio nn
ai re
s M
ul tic
en tr
e
Pr ob
ab ili
ty s
am pl
in g.
n =
3 87
, p ub
lic
ho sp
ita ls
. F ro
nt lin
es &
N on
-fr on
tli ne
s M
al es
5 8.
7% So
ut he
rn E
th io
pi a
D A
SS -2
1 Pr
ev al
en ce
: D ep
re ss
io n
at 5
0. 1%
, a nx
ie ty
at
5 5%
, s tr
es s
at 3
8. 5%
Ri sk
fa ct
or s:
A nx
ie ty
; f ro
nt lin
er s,
in
pa tie
nt , H
C W
s, IC
U , n
ur se
s, em
er ge
nc y
w or
ke rs
, O PD
, L ab
or at
or y
te ch
ni ci
an ,
ph ar
m ac
is ts
, o ld
er a
ge , f
em al
es , a
nd th
e m
ar rie
d D
ep re
ss io
n ris
ks : f
em al
e, m
ar rie
d, li
vi ng
al
on e,
n ur
se s,
an d
in pa
tie nt
w or
ke rs
, St
re ss
ri sk
s: fe
m al
es , n
ur se
s, in
pa tie
nt s,
liv in
g al
on e,
a nd
th e
m ar
rie d
11 Ko
un ou
K B
et a
l. [4
4] To
go Q
ua nt
ita tiv
e st
ud y
C ro
ss s
ec tio
na l s
tu dy
d es
ig n.
H os
pi ta
l- ba
se d
Se lf-
ad m
in is
te re
d qu
es tio
nn ai
re s
N on
-p ro
ba bi
lit y
n =
6 2,
fe m
al es
5 6.
5% Lo
m e,
T og
o
PH Q
-9 , G
A D
-7 , P
M S-
9 Pr
ev al
en ce
: A nx
ie ty
a t 6
2. 9%
, a nd
de
pr es
si on
a t 5
1. 6%
Ri sk
fa ct
or s:
pr of
es si
on , w
or ks
ta tio
n,
w om
en , a
nd m
ed ic
al il
ln es
s
12 Ke
ub o
et a
l. [4
7] Ca
m er
oo n
Q ua
nt ita
tiv e
st ud
y C
ro ss
-s ec
tio na
l s tu
dy d
es ig
n. S
el f-
ad m
in is
te re
d qu
es tio
nn ai
re s
H os
pi ta
l b as
ed d
at a
N G
O In
st itu
tio ns
N on
-p ro
ba bi
lit y
n =
2 92
, fe
m al
es 5
4. 5%
, Ca
m er
oo n
H A
D S
Pr ev
al en
ce : D
ep re
ss io
n at
4 3.
5% a
nd
an xi
et y
at 4
2. 2%
Th e
fe ar
o f i
nf ec
tio n
an d
de at
h w
er e
as so
ci at
ed w
ith d
ep re
ss io
n &
an xi
et y.
A
ss is
ta nt
n ur
se s
ha d
th e
hi gh
es t p
re va
- le
nc e
of d
ep re
ss io
n &
an xi
et y
M ea
su re
s’ de
sc rip
tio ns
: D ep
re ss
io n:
P H
Q -9
P at
ie nt
H ea
lth Q
ue st
io nn
ai re
. A nx
ie ty
: G AD
-7 G
en er
al is
ed A
nx ie
ty D
is or
de r Q
ue st
io nn
ai re
, D ep
re ss
io n
& A
nx ie
ty : D
AS S-
21 D
ep re
ss io
n, A
nx ie
ty a
nd S
tr es
s Sc
al e,
S le
ep : I
SI
In so
m ni
a Se
ve rit
y In
de x;
IE S-
R Im
pa ct
o f E
ve nt
S ca
le ; H
AD S
H os
pi ta
l A nx
ie ty
a nd
D ep
re ss
io n
sc al
e, P
SS -1
0 Pe
rc ei
ve d
St re
ss S
ca le
; P M
S- 9
Pr em
en st
ru al
S yn
dr om
e Sc
al e;
O SS
O sl
o 3
ite m
s fo
r s oc
ia l s
up po
rt
Page 6 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
Study characteristics The twelve articles comprised eleven quantitative and one qualitative study. The common mental health con- ditions assessed were depression, anxiety, perceived stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The coping strategy, perceived health status, health dis- tress (including burnout), insomnia, and perceived stigma were also assessed [35, 36]. The total number of respondents in these studies was 5,323. The quali- tative study had fifty respondents [35], while the most significant number of participants, 420 was recorded in one of the quantitative studies from Ethiopia [37]. The questionnaire response rates varied between 90%- 100%, with most studies dominated by male respond- ents at 51.9%-69.2% [38]. Nurses were the commonest study population, followed by doctors, pharmacists, and laboratory technicians, and no study involved non-HCWs of facilities. Most papers utilized probabil- ity sampling procedures, and four quantitative studies used non-random sampling procedures limiting gen- eralizability of their findings and increasing the risk of selection bias. Eight studies were from Ethiopia, and one was from Cameroon, Uganda, Mali, and Togo, respectively (Table 1). Most studies were conducted in urban tertiary public hospitals, university teaching hos- pitals, and rural and urban general hospitals, including primary care facilities operated by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) for example in Mali [39]. Several validated tools assessed depression, anxiety, insomnia, stress, and PTSD (Table 1).
Table 1 provides an overview of the studies selected and validated instruments used to measure psychological disorders.
Table 2 provides comparisons with studies conducted outside of sub-Saharan Africa.
Table 3 provides information on studies showing the classification of psychological outcomes.
Table 4 are studies showing risk factors associated with psychological disorders.
Table 5 are studies that identified protective factors for psychological disorders.
Risks of bias and confounding factors Most articles selected were cross-sectional studies that employed probability sampling procedures (Table 1). Cross-sectional study design minimized selection biases, but many used structured questionnaires, includ- ing online self-administered questionnaires, which increased bias due to social desirability. It was not clear how confounding variables were controlled in five papers reviewed [38–40, 43, 45] leading to excessive and perhaps inappropriate determination of associations.
Socio‑demographic factors Age In this review, the mean age of the respondents ranged between 23 and 35 years, and predominantly males. Age was associated with anxiety, and stress symptoms in 6(50%) of all the studies reviewed [35, 37, 40–42, 44]. An age of over 40 years was associated with moderate to severe symptoms of PTSD. Two studies concluded that respondents aged over 40 years were more likely to develop PTSD symptoms than their younger counter- parts [37, 41].
