Stressors and lessons for future support for healthcare staff facing adverse challenges: A systematic review of qualitative research conducted in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic

Stressors That Affected Staff in The NHS During The COVID-19 Pandemic

In this paper, we present a systematic review of qualitative papers published in the UK in 2021. Our aim is not to reiterate what previous researchers have shown regarding the psychosocial and mental health tolls that the COVID-19 pandemic took on healthcare workers in the UK as in other countries; this point has been well-proven. Rather, we wish to move one step further and consider the antecedents, origins, and psychosocial impacts of the stressors that healthcare staff faced during the pandemic and, to a lesser extent, continue to experience at the time that this article is written (2024). We reflect on lessons for future support for healthcare staff who are experiencing adverse challenges.

Reflecting on lessons for the future is important for at least three reasons. First, it was not the COVID-19 pandemic that first created unsustainable demands in the UK’s healthcare system; as we discuss here, the NHS had been under huge strain for a long time before the pandemic emerged and various of the stressors that healthcare workers faced were already prevalent.[4] Second, many of the stressors that healthcare staff experienced resulted from sub-optimal responses to the pandemic by governments and/or healthcare systems at the point when the pandemic emerged and during subsequent waves. Third, considering that the climate crisis is increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme events,[5,6] as well as systemic dismantling of public healthcare services in neoliberal economies,[7,8] healthcare systems and the staff working in them are very likely to face more demands and strain in the future. What all three points share is the fact that the stressors described are not only tractable due to their being rooted in particular systems and practices, but they are also amenable to change.

Next, we put the impacts of COVID-19 on healthcare workforces into context using the NHS in the UK as a coherent example of problems that we now recognise as being worldwide.

The Workforce Context in the UK

The NHS workforce has faced chronic strain over many years. Science and practice have and are continuing to advance. These developments are creating greater potential healthcare capabilities and rising public expectations. While good, these forces have contributed to a chronic imbalance between supply and demand in a setting of severe budgetary limitations. This dynamic continues and if anything, is worsening.[9] Workload pressures are continuing to grow, and the imbalances have become progressively harder to meet in the last decade particularly.

Before the pandemic, retention, recruitment, and mental health challenges were exacerbating long-term problems with working conditions.[10] Yet, it is also evident that some of the causes of pressure were not fiscal but resulted from stressors that were not adequately recognised or dealt with. The COVID-19 pandemic intensified these pressures and the impacts of working during that lengthy emergency on the wellbeing, stress, fatigue, and burnout faced by healthcare staff were huge. Fatigue, for instance, has been shown to be highly associated with staff experiencing problems with coping with the pressures posed by the pandemic.[11]

Lessons stemming from the pandemic for promoting recovery of healthcare professionals during and after the COVID-19 pandemic have been listed.[12] More recently, Oeppen et al. have called for the NHS to do more to prevent fatigue in healthcare staff because the needs of staff have not ended or stopped rising as the additional pressures from COVID-19 have reduced.[13]

Adequately staffing healthcare services, delivering appropriate training, and providing rising volumes of and a carefully determined mix of basic and complicated levels of service are not the only challenges that arise within healthcare. We draw attention to the impacts of persisting demands on the morale of staff and the ways in which, initially, subtle, but now, much clearer alterations to the value-base of our healthcare services have occurred over the years. These changes mirror shifts in society, evolution of methods of communication, shifts in public opinion, populism, and changes in the importance that staff attach to work-life balance.[14]

Much greater attention is now being paid to the impacts of work and stress at work on wellbeing, people’s psychosocial needs, and mental healthcare needs.[15] The topic of personal resilience came to the fore early in the COVID-19 pandemic, but was swiftly rebuffed in the UK because many staff came to see focusing on what they could do to support themselves as shifting responsibility onto them and away from the services in which they worked at a time when they were already under pressure. This drew attention to the requirement for an integrated understanding of resilience, which should bring together personal and collective approaches to it that are combined with awareness of attachment, systems and shared identity theories.[16] Recent research points to resilience and social support having different positive impacts on frontline responders to traumatic events.[17] There is much more to be learned in this domain. During the pandemic, it became clear that there were many actions that employers could take to sustain their staff. Thus, the focus moved on to the physical, psychosocial, and moral environments in which staff were, and are working and awareness of the importance of healthcarers empowering each other through peer support has grown.[18,19] As a consequence, there is now a much greater focus on the moral architecture of services.[20]

