TABLE 2.
Description of reviewed studies (A = High Quality, B = Good Quality, C = Low Quality of Major Flaws).
| Author(s) and year | Aim | Design and sample | Rigor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ali et al. 2020 | The study aimed to investigate the major stressors and coping strategies reported by nurses working directly with potentially infectious patients in Alabama, United States, during the COVID-19 pandemic. | Cross-sectional survey, 109 nurses. | Aim and objectives clear Design relevant Results consistent Implications discussed Quality Appraisal= High Quality (A) |
| Cai et al. 2020 | The study aimed to investigate psychological impact and coping strategies of frontline medical staff in Hunan Province during the COVID-19 outbreak between January and March 2020. | Cross-sectional observational study, 534 frontline medical staff. | Aim and objectives clear Design relevant Results consistent Implications discussed Quality Appraisal= High Quality (A) |
| Cui et al. 2021 | To identify the impact of COVID-19 on the pathology of Chinese nurses in emergency departments and fever clinics and to identify associated factors. | Online cross-sectional study, 453 emergency nurses. | Aim and objectives clear Design relevant Results consistent Implications discussed Quality Appraisal= High Quality (A) |
| Gunawan et al. 2021 | The aim of the study was to explore the lived experience of nurses in combating COVID-19 in Belitung, Indonesia. | Phenomenological design, 17 clinical nurses. | Aim and objectives clear Design relevant Results consistent Implications discussed Quality Appraisal= High Quality (A) |
| Huang et al. 2020 | The study aimed to explore the current status and relationship of emotional responses and coping strategies of nurses at all levels of hospitals in Anhui Province. | Online survey, 802 nursing and nursing students. | Aim and objectives clear Design relevant Results consistent Implications discussed Quality Appraisal= High Quality (A) |
| Munawar and Choudhry 2020 | The study aimed to examine the psychological impact of COVID-19 on emergency HCWs and to understand how they are dealing with COVID-19 pandemic, their stress-coping strategies or protective factors and challenges whilst dealing with COVID-19 patients. | Qualitative inquiry, 15 frontline emergency HCWs. | Aim and objectives clear Design relevant Results consistent Implications discussed Quality Appraisal= High Quality (A) |
| Savitsky et al. 2020 | The study aimed to assess levels of anxiety and ways of coping amongst nursing students in the Ashkelon Academic College, Southern District, Israel. | Cross-sectional study, 244 nursing students. | Aim and objectives clear Design relevant Results consistent Implications discussed Quality Appraisal= High Quality (A) |
| Shahrour and Dardas 2020 | The study aimed to establish the prevalence of acute stress disorder and predictors of psychological distress amongst Jordanian nurses. | Quantitative, cross-sectional, descriptive and comparative design, 448 Jordanian nurses. | Aim and objectives clear Design relevant Results consistent Implications discussed Quality Appraisal= High Quality (A) |
| Shaohua et al. 2020 | The study aimed to explore the relationship between work stressors and mental health in frontline nurses exposed to COVID-19. | Cross-sectional study, 723 frontline nurses. | Aim and objectives clear Design relevant Results consistent Implications discussed Quality Appraisal= High Quality (A) |
| Sheroun et al. 2020 | The aim of the study was to assess the perceived stress and coping strategies amidst COVID-19 lockdown amongst the BSc nursing students studying in nursing colleges located in Pune. | Cross-sectional descriptive study, 427 nursing students. | Aim and objectives clear Design relevant Results consistent Implications discussed Quality Appraisal=High Quality (A) |
| Zhang et al. 2020 | The aim of the study was to identify stressors and burnout amongst frontline nurses caring for COVID-19 patients in Wuhan and Shanghai and to explore perceived effective morale support strategies. | Cross-sectional survey, 110 nurses. | Aim and objectives clear Design relevant Results consistent Implications discussed Quality Appraisal= High Quality (A) |
Source: Adapted from Kangasniemi, M., Pakkanen, P. & Korhonen, A. 2015, ‘Professional ethics in nursing: an integrative review’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(8), 1744–1757. HCW, healthcare worker.