Gender Female gender was significantly associated with depres- sion, anxiety, and stress symptoms among HCWs in seven studies reviewed [36–38, 41–43]. Many studies found that being female, married, and a nurse were inde- pendent predictors of stress symptoms. Moreover, sex, age, marital status, type of profession, and working envi- ronment were significant factors for PTSD symptoms [37, 41]. However, one study in Ethiopia found that the odds of depression were twice higher among male healthcare providers than among female healthcare providers [35].
Psychological impact on healthcare workers Most studies reviewed directly assessed the prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, insomnia, and PTSD in HCWs. Common causes of anxiety, fear, or psychologi- cal distress that health professionals reported were: lack of access to PPEs and other equipment, being exposed to COVID-19 at work and taking the infection home to their families, uncertainties that their organization will support/take care of their personal and family needs if they got infection, long working hours, death of col- leagues, lack of social support, stigmatization, high rates of transmission and poor income [35–45]. However, the prevalence of mental health symptoms exhibited great variations for example depressive symptoms were examined in nine studies [35–37, 39, 43–46], and varied between 16.3% and 71.9% among HCWs [38, 39].
In addition, nine other studies reported high preva- lence of anxiety symptoms among HCWs [35–37, 40, 43–47] which varied between 21.9% and 73.5% [36, 39]. Five studies investigated HCWs’ perceived stress during the pandemic; 15.5%-63.7% of HCWs reported high lev- els of work-related stress [35–37, 43, 45]. Three studies reported 12.4–77% of HCWs experienced sleep distur- bances during the COVID-19 pandemic [37, 39, 40].
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was in three studies [38, 41, 42], and the prevalence of PTSD-like symptoms varied between 51.6 and 56.8% in HCWs [38, 41]. A qualitative study from Uganda reported high symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD among
Page 7 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
HCWs [35]. Additionally, factors that increased the risk of PTSD symptoms were for example, working in emer- gency units and being frontline workers. Furthermore, many studies found that frontline HCWs had increased symptoms of mental disorders and being a frontline worker was an independent risk factor for depression, anxiety, and PTSD [36–46].
Risk factors associated with adverse mental health outcomes The qualitative study from Uganda reported the fac- tors associated with mental disorder symptoms among HCWs. These were long working hours, lack of equip- ment (PPEs, testing kits), lack of sleep, exhaustion, high death rates, death of colleagues, and a high COVID-19 transmission rate among HCWs [35]. Lack of equip- ment (PPEs, ventilators, and testing kits), overworking, and lack of logistic support were in Ethiopian studies [36–42, 45]. Most studies identified several risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among respondents for example those with medical and mental illnesses, contacts with confirmed COVID-19 patients, and poor social support which were significantly associated with depression [42, 43]. Other factors were females, nurses, married, frontline workers, ICU, emergency units, living alone, and lack of social support [35, 37–45]. Too, par- ticipants’ families with chronic illnesses, had contacts with confirmed COVID-19 cases, and poor social sup- port were significantly associated with anxiety. Other risk factors associated with anxiety include exhaustion, long working hours, frontline workers, emergencies, nurses, pharmacists, laboratory technicians, married, older, younger, living alone, being female, working at general and referral hospitals, and perceived stigma. In addi- tion, participants’ families with chronic illnesses, those who had contacts with confirmed COVID-19 cases, and those with poor social support were predictors of stress during the COVID-19 pandemic [37, 38, 40–43, 45]. Other stress symptoms include having a medical illness, a mental illness, being a frontline worker, married, nurse, female, pharmacist, laboratory technician, physician, older age, lack of standardized PPE supply, low incomes, and living with a family [36, 37, 40–45]. Healthcare pro- viders with low monthly incomes were significantly more likely to develop stress than those with high monthly incomes [38]. In addition, participants living alone, liv- ing with a family, and being married were associated with symptoms of psychological disorders among HCWs [36–38, 45]. Overall, the risk factors for adverse psycho- logical impacts are categorized in three thematic areas (i) occupational, (ii) psychosocial, and (iii) environmental aspects.
Occupational factors Most studies showed that frontline HCWs, nurses, doc- tors, pharmacists, and laboratory technicians had signifi- cantly higher levels of mental health risks compared to non-frontline HCWs [35–38, 40, 42, 43, 45]. They experi- enced higher frequency of insomnia, anxiety, depression, and somatization than non-frontline medical HCWs. In contrast, Mali [39] and Cameroon [46] studies found a higher prevalence of depression, anxiety, and PTSD in non-frontline HCWs [39, 46]. However, among HCWs, physicians were 20% less likely to develop mental health disorders than nurses, pharmacists, and laboratory tech- nicians [39]. In addition, healthcare workers with low monthly incomes had higher symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress, and insomnia [37].
Healthcare groups Five studies found that being a nurse was associated with worse mental disorders than doctors [36, 37, 40, 44, 45].
Frontline staff with direct contact with COVID‑19 Most papers in the review found that being in a “front- line” position or having direct contact with COVID-19 patients was associated with higher level of psychological distress [35–38, 40, 42, 43, 45]. In addition, studies found that contact with COVID-19 patients was independently associated with an increased risk of sleep disturbances [40, 46]. Moreover, HCWs who had contact with con- firmed COVID-19 cases were more likely to develop depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms than those who had no contact with COVID-19 patients [36–38, 43, 45].
Lack of personal protective equipment (PPEs) Most studies reported that the lack of PPEs was associ- ated with higher symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress, and insomnia, while its availability was associated with fewer mental disorder symptoms [35–46]. In Mali, work- ers from centres that provided facemasks were 51% less likely to suffer from depression, 62% less likely to develop anxiety, and 45% less likely to develop insomnia [39]. In Ethiopia, the odds of developing post-traumatic stress disorder were much higher among HCWs who did not receive standardized PPEs supplies than those who had [38, 41, 42]. In Uganda, the lack of PPEs was associated with depression, anxiety, and PTSD [35].
Heavy workload Longer working hours, increased work intensity, increased patient load, and exhaustion were risk factors in Ugandan [35] and Ethiopian studies [36].