The Study Reported in This Paper

In 2021, and, again, in 2022, EN, RW and KL were commissioned by NHS England to evaluate the quality of the UK literature published in the preceding year in each case regarding the impacts of COVID-19 on healthcare workers. In 2021, the funder asked us to assess a list of papers published in 2020 that had not been identified systematically. In 2022, we were commissioned to conduct our own literature search regarding publications in 2021. Both projects led to two unpublished reports of raw findings,[21,22] which drew attention to various psychosocial impacts and pressures that COVID-19 was exerting on healthcare workers. Based on these findings, and due to the generally high quality of published qualitative research, we went on to carry out a systematic review of the wider qualitative literature that we report here to better explore our initial observations.

Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

Our review was registered with and met the criteria set by PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42022304235) and its design and reporting were informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement (http://www.prisma-statement.org/).

AW searched OVID and EMBASE, two major scientific databases in the social, psychological, and health sciences. Our search terms included variations of certain keywords such as: COVID-19; wellbeing; distress; psychological; psychosocial; mental health; staff; doctor; allied health; nurse; NHS; social care; consultant; medical staff; United Kingdom. We only included articles published in English that referred to the United Kingdom published between January 2021 and January 2022. Non-empirical reports, grey literature, or opinions pieces were excluded. The keywords used as search terms in the databases were tailored appropriately for each database. The databases were last searched on 29 January 2022.

Selection Procedure and Processing

The literature search returned 2,277 studies. Of these, 437 were duplicate records and 188 studies were published outside the pre-specified year range (there was some overlap between those two categories). Two authors (KL,EN) screened the titles and abstracts of the remaining 1,669 papers excluding those not relevant to the aims of this project. This led to 1,567 papers being removed. In cases of doubt, the procedure was for the reviewer to discuss with the other reviewer and, if disagreement occurred, a third author (RW) was to be consulted. The latter course was not required.

We sought to retrieve the remaining 102 papers and were able to obtain 83. Upon re-inspection of the papers obtained, 2 further papers were excluded as the studies reported in them were not conducted in the UK and 4 further duplicate studies were identified (3 duplicates and 1 published report summarising results presented in another paper in our list) and were subsequently removed. Our search and selection process is shown in Figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of search and selection process

Our data set comprises 77 papers; 27 qualitative, 35 quantitative, 10 with mixed methods, 1 review, and 4 papers that were neither empirical studies nor summaries were classified as ‘other’.

Our responsibility to the original funder of the project (who had no influence in designing, executing, and writing-up the study) was to produce a report that briefly summarised both qualitative and quantitative studies (for internal use but now in the public domain).[22]

This paper follows our initial plan to produce a thematic synthesis that is based exclusively on the 27 qualitative studies. Our decision not to include the 10 mixed-methods studies was intentional due to those studies not reporting in-depth analyses of their qualitative data. Their authors included open-ended questions at the end of their questionnaires and, in some cases, presented isolated quotes, or descriptive summaries of these quotes, without reaching the depth required for a stand-alone qualitative analysis. Nevertheless, we did examine separately the qualitative aspects of these 10 papers and their findings are in line with our report herein. Thus, we have no reason to believe that not including them has altered our findings. Importantly, we observe that the qualitative aspects of these 10 papers would not satisfy the quality criteria that we followed when assessing the 27 qualitative studies.

Data Extraction and Analysis

We used the criteria endorsed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to assess the quality of the qualitative papers. NICE has a range of criteria against which it assesses research studies, such as the appropriateness of a qualitative design, clarity of study aims and data collection processes, thorough descriptions of source population, rigour of the analysis and richness of the data presented, reliability of the analysis, appropriateness of conclusions and their grounding on the data, ethical issues, and bias assessment among others. All papers were assessed by three team members (KL,EN,AR), and most were judged as being of very high quality. We identified some limitations in 4 papers (e.g., the discussion section in one paper did not adequately reflect the results; some papers did not adequately discuss the methods used to control for bias in the analysis). When considering whether to disregard these papers, we considered other strengths (e.g., well-written analyses, clear aims and sampling procedures, quotes used to illustrate their points) as well as the findings which were in line with all other studies, and thus decided to keep them in the final synthesis. A list of papers, their aims and characteristics, and the bias prevention measures is in Table 1.

