48
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prevalence of depression during the COVID-19 outbreak: A meta-analysis of community-based studies

      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

          Introduction COVID-19 pandemic, declared on March 11, 2020, constitute an extraordinary health, social and economic global challenge. The impact on people's mental health is expected to be high. This paper sought to systematically review community-based studies on depression conducted during the COVID-19 and estimate the pooled prevalence of depression. Method We searched for cross-sectional, community-based studies listed on PubMed or Web of Science from January 1, 2020 to May 8, 2020 that reported prevalence of depression. A random effect model was used to estimate the pooled proportion of depression. Results A total of 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with prevalence rates of depression ranging from 7.45% to 48.30%. The pooled prevalence of depression was 25% (95% CI: 18% − 33%), with significant heterogeneity between studies (I 2  = 99.60%, p < .001). Conclusions Compared with a global estimated prevalence of depression of 3.44% in 2017, our pooled prevalence of 25% appears to be 7 times higher, thus suggesting an important impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on people's mental health. Addressing mental health during and after this global health crisis should be placed into the international and national public health agenda to improve citizens’ wellbeing.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

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

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

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

            Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

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

              The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence

              Summary The December, 2019 coronavirus disease outbreak has seen many countries ask people who have potentially come into contact with the infection to isolate themselves at home or in a dedicated quarantine facility. Decisions on how to apply quarantine should be based on the best available evidence. We did a Review of the psychological impact of quarantine using three electronic databases. Of 3166 papers found, 24 are included in this Review. Most reviewed studies reported negative psychological effects including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma. Some researchers have suggested long-lasting effects. In situations where quarantine is deemed necessary, officials should quarantine individuals for no longer than required, provide clear rationale for quarantine and information about protocols, and ensure sufficient supplies are provided. Appeals to altruism by reminding the public about the benefits of quarantine to wider society can be favourable.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology
                International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology
                Elsevier BV
                16972600
                January 2021
                January 2021
                : 21
                : 1
                : 100196
                Article
                10.1016/j.ijchp.2020.07.007
                14bbbfec-cc23-483e-b70d-555ef5a2aca5
                © 2021

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article