High prevalence of mental disorder symptoms among medical and other health specialties residents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic put healthcare professionals, including residents (postgraduate trainees of health professions), under intense physical and psychological stress, hence at risk for mental disorders. We evaluated the prevalence of mental disorders among healthcare residents during the pandemic. METHODS: From July to September 2020, residents in medicine and other healthcare specialties in Brazil were recruited. The participants completed electronic forms with validated questionnaires (DASS-21, PHQ-9, BRCS) to screen for depression, anxiety, and stress, and to evaluate resilience. Data on potential predisposing factors for mental disorders were also collected. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared, students t, correlation and logistic regression models were applied. The study received ethical approval, and all participants provided informed consent. RESULTS: We included 1313 participants (51.3% medical; 48.7% nonmedical) from 135 Brazilian hospitals; mean (SD) age: 27.8 (4.4) years; 78.2% females; 59.3% white race. Of all participants, 51.3%, 53.4% and 52.6% presented symptoms consistent with depression, anxiety, and stress, respectively; 61.9% showed low resilience. Nonmedical residents exhibited higher anxiety compared to medical residents (DASS-21 anxiety score, mean difference: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.15-3.37; p < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, having any pre-existent, nonpsychiatric chronic disease was associated with higher prevalence of symptoms indicative of depression (odds ratio, OR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.47-2.85, on DASS-21 | OR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.59-3.20, on PHQ-9), anxiety (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.51-2.83, on DASS-21), and stress (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.12-2.09, on DASS-21); other predisposing factors were identified; by contrast, high resilience (BRCS score) was protective against symptoms of depression (OR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.79-0.85, on DASS-21 | OR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.82-0.88, on PHQ-9), anxiety (OR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87-0.93, on DASS-21), and stress (OR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.85-0.91, on DASS-21); p < 0.05 for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We found a high prevalence of mental disorder symptoms among healthcare residents during COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Nonmedical residents exhibited higher levels of anxiety than medical ones. Some predisposing factors for depression, anxiety and stress among residents were identified.

Impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of public university hospital workers in Brazil: A cohort-based analysis of 32,691 workers.

BACKGROUND: In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic paralyzed the world and exposed the fragility of health systems in the face of mass illness. Health professionals became protagonists, fulfilling their mission at the risk of physical and mental illness. The study aimed to evaluate absenteeism indirectly related to SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large population of health care professionals. METHODS: An observational longitudinal repeated measures study was performed, including workers linked to 40 public university hospitals in Brazil. All causes of absenteeism were analyzed, focusing on those not directly attributed to COVID-19. Results for the same population were compared over two equivalent time intervals: prepandemic and during the pandemic. FINDINGS: A total of 32,691 workers were included in the study, with health professionals comprising 82.5% of the sample. Comparison of the periods before and during the pandemic showed a 26.6% reduction in work absence for all causes, except for COVID-19 and mental health-related absence. Concerning work absence related to mental health, the odds ratio was 39.0% higher during the pandemic. At the onset of the pandemic, there was an increase in absenteeism (all causes), followed by a progressive reduction until the end of the observation period. INTERPRETATION: Work absence related to mental illness among health care professionals increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for health care managers to prioritize and implement support strategies to minimize absenteeism.

Placebo use and outcome quality: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship, research outcome and quality has been already evaluated for clinical trials in order to analyze if this kind of sponsorship affects the results of clinical trials. In this sense, this study has the aim to investigate whether placebo use allows positive outcomes regarding efficacy and safety compared to synthetic medicines. METHODS: We designed and registered a study protocol for a systematic review for methodology data. We will only randomized clinical trials that use placebo as comparator. The main outcome will be the evaluation of placebo use regarding the tendency for positive results (efficacy and security) when comparing to synthetic medicines. PubMed, Cochrane, LILACS (BVS), Web of Science, Scopus, and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) databases will be searched. Gray literature will be identified through the databases Proquest (Dissertation and Theses), OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Two review authors will independently assess trial quality and will extract data in accordance with standard Cochrane methodology. If necessary, we will also contact authors for additional information. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool will be used. If feasible, it means homogenous data, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses will be conducted for different justifications for placebo use and for studies sponsored/not sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. RESULTS: Our present findings will indicate the effects of placebo use as comparator regarding efficacy and safety of the oral synthetic medicines. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will identify, summarize, and analyze if there is a trend for positive efficacy and safety results for synthetic medicines in clinical trials when compared with placebo and if the justification for placebo use is considered ethically acceptable. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018110829.