Page 8 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
Psychosocial factors: perceived stigma and fear of infection The fear of infection was in the qualitative study from Uganda [35], one quantitative study from Cameroon [47]
and seven cross-sectional studies from Ethiopia [36–38, 41–44]. Poor social support was associated with PTSD symptoms, depression, anxiety, and stress [35–38, 42,
Table 2 Comparisons of the prevalence of mental health disorders among HCWs in different regions
HCWs Healthcare workers; PTSD posttraumatic stress disorder
s/no Authors/Country/Regions Study design Population Period Outcome
1 Chen J et al. Africa Systematic Review/Meta- analysis
Frontline/General/ HCWs/4,847
Dec.2019–April 2020 Anxiety 51%, depression 45%, and insomnia 28%
2 Pappa S et al. China Systematic Review/Meta- analysis
HCWs, 33,062 17 April 2020 Anxiety 23.2%, depression 22.8%, and Insomnia 38.9%
3 Li Y, et al. China Systematic Review/Meta analysis
HCWs 33,062 17 April 2020 Anxiety 22.1%, depression 21.7%, and PTSD 21.5%
4 Basreeqa SB et al. China Systematic Review/Meta analysis
General Population Front- line/General HCWs. 62,382
First six months of 2020 Anxiety 48.1%, depression 26.9%, and Stress 48.1%
5 Preti E et al., Asia, Middle East, Europe, USA
Rapid Review HCWs March 2020 Anxiety 45%, depression 27.5–50.7%, Stress 18.1–80.1%, Insomnia 34–36%, and PTSD 11–73.4%
6 Lai J. China Cross-sectional HCWs First six months of 2020 Anxiety 44.6%, depression 50.4%, distress 71.5%, and insomnia 34%
7 Tan BYQ. Singapore Cross-sectional General population /HCWs First six months of 2020 Anxiety 14.5%, depres- sion8.9%, Stress 6.6%, and PTSD 7.7%
8 Consolo U et al. Italy Cross-sectional HCWs First six months of 2020 Anxiety 46.4%, depression 70.2%, and stress 42.4%
9 Gilleen J et al. UK Cross-sectional HCWS First six months of 2020 Anxiety 33%, Depression 28%, and PTSD 15%
10 Shacther A, et al. NY, USA Cross-sectional HCWs First six months of 2020 Anxiety 33%, depression 48%, and stress 57%
11 Urooj U, et al. Pakistan Cross-sectional HCWs First six months of 2020 Anxiety 86%, depression 58%, and stress 28.8%
12 Wilson W, et al. India Cross-sectional HCWs First six months of 2020 Anxiety 17.7%, depression 11.6%, and stress 3.7%
13 Elhadi M, et al. Libya Cross-sectional HCWs Early 2022 Anxiety 46.7%, and depres- sion 56.3%
Table 3 Classification of studies according to psychological outcomes
Measures’ descriptions: Depression: PHQ-9 Patient Health Questionnaire. Anxiety: GAD-7 Generalised Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, Depression & Anxiety: DASS-21 Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale, Sleep: ISI Insomnia Severity Index; IES-R Impact of Event Scale; HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, PSS-10 Perceived Stress Scale; PMS-9 Premenstrual Syndrome Scale; OSS Oslo 3 items for social support
Psychological Outcome Studies Measurement tools Prevalence
Anxiety [34–36, 38, 39, 42–45] GAD-7, DASS-21, HADS 21.9–73.5%
Depression [34–36, 38, 39, 42–45] PHQ-9, GAD-7, HADS 16.3–71.9%
PTSD [34, 37, 40, 41] IES-R, PSS-10 51.6–56.8%
Stress [35, 36, 42–44] IES-R, OSS, PSS-10 15.5–63.7%
Insomnia [35, 36, 38, 39] ISI 12.4–77%
General psychological disorders [35] PSS, PHQ-9 36%
Page 9 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
43]. Two studies reported that HCWs with perceived stigmatization were more likely to suffer from depres- sion, anxiety, stress, and PTSD [37, 42].
family concerns This came up as one of the main risk factors of stress in almost all studies, especially among those HCWs in direct contact with confirmed COVID-19 cases [35–38, 40–45]. A family member suffering from COVID-19 was
associated with poor mental health outcomes in HCWs [36, 37].
Protective psychosocial factors Two studies suggest a reduction of perceived stigma can be achieved by sensitization of communities about COVID-19 [37, 42], and four studies recommend solid social support [36, 37, 42, 43].
Table 4 Studies showing risk factors associated with psychological disorders
*positive association; N/A No association
Variables PTSD Anxiety Depression Insomnia Stress General psychological disorders
Age [38, 41, 42] * [36] * N/A N/A [36] * [36] *
Female Gender [38, 42]* [36, 39, 43–45] * [36, 39, 43–45] * [37, 39] * [36, 43] * N/A
Marital status [38] * [37] * [37] * [37] * N/A N/A
Education [41] * N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Income N/A [36] * [36] * [36] * [36] * N/A
Physicians N/A [41, 42] * [37, 43, 44] * [37, 43–45] * [36, 37] * N/A
Nurses [38, 41] * [35, 37, 44, 45] * [35, 37, 44, 45] * [36, 37] * [35–37] * N/A
Pharmacists [38, 41] * [36, 37, 39, 44, 45] * [36, 37, 39, 44, 45] * [36, 37] * [36, 37] * N/A
Lab. Tech [38, 41] * [36, 37, 39, 44, 45] * [36, 37, 39, 44, 45] * [36, 37] * [35–37, 45] * N/A
Frontline workers [38, 41, 42] * [35–39, 41–45] * [35–39, 41–45] * [36, 37] * [35–37, 45] * N/A
Stigma [42] * [37] * [37] * [37] * [37] * [37] *
Medical illness [42] * [37, 43, 44] ** [37, 43, 44] * [37] * [37, 43] * N/A
Mental Illness [42] * [43, 44] * [43, 44] * N/A [43] * N/A
Lack of PPEs [38, 41, 42] * [35–39, 41–45] * [35–39, 41–45] * [35–37] * [35–37] * N/A
Contact with COVID-19 cases [38, 41, 42] * [35–37] * [35–37] * [35–37] * [35–37, 43] * N/A
Poor Social support [42] * [37, 43] * [37, 43] * [37, 43] * [43] * N/A
Living Alone N/A [45] * [45] * [45] * N/A [45]
Living with a family N/A [36] * [36] * N/A [36] * N/A
Infected family member N/A [36, 37] * [36, 37] * [36, 37] * [36, 37] * N/A
Table 5 Studies that identify protective factors for psychological disorders
PTSD posttraumatic stress disorder
Variables PTSD Anxiety Depression Insomnia Stress
Availability of PPEs [35, 38, 41, 42] [35–37, 42, 43] [35–37, 42, 43] [35–37, 42, 43] [35–37, 42, 43]
Experience [35, 42] [37, 42, 45] [37, 42, 45] [37, 42, 45] [37, 42, 45]
Training/orientation [35, 42] [37, 42, 45] [37, 42, 45] [37, 42, 45] [37, 42, 45]
Safety of Family [35] [35, 36] [35, 36] [35, 36] [35, 36]
Availability of testing kits [35] [35] [35] [35] [35]
Work shifts arrangement [35] [37] [37] [37] [37]
organizational support [35] [37] [37] [37] [37]
Online Psychological support [35, 42] [37, 42] [37, 42] [37, 42] [37, 42]
Better income [35] [36] [36] [36]
Strong Social Support [35, 42] [35–37, 42, 43] [35–37, 42, 43] [35–37, 42, 43] [35–37, 42, 43]
Community Support [35, 42] [35, 43] [35, 43] [35, 43] [35, 43]
Page 10 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
Safety of family Family safety had the most significant impact in reduc- ing stress. Safety from COVID-19 infection and financial protection of families were essential coping strategies for HCWs [35, 36].
