Healthcare professionals (HCPs) experienced prolonged stressful conditions during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and the global situation (particularly in the United Kingdom) meant that they continue to sustain mental stress related to the subsequent cost-of-living and healthcare budgeting crises. The psychological toll on HCPs may lead to increased staff attrition, adversely impacting the quality of patient care and work security. To help mitigate this psychological impact, the current evidence is strongly supportive of healthcare providers consistently adopting programmes fostering improvement in coping and resilience, facilitating healthy lifestyle, and allocating some resources for therapeutic strategies (e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy-based strategies and other strategies specified to trauma-related issues) which can be delivered by trained professionals. We stress that some approaches are not a one-size-fits-all strategy, and we also highlight the need to encourage treatment-seeking among those who need it. These strategies are highly relevant to healthcare employers and policymakers to support all HCPs in settings marked by prolonged periods of stress. The investment in these strategies are expected not only to reduce staff attrition in the long-term, but are likely to add to the cost-effectiveness of overall healthcare budgetary allocation.

Exposure to ionizing radiation following environmental contamination (e.g., the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents), radiotherapy and diagnostics, occupational roles and space travel has bee...

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic may disproportionately affect the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs), especially patient-facing HCPs. Aims: To longitudinally examine mental health in HCPs versus non-HCPs, and patient-facing HCPs versus non-patient-facing HCPs. Method: Online surveys were distributed to a cohort at three phases (baseline, July to September 2020; phase 2, 6 weeks post-baseline; phase 3, 4 months post-baseline). Each survey contained validated assessments for depression, anxiety, insomnia, burnout and well-being. For each outcome, we conducted mixed-effects logistic regression models (adjusted for a priori confounders) comparing the risk in different groups at each phase. Results: A total of 1574 HCPs and 147 non-HCPs completed the baseline survey. Although there were generally higher rates of various probable mental health issues among HCPs versus non-HCPs at each phase, there was no significant difference, except that HCPs had 2.5-fold increased risk of burnout at phase 2 (emotional exhaustion: odds ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.15–5.46, P = 0.021), which increased at phase 3 (emotional exhaustion: odds ratio 3.32, 95% CI 1.40–7.87, P = 0.006; depersonalisation: odds ratio 3.29, 95% CI 1.12–9.71, P = 0.031). At baseline, patient-facing HCPs (versus non-patient-facing HCPs) had a five-fold increased risk of depersonalisation (odds ratio 5.02, 95% CI 1.65–15.26, P = 0.004), with no significant difference in the risk for other outcomes. The difference in depersonalisation reduced over time, but patient-facing HCPs still had a 2.7-fold increased risk of emotional exhaustion (odds ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.28–5.85, P = 0.009) by phase 3. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic had a huge impact on the mental health and well-being of both HCPs and non-HCPs, but there is disproportionately higher burnout among HCPs, particularly patient-facing HCPs.

There is limited evidence of the strategies to mitigate burnout among all health care professionals (HCPs). To evaluate the effectiveness of all interventions to mitigate burnout among HCPs. PubMed and Scopus (up to 14 May 2025). Independent study selection (2 people) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of interventions to mitigate burnout (vs. no active intervention) among HCPs. Independent extraction with validation by second reviewer. Continuous data for burnout outcomes extracted for emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization, personal accomplishment (PA), and single-concept burnout measurement. Separate random-effects models were stratified by role. 93 RCTs and 6 cluster RCTs evaluating individual-level interventions were included (9330 participants). Among physicians, professional coaching was probably effective in reducing some aspects of burnout (EE standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.37 [95% CI, -0.62 to -0.13], low certainty; and depersonalization SMD, -0.30 [CI, -0.42 to -0.19], moderate certainty), but mindfulness-based interventions may not be effective (EE SMD, -0.46 [CI, -1.28 to 0.35], very low certainty; depersonalization SMD, -0.09 [CI, -0.30 to 0.12], moderate certainty). However, mindfulness-based interventions may reduce burnout among nurses and midwives (EE SMD, -0.90 [CI,-1.46 to -0.34], low certainty) and among a mixture of HCP roles (EE SMD, -0.40 [-0.65 to -0.16], low certainty; depersonalization SMD, -0.33 [CI, -0.53 to -0.14], low certainty; and PA SMD, 0.48 [CI, 0.29 to 0.67], moderate certainty). Mindfulness-based and professional coaching interventions were generally more than 4 weeks in duration. Most trials were unblinded with subjective outcomes. There was substantial heterogeneity among interventions and populations despite stratifying by role. Although mindfulness-based interventions may reduce burnout in nurses and midwives and among a mixture of HCPs, professional coaching probably reduces burnout among physicians, particularly when sustained for more than 4 weeks. Barts Charity. (PROSPERO: CRD42024552385).

To evaluate the influence of the perceived level of workplace support and its individual components in improving mental health and reducing burnout among healthcare professionals (HCPs). In a cohort of 400 HCPs followed up since July 2020, a follow-up survey was done online (August 2023) containing detailed questionnaires regarding workplace support and mental health. 400 UK-based HCPs. The level of individual workplace support components (perceived manager's concern for staff welfare, transparent communication, adequate staffing/safety, visible and approachable leadership, and collegial/peer support) were assessed using self-rating scales. Depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), insomnia (ISI), mental wellbeing (SWEMWBS) and burnout (emotional exhaustion, aMBI-EE; and depersonalisation, aMBI-DP) were assessed using validated tools. Compared with feeling unsupported, feeling supported was associated with a reduced risk of probable depression, insomnia, low wellbeing and burnout, and was associated with an increased perceived level of all individual support components. An increase in the perceived level of collegial/peer support was associated with reduced depression, anxiety, insomnia and burnout, and increased wellbeing scores (all p-values <0.01). An increase in the perceived level of managerial understanding of staff welfare was associated with reduced burnout (emotional exhaustion) among HCPs (p<0.05). There was also evidence that varying levels of visible and approachable leadership may impact on depression, anxiety and insomnia (p<0.05). Adverse mental health and burnout among HCPs may be mitigated by good quality workplace support, specifically by fostering collegial/peer support among staff and ensuring that managers show genuine understanding for staff welfare and are visible and approachable in their leadership. These findings may guide the allocation of workplace support resources for HCPs.

Potential psychological issues faced by British nuclear test veterans have been under-researched. This study assessed the prevalence of clinically relevant anxiety in British nuclear test veterans and aimed to explore experiences of worry and the broader psychological impact of the British nuclear weapons testing programme. The Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (Short-Form) was completed by 89 British nuclear test veterans (33.7% met the criteria for clinically relevant anxiety). Nineteen veterans then participated in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis of the data generated three themes. The first theme highlighted how worry was relevant only in a few cases (four) generally regarding their grandchildren’s health, but the guilt in those who perceive responsibility for family health conditions also appeared to be a pertinent issue. The second theme highlighted the anger towards authorities resulting from perceived negligence and deception. The third theme highlighted the relevance of how certain life events across the life course influence the potential psychological impact. This study suggests that guilt must be considered in (potentially) exposed individuals whose family members experience health conditions, which may exacerbate distress. It also suggests the importance that authorities ensure transparency when dealing with any radiological exposure scenario to reduce the potential for anger.