The papers were read by three members of the team (EN,KL,AR). KL and AR manually extracted information on the papers’ authors, year of publication, study aims, methodology and/or theoretical frameworks, sample, and bias reduction reporting. These data were imported into an Excel file and became the basis for our analysis. EN re-read the papers independently and cross-checked the analyses against the data extracted by KL and AR to ensure consistency and accuracy.

The authors of the 27 papers used a range of data collection approaches such as interviews, focus groups, and online surveys with open-ended questions. They also used a range of analytical approaches (e.g., thematic analysis, content analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis [IPA]) and theoretical frameworks. The samples spanned the experiences of a range of health and social care disciplines including doctors, nurses, psychologists, dentists, occupational therapists, for example.

Thematic Synthesis

We followed the approach of Thomas and Harden when conducting the thematic synthesis by, first, coding the findings of the primary studies, then creating descriptive themes, and finally establishing more analytical themes.[23]

The first stage involved going through the dataset and labeling evidence in the themes and their summaries using core keywords that, on the one hand, encapsulated their meaning and, on the other hand, allowed us to find commonalities across the dataset (e.g., personal protective equipment [PPE], or leadership were codes used to label elements identified in the data and to differentiate them from one another). Subsequently, descriptive themes were created which identified commonalities across the various codes (e.g., fear of COVID-19 or lack of PPE) that eventually incorporated the psychosocial impacts of stressors and led to our final analytical themes. All authors had input into the analysis and writing the paper was led by EN and RW.

Theme 1: The Direct Impact of COVID-19

As expected, in many instances related by the papers we reviewed, participants expressed their fear of contracting COVID-19 due to their being in an environment that exposed them to patients who tested positive for the virus.[c,f,h,i,l,n,o,r,s,t,v,w,y,z] Grailey et al.[i] illustrate this fear through an account from a senior staff nurse who stated that:

It was very much felt that the people who were going in could potentially be in harm’s way.

A similar exemplary account from a trainee is provided by Kerins et al.[n]:

Worried about spreading it … or worried about catching it … or worried about spreading it to their family or bringing it into the hospital.

The latter quote provides insights into the multiple layers of concerns that participants experienced and reported. For example, due to the nature of their jobs, participants were afraid not only of contracting COVID-19 themselves, but also of transmitting it to family members and friends, raising concerns about the safety of people other than themselves,[a,b,e,f,l,s,v,w,y] some of whom could have underlying health problems.[b,s,w] Al-Ghunaim et al.[a] provide one such account from a surgeon:

fear of bringing the virus home and infecting my family and my mother-in-law with lung cancer.

The authors of some papers raised concerns regarding the psychosocial toll of healthcare workers witnessing so many patients being critically ill or dying,[f,o,r,s,z] and witnessing other frontline workers dying.[f,s,w] Participants also reported fear of the unknown and a sense of uncertainty stemming from the pandemic,[b,I,n,t] and feelings such as anxiety,[c,m,s,w,y] isolation,[e,i,o,y] despair and grief.[f,t,z] Kanavaki et al.[m] depict the psychosocial toll of the pandemic through a doctor’s account which illustrates not only the psychological but also the social impacts of COVID-19 on the lives of health and social care workers:

There is anxiety relating to uncertainty and a demoralisation as so many planned activities are cancelled and contact with friends and family is reduced.

The various elements summarised thus far provide a picture of the ways in which awareness of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, brought distress to healthcare workers through a range of negative experiences, feelings and psychosocial impacts. Despite COVID-19 directly causing distress to participants, as is evident from the data and the wider literature, the effects of the virus were exacerbated by their interaction with a range of other stressors rooted in pre-pandemic systemic issues as well as those introduced by certain ineffective responses to the pandemic. We present this matter in the themes that follow.

Theme 2: Problems Related to Personal Protective Equipment and their Negative Psychosocial Outcomes

One central factor that was commonly reported as contributing to staff members’ experiences of distress was lack of access to personal protective equipment (PPE) that raised difficulties in delivering care.[a,c,f,i,k,r,t,v,x] As Baldwin and George [c] quote:

… police officers don’t go out without a stab vest; firemen don’t go out without wearing the full protective gear … why are healthcare staff any different? Why are we not provided with the appropriate [PPE].