Underlying illnesses We found three studies that reported an underlying med- ical and mental illness as an independent risk factor for poor psychological outcomes [42, 43, 45].
Protective factors against adverse mental health outcomes The review identified protective factors to adverse mental health outcomes during COVID-19. The qualitative study from Uganda and four quantitative cross-sectional stud- ies from Ethiopia identified some protective factors [35, 38, 41, 42, 45]. The protective factors are grouped under three thematic areas (i) occupational, (ii) psychosocial, and (iii) environmental aspects.
The qualitative study identified many social coping strategies among respondents, including family net- works, community networks, help from family, respon- sibility to society, assistance from community members, availability of assistance from strangers, and the symbi- otic nature of assistance in the community [35].
Protective occupational factors
Experience Studies suggest that physicians suffered fewer mental health disorders partly because of their experience with previous epidemics [37, 42, 45].
Trainings Some necessary coping measures include good hospital guidance and ongoing training of frontline HCWs [37, 42, 45].
Adequate supply of PPEs As mentioned above, PPE was a protective factor when adequate and a risk factor for poor mental health outcomes when deemed inadequate [35–37, 42, 43].
Discussion The COVID-19 pandemic has been an ongoing global public health emergency that has burdened healthcare workers’ physical and mental well-being (HCWs) [1, 5]. Our review confirms the enormous magnitude of men- tal health impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers in sub-Saharan Africa, and it is widespread, with significant levels of depression, anxiety, distress, and insomnia; espe- cially those working directly with COVID-19 patients at particular risk [34–37, 39–45]. Out of the twelve articles reviewed, eight studies (66%) came from Ethiopia, and this has implications on the results (Table 1). This finding
indicates few research published to date on the psycho- logical impact of the pandemic on the mental health of HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa; a subregion that the COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted.
Overview of the study sites Studies in this review were conducted predominantly in hospital settings. We found only one study relating to primary healthcare workers or facilities [38]. This finding is of concern, as there is increasing evidence that many non-frontline HCWs continue to suffer psychological symptoms long after the conclusion of infectious dis- ease epidemics [7, 8]. In addition, a significant mortality due to COVID-19 was due to excess morbidity, some of which were from primary care facilities. Given that this study is the first narrative review in sub-Saharan Africa, it would be helpful to briefly compare our findings with some published reviews and surveys from other regions (Table 2).
High prevalence of psychological disorders among participants Investigators in this review found 16.3–71.9% HCWs with depressive symptoms, 21.9–73.5% had anxiety symptoms, 15.5–63.7% experienced work-related stress symptoms, 12.4–77% experienced sleep disturbances, and 51.6–56.8% PTSD symptoms [35–45]. This high prevalence of mental health symptoms among HCWs in our review is consistent with previous reviews conducted early in the pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa [31], Asia [17, 18, 26, 28], USA & Europe [15, 16], and supported by a batch of cross-sectional studies globally [11–14, 19, 27, 30]. We found mixed results with significant variations within and among regions and countries, as depicted in Tables 1 and 2.
Risk factors of psychological disorders among participants Studies established that HCWs responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa were exposed to long working hours, overworking, exhaus- tion, high risk of infection, and shortage of personal pro- tective equipment (Tables 3 and 4). In addition, HCWs had deep fear, were anxious and stressed with the high transmission rate of the virus among themselves, high death rates among themselves and their patients, and lived under constant fear of infecting themselves and their families with obvious consequences [35–45]. Some HCWs were deeply worried about the lack of standard- ized PPEs, known treatments and vaccines to protect against the virus. Many health workers had financial problems, lacked support from families and employers if they contracted the virus [34–37, 39–42, 44]. An addi- tional source of fear and anxiety was the perceived stigma
Page 11 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
attached to being infected with COVID-19 by the pub- lic [36, 41]. Studies found that HCWs, especially those working in emergency, intensive care units, infectious disease wards, pharmacies, and laboratories, were at higher risk of developing adverse mental health impacts compared to others [34–37, 39–44]. This is supported by previous reviews [15–18, 26, 28] and cross-sectional studies [10–14, 20, 21, 23, 25, 30]. However, findings were inconsistent on the impact of COVID-19 on front- line health workers, with ten studies [35–37, 39–42, 44, 45] suggesting they are at higher risk than peers and two studies showing no significant difference in psychological disorders relating to the departments [38, 43].
The Mali’s study was conducted exclusively in primary care facilities among HCWs not involved in treating COVID-19 cases but still registered a very high preva- lence of depression 71.9%, anxiety 73.6%, and insomnia 77.0% [39]. In contrast, two studies conducted among HCWs at COVID-19 treatment facilities in Ethiopia [36, 38] registered much lower prevalence of depres- sion 20.2%, anxiety 21.0%, and insomnia12.4% [36], and 16.3%, 30.7% and 15.9% respectively, in the second study [38]. These findings show that not only frontline HCWs experienced mental health disorders during this pan- demic but highlight the need for direct interventions for all HCWs regardless of occupation or workstation dur- ing this and future pandemics. The significant disparity in the studies could be due to structural, occupational, and environmental issues for example challenges faced by Mali’s healthcare systems, characterized by acute equip- ment shortages, lack of PPEs, human resources, lack of trained and experienced HCWs, ongoing nationwide insecurity, and terrorism compared to Ethiopia. There- fore, local context needs to be considered as contributing factor to mental health disorders among HCWs.
Regional variations of psychological disorders Tan et al. found a higher prevalence of anxiety among non-medical HCWs in Singapore [27]. As previously noted, the prevalence of poor psychological outcomes varied between countries. Compared to sub-Saharan Africa and China, data from India [23] and Singapore [27] revealed an overall lower prevalence of anxiety and depression than similar cross-sectional data from sub- Saharan Africa [35–45] and China [9, 25, 30]. This find- ing suggests that different contexts and cultures may reveal different psychological findings and that, it is pos- sible that being at different countries’ outbreak curve may play a part, as there is evidence that it is influential.
