Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/516153

Depression and Anxiety in Healthcare Staffs in A Tertiary University Hospital in Luoyang, Henan Province: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

Wang, H.·Qing, X.·Li, L.·Zhang, L.·Ruan, J.·Niu, X.·Liu, X.·Wu, R.·Li, J.·Fan, K.·Chang, X.·Zhang, M.·Zhang, Z.·Zhang, S.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Abstract ObjectiveMental health condition of medical professionals in China is under-recognized. The current study aimed to determine the prevalence of depression and anxiety among healthcare professionals and explore the potential influence factors.\n\nMethodThe study employed a cross-sectional design. All employees were surveyed in the first week of September 2017. General information included gender, age, workload, workplace violence, sleep quality and so on. Depression and anxiety were evaluated using PHQ-9 and GAD-7, respectively. SPSS 22.0 was used for data analysis. Logistic regression was conducted to explore risk factors contributed to metal health.\n\nResultsA total of 1,950 questionnaires were delivered, and 1,864 were returned with a response rate of 95.6%. The prevalence of depression and anxiety were 24.1% and 28.9%. As for workload, the average number of beds in charge per month is 65.97{+/-}95.58 beds, among which internal medicine department and surgical department endure more workloads. Though workers in ER and ICU manage fewer beds, they bear the longest nonstop working length in the previous month (19.18{+/-}10.82 h). There were 78.0% had suffered WPV in the preceding year. Staffs in ER and ICU are at higher risk to physical violence, especially doctors. Regarding to sleep quality, only 9.2% participants reported that they sleep well. Logistic regression indicated that workplace violence and sleep quality were independent risk factors for both anxiety and depression.\n\nConclusionThe current study revealed the devastating conditions of mental disorders in medical workers and associated factors. Effective interventions are necessary to improve this situation.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Wang, H., Qing, X., Li, L., Zhang, L., Ruan, J., Niu, X., Liu, X., Wu, R., Li, J., Fan, K., Chang, X., Zhang, M., Zhang, Z., Zhang, S.. 2019-01-09. Depression and Anxiety in Healthcare Staffs in A Tertiary University Hospital in Luoyang, Henan Province: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study. https://doi.org/10.1101/516153

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