Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health emergency and disaster risk management systems: a scoping review of mental health support provided to health care workers

Résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: This systematic scoping review examined the strategies used by different countries and institutions to support the mental health of health care workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic, to identify effective practices and the lessons learned in dealing with the associated challenges. METHODS: Of 1330 retrieved articles from PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science, 34 articles were ultimately included in the final analysis. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that mental health consultation services, especially telephone support lines, online interventions, and apps, played a critical role in addressing the psychological burden experienced by HCWs. Group activities and peer support strategies offered personalized support, and educational programs offered crucial information regarding stress management. Improvements in the work environment, such as the addition of dedicated rest areas, enhanced the well-being of HCWs. However, many interventions suffered from low participation and a lack of tailored content, despite their apparent effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Many interventions have focused on psychological support and resilience-building for HCWs, but they often overlook systemic issues. Comprehensive mental health support must address these systemic factors, such as adequate staffing, training, and resource allocation. Future strategies should emphasize leadership commitment to tackling root causes and actively involve HCWs in program design to ensure relevance and effectiveness. Educational resources and wellness interventions, although reported as effective, need to be tailored and adapted to specific emergencies. Additionally, research gaps, especially in low-resource settings, highlight the need for further studies to enhance preparedness for future crises.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.