In this case, the lack of PPE does not reflect an issue directly attributable to the pandemic. Rather, it was both a pre-existing deficiency inherent in limitations in preparation and planning of the healthcare system as well as a problematic organisational response to the emergent extreme event. In some cases, participants reported that PPE was available, but they were worried about both its quality and quantity.[j,k,r,w] These concerns were distressing. One reason was cited by participants who acknowledged the limited nature of these resources, and did not take breaks because, by doing so, they would have to discard parts of their equipment. Concerns about PPE led to increased fatigue. We present an extract from a longer quote as it appears in McGlinchey et al.[r]:

I basically have a drink of water and then put on the equipment again, because other people are waiting for their breaks, and go back in … Once you are in, you can’t really come out just to go to the toilet because it wastes PPE … you are starting to get dehydrated because you can’t drink …

Participants also reported a lack of adoption of fit testing at the early stages of the pandemic,[v,y] and feelings of fear that stemmed from an associated perceived lack of safety due to the absence of fit testing.[c,w] According to a quote presented by Rees et al.[w]:

… really worried because I knew the masks didn’t fit me properly, so I was anxious and I felt a bit demotivated to be in work, that I didn’t want to be there because every day I was going in and it was a permanent risk really.

Another related issue was the lack of training in how to properly use PPE, even when the latter was available, which made staff feel less confident in carrying out their duties in a manner that was safe for them and safe for patients and colleagues.[k,y] According to a quote presented by Hoernke et al.[k]:

haven’t had any training … some other nurses have been trained to use ventilators but there hasn’t been any PPE training or anything else at all.

Overall, many staff did not feel protected against COVID-19,[a,f] and were afraid of transmitting it to their families and friends,[f] revealing one of many potential connections between a stressor rooted in institutional and organisational problems (in this case the lack of PPE) and its interaction with the direct psychosocial effects of the extreme event (the fear of contracting the virus), often being accentuated for members of staff from black and minority ethnic cultures.[f]

PPE was reported as causing personal discomfort and this became a factor that affected staff-patient relationships and staff team dynamics. Lengthy working in PPE caused discomfort and fatigue,[b,i,k,w,y] and frequently having to change used equipment took time, and became a burden.[a] Moreover, necessary use of PPE became a barrier to staff becoming familiar and communicating with other team members,[i,k,s,v] made it harder for them to communicate with patients,[b] and created dilemmas between effective risk infection and human contact,[p] by limiting visual and auditory cues, the ability to recognise and communicate with others, and the coordination and execution of various tasks.[a,i,k,s] Overall, it was reported as having a negative impact on teamwork.[i] As Al-Ghunaim [a] quote:

PPE makes it difficult for patients to hear you and see your non-verbal response.

PPE-related issues were the causes of wider problems in workplaces. Recurrently changing guidance and never-ending changes to levels of PPE required for different healthcare processes did not inspire workers’ confidence in safety and more senior managers.[w,y]. According to a quote from Rees et al.[w]:

you have been thrown information constantly, there’s updates after updates after updates, things are changing near enough I wouldn’t say hourly but frequently changing. Yes, you are probably being suitably informed, but it is overwhelming.

Lack of organisational trust and leadership issues were common enough that are considered next.

Theme 3: Problems With Leadership and Communication Processes

Problems in leadership and in communications were two interconnected matters that were reported frequently by participants as causing significant distress among staff in healthcare settings. For instance, many participants mentioned that they were unclear about rapidly changing guidelines that were leading to confusion.[c,j,k,o,t,v,w,y,aa] Plessas et al.[v], for example, present the following quote:

Nationally, I think things could have been done better, especially from the CDO’s [Chief Dental Officer] office, there were a lot of confusing messages coming out ...

A similar issue was staff receiving too much information from too many different sources without proper control over what was being disseminated, leading to their inability to trust both the sources as well as the information disseminated or to conflicting information reaching the clinical services.[e,s,t,w,aa]

On other occasions, a common pattern across the papers was that of participants reporting that there was a lack of communication from staff in more senior jobs,[c,g,j,p,r,v,aa] coupled with information often not being disseminated to teams.[c,aa] Walker and Gerakios [aa] present one such quote:

Difficult to keep up with changes if they are not communicated effectively.