Tan et al. suggests that medical HCWs in Singapore had experienced a SARS outbreak and thus were well prepared for COVID-19 psychologically and infection control measures [27]. What can be deduced is that
context and cultural factors play a role, not just the cadre or role of healthcare workers [16]. It also highlights the importance of reviewing evidence regularly as more data emerge from other countries.
One hospital in Ethiopia found that the thought of resignation was associated with higher chances of men- tal health disorders and that pharmacists and laboratory technicians who did not receive prior training exhibited higher symptoms of mental health disorders compared to others [36]. Work shift arrangement, considering a dan- gerous atmosphere presented by working in COVID-19 wards, was one which exacerbated or relieved mental health symptoms among HCWs, with shorter exposure periods being most beneficial [36]. Meanwhile, studies found that financial worries caused by severe lockdowns and erratic payment of salaries and allowances were also major stressors [35]. This finding is like studies in Paki- stan [13] and China [30, 32].
In this review, HCWs who had contact with confirmed COVID-19 patients were more affected by depression, anxiety, and stress than their counterparts who had not [35–37, 40, 41, 43, 45]. This finding is like previous reviews [15–18, 26, 28, 31] and cross-sectional studies [9–14, 21, 23–25, 27, 30], which reported higher depres- sion, anxiety, and psychological symptoms of distress in HCWs who were in direct contact with confirmed or sus- pected COVID-19 patients.
A study in Pakistan showed that 80% of participants expected the provision of PPE from authority [13], and 86% were anxious. Some respondents alluded to forced deployment, while in Mali, 73.3% were anxious, with the majority worrying about the shortage of nurses [39]. Therefore, prospects of being deployed at a workstation where one had not been trained or oriented contributed to fear among health workers. In the sub-Saharan African context, this scenario can best be represented in HCWs involved in internship who must endure hard work dur- ing their training. Tan et al. found that junior doctors were more stressed than nurses in Singapore [27].
Socio‑demographic characteristics Nearly all studies in our review suggest that socio-demo- graphic variables for example age, gender, marital status, and living alone or with families contribute to the high mental disorder symptoms [35–37, 39–44]. We, the authors suggest that these observations are handled cau- tiously as several investigators of these reviewed articles did not entirely control the influence of confounding variables. An alternative explanation for this study’s find- ings may be the more significant risks of frontline expo- sure amongst women and junior HCWs, predominantly employed in lower-status roles, many of whom lacked experience and appropriate training within healthcare
Page 12 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
system globally. It is also important to note that respond- ents to all studies, when disaggregated by gender, and age, were predominantly younger or female, which may have impacted the outcomes of these findings [16]. In addition, the consistently higher mortality rates, and risk of severe COVID-19 disease amongst men would suggest that the complete picture regarding gender and men- tal health during this pandemic is still incomplete [16]. Moreover, in several studies, both younger and older age groups were equally affected by mental health symptoms but for different reasons. Cai et al. [32] in a Chinese study on HCWs for example observed that irrespective of age, colleagues’ safety, self and families’ safety, the lack of treatment for COVID-19 was a factor that induced stress in HCWs. Similarly, in our review, the lack of PPEs, high infection transmission rates, high death rates among HCWs, and the fear of infecting their families were the factors that induced stress in all HCWs [34–37, 39–45].
We, the authors propose that paying close attention to concerns of HCWs by employers would greatly relieve some stressors and contribute to increased mental well- being of participants. Compared with physicians, our review showed that nurses were more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and stress [35, 37, 39–41, 44, 45]. Workloads and night shifts in health- care facilities, as well as contacts with risky patients, enhanced nurses’ mental distress risks [15–18, 26–28]. In addition, nursing staff have more extended physical con- tacts and closer interactions with patients than other pro- fessionals, providing round-the-clock care required by patients with COVID-19 and thus the increased risk [15]. On the one hand, we posit that most senior physicians are experienced and always keep well-informed with emerging medical emergencies. The majority become aware of emerging epidemic early and actively protect themselves from infections through regular scientific lit- erature updates compared to their junior counterparts. Senior physicians also spend less time in emergency wards unless there is a need to conduct specific proce- dures which cannot be undertaken by senior housemen or general medical officers. Cai et al. [32] concluded that it is essential to have a high level of training and profes- sional experience for healthcare workers engaging in public health emergencies, especially for the new staff. As a result, these findings highlight the importance of focus- ing on all the frontline HCWs sacrificing to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.
Regular monitoring of high‑risk groups There is a need to continue monitoring the high-at-risk groups, including nursing staff, interns, support staff, and all deployed in emergency wards. These high-at-risk groups should be encouraged to undertake screening,
treatment, and vaccination to avoid the medium and long-term consequences of such epidemics [15, 16, 35, 37, 40, 44].
Social support and coping mechanisms The effect of social support and coping measures is in the qualitative study [34] and three other quantitative stud- ies [36, 41, 42] which concluded that respondents with good social support were less likely to suffer from severe depression, anxiety, work-related stress, and PTSD. The qualitative study identified several coping measures, including community and organizational support, family, and community networks, help from family, responsibil- ity to society, and assistance from community members and strangers, including the symbiotic nature of assis- tance in the community [35]. Other measures include providing accommodation and food to employees [35].
Interestingly, no study examined the association of resilience and self-efficacy with sleep quality, degrees of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and stress. However, a Chi- nese study by Cai et al. [32] suggests that the social sup- port given to HCWs causes a reduction in anxiety and stress levels and increases their self-efficacy. In diver- gence, Xiao et al. [46] found no relationship between social support and sleep quality.
Only two studies in our review examined the effects of stigma on the mental health of HCWs [36, 41] and found that HCWs with perceived stigma were more likely to be depressed, anxious, stressed, and prone to poor sleep quality [36, 41]. We, the authors suggest that better com- munity sensitization by creating public awareness involv- ing appropriate local community structures and networks are essential. The broader community in sub-Saharan Africa may have suffered severely from infodemics with severe consequences on their mental health, especially during the difficult lockdowns. In addition, removing dis- crimination/inequalities at the workplace based on race and other social standings have a powerful influence on the mental health outcomes of HCWs. Also, because emotional exhaustion is long associated with depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances, none of the studies in our review examined burnout as an essential component of mental health disorders in HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa.
