Coping with Depression and Anxiety in Egyptian Physicians during COVID-19 ‎Pandemic

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-84013/v1

PDF

Research Article

Coping with Depression and Anxiety in Egyptian Physicians during COVID-19 ‎Pandemic

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-84013/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted 29 Sep, 2020

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: COVID-19 pandemic is a public health ‎emergency with negative impact on mental health. Health care workers are one of the most vulnerable groups to psychological stress ‎in Pandemics especially COVID -19. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed the depression, stress and coping among a sample of Egyptian Physicians using an electronic survey was sent. It included demographic data, Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale - 21 Items (DASS-21) and Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS).

Results: We found that the majority of the sample were females (61.2%), medical specialties (51.2%) and (‎92.4‎ %) were living with vulnerable family members. The majority (63%) suffered from severe or extremely severe depression, 77.6% had extremely severe anxiety and 72% suffered from stress. BRCS showed that only 17.1% had high resilient coping. Female physicians were significantly higher in the depression, anxiety and stress scales of DASS than male physicians (p= 0.001, ‎<0.001 and ‎<0.001 respectively). Anxiety scale was significantly higher in those with chronic diseases (p= 0.040) while the stress scale was lower significantly in those with higher academic degree (p= 0.034). Age had significantly negative correlation with DASS anxiety (p= 0.031) and stress scores (p= 0.037). The BRCS score had significantly negative correlation with the depression, anxiety and stress scales of DASS (p= 0.018, ‎0.014 and ‎0.007 respectively).

Conclusion: COVID-19 pandemic has a negative impact on the psychological well-being of the studied Egyptian physicians. Prophylactic measures should be implemented to avoid development of psychiatric symptoms in physicians.

Psychiatry

Covid-19

Healthcare

Physicians

Depression

Anxiety

Stress

Coping

Egypt

In January 2020, WHO classified Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a public health ‎emergency (Mahase, 2020).‎

Emergencies in public health including pandemics are known to have a negative impact on mental health at different levels (Pfefferbaum & North, 2020). At the individual level, it causes fear, helplessness, and stigma. As for communities, psychiatric morbidities may increase like what happened in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003 (Sim, Huak Chan, Chong, Chua, & Wen Soon, 2010).

Such emergencies threat health and safety creating a state of insecurity and ‎unpredictability. ‎In SARS outbreak, healthcare workers suffered from fears of being ‎infected, ‎infecting family/friends, stigma and high levels of stress, ‎anxiety and depressive ‎symptoms (Lai et al., 2020).‎ This is evident in COVID-19 pandemic due to many factors; limited ‎knowledge and resources, unavailable treatment, conflicting media messages and ‎social distancing. Health care workers are one of the most vulnerable groups to psychological stress ‎in Pandemics. Moreover, With COVID-19, healthcare workers suffer from longer working ‎hours, ‎scarce personal protective equipment (PPE)‎ (Pfefferbaum & North, 2020). In addition, they are challenged with deficient resources allocation to equally ‎critical patients and rather impossible balance between their own needs being ‎understaffed with the expanding number of patients. These pressures are pressure intensified by time urgency, ‎public and media scrutiny‎ (Greenberg, Docherty, Gnanapragasam, & Wessely, 2020; Tsamakis et al., 2020).

Many studies assessed factors mediating psychiatric morbidity during pandemics. ‎This includes profession (doctor/nurse), marital status, presence of social ‎support, training competency and coping mechanisms (Ho, Chee, & Ho, 2020).‎

Coping is an important mediator between stress and mental illness as anxiety and ‎depression (Endler & Parker, 1990).

The literature on COVID-19’s effect on mental health is currently expanding but is ‎still limited. In this paper, we aim at assessing the depression, anxiety and stress in ‎physicians in different specialties in Egypt and also determining their ability to cope with these stresses.‎ We assume that COVID-19 will have negative effect on physicians depending on their field of speciality. Also, we assume that phycisians with better coping will be less affected by the effect of COVID-19.

