41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Health in Adolescents: A Systematic Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Due to lack of sufficient data on the psychological toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescent mental health, this systematic analysis aims to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on adolescent mental health. This study follows the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews of 16 quantitative studies conducted in 2019–2021 with 40,076 participants. Globally, adolescents of varying backgrounds experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and stress due to the pandemic. Secondly, adolescents also have a higher frequency of using alcohol and cannabis during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, social support, positive coping skills, home quarantining, and parent–child discussions seem to positively impact adolescent mental health during this period of crisis. Whether in the United States or abroad, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted adolescent mental health. Therefore, it is important to seek and to use all of the available resources and therapies to help adolescents mediate the adjustments caused by the pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

          Introduction Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field [1],[2], and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research [3], and some health care journals are moving in this direction [4]. As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in four leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all eight explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies [5]. In 1987, Sacks and colleagues [6] evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in six domains. Reporting was generally poor; between one and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement [7]. In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials [8]. In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1: Conceptual Issues in the Evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA Completing a Systematic Review Is an Iterative Process The conduct of a systematic review depends heavily on the scope and quality of included studies: thus systematic reviewers may need to modify their original review protocol during its conduct. Any systematic review reporting guideline should recommend that such changes can be reported and explained without suggesting that they are inappropriate. The PRISMA Statement (Items 5, 11, 16, and 23) acknowledges this iterative process. Aside from Cochrane reviews, all of which should have a protocol, only about 10% of systematic reviewers report working from a protocol [22]. Without a protocol that is publicly accessible, it is difficult to judge between appropriate and inappropriate modifications. Conduct and Reporting Research Are Distinct Concepts This distinction is, however, less straightforward for systematic reviews than for assessments of the reporting of an individual study, because the reporting and conduct of systematic reviews are, by nature, closely intertwined. For example, the failure of a systematic review to report the assessment of the risk of bias in included studies may be seen as a marker of poor conduct, given the importance of this activity in the systematic review process [37]. Study-Level Versus Outcome-Level Assessment of Risk of Bias For studies included in a systematic review, a thorough assessment of the risk of bias requires both a “study-level” assessment (e.g., adequacy of allocation concealment) and, for some features, a newer approach called “outcome-level” assessment. An outcome-level assessment involves evaluating the reliability and validity of the data for each important outcome by determining the methods used to assess them in each individual study [38]. The quality of evidence may differ across outcomes, even within a study, such as between a primary efficacy outcome, which is likely to be very carefully and systematically measured, and the assessment of serious harms [39], which may rely on spontaneous reports by investigators. This information should be reported to allow an explicit assessment of the extent to which an estimate of effect is correct [38]. Importance of Reporting Biases Different types of reporting biases may hamper the conduct and interpretation of systematic reviews. Selective reporting of complete studies (e.g., publication bias) [28] as well as the more recently empirically demonstrated “outcome reporting bias” within individual studies [40],[41] should be considered by authors when conducting a systematic review and reporting its results. Though the implications of these biases on the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews themselves are unclear, some previous research has identified that selective outcome reporting may occur also in the context of systematic reviews [42]. Terminology The terminology used to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time. One reason for changing the name from QUOROM to PRISMA was the desire to encompass both systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have adopted the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration [9]. A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies. Developing the PRISMA Statement A three-day meeting was held in Ottawa, Canada, in June 2005 with 29 participants, including review authors, methodologists, clinicians, medical editors, and a consumer. The objective of the Ottawa meeting was to revise and expand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram, as needed. The executive committee completed the following tasks, prior to the meeting: a systematic review of studies examining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews, and a comprehensive literature search to identify methodological and other articles that might inform the meeting, especially in relation to modifying checklist items. An international survey of review authors, consumers, and groups commissioning or using systematic reviews and meta-analyses was completed, including the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). The survey aimed to ascertain views of QUOROM, including the merits of the existing checklist items. The results of these activities were presented during the meeting and are summarized on the PRISMA Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/). Only items deemed essential were retained or added to the checklist. Some additional items are nevertheless desirable, and review authors should include these, if relevant [10]. For example, it is useful to indicate whether the systematic review is an update [11] of a previous review, and to describe any changes in procedures from those described in the original protocol. Shortly after the meeting a draft of the PRISMA checklist was circulated to the group, including those invited to the meeting but unable to attend. A disposition file was