Protective and coping measures In this review we have provided evidence about per- sonal, occupational, and environmental factors that were important protective and coping measures against psy- chological disorders. Based on these factors we suggest some protective and coping measures which can help to reduce the negative effects of the pandemic on mental health of HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa. Organizations and healthcare managers need to be aware that primary
Page 13 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
prevention is key to any successful interventions to con- tain and control any epidemic. This should take the form of planned regular training, orientation and continuing medical education grounded on proven infection con- trol measures. These measures need to be backed up by timely provision of protective equipment, drugs, test- ing facilities, vaccines, isolation facilities, clinical and mental health support, and personal welfare of HCWs [35–37, 42, 45]. The effect of community and organiza- tional support and coping measures was shown by the qualitative study [35] and five other quantitative stud- ies [36, 37, 41–43] indicating that respondents who had good social and organizational support were less likely to suffer from severe depression, anxiety, work related stress and PTSD. Prior experience with comparable pan- demics and training are suggested as beneficial coping strategies for healthcare workers during this pandemic but also local social structural and geopolitical condi- tions appear to determine the pattern and evolution of mental health symptoms among HCWs [14, 15, 31, 32, 47]. In our case the high prevalence of all mental health symptoms in non-frontline primary health care facili- ties in Mali [39] which was already plagued with insta- bility and weak healthcare systems prior to the pandemic is a case in point. Results are particularly consistent in showing that provision of PPEs, testing kits, orientation training of workers, work shift arrangements, provision of online counselling, provision of food and accommo- dation and prompt payment of allowances by employers were important protective measures [35–39, 41–47]. The feeling of being protected is associated with higher work motivation with implication for staff turnover [35, 38, 43, 45]. Hence, physical protective materials [14], together with frequent provision of information, should be the cornerstone of any interventions to prevent deterioration in mental health of HCWs (Table 5). Finally, provision of rest rooms, online consultation with psychologists/psy- chiatrists, protection from financial hardships, access to social amenities and religious activities are some impor- tant coping measures [35, 36, 38, 42, 45]. In this era of digital health care with plentiful internet and smart- phones, organization can conduct online trainings, online mental health education, online psychological counselling services, and online psychological self-help intervention tailored to the needs of their HCWs [35, 37, 42]. In addition, it is essential to understand and address the sources of anxiety among healthcare professionals during this COVID-19 pandemic, as this has been one of the most experienced mental health symptoms [48]. Adequate protective equipment provided by health facili- ties is one of the most important motivational factors for encouraging continuation of work in future outbreaks. Furthermore, availability of strict infection control
guidelines, specialized equipment, recognition of their efforts by facility management, government, and reduc- tion in reported cases of COVID-19 provide psychologi- cal benefits [15, 32]. Finally, we call upon Governments (the largest employers of HCWs) in sub-Saharan Africa to do what it takes to improve investments in the mental health of HCWs and plan proactively in anticipation of managing infectious disease epidemics, including other expected and unexpected disasters.
Future research direction There was no study that examined the association of resilience and self-efficacy with sleep quality, degrees of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and stress. Although emo- tional exhaustion has long been associated with depres- sion, anxiety, and sleep disturbances, no study in our review examined burnout as an important component of mental health disorders in HCWs in sub-Saharan Africa. The impacts of infodemics, stringent lockdown meas- ures, discrimination/inequalities at workplaces based on race, and other social standings on mental health out- comes of HCWs need to be investigated.
Future studies are needed on the above including other critical areas like suicidality, suicidal ideations, and sub- stance abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addi- tion, there is a significant variation of related literature calling for more rigorous research in future. More sys- tematic studies will be required to clarify the full impact of the pandemic so that meaningful interventions can be planned and executed at institutional and national levels in the Sub-Saharan Africa.
Limitations of this study There are some limitations to this study. First, most of the studies are from one country, limiting the generalizability of the results to the whole African continent. Second, all the studies were cross-sectional and only looked at asso- ciations and correlations. There is a need for prospec- tive or retrospective cohort or case–control studies on this subject matter. Longitudinal research studies on the prevalence of mental disorders in the COVID-19 pan- demic in the sub-Saharan Africa are urgently required. Third, most studies reviewed did not adequately examine protective factors or coping measures of the health work- ers in their settings. In addition, most studies did not pay strict attention to confounding variables which could have led to inappropriate results and conclusions. Fourth, most sample sizes were small and unlikely representative of the population and yet larger sample sizes would bet- ter identify the extent of mental health problems among health workers in the region. Fifth, depression, anxiety, and stress were assessed solely through self-adminis- tered questionnaires rather than face-to-face psychiatric
Page 14 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
interviews. Sixth, these studies employed various instru- ments and different cut-off thresholds to assess severity. Notably, the magnitude and severity of reported men- tal health outcomes may vary based on the validity and sensitivity of the measurement tools. Seventh, there was no mention of mental baseline information among the studied population and therefore it was unknown if the studied population had pre-existing mental health ill- nesses that decompensated during the pandemic cri- sis. Eight, investigators did not give much attention to stigma, burnout, resilience, and self-efficacy among study participants.
Furthermore, our review did not employ systematic reviews or meta-analyses methods for the informa- tion generated. This narrative review paper precluded deeper insight into the quality of reviewed articles for this paper. Still, our observation was that investigators did not consider the strict lockdown measures, quaran- tine, and isolation imposed by many countries in sub- Saharan Africa as possible risk factors for mental health disorders among HCWs.
Conclusion Based on the articles reviewed, the prevalence of depres- sion, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD in HCWs in the sub- Saharan Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic is high. We implore health authorities to consider setting up per- manent multidisciplinary mental health teams at regional and national levels to deal with mental health issues and provide psychological support to patients and HCWs, always supported with sufficient budgetary allocations.
Long-term surveillance is essential to keep track of insidiously rising mental health crises among commu- nity members. There is a significant variation of related literature thus calling for more rigorous research in the future. More systematic studies will be needed to clarify the full impact of the pandemic so that meaning- ful interventions can be planned better and executed at institutional and national levels in sub-Saharan Africa.
Abbreviations COVID-19: Coronavirus disease 2019; HCWs: Healthcare workers.; MH: Mental health; PHE: Public health emergency; PPE: Personal protective equipment; WHO: World Health Organisation.
Acknowledgements We thank Uganda Medical Association Acholi-branch members for the finan- cial assistance which enabled the team to conduct this study successfully.
Author contributions FWDO, JA, JNO, ENI and DLK searched and screened studies and extracted data from selected articles. FWDO wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors reviewed and edited the final draft. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding N/A.