This was a cross sectional study. An anonymous survey was distributed among ‎doctors through a link through social media. The link was sent to doctors’ groups ‎of specific specialty or sent individually. The survey was time-limited to 3 months and was carried out during ‎March-May 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic‎. ‎

The survey was written in English and was titled Survey among Medical staff. It ‎started with a must-answer question about whether or not the candidate would ‎like to participate or not.‎

The questionnaire included demographic data, The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale - 21 Items (DASS-21) (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) and Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) (Sinclair & Wallston, 2004).

We included physicians from both genders and different ages and years of experience. Clinical specialties were clustered into 3 categories: surgical, medical and supportive (Dijkstra et al., 2013).

Demographic data included age, gender, marital status, education, occupation, ‎specialty and working years.‎

Some questions were added to assess the risk to COVID-19 to self (like suffering from chronic illness) and to others (living with ‎vulnerable groups). A question to assess workload (working hours/week ‎during last month) was added.‎

The DASS-21 consists of 3 self-report scales that assess depression, anxiety and stress during the past 7 days. The Depression scale assesses dysphoria, hopelessness, devaluation of life, self-deprecation, lack of interest, anhedonia and inertia. The Anxiety scale assesses autonomic arousal, skeletal muscle effects, situational anxiety, and subjective experience of anxious affect. The Stress scale assesses difficulty relaxing, nervous arousal, and being easily upset/agitated, irritable/over-reactive and impatient. Responder has to choose between 4 answers ranging from (did not apply at all) to (apply very much). Higher ‎scores indicate severity. Scores for the three scales are calculated by summing the scores for the relevant items and the severity of each scale is defined (normal, mild, moderate, severe or extremely severe) (Table 1) (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995).

Table (1): DASS interpretation and categories

DASS Interpretation	Depression	Anxiety	Stress
Normal	0-9	0-7	0-14
Mild	10-13	8-9	15-18
Moderate	14-20	10-14	19-25
Severe	21-27	15-19	26-33
Extremely severe	28+	20+	34+

Coping was assessed using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS). It is a standardized 4-item scale that evaluates the resilience and coping to stressors‎. ‎Responders have 5 ‎‏choices in each question: does not describe me at all, does not describe me, neutral, describe me or describe me very well. Higher scores indicate higher resilience.‎ The total score classifies responders to low, medium and high resilient copers (Table 2) (Kocalevent, Zenger, Hinz, Klapp, & Brähler, 2017).

Table (2): BRCS interpretation and categories

BRCS Interpretation	Score range
Low resilient copers	4-13 points
Medium resilient copers	14-16 points
High resilient copers	17-20 points

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version20 (IBM, 2011). Mean and standard deviation were used for describing the numerical data while count and frequency described the categorical data. Comparisons between 2 groups were done by student t-test and chi-square test. One-way ANOVA was used for comparing 3 groups. Association between numerical groups was done by Pearson Correlation test.

There was no missing data.

One hundred and seventy physicians participated in the survey over the 3 month period. Two thirds of them were females (61.2%) with mean age ‎of (36.5) years. Other demographic data are shown in table (3).‎

Physicians in medical specialties were 51.2% of total participants, ‎meanwhile surgeons were ‎25.88%‎ and supportive specialties physicians ‎were ‎22.94%‎. Physicians worked ‎27.36‎ hours per week in average. The ‎majority of them (‎92.4‎%) were living with vulnerable family members (table 3).

Depression scale of DASS was (12.54‎±‎6.72) with 63% of physicians had either severe or extremely severe depression and only 7% of them were normal on this scale. Meanwhile, the anxiety scale was (14.44‎±‎7.37) and 77.6% of physician had extremely severe anxiety. Twenty eight percent of physicians were normal on stress score (table 3).

The Brief Resilient Coping Scale score was 13.45‎±‎2.95. Half of physicians were low resilient copers, one third of them were medium resilient copers and 17.1% were high resilient copers (table 3).

