The scale of the undertaking is itself remarkable. Between 23 October 2024 and 10 April 2025, the research team distributed a 76-item online questionnaire through six European medical and nursing associations and, later, through the social media channels of professional bodies and the WHO Regional Office for Europe. Of 122,048 initial respondents, 90,171 valid responses remained after data cleaning, comprising 37,864 doctors and 52,307 nurses. The survey could be completed in every official language of the participating countries, took roughly ten minutes to finish, and was piloted before launch. The study protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework before data collection began, and the full analytic code has been released publicly on GitHub, an unusual level of transparency for research of this scale.

The questionnaire drew its working-condition items from established European assessment instruments, including the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (Second Version), the European Working Conditions Telephone Survey 2021, and the European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks 2019. Exposures were grouped into four categories: job demands such as long hours, night shifts, rotating shifts, tight deadlines, and dealing with angry patients or relatives; job hazards including sexual harassment, violent threats, physical violence, and bullying; job resources such as influence over work and support from colleagues and supervisors; and organisational support structures including unions, employee feedback mechanisms, stress action plans, and violence prevention protocols. Mental health was measured with validated screening tools: the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) for depression, the seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) for anxiety, the four-item CAGE questionnaire for alcohol dependence, and the ninth PHQ-9 item for suicidal thoughts. Both the depression and anxiety instruments showed excellent internal reliability in this sample, with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.89 and 0.91 respectively.

The picture of daily working life that emerges is stark. Twenty-eight per cent of doctors and 9 per cent of nurses reported working more than 50 hours per week, a figure far above the roughly 2.7 per cent of the general EU workforce exceeding 45 hours recorded by Eurostat. More than a third of both professions worked nights at least weekly, 24 per cent of doctors and 56 per cent of nurses regularly worked rotating shifts, and 91 per cent of doctors and 88 per cent of nurses reported constant exposure to tight deadlines. Two-thirds of doctors and three-quarters of nurses said they regularly dealt with angry patients or relatives. Workplace violence was pervasive: a third of doctors and 37 per cent of nurses reported violent threats, 27 and 34 per cent respectively reported bullying, 11 and 14 per cent reported sexual harassment, and 10 and 18 per cent reported physical violence. By contrast, protective factors were thinner on the ground: only about 40 per cent reported support from superiors, only one in five to one in four workplaces had a stress action plan, and only about half reported formal protocols against bullying, harassment, or violence.

The statistical analysis was correspondingly sophisticated. The researchers used multilevel Poisson regression models with a random intercept for country to estimate prevalence ratios for each exposure–outcome pair, adjusting for age, gender, profession, household income, residency training, length of service, number of jobs, work setting, and sector. Because the pre-registered protocol assumed no data imputation but the observed missingness proved unlikely to be completely at random, the team adopted multiple imputation by chained equations as the primary approach, with complete-case analyses retained as sensitivity checks. They also conducted age- and gender-calibrated estimates in the 28 countries for doctors and 19 for nurses where disaggregated workforce data were available, and treated countries as separate studies in fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses, which revealed substantial between-country heterogeneity, with I-squared values exceeding 95 per cent for nearly all exposures and outcomes. Country-level prevalence of depression, for instance, ranged from 15 to 50 per cent.

The adjusted results form a coherent pattern. High job demands, particularly dealing with angry patients and relatives, were associated with 1 to 53 per cent higher prevalence of probable depression and anxiety and 2 to 33 per cent higher prevalence of suicidal thoughts. Workplace violence, especially bullying, showed the strongest links: exposed workers had 41 to 91 per cent higher prevalence of depression and anxiety and 43 to 94 per cent higher prevalence of suicidal thoughts compared with unexposed colleagues. Workplace violence was also the risk factor most consistently associated with probable alcohol dependence, raising prevalence by up to 41 per cent among those experiencing sexual harassment. In the opposite direction, job resources, particularly support from superiors, were associated with 12 to 44 per cent lower prevalence of adverse outcomes, and organisational structures, especially stress action plans, were linked to reductions of 13 to 49 per cent.