Overall, these patterns of findings point us to the distressing experiences that staff faced due to poor communication with senior managers that became an obstacle to the former being able to carry out their jobs in an effective and safe manner.

Leadership issues were more broadly implicated in staff members’ negative psychosocial experiences and especially if they were superimposed on problems. For instance, participants reported receiving no support or feeling unsupported due to having no managers on the ground, with more senior people only contacting them through email.[c,f,h,j,l,m,t] Baldwin and George quote a staff member saying:[c]

I have never seen any of the management people in the PPE to come in and to see what happens.

Problems experienced as stemming from managers led to participants feeling unappreciated, undervalued, and misunderstood.[g,n,r,t] McGlinchey et al.[r] illustrate this issue with a quote:

We work in a caring profession, but you don’t feel cared for.

A sense of unfairness emerged for some participants because of their having to carry out significantly more tasks and of having to cope with massive workloads while receiving the same salary.[p,v] Disbanding rest areas and removing free parking and meals also led to some participants feeling undervalued.[e,n,p] Many participants felt ignored or forgotten by managers.[b,f,g] They experienced a sense of abandonment and that they were seen as disposable, throwaway resources and purely as numbers despite managers being aware of the dangers that staff were facing.[c,h] French et al.[h] illustrate this with a powerful quote from a nurse:

If I die, they don’t care. It doesn’t matter if [they] get like, you know, 600 nurses have died from COVID-19, and, you know, with higher exposure being linked to severity and things like that. And it just felt like [they] don’t care, they’ll just get somebody else in my shoes tomorrow.

Staff also reported feeling misrecognised, not feeling listened to or involved in any decision-making processes, and on other occasions silenced,[c,e,h,o,q,t,v] which was often the case for members of staff from black and minority ethnic cultures.[l] Together, these findings coupled with a sense of poor decision-making by senior managers,[j,aa] a perceived culture of blame from leaders and government,[b] hierarchies perceived as worsening the working environment,[f] as well as a pressure from managers to continue working on the frontline,[l] led to participants reporting fractured relationships with managers.[g,h] We report a very powerful part of a larger quote from French et al.[h]:

I feel extremely frustrated, I feel powerless, I do not feel listened to, I feel like I have nowhere to go with anything. That’s why I feel like I’ve reached the end of the road. I do feel like that.

Theme 4: Uncertainty and Lack of Knowledge Leading to Distress and Moral Injury

Staff often reported problems related to their uncertainty and lack of knowledge in carrying out particular tasks. They were distinct but interrelated experiences that caused distress. Staff were responsible for making challenging decisions,[a,d,p,q,v,w,x] which were perceived as distressing. A staff member reported to Liberati et al.[p]:

I don’t have as much information to make decisions so I’m questioning my decision-making more thoroughly. I’m frightened of making the wrong decision when I’m deciding whether somebody gets a service or doesn’t get a service. That’s quite problematic.

This matter is unsurprising and expected from people working in health-related services, as many decisions inherently involve risk. However, there were clear systemic factors contributing to making various decisions particularly challenging. For instance, participants reported being asked to work in areas in or about which they had limited or no training, expertise, or knowledge.[a,d,f,n,p,q,t]

The lack of established programmes, protocols, or sometimes equipment led to anxiety and uncertainty,[d,n,q] and even participants with experience reported a lack of confidence.[s] In general, many participants were worried about harming patients due to mistakes or incorrect decisions,[d,p,q,t,v] especially when caring for people in critical conditions.[f,p,s,w,x] An illustrative quote is presented by Rees et al.[w]:

I feel they were pushed out too quickly without adequate training and understanding from frontline crews, and I fear this will lead to risky decisions being made that would not otherwise benefit the patients.

The participants reported widespread concerns about the quality of care provided for patients,[f,j,m,p,q,s,v,w,x] and staff perceived the human side of their jobs as having been negatively impacted facing dilemmas between protocols that had to be followed vis-a-vis the values of their jobs,[10,16,17,23] which they perceived as violating in some instances. Many informants reported experiencing self-doubt, a perceived lack of control, distress, panic attacks, anxiety, guilt or moral injury due to violating their personal values and moral codes.[f,i,j,l,p,q,s,t] Grailey et al.[i] quote a staff member saying that:

we did absolutely the best that we could possibly do, but it just in no way, shape or form was good enough. But we did what we could in the confines of our environment.