Availability of data and materials Datasets analysed in the current study are available from the corresponding author at a reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests All authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author details 1 Uganda Medical Association (UMA), UMA-Acholi Branch, Gulu City, Uganda. 2 Moroto Regional Referral Hospital, Moroto, Uganda. 3 St. Joseph’s Hospital, Kitgum District, Uganda. 4 ICAP at Columbia University, Freetown, Sierra Leone. 5 Rhites-N, Acholi, Gulu City, Uganda. 6 Faculty of Medicine, Department of Sur- gery, Gulu University, P.O. Box 166, Gulu City, Uganda. 7 Harvard University, Cambridge, USA.
Received: 3 September 2022 Accepted: 22 November 2022
References 1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak.
2020. Available from: https:// www. who. int/ emerg encies/ disea ses/ novel- coron avirus- 2019 (Accessed 1 March 2020).
2. Veenema TG, Closser S, Thrul J. Mental Health, and Social Support for Healthcare and Hospital Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Balti- more, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security; 2021.
3. Chersich MF, Gray G, Fairlie L. COVID-19 in Africa: care and protection for frontline healthcare workers. Global Health. 2020;16:46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12992- 020- 00574- 3Inte rvent ions.
4. Greenberg N, Docherty M, Gnanapragasam S, Wessely S. Managing mental health challenges faced by healthcare workers during a COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ. 2020;368: m1211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmj. m1211.
5. WHO. Keep health workers safe to keep patients safe: WHO. 2020. https:// www. who. int/ news/ item/ 17- 09- 2020- keep- health- worke rs- safe- to- keep- patients-safe-who. Accessed 21 October 2020.
6. WHO. Weekly epidemiological update on COVID-19- 19th October 2022. https:// www. who. int/ publi catio ns/m/ item/ weekly- epide miolo gical- update- on- covid- 19--- 19- octob er- 2022.
7. Maunder R, Lancee W, Balderson K, Bennett J, Borgundvaag B, Evans S, et al. Long-term psychological and occupational effects of provid- ing hospital healthcare during SARS outbreak. Emerging Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3201/ eid12 12. 060584.
8. Jalloh MF, Li W, Bunnell RE. Impact of Ebola experiences and risk percep- tions on mental health in Sierra Leone, July 2015. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3: e000471. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmjgh- 2017- 000471.
9. Kang L, Li Y, Hu S, Chen M, Yang C, Yang BX, et al. The mental health of medical workers in Wuhan, China dealing with the 2019 novel coronavi- rus. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(3): e14.
10. Huang JZ, Han MF, Luo TD, Ren AK, Zhou XP. Mental health survey of 230 medical staff in a tertiary infectious disease hospital for COVID- 19. Zhonghua lao dong wei sheng zhi ye bing za zhi = Zhonghua laodong weisheng zhiyebing zazhi. Chinese J Indus Hygiene Occup Dis. 2020;38:E001.
11. Cai W, Lian B, Song X, Hou T, Deng G, Li H. A cross-sectional study on mental health among health care workers during the outbreak of corona- virus disease. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ajp. 2020. 102111.
Page 15 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
12. Elhadi M, Msherghi A, Elgzairi M, Alhashimi A, Bouhuwaish A, Biala M, Abuelmeda S, et al. Psychological status of healthcare workers during the civil war and COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. J Psychosom Res. 2020;137: 110221.
13. Urooj U, Ansari A, Siraj A, Khan S, Tariq H. Expectations, fears, and percep- tions of doctors during COVID-19 pandemic. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36:S37– 42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 12669/ pjms. 36. COVID 19- S4. 2643.
14. Khanal P, Devkota N, Dahal M, Paudel K, Joshi D. Mental health impacts among health workers during COVID-19 in a low resource setting: a cross-sectional survey from Nepal. Global Health. 2020;16(1):89. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12992- 020- 00621-z.
15. Preti E, Di Mattei V, Perego G. The psychological impact of epidemic and pandemic outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review of the evidence. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2020;22(8):43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11920- 020- 01166-z.
16. De Kock JH, Latham HA, Leslie SJ, Grindle M, Munoz SA, Ellis L, et al. A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers: implications for supporting psychological well- being. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):104. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12889- 020- 10070-3.
17. Luo M, Guo L, Yu M, Jiang W, Wang H. The psychological and mental impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on medical staff and the general public. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2020;291:113190. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. psych res. 2020. 113190.
18. Bareeqa SB, Ahmed SI, Samar SS, Yasin W, Zehra S, Monese GM, et al. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress in china during COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2021;56:210–27.
19. Søvold LE, Naslund JA, Kousoulis AA. Prioritizing the mental health and well-being of healthcare workers: an urgent global public health priority. Front Public Health. 2021;9: 679397. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpubh. 2021. 679397.
20. Consolo U, Bellini P, Bencivenni D, Iani C, Checchi V. Epidemiological aspects, and psychological reactions to COVID-19 of dental practitioners in the Northern Italy districts of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3459. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1710 3459.
21. Gilleen J, Santaolalla A, Valdearenas L, Salice C, Fusté M. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and well-being of UK health- care workers. BJPsych Open. 2021;7(3): e88. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1192/ bjo. 2021. 42.
22. Shechter A, Diaz F, Moise N, Anstey DE, Ye S, Agarwal S, et al. psychologi- cal distress, coping behaviours, and preferences for support among New York healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2020;66:1–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. genho sppsy ch. 2020. 06. 007.
23. Wilson W, Raj JP, Rao S, Ghiya M, Nedungalaparambil NM, Mundra H, et al. Prevalence and predictors of stress, anxiety, and depression among healthcare workers managing COVID-19 pandemic in India: a nationwide observational study. Indian J Psychol Med. 2020;42(4):353–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02537 17620 933992.
24. Wang S, Xie L, Xu Y, Yu S, Yao B, Xiang D. Sleep disturbances among medical workers during the outbreak of COVID-2019. Occup Med. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ occmed/ kqaa0 74.
25. Kang L, Ma S, Chen M, Yang J, Wang Y, Li R. Impact on mental health and perceptions of psychological care among medical and nursing staff in Wuhan during the 2019 novel coronavirus disease outbreak: a cross- sectional study. Brain Behav Immun. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bbi. 2020. 03. 028.
26. Pappa S, Ntella V, Giannakas T, Giannakoulis VG, Papoutsi E, Katsaounou P. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Brain Behavi Immun. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bbi. 2020. 05. 026.
27. Tan BYQ, Chew NWS, Lee GKH, Jing M, Goh Y, Yeo LLL. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care workers in Singapore. Ann Intern Med. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7326/ M20- 1083.