Perhaps most compelling was the evidence of dose–response relationships, which lends weight to a possible causal interpretation even though the cross-sectional design cannot prove causation. Mean PHQ-9 depression scores rose from about 6 among those working 11 to 20 hours per week to nearly 10 among those working 61 to 70 hours. Support from colleagues showed the largest protective gradient, with depression scores falling from 11 among those reporting no support to 6 among those who always received it. Similar graded patterns appeared for anxiety and suicidal thoughts, though not for alcohol dependence. The authors note that these monotonic relationships are difficult to explain entirely by reverse causation, in which depressed or anxious workers simply perceive their jobs more negatively.

The team also tested whether formal violence prevention protocols buffered the harm from workplace hazards. Statistical interactions were detected for several exposure–outcome combinations, but effect sizes were modest. The largest multiplicative interaction, a ratio of prevalence ratios of 1.28, was observed between violence protocols and sexual harassment in relation to depression. Predicted prevalences were generally lower in workplaces reporting formal protocols, but the exposure–response gradients ran largely parallel across strata, suggesting that protocols alone do little to blunt the psychological impact of violence once it occurs. The researchers caution that because organisational structures were self-reported, these measures likely capture perceived rather than objectively implemented support.

Writing in the paper, the authors argue that their findings challenge the notion that the mental health crisis among healthcare workers was primarily an acute pandemic phenomenon. The prevalence estimates they report are comparable to pooled figures from smaller single-country studies conducted between early 2020 and mid-2023, and dramatically higher than the roughly 6 per cent prevalence of probable depression in the general EU population estimated for 2013–2015. Pre-pandemic reports had already documented workforce shortages, demanding conditions, and persistent strain in the European health sector, suggesting that the patterns observed here reflect long-standing structural problems that the pandemic exposed rather than created. The authors also acknowledge important limitations: voluntary recruitment through professional associations and social media means response rates could not be calculated and selection bias cannot be excluded, notably the striking overrepresentation of night-shift workers, whose reported prevalence was roughly seven times the Eurostat benchmark. All measures were self-reported, brief screening tools were prioritised for survey brevity, and the CAGE questionnaire is less comprehensive than alternatives such as the AUDIT for problematic drinking.

Even so, the policy implications are hard to escape. The authors call for stronger adherence to the EU Working Time Directive, which limits the working week to 48 hours, and for implementation of International Labour Organisation recommendations on shift scheduling, including avoiding short intervals between shifts and increasing flexibility. They urge a zero-tolerance approach to workplace violence, in line with WHO and ILO guidance, alongside peer-support interventions such as those trialled during the pandemic, and expanded access to mental health and substance use services for healthcare workers, citing examples such as Spain’s Medical Council, which offers free psychological care to doctors. With Europe’s health systems struggling to retain staff and recruit new ones amid demographic transition and mounting demand, the authors conclude that improving working conditions is not merely a welfare measure but a structural necessity, and, echoing the WHO’s own framing, that it is time to act.

Hospitals face unique vulnerabilities amid this rise in violence due to several compounding factors. Large healthcare institutions, often located in metropolitan regions and within southern states, bear a disproportionate burden of these shootings. These facilities, characterized by high patient volume, dense and diverse populations, and complex operational dynamics, serve as focal points for the manifestation of broader social tensions, including economic disparities, mental health crises, and systemic inequities in access to care.

The study delves into the underlying mechanisms of this phenomenon by examining urban population dynamics, regional cultural contexts, and hospital size as critical modifiers of risk. Urban hospitals are situated within communities often grappling with elevated baseline levels of violence and social instability. Consequently, the hospital setting may inadvertently become an extension of those external environments, susceptible to the spillover effects of community-based firearm confrontations and interpersonal conflicts.

This pattern has been further contextualized through systems analysis, which frames the hospital as an interconnected node within an intricate social and physical ecosystem. Considerations include not only the internal security infrastructure but also the layered social interactions among staff, patients, visitors, and external actors. Weaponry enters the equation as a potent disruptor, with firearms serving as both instruments and symbols of power that exacerbate the risk profile in these settings.

Central to the review’s findings is the acknowledgment that traditional workplace violence prevention strategies are insufficient when isolated from comprehensive, hospital-specific approaches. Emerging proposals advocate for the implementation of advanced weapons screening technologies at entry points, including metal detection systems and biometric access controls, aimed at intercepting firearms before entry. These technologies, however, raise ongoing debates regarding privacy, operational throughput, and cost-effectiveness, necessitating tailored, context-sensitive deployment.