Theme 5: Intense Workloads as A Stressor

The last pattern that appears across the dataset in relation to stressors faced by health and social care workers is associated with workload problems. Many participants quoted in the papers available to us referred to intense and unsustainable workloads in an extremely challenging and understaffed working environment.[a,b,c,d,f,i,j,n,p,q,s,t,v,z,aa] Aughterson et al.[b], for example, present a quote from a participant stating that:

My routine was really like … wake up, eat something, go into work, which as shifts as nurses we had to stay in the hospital for 12 and a half hours … go home and eat something, drink something, go to sleep … then wake up and then go to work again … we have been extremely busy compared to the normality.

Another example comes from Spiers et al.[z] who quote a participant saying:

… on a Friday in the middle of the day when there was no consultant around […] I gained 14 new patients who I’d not met before […] that was a really stressful day.

Across the papers we reviewed, staff from different domains of care and from various specialties mentioned that they were overburdened by a range of additional responsibilities. They opined that their hectic environment did not allow them enough time to care appropriately for critically ill people. They experienced a sense of stagnation due to overload because of very long shifts and reported an inability to take breaks or think about how to best navigate the difficulties inherent in their jobs and especially so because of the new situation they were facing.

Associated with workload problems was the nature of shifting and changing roles and responsibilities that staff had to adopt, as well as the requirement they faced to adapt to redeployment and new work structures.[a,b,f,i,j,r,aa] McGlinchey et al.[r] quote from a staff member regarding her redeployment who said:

That was just dropped on us. There was no negotiations, there was no ‘these are your options, you might not have to go there’… the thought of moving again to a different hospital almost an hour away is too much for me.

Staff clearly thought that workloads, which they perceived as excessive, also had an impact on team performance. Sometimes, workloads led to divisions and tensions between colleagues and to breakdowns in teamwork.[e,i,j,z] Being understaffed and under-resourced, for instance, led to a negative impact on team morale, which Harris et al.[i] characterise as, ‘shortage of staff; decreasing staff morale; cracks in the team.’ which, according to the same paper, was the case for the healthcare system as a whole:

working in hospitals that run near 100% capacity near 100% of the time (prior to the outbreak) and then expecting and trying to take a service that has little slack and stretching it further. It’s been relentless and exhausting, sometimes you are left feeling that, despite doing our best, we should be doing better but can’t, given the circumstances/resources.

The overstretched system made it hard for colleagues to care for others due to the exhaustion they were already facing. A senior doctor quoted by Harris et al.[j] reported that:

My own biggest challenges have been the moral distress of watching colleagues struggle, and worrying about their wellbeing - this has been accentuated by the fact that my own world has been too busy in other related matters to be able to directly offload their workload, leading to [me] feeling inadequate for prolonged spells.

Limitations

Various limitations are evident in our study. First, we only considered papers published between 2021 and 2022 and there is a chance that we might have omitted important research published in the following period. However, even if this is the case, we consider the risks to the present analysis to be minimal. A cursory look at papers published from 2022 onwards shows that the findings in our selection of subsequent studies, are in line with our analysis.[63,64] Thus, it seems to us that including additional papers would not significantly alter the nature of the argument we make in this paper.

Second, the quality of each systematic review depends on the quality of the papers included in it. Despite all the papers we reviewed suffering from various limitations and biases, we have tried to minimise the impact that these matters had on our review. We pre-registered the review with PROSPERO and followed the PRISMA and NICE guidelines on assessing the quality of the papers; the vast majority of which were judged to be of high quality. Those that did not meet this standard showed minor limitations that did not pose a risk in terms of negatively affecting our findings.

Third, during the search phase, we were unable to retrieve 19 papers. This was due to various reasons such as weblinks to the studies not working or pointing to unpublished work, or only abstracts, posters, protocols, or blogs being available. Nevertheless, considering the similarity across the papers reported here as well as of papers published since the end of our search period, we do not consider the unretrievable papers to pose a problem for this review.