Table (3): Demographics and clinical characteristics of the physicians

Physicians (N: 170)		*Number/Frequency*
Age in years (mean‎±SD)		‎36.47‎‎‎±‎5.08
Gender	Males	‎66‎/‎38.8%‎
Gender	Females	‎104‎/61.2‎%‎‎
Marital status	Single	‎43‎/‎25.3‎%‎‎
	Married	‎123‎/72.4‎%‎‎
	Divorced or widow	‎4‎/‎2.4‎%‎‎
Academic degree	Bachelor	‎9‎/5.3‎%‎‎
	Master	‎66‎/‎38.8‎%‎‎
	MD	‎95‎/55.9‎%‎‎
Job	Resident	‎17‎/‎10.0‎%‎‎
	Assistant Lecturer	‎38‎/22.4‎%‎‎
	Lecturer	‎57‎/‎33.5‎%‎‎
	Associate Professor	‎16‎/9.4‎‎%‎
	Professor	‎10‎/‎5.9‎%‎‎
	Other	‎32‎/18.8‎%‎‎
Specialty	Surgical specialties	44/25.88%
	Medical specialties	87/51.17%
	Supportive specialties	39/22.94%
Years of experience	less than 5 years	‎14‎/‎8.2‎%‎‎
	‎5-10 years‎	‎49‎/28.8‎%‎‎
	more than 10 years	‎107/‎62.9‎%‎‎
Working hours per week (mean‎±SD)		‎27.36‎±‎25.67‎
Living with vulnerable ‎family members	No	‎13‎/7.6‎‎%‎
Living with vulnerable ‎family members	Yes	‎157‎/‎92.4‎%‎‎
DASS¹ depression score (mean‎±SD)		12.54‎±‎6.72
DASS depression	Normal	‎‎12/‎7.1‎%‎
	Mild	‎‎18‎/‎10.6‎%‎
	Moderate	‎‎33‎/‎19.4‎%‎
	Severe	‎‎44‎/‎25.9‎%‎
	Extremely severe	‎‎63‎/‎37.1‎%‎
DASS anxiety score (mean‎±SD)		14.44‎±‎7.37
DASS anxiety	Normal	‎‎9‎/‎5.3‎%‎
	Mild	‎‎7‎/‎4.1‎%‎
	Moderate	‎‎10‎/‎5.9‎%‎
	Severe	‎‎12‎/‎7.1‎%‎
	Extremely severe	‎‎132‎/‎77.6‎%‎
DASS stress score (mean‎±SD)		11.58‎±‎6.98
DASS stress	Normal	‎‎49‎/‎28.8‎%‎
	Mild	‎‎20‎/‎11.8‎%‎
	Moderate	‎‎35‎/‎20.6‎%‎
	Severe	‎‎33‎/‎19.4‎%‎
	Extremely severe	‎‎33‎/‎19.4‎%‎
BRCS²‎ score (mean‎±SD)		13.45‎±‎2.95
BRCS interpretation	Low resilient copers	‎85‎/‎50.0‎‎%‎
	Medium resilient copers	‎56‎/‎32.9‎‎%‎
	High resilient copers	‎29‎/17.1‎‎%‎

1 DASS: Depression Anxiety Stress Scales 2 BRCS: Brief Resilient Coping Scale

Female physicians were significantly higher in the depression, anxiety and stress scales of DASS than male physicians (p= 0.001, ‎<0.001 and ‎<0.001 respectively). Anxiety scale was significantly higher in those with chronic diseases (p= 0.040) while the stress scale was lower significantly in those with higher academic degree (p= 0.034). Marital status, specialty, years of experience and living with a vulnerable family member did not show significant differences in DASS scores (table 4).

The Brief Resilient Coping Scale score did not show significant differences in different categories of gender, marital status, academic degree, specialty, years of experience, living with vulnerable ‎family ‎members and chronic diseases (table 4).

Age had significantly negative correlation with DASS anxiety (p= 0.031) and stress scores (p= 0.037). Weekly working hours were not significantly correlated with any of DASS scores (table 5).

The Brief Resilient Coping Scale score had significantly negative correlation with the depression, anxiety and stress scales of DASS (p= 0.018, ‎0.014 and ‎0.007 respectively) (table 5).

