79
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns: a review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments

      ,
      Psychological Medicine
      Cambridge University Press (CUP)

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Lockdowns to control the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have had profound effects on everyday life worldwide, but their effect on mental health remains unclear because available meta-analyses and reviews rely mostly on cross-sectional studies. We conducted a rapid review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments investigating the relationship between COVID-19 lockdowns and mental health. A total of 25 studies involving 72 004 participants and 58 effect sizes were analyzed. Using a random effects model, we found that lockdowns had small effects on mental health symptoms, g = 0.17, s.e. = 0.05, 95% CI (0.06–0.24), p = 0.001, but the effects on positive psychological functioning, g = −0.12, s.e. = 0.11, 95% CI (−0.33 to 0.09), p = 0.27, were not significant. Multivariate analysis of effect sizes revealed significant and relatively small effect sizes for anxiety and depression, while those for social support, loneliness, general distress, negative affect, and suicide risk were not significant. The results indicated substantial heterogeneity among studies, but meta-regression analyses found no significant moderation effects for mean age, gender, continent, COVID-19 death rate, days of lockdown, publication status or study design. The psychological impact of COVID-19 lockdowns is small in magnitude and highly heterogeneous, suggesting that lockdowns do not have uniformly detrimental effects on mental health and that most people are psychologically resilient to their effects.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Conducting Meta-Analyses inRwith themetaforPackage

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Psychological Medicine
                Psychol. Med.
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                0033-2917
                1469-8978
                January 2021
                January 13 2021
                January 2021
                : 51
                : 2
                : 201-211
                Article
                10.1017/S0033291721000015
                30d19f85-6576-429f-b5fe-2f1691bfb73b
                © 2021

                Free to read

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article