28. Li Y, Scherer N, Felix L, Kuper H. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder in health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16(3): e0246454. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02464 54.
29. British Medical Association. The mental health and well-being of the medical workforce – now and beyond COVID-19. 2020. Available from URL: https:// www. bma. org. uk/ media/ 2475/ bma- covid- 19- and- nhs- staff- mental- healt hwell being- report- may- 2020. pdf.
30. Lai J, Ma S, Wang Y, Cai Z, Hu J, Wei N, et al. Factors associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3): e203976. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1001/ jaman etwor kopen. 2020. 3976.
31. Chen J, Farah N, Dong RK, Chen RZ, Xu W, Yin J, et al. Mental health during the COVID-19 crisis in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:10604. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1820 10604.
32. Gupta S, Sahoo S. Pandemic, and mental health of the frontline health- care workers: a review and implications in the Indian context amidst COVID-19. Gen Psychiatr. 2020;33(5): e100284. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ gpsych- 2020- 100284.
33. Cai H, Tu B, Ma J, Chen L, Fu L, Jiang Y, et al. psychological impact, and coping strategies of frontline medical staff in Hunan between Janu- ary and March 2020 during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hubei, China. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:924171. https:// doi. org/ 10. 12659/ MSM. 924171.
34. CDC. National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. CDC (2020) Available online at: https:// www. cdc. gov/ vacci nes/ adults/ rec- vac/ hcw. html.
35. Muzyamba C, Makova O, Mushibi GS. Exploring health workers’ experi- ences of mental health challenges during care of patients with COVID-19 in Uganda: a qualitative study. BMC Res Notes. 2021;14(1):286. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s13104- 021- 05707-4.
36. GebreEyesus FA, Tarekegn TT, Amlak BT, Shiferaw BZ, Emeria MS, Geleta OT, et al. Levels and predictors of anxiety, depression, and stress during COVID-19 pandemic among frontline healthcare providers in Gurage zonal public hospitals, Southwest Ethiopia, 2020: a multicentre cross- sectional study. PLoS One. 2021;16(11): e0259906. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02599 06.
37. Mulatu HA, Tesfaye M, Woldeyes E. The prevalence of common mental disorders among health care professionals during the COVID-19 pan- demic at a tertiary Hospital in East Africa. Med Rxiv. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1101/ 2020. 10. 29. 20222 430.
38. Ayalew M, Deribe B, Abraham Y, Reta Y, Tadesse F, Defar S. Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and its predictors among healthcare workers following COVID-19 pandemic in Southern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Front Psychiatry. 2021. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyt. 2021. 818910.
39. Sagaon-Teyssier L, Kamissoko A, Yattassaye A, Diallo F, Castro DR, Delabre R, et al. Assessment of mental health outcomes and associated factors among workers in community-based HIV care centers in the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Mali. Health Policy Open. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. hpopen. 2020. 100017.
40. Kemal J. Psychological distress, early behavioral response, and perception toward the COVID-19 pandemic among health care workers in North Shoa Zone, Oromiya region. Front Psychiatry. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyt. 2021. 628898.
41. Chekole YA, Minaye SY, Abate SM, Mekuriaw B. Perceived stress, and its associated factors during COVID-19 among healthcare providers in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Adv Public Heal. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1155/ 2020/ 50368 61.
42. Asnakew S. Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder on health profes- sionals in the era of COVID-19 pandemic, Northwest Ethiopia 2020: a multi-centred cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0255340.
43. Asnakew S, Amha H, Kassew T. Mental health adverse effects of COVID-19 pandemic on health care workers in Northwest Ethiopia: a multicenter cross-sectional study. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2021;17:1375–84. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2147/ NDT. S3063 00.
44. Kounou KB, Guédénon KM, Foli AAD, Gnassounou-Akpa E. Mental health of medical professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in Togo. Psychia- try Clin Neurosci. 2020;74:559–60.
45. Ayalew MB. Prevalence and determinant factors of mental health problems among healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic in southern Ethiopia: a multicentre cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2021. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmjop en- 2021- 057708.
46. Keubo FRN, Mboua PC, Tadongfack TD, Tchoffo EF, Tatang CT, Zeuna JI, et al. psychological distress among health care professionals of the three
Page 16 of 16Oyat et al. BMC Psychology (2022) 10:284
• fast, convenient online submission
•
thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field
• rapid publication on acceptance
• support for research data, including large and complex data types
•
gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations
maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year •
At BMC, research is always in progress.
Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions
Ready to submit your researchReady to submit your research ? Choose BMC and benefit from: ? Choose BMC and benefit from:
COVID-19 most affected Regions in Cameroon: Prevalence and associ- ated factors. In: Annales Médico-Psychologiques, Revue Psychiatrique; Elsevier Masson: Paris, France. 2021;179:141–146.
47. Xiao H, Zhang Y, Kong D, Li S, Yang N. The effects of social support on sleep quality of medical staff treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in January and February 2020 in China. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549. https:// doi. org/ 10. 12659/ MSM. 923549.
48. Shanafelt T, Ripp J, Trockel M. Understanding and addressing sources of anxiety among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1001/ jama. 2020. 5893.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub- lished maps and institutional affiliations.
- The psychological impact, risk factors and coping strategies to COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers in the sub-Saharan Africa: a narrative review of existing literature
- Abstract
- Background:
- Methods:
- Result:
- Conclusion:
- Introduction
- Methodology
- Search methodology and article selection
- Search processes
- Eligibility criteria
- Data extraction and appraisal of the study
- Definition of healthcare worker (HCW)
- Results
- Search results
- Study characteristics
- Risks of bias and confounding factors
- Socio-demographic factors
- Age
- Gender
- Psychological impact on healthcare workers
- Risk factors associated with adverse mental health outcomes
- Occupational factors
- Healthcare groups
- Frontline staff with direct contact with COVID-19
- Lack of personal protective equipment (PPEs)
- Heavy workload
- Psychosocial factors: perceived stigma and fear of infection
- family concerns
- Protective psychosocial factors
- Safety of family
- Underlying illnesses
- Protective factors against adverse mental health outcomes
- Protective occupational factors
- Experience
- Trainings
- Adequate supply of PPEs
- Discussion
- Overview of the study sites
- High prevalence of psychological disorders among participants
- Risk factors of psychological disorders among participants
- Regional variations of psychological disorders
- Socio-demographic characteristics
- Regular monitoring of high-risk groups
- Social support and coping mechanisms
- Protective and coping measures
- Future research direction
- Limitations of this study
- Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- References