Table (4): Relation between demographics and clinical characteristics of the physicians

		N	DASS¹ Depression		DASS Anxiety		DASS Stress		BRCS² Score
		N	mean‎±‎SD	p	mean‎±‎SD	p	mean‎±‎SD	p	mean‎±‎SD	P
Gender	Males	66	‎10.42‎±‎‎5.98‎	‎0.001‎	‎11.92‎±‎‎6.54‎	‎<0.001‎	‎9.01‎±‎‎6.53‎	‎<0.001‎	‎13.59±‎3.10‎	‎0.615‎
Gender	Females	104	‎13.88‎±‎‎6.84‎	‎0.001‎	‎16.04‎±‎‎7.45‎	‎<0.001‎	‎13.21‎±‎‎6.79‎	‎<0.001‎	‎13.35‎±‎‎2.87‎	‎0.615‎
Marital status	Single	43	11.37‎±‎5.83	0.421	14.16‎±‎6.98	0.927	11.16‎±‎6.19	0.883	13.42‎±‎2.78	0.805
	Married	123	12.93‎±‎7.05		14.50‎±‎7.59		11.75‎±‎7.34		13.49‎±‎3.02
	Divorced or widow	4	13.00‎±‎4.24		15.50‎±‎5.92		11.00‎±‎2.83		12.50‎±‎3.32
Academic degree	Bachelor	9	17.44‎±‎6.61	0.079	19.33‎±‎8.45	0.123	17.44‎±‎7.25	0.034	12.55‎±2.87	0.542
	Masters	66	12.22‎±‎5.29		14.22‎±‎5.50		11.36‎±‎5.83		13.66‎±‎2.65
	MD	95	12.29‎±7.45		14.12‎±‎8.26		11.18‎±‎7.49		13.38‎±‎3.16
Specialty	Surgical specialties	44	‎12.31‎‎±‎‎6.28‎	‎0.838‎	‎14.14‎±‎‎6.99‎	‎0.885‎	‎11.59‎‎‎±‎‎6.88‎	‎0.967‎	‎13.20‎‎‎±‎‎2.65‎	‎0.405‎
	Medical specialties	87	‎12.40‎‎‎±‎‎6.75‎		‎14.38‎±‎‎7.57‎		‎11.47‎‎‎±‎‎7.16‎		‎13.32‎‎‎±‎3.23‎
	Supportive specialties	39	‎13.10‎±‎‎7.23‎		‎14.92‎‎‎±‎‎7.50‎		‎11.82‎‎‎±‎‎6.84‎		‎14.00‎‎‎±‎‎2.60‎
Years of experience	less than 5 years	14	14.50‎±‎6.51	0.523	16.79‎±‎8.10	0.382	14.14‎±‎7.22	0.275	12.57‎±‎2.44	0.515
	‎5-10 years‎	49	12.45‎±6.66‎		14.78‎±‎6.86		11.96‎±‎7.06		13.53‎±‎3.11
	more than 10 years	107	12.33‎±‎6.79		13.98‎±‎7.50		11.07‎±‎6.89		13.52‎±‎2.95
Living with vulnerable ‎family ‎members	No	13	12.08‎±‎5.59	0.796	15.23‎±8.80‎	0.689	11.00‎±5.94‎	0.755	12.85‎±‎1.91	0.447
Living with vulnerable ‎family ‎members	Yes	157	12.58‎±‎6.82	0.796	14.38‎±7.27‎	0.689	11.63‎±‎7.07	0.755	13.50‎±‎3.02	0.447
Chronic disease	No	135	12.07‎±‎6.08	0.150	13.85‎±‎6.94	0.040	11.11‎±‎6.31	0.163	13.52‎±‎2.87	0.537
Chronic disease	Yes	35	14.34‎±‎8.62	0.150	16.71‎±‎8.57	0.040	13.40‎±8.99‎	0.163	13.17‎±‎3.30	0.537

1 DASS: Depression Anxiety Stress Scales 2 BRCS: Brief Resilient Coping Scale

Table (5): Correlation between Depression Anxiety Stress Scales, Brief Resilient Coping Scale and age