Furthermore, the study highlights the imperative for integrated risk assessment models that not only factor in immediate threats but also anticipate potential escalation pathways within hospital environments. The incorporation of behavioral psychology insights reveals patterns of human behavior that precipitate violent episodes, enabling proactive intervention strategies by trained personnel. Such multidisciplinary approaches extend beyond physical barriers to include enhanced staff training in de-escalation techniques and mental health support frameworks.

Crucially, the review underscores the symbiotic relationship between hospital shootings and broader societal firearm violence trends. The healthcare system does not operate in a vacuum; thus, effective mitigation requires alignment with national firearm policy reforms, community outreach programs, and societal initiatives aimed at reducing gun access among high-risk individuals. These comprehensive measures must intersect with localized strategies that account for demographic variations and regional cultural factors.

The research also spotlights the nuanced challenges faced by hospitals in the Southern United States, regions with historically higher rates of firearm ownership and cultural normalization of guns. These local contexts complicate prevention strategies, demanding bespoke solutions that respect community values while prioritizing safety imperatives. Engagement with community leaders and law enforcement agencies becomes essential for fostering cooperative frameworks that support violence prevention within these settings.

From a technical perspective, the study employs robust epidemiological methodologies, aggregating data across multiple reporting systems and validating incident reports through cross-references with media accounts and law enforcement documentation. This rigorous approach enhances the reliability of the findings, illuminating patterns that might otherwise remain obscured in fragmented data landscapes.

In sum, the growing menace of hospital-based shootings in the United States represents a multifaceted challenge. Hospitals must evolve beyond traditional security paradigms to incorporate innovative technological, behavioral, and community-informed strategies. As society grapples with mounting firearm violence, healthcare institutions stand at a critical nexus, requiring simultaneous internal transformation and broader societal change to safeguard the sanctity of medical environments.

Addressing this complex crisis demands an urgent, multidisciplinary mobilization that integrates policy reform, technological innovation, and human-centered care principles. Only through such comprehensive and systemic efforts can the trend of escalating hospital shootings be reversed, restoring hospitals as safe havens for healing and hope in an increasingly volatile world.

Subject of Research: Increasing incidence of hospital-based shootings in the United States and strategies for prevention.

Article Title: Not specified.

News Publication Date: Not specified.

Web References: Not specified.

References: (doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.10552)

Image Credits: Not specified.

Keywords

Gun violence, Hospitals, United States population, Weaponry, Risk assessment, Community stability, Urban populations, Systems analysis, Technology

Healthcare workers are among the most vulnerable professionals when it comes to encountering workplace violence. The environments in which they operate can be emotionally charged, filled with high-stress situations and, regrettably, potential conflict. This study aims to unravel the complexities of such violence, focusing on various types of aggression faced by healthcare workers, which ranges from verbal abuse to physical assaults. The authors set out to provide a comprehensive assessment that not only captures the magnitude of the issue but also highlights the profound implications it has for the well-being of healthcare professionals.

The methodology employed in the study involved a cross-sectional design, collecting a wealth of data from healthcare workers across various institutions in Italy. This extensive approach provided a robust foundation for understanding the prevalence of different forms of violence in healthcare settings. By gathering responses from a diverse sample, the researchers were able to examine a range of variables, including the frequency of violent incidents, the demographics of affected workers, and the contexts in which violence occurs. This breadth of analysis is crucial in identifying patterns and addressing the nuanced aspects of workplace violence.

One of the most striking findings of the study is the alarming rate at which healthcare workers experience violence. The data revealed that a significant proportion of respondents reported having encountered some form of aggression in their professional lives. This statistic is not merely a number; it represents real individuals grappling with the psychological and emotional toll that such experiences can impose. Understanding the prevalence of this issue is the first step in developing effective strategies to combat it.

Moreover, the study highlighted the different types of workplace violence, categorizing incidents as physical, verbal, and psychological. Each category poses unique challenges and consequences for healthcare professionals. Physical violence, while perhaps the most overtly alarming, often intersects with the subtler forms of aggression, such as verbal abuse and psychological trauma. The interconnectedness of these types of violence emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to address the issue holistically, recognizing that solutions must account for all dimensions of the problem.