created containing comments and revisions from each respondent, and the checklist was subsequently revised 11 times. The group approved the checklist, flow diagram, and this summary paper. Although no direct evidence was found to support retaining or adding some items, evidence from other domains was believed to be relevant. For example, Item 5 asks authors to provide registration information about the systematic review, including a registration number, if available. Although systematic review registration is not yet widely available [12],[13], the participating journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [14] now require all clinical trials to be registered in an effort to increase transparency and accountability [15]. Those aspects are also likely to benefit systematic reviewers, possibly reducing the risk of an excessive number of reviews addressing the same question [16],[17] and providing greater transparency when updating systematic reviews. The PRISMA Statement The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist (Table 1; see also Text S1 for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use) and a four-phase flow diagram (Figure 1; see also Figure S1 for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use). The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews. However, the PRISMA checklist is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.g001 Figure 1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.t001 Table 1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis. Section/Topic # Checklist Item Reported on Page # TITLE Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. ABSTRACT Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. INTRODUCTION Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). METHODS Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. Risk of bias in individual studies 12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. RESULTS Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome-level assessment (see Item 12). Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group and (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). DISCUSSION Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., health care providers, users, and policy makers). Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. FUNDING Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. From QUOROM to PRISMA The new PRISMA checklist differs in several respects from the QUOROM checklist, and the substantive specific changes are highlighted in Table 2. Generally, the PRISMA checklist “decouples” several items present in the QUOROM checklist and, where applicable, several checklist items are linked to improve consistency across the systematic review report. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.t002 Table 2 Substantive specific changes between the QUOROM checklist and the PRISMA checklist (a tick indicates the presence of the topic in QUOROM or PRISMA). Section/Topic Item QUOROM PRISMA Comment Abstract √ √ QUOROM and PRISMA ask authors to report an abstract. However, PRISMA is not specific about format. Introduction Objective √ This new item (4) addresses the explicit question the review addresses using the PICO reporting system (which describes the participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcome(s) of the systematic review), together with the specification of the type of study design (PICOS); the item is linked to Items 6, 11, and 18 of the checklist. Methods Protocol √ This new item (5) asks authors to report whether the review has a protocol and if so how it can be accessed. Methods Search √ √ Although reporting the search is present in both QUOROM and PRISMA checklists, PRISMA asks authors to provide a full description of at least one electronic search strategy (Item 8). Without such information it is impossible to repeat the authors' search. Methods Assessment of risk of bias in included studies √ √ Renamed from “quality assessment” in QUOROM. This item (12) is linked with reporting this information in the results (Item 19). The new concept of “outcome-level” assessment has been introduced. Methods Assessment of risk of bias across studies √ This new item (15) asks authors to describe any assessments of risk of bias in the review, such as selective reporting within the included studies. This item is linked with reporting this information in the results (Item 22). Discussion √ √ Although both QUOROM and PRISMA checklists address the discussion section, PRISMA devotes three items (24–26) to the discussion. In PRISMA the main types of limitations are explicitly stated and their discussion required. Funding √ This new item (27) asks authors to provide information on any sources of funding for the systematic review. The flow diagram has also been modified. Before including studies and providing reasons for excluding others, the review team must first search the literature. This search results in records. Once these records have been screened and eligibility criteria applied, a smaller number of articles will remain. The number of included articles might be smaller (or larger) than the number of studies, because articles may report on multiple studies and results from a particular study may be published in several articles. To capture this information, the PRISMA flow diagram now requests information on these phases of the review process. Endorsement The PRISMA Statement should replace the QUOROM Statement for those journals that have endorsed QUOROM. We hope that other journals will support PRISMA; they can do so by registering on the PRISMA Web site. To underscore to authors, and others, the importance of transparent reporting of systematic reviews, we encourage supporting journals to reference the PRISMA Statement and include the PRISMA Web address in their Instructions to Authors. We also invite editorial organizations to consider endorsing PRISMA and encourage authors to adhere to its principles. The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Paper In addition to the PRISMA Statement, a supporting Explanation and Elaboration document has been produced [18] following the style used for other reporting guidelines [19]–[21]. The process of completing this document included developing a large database of exemplars to highlight how best to report each checklist item, and identifying a comprehensive evidence base to support the inclusion of each checklist item. The Explanation and Elaboration document was completed after several face to face meetings and numerous iterations among several meeting participants, after which it was shared with the whole group for additional revisions and final approval. Finally, the group formed a dissemination subcommittee to help disseminate and implement PRISMA. Discussion The quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal [22]–[27]. In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias [22], even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence [28] and its impact on the results of systematic reviews [29]. Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately [30]. Although the absence of reporting such an assessment does not necessarily indicate that it was not done, reporting an assessment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review. Several approaches have been developed to conduct systematic reviews on a broader array of questions. For example, systematic reviews are now conducted to investigate cost-effectiveness [31], diagnostic [32] or prognostic questions [33], genetic associations [34], and policy making [35]. The general concepts and topics covered by PRISMA are all relevant to any systematic review, not just those whose objective is to summarize the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. However, some modifications of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in particular circumstances. For example, assessing the risk of bias is a key concept, but the items used to assess this in a diagnostic review are likely to focus on issues such as the spectrum of patients and the verification of disease status, which differ from reviews of interventions. The flow diagram will also need adjustments when reporting individual patient data meta-analysis [36]. We have developed an explanatory document [18] to increase the usefulness of PRISMA. For each checklist item, this document contains an example of good reporting, a rationale for its inclusion, and supporting evidence, including references, whenever possible. We believe this document will also serve as a useful resource for those teaching systematic review methodology. We encourage journals to include reference to the explanatory document in their Instructions to Authors. Like any evidence-based endeavor, PRISMA is a living document. To this end we invite readers to comment on the revised version, particularly the new checklist and flow diagram, through the PRISMA Web site. We will use such information to inform PRISMA's continued development. Supporting Information Figure S1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review (downloadable template document for researchers to re-use). (0.08 MB DOC) Click here for additional data file. Text S1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis (downloadable template document for researchers to re-use). (0.04 MB DOC) Click here for additional data file.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Impact of COVID-19 Epidemic Declaration on Psychological Consequences: A Study on Active Weibo Users

            COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019) has significantly resulted in a large number of psychological consequences. The aim of this study is to explore the impacts of COVID-19 on people’s mental health, to assist policy makers to develop actionable policies, and help clinical practitioners (e.g., social workers, psychiatrists, and psychologists) provide timely services to affected populations. We sample and analyze the Weibo posts from 17,865 active Weibo users using the approach of Online Ecological Recognition (OER) based on several machine-learning predictive models. We calculated word frequency, scores of emotional indicators (e.g., anxiety, depression, indignation, and Oxford happiness) and cognitive indicators (e.g., social risk judgment and life satisfaction) from the collected data. The sentiment analysis and the paired sample t-test were performed to examine the differences in the same group before and after the declaration of COVID-19 on 20 January, 2020. The results showed that negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, depression and indignation) and sensitivity to social risks increased, while the scores of positive emotions (e.g., Oxford happiness) and life satisfaction decreased. People were concerned more about their health and family, while less about leisure and friends. The results contribute to the knowledge gaps of short-term individual changes in psychological conditions after the outbreak. It may provide references for policy makers to plan and fight against COVID-19 effectively by improving stability of popular feelings and urgently prepare clinical practitioners to deliver corresponding therapy foundations for the risk groups and affected people.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              “Pandemic fear” and COVID-19: mental health burden and strategies

              In the wake of the September 11 attack in the United States and the Kiss Nightclub fire in Brazil, psychological assistance task forces for victims and their families were quickly organized. However, during pandemics it is common for health professionals, scientists and managers to focus predominantly on the pathogen and the biological risk in an effort to understand the pathophysiological mechanisms involved and propose measures for preventing, containing and treating the disease. In such situations, the psychological and psychiatric implications secondary to the phenomenon, both on an individual and a collective level, tend to be underestimated and neglected, generating gaps in coping strategies and increasing the burden of associated diseases.1,2 Although infectious diseases have emerged at various times in history, in recent years, globalization has facilitated the spread of pathological agents, resulting in worldwide pandemics. This has added greater complexity to the containment of infections, which has had an important political, economic and psychosocial impact, leading to urgent public health challenges.2-6 HIV, Ebola, Zika and H1N1, among other diseases, are recent examples.1 The coronavirus (COVID-19), identified in China at the end of 2019, has a high contagion potential, and its incidence has increased exponentially. Its widespread transmission was recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pandemic. Dubious or even false information about factors related to virus transmission, the incubation period, its geographic reach, the number of infected, and the actual mortality rate has led to insecurity and fear in the population. The situation has been exacerbated due to the insufficient control measures and a lack of effective therapeutic mechanisms.5,7,8 These uncertainties have had consequences in a number of sectors, with direct implications for the population’s daily life and mental health. This scenario raises a number of questions: is there a fear/stress pandemic concomitant with the COVID-19 pandemic? How can we evaluate this phenomenon? To understand the psychological and psychiatric repercussions of a pandemic, the emotions involved in it, such as fear and anger, must be considered and observed. Fear is an adaptive animal defense mechanism that is fundamental for survival and involves several biological processes of preparation for a response to potentially threatening events. However, when it is chronic or disproportionate, it becomes harmful and can be a key component in the development of various psychiatric disorders.9,10 In a pandemic, fear increases anxiety and