		DASS¹ Depression	DASS Anxiety	DASS Stress	BRCS² score
Age	r	-.147	-.166	-.160	.075
Age	p	.056	.031	.037	.334
Weekly working hours	r	.008	-.082	-.027	.063
Weekly working hours	p	.916	.300	.729	.425
DASS Depression	r		.890	.923	-.182
DASS Depression	p		‏>‏‎0.001‎	‏>‏‎0.001‎	.018
DASS Anxiety	r	.890		.916	-.188
DASS Anxiety	p	‏>‏‎0.001‎		‏>‏‎0.001‎	.014
DASS Stress	r	.923	.916		-.206
DASS Stress	p	‏>‏‎0.001‎	‏>‏‎0.001‎		.007
BRCS score	r	-.182	-.188	-.206
BRCS score	p	.018	.014	.007

1 DASS: Depression Anxiety Stress Scales 2 BRCS: Brief Resilient Coping Scale.

Our study describes the psychological impact and mental health of the medical staff in a convenient sample of Egyptian physicians.

The majority of physicians had either severe or extremely severe depression while 77.6% of them had extremely severe anxiety. Anxiety was significantly higher in those with chronic diseases, this has been proven by several researches that depression and anxiety occurs with chronic diseases (Clarke & Currie, 2009) but also the underlying chronic disease as hypertension, respiratory system disease and cardiovascular disease, may be risk factors in severe covid-19 patients compared with non-severe ones (Yang et al., 2020), this may rise the anxiety among medical staff members who suffer from chronic illness.

Stress was found to be less among higher education level, this might be explained and understood that senior physicians are less exposed as they have fewer working hours than junior one and more experienced in dealing with critical situations. Moreover, seniors are elder and age was found to be inversely correlated to anxiety and stress scales of DASS. As age advances the personality becomes stable and less confused under stress as persons become comparatively free of neurotic anxiety (Nakazato & Shimonaka, 1989).

Further analysis for the results showed significant difference between males and females as regards levels of depression, anxiety and stress as measured by DASS-21 and also as regards resilience as measured by BRCS. This higher symptom prevalence in females resonates well with results from surveys conducted in other countries (Sønderskov, Dinesen, Santini, & Østergaard, 2020; Yang et al., 2020) also similar to a Chinese study conducted on 246 medical staff during the coid-19 pandemic, the incidence of anxiety in female medical staff was higher than that in male, the score of Self-rating Anxiety Scale in female medical staff was higher than that in male (Huang, Han, Luo, Ren, & Zhou, 2020). Women usually show more reactivity than men in neural networks associated with fear and arousal responses (Felmingham et al., 2010).

As regards the significantly positive correlation between the triad of depression, anxiety and stress, it could be explained that all of them have similar pathophysiology where there are abnormalities in the regulation of the hypothalamic–pituitary adrenal axis and the sympatho-adrenomedullary system (Altemus, 2006).

The significant negative correlation between this triad and resilience coping was suggested by previous researches who found that coping may play an important role in mediating the outcomes of stressful events, including anxiety, depression, and other psychological distress (Endler & Parker, 1990).

Therefore, we can conclude that the psychological well-being of the studied Egyptian physicians in this sample is affected negatively by the COVID-19 pandemic suffering from depressive, anxiety and stress symptoms. These results should raise our attention to the medical staff and their mental health status so we recommend more prevention efforts such as screening for mental health problems, psycho-education for stress management strategies and acquiring healthy coping skills (setting a daily routine, avoiding too much news about covid-19), and psychosocial support.

Limitations of this study include the relatively small sample size and the whole data were self-rated which may limit the data generalisability. Also, the effect of direct contact with COVID-19 patients was not studied. We recommend in future studies increasing the staff sample size and categorizing the experiences based on profession.

ANOVA: Analysis of variance

BRCS: Brief Resilient Coping Scale.

DASS-21: Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale - 21 Items.

PPE: Personal Protective Equipment.‎

SARS: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

WHO: World Health Organization.

-Ethics approval and consent to participate

The survey started with a mandatory question where the participant must state his consent to participate in order to continue the survey. Since this is an observational study, the researchers did not apply for IRB approval (the Egyptian Law mandates an IRB approval for clinical trials and patient- targeted studies).