In exploring the demographics of those affected by workplace violence, the research uncovered important insights into which groups are at higher risk. Younger healthcare workers and those in direct patient contact reported higher incidents of violence compared to their older or more administrative counterparts. This finding raises significant questions about the training and support systems in place for younger professionals, urging stakeholders to prioritize the development of protective measures and intervention strategies tailored to their needs.

The contexts in which workplace violence occurs are equally essential to understanding the phenomenon. Specific departments, such as emergency wards and psychiatric units, were identified as hotspots for violence. The authors emphasize the need for targeted interventions in such high-risk environments, advocating a proactive approach that includes adequate training for staff, clear reporting mechanisms, and supportive workplace cultures that prioritize safety and emotional well-being.

Moreover, the study points to systemic factors that contribute to workplace violence, including organizational culture and resource constraints. Many healthcare workers expressed feelings of being undervalued and unsupported, which can exacerbate tensions and lead to confrontations. This insight underscores the necessity for healthcare organizations to foster environments of respect and support, recognizing that a satisfied and secure workforce is more likely to provide quality care and mitigate violent incidents.

The implications of workplace violence extend far beyond individual incidents; they ripple throughout healthcare institutions, affecting overall patient care and organizational efficiency. The researchers warn that unchecked violence can lead to staff burnout and turnover, further straining already overburdened healthcare systems. This critical point reinforces the importance of addressing the root causes of violence, as the repercussions can have far-reaching effects on public health.

In addition, mental health plays a significant role in how healthcare workers respond to and recover from incidents of workplace violence. The study outlines the psychological impact of these experiences, with many healthcare professionals reporting increased anxiety, depression, and a sense of helplessness. Recognizing the mental health implications is vital for creating support systems that assist workers in coping with their experiences, ultimately leading to healthier workplaces and better patient care.

To combat workplace violence effectively, the authors advocate for the implementation of comprehensive training programs for healthcare staff. Such programs should not only address conflict resolution and de-escalation techniques but also focus on fostering a culture of respect and communication within teams. Investing in these areas can empower healthcare workers and equip them with the tools necessary to navigate potentially violent situations with confidence and composure.

In conclusion, the study by Paduano and colleagues serves as both a wake-up call and a roadmap for action regarding workplace violence in healthcare settings. By illuminating the prevalence, types, and contextual factors of violence, it provides a foundation for developing targeted strategies to protect healthcare workers and enhance their overall well-being. As the healthcare sector grapples with the realities of workplace violence, it is imperative that stakeholders across the industry prioritize this critical issue, ensuring that those on the front lines of patient care can work in safe and supportive environments.

By addressing the multifaceted nature of workplace violence and advocating for systemic changes, this research paves the way for a future where healthcare professionals can thrive without the pervasive threat of aggression, ultimately benefiting not only the workers themselves but also the patients they serve.

Subject of Research: Workplace violence in healthcare workers

Article Title: Assessing workplace violence in healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study in Italy

Article References:

Paduano, G., Sansone, V., Ingrosso, D. et al. Assessing workplace violence in healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study in Italy.
BMC Health Serv Res (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-13955-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12913-025-13955-4

Keywords: workplace violence, healthcare workers, Italy, cross-sectional study, violence prevalence, organizational culture, mental health, training programs.

The scoping review titled “Physical and psychological consequences for nurses affected by workplace violence” provides an in-depth analysis of existing literature, synthesizing the data to highlight key findings on the impact of violence in the healthcare setting. Nurses often encounter aggressive behaviors, ranging from verbal assaults to physical attacks by patients or their families. The toll of such experiences extends far beyond the immediate incident, contributing to long-term physical injuries and chronic mental health disorders, such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The authors emphasize that while the prevalence of workplace violence is troubling, the lack of reporting and under-recognition of these incidents compounds the issue. Many nurses fail to report violent encounters due to a culture of silence, fear of retaliation, or the belief that their experiences will not be taken seriously. This reluctance not only undermines the personal safety of nurses but also stifles the opportunity for systemic changes to address and mitigate such risks.