-Consent for publication

Not applicable

-Availability of data and materials

All data analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

-Competing interest

None

-Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

-Author’s contribution

Dr OK proposed the research idea and design and contributed to writing the manuscript. Dr MK helped developing the study design and data analysis and interpretation and editing the manuscript. Dr RA contributed to developing research idea, study methodology and writing the manuscript.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

-Acknowledgment

Not applicable

Altemus, M. (2006). Sex differences in depression and anxiety disorders: potential biological determinants. Horm Behav, 50(4), 534-538. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.06.031

Clarke, D. M., & Currie, K. C. (2009). Depression, anxiety and their relationship with chronic diseases: a review of the epidemiology, risk and treatment evidence. Med J Aust, 190(S7), S54-60.

Dijkstra, I. S., Pols, J., Remmelts, P., Bakker, B., Mooij, J. J., Borleffs, J. C., & Brand, P. L. (2013). What are we preparing them for? Development of an inventory of tasks for medical, surgical and supportive specialties. Med Teach, 35(4), e1068-1077. doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.733456

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: a critical evaluation. J Pers Soc Psychol, 58(5), 844-854. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.58.5.844

Felmingham, K., Williams, L. M., Kemp, A. H., Liddell, B., Falconer, E., Peduto, A., & Bryant, R. (2010). Neural responses to masked fear faces: sex differences and trauma exposure in posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of abnormal psychology, 119(1), 241-247. doi:10.1037/a0017551

Greenberg, N., Docherty, M., Gnanapragasam, S., & Wessely, S. (2020). Managing mental health challenges faced by healthcare workers during covid-19 pandemic. Bmj, 368, m1211. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1211

Ho, C. S., Chee, C. Y., & Ho, R. C. (2020). Mental Health Strategies to Combat the Psychological Impact of COVID-19 Beyond Paranoia and Panic. Ann Acad Med Singapore, 49(3), 155-160.

Huang, J. Z., Han, M. F., Luo, T. D., Ren, A. K., & Zhou, X. P. (2020). [Mental health survey of medical staff in a tertiary infectious disease hospital for COVID-19]. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi, 38(3), 192-195. doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn121094-20200219-00063

IBM. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 20.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Kocalevent, R.-D., Zenger, M., Hinz, A., Klapp, B., & Brähler, E. (2017). Resilient coping in the general population: standardization of the brief resilient coping scale (BRCS). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15(1), 251. doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0822-6

Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales: Psychology Foundation of Australia.

Mahase, E. (2020). China coronavirus: WHO declares international emergency as death toll exceeds 200. 368, m408. doi:10.1136/bmj.m408 %J BMJ

Nakazato, K., & Shimonaka, Y. (1989). The Japanese State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: age and sex differences. Percept Mot Skills, 69(2), 611-617. doi:10.2466/pms.1989.69.2.611

Pfefferbaum, B., & North, C. S. (2020). Mental Health and the Covid-19 Pandemic. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2008017

Sim, K., Huak Chan, Y., Chong, P. N., Chua, H. C., & Wen Soon, S. (2010). Psychosocial and coping responses within the community health care setting towards a national outbreak of an infectious disease. J Psychosom Res, 68(2), 195-202. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.04.004

Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (2004). The development and psychometric evaluation of the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Assessment, 11(1), 94-101. doi:10.1177/1073191103258144

Sønderskov, K. M., Dinesen, P. T., Santini, Z. I., & Østergaard, S. D. (2020). The depressive state of Denmark during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Neuropsychiatr, 1-3. doi:10.1017/neu.2020.15

Tsamakis, K., Rizos, E., J Manolis, A., Chaidou, S., Kympouropoulos, S., Spartalis, E., . . . S Triantafyllis, A. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on mental health of healthcare professionals. Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 19(6), 3451-3453. doi:10.3892/etm.2020.8646

Yang, J., Zheng, Y., Gou, X., Pu, K., Chen, Z., Guo, Q., . . . Zhou, Y. (2020). Prevalence of comorbidities and its effects in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis, 94, 91-95. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.017

PDF

Version 1

posted 29 Sep, 2020

You are reading this latest preprint version

Coping with Depression and Anxiety in Egyptian Physicians during COVID-19 ‎Pandemic

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

List Of Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1