The review outlines the various forms of workplace violence nurses may encounter, including physical assault, emotional abuse, and sexual harassment. Each type has unique implications for a nurse’s physical and mental health. Physical injuries can lead to chronic pain or disability, while emotional abuse can deplete a nurse’s mental reserves and lead to burnout. The cumulative effect of these experiences can result in high turnover rates, a shortage of skilled nursing professionals, and a lowering of the overall quality of patient care.

Moreover, Cannizzaro and colleagues highlight the occupational stressors specific to nursing that exacerbate the effects of workplace violence. These include understaffing, high patient-to-nurse ratios, and lack of support from management. A nursing environment characterized by high-stress levels not only intensifies the risk of experiencing violence but also escalates its impact on the workforce.

The scoping review also examines the physiological ramifications of workplace violence. Evidence indicates that nurses exposed to violence are more likely to experience chronic health issues, including cardiovascular diseases and gastrointestinal disorders. The psychological toll can also manifest in insomnia, irritability, and difficulty concentrating, subsequently affecting a nurse’s ability to perform effectively and safely.

Policy implications emerge as a critical theme in the review. The authors propose the need for enhanced training and protocols to prevent violence and manage its consequences. By equipping nurses with the tools to recognize and de-escalate potentially violent situations, healthcare organizations can create safer environments. Moreover, establishing support systems for affected nurses, including mental health resources, is paramount to fostering resilience and recovery.

Despite the documented ramifications of workplace violence, the healthcare sector remains underprepared to address this pressing issue effectively. This oversight not only compromises the safety and wellness of nursing professionals but ultimately impacts patient care and safety. By prioritizing a culture of safety and support, healthcare organizations can pave the way toward creating a more secure working environment for nurses.

Importantly, it has become increasingly clear that tackling workplace violence is not solely a matter for individual nurses or nursing departments to address; systemic changes are necessary. Stakeholders, from hospital administration to policymakers, must collaborate to develop comprehensive strategies that include robust reporting mechanisms and transparent communication channels for nurses to voice their concerns.

Furthermore, the role of interdisciplinary collaboration plays a pivotal part in addressing workplace violence in healthcare settings. Engaging all members of the healthcare team, including administration, security personnel, and nursing staff, fosters a collective responsibility towards maintaining a safe working environment. As such collaborations develop, a holistic approach to workplace violence can be implemented, thereby nurturing a culture where all staff feel valued and protected.

As Cannizzaro et al. articulate in their review, emphasizing the physical and psychological consequences of workplace violence is crucial for instigating meaningful change within the healthcare industry. Acknowledgment of these consequences serves as a call to action, encouraging leaders within healthcare to prioritize protective measures and supportive systems for nurses. This collective effort is not only necessary for safeguarding nursing professionals but is also imperative for ensuring high-quality healthcare delivery.

In conclusion, the impact of workplace violence on nurses is a pressing concern that requires urgent attention. The scoping review serves as a vital resource for understanding the implications of this violence and the necessity of comprehensive strategies to combat it. By addressing both the physical and psychological consequences for nurses, we can begin to move towards a healthcare environment that ensures the safety and well-being of all its workers. The time for change is now, and the fight for nurse safety is a crucial step in the journey towards a more humane and effective healthcare system.

Subject of Research: Workplace violence and its physical and psychological effects on nurses.

Article Title: Physical and psychological consequences for nurses affected by workplace violence: a scoping review.

Article References:

Cannizzaro, D., Saguatti, I., Caleffi, D. et al. Physical and psychological consequences for nurses affected by workplace violence: a scoping review.
BMC Nurs (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-04182-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12912-025-04182-7

Keywords: workplace violence, nurses, physical health, psychological health, healthcare safety, burnout, intervention strategies.

The scope and scale of this study are remarkable, encompassing data from over 63,000 nurses drawn from multiple healthcare centers nationwide. This extensive cohort was analyzed under rigorous methodologies, including Cox regression models, propensity score matching, and subgroup analyses that together provide robust evidence of WPV’s detrimental impact. Embedded within the theoretical framework of the Job Demands–Resources (JDR) model, the research situates WPV amidst various occupational stressors and resources, clarifying how this form of violence exacerbates psychological strain among nursing staff.

A particularly innovative aspect of the study is the utilization of cross-lagged panel network analysis (CLPN), an advanced statistical technique allowing for the exploration of symptom-level interactions over time. The analysis uncovered bidirectional relationships between specific facets of workplace violence—such as emotional abuse—and mental health symptoms like irritability and fatigue. This nuanced mapping reveals how certain symptoms interplay dynamically in the aftermath of violent encounters, offering key insights into the symptom clusters that may predict escalating psychological distress.

Statistical findings from the study are compelling in both their clarity and effect size. Nurses exposed to workplace violence exhibited a 38% increased risk of developing depression and a 31% heightened risk of anxiety compared to their non-exposed counterparts. The researchers observed a clear dose–response relationship tied to the frequency and type of violence experienced, underscoring the cumulative psychological toll that repeated WPV episodes impose on healthcare workers.

Explorations into demographic and professional characteristics further nuanced these results. Male nurses, older staff members, individuals with lower seniority, and those working in high-pressure departments were found to be more vulnerable to the psychological repercussions of workplace violence. This differential risk highlights the complex interplay of personal and environmental factors in determining mental health outcomes and suggests tailored intervention strategies might be necessary to address these sub-populations effectively.

The network of symptoms connecting depression and anxiety within this nursing population is particularly telling. Core symptoms such as feelings of worthlessness and anticipatory fear function as critical bridges linking these two pervasive mental health conditions. The identification of such bridging symptoms is vital, as it accentuates potential targets for clinical interventions designed not only to treat existing conditions but also to interrupt the progression from acute stress reactions to full-blown psychiatric disorders.

Theoretical underpinnings grounded in the Job Demands–Resources (JDR) model provide a compelling conceptual lens through which to understand these findings. The model posits that high job demands, such as dealing with workplace violence, exhaust psychological and physical resources, leading to burnout and depressive symptoms. Conversely, job resources potentially buffer these effects but seem insufficient in many cases for nurses combating ongoing incidents of violence, as this study suggests.

The implications of these findings extend beyond individual nurses to implicate systemic healthcare infrastructure weaknesses. Mental health distress linked to WPV not only diminishes nurses’ well-being but also threatens healthcare delivery quality and system resilience. Psychological exhaustion among nurses may precipitate increased absenteeism, reduced patient care quality, and higher staff turnover, compounding the strain on already burdened healthcare facilities.

Importantly, the study advocates for the development of targeted, theory-driven interventions grounded in its empirical data. These interventions could range from organizational policies aimed at reducing the incidence of workplace violence, to psychological support programs tailored to the identified symptom pathways. Integrating these approaches could hold promise for mitigating psychological exhaustion and fortifying nurses’ mental health resilience.

Workplace violence remains an alarmingly prevalent issue in healthcare settings worldwide, but this longitudinal study offers a rare and data-rich demonstration of its predictive power regarding mental health outcomes. By illuminating the pathways and key psychological symptoms influenced by violence, this Chinese cohort study contributes significantly to the global discourse on occupational health safety, nurse well-being, and mental health preventative strategies.

The study published in BMC Psychiatry stands as a call to action for healthcare administrators, policymakers, and mental health practitioners alike. As healthcare systems grapple with increasing demands and workforce shortages, protecting the mental health of nurses is not just a moral imperative but a strategic necessity. Addressing workplace violence robustly may serve as a cornerstone of these efforts, ultimately enhancing the sustainability of healthcare provision.

In sum, the researchers—Zhang, Xu, Yang, and colleagues—have produced a landmark study that not only details the hazardous psychological sequelae of workplace violence but also provides practical frameworks for intervention. Through comprehensive data analysis, including symptom-level network mapping and stratified risk assessments, this work charts a course for future research and meaningful, evidence-based workplace reforms.

Subject of Research: The impact of workplace violence on depression and anxiety symptoms among nurses.

Article Title: Workplace violence predicts depression and anxiety in nurses: a multi-center longitudinal study in China.

Article References:
Zhang, Z., Xu, H., Yang, J. et al. Workplace violence predicts depression and anxiety in nurses: a multi-center longitudinal study in China. BMC Psychiatry 25, 1099 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-07530-8

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12888-025-07530-8 (Published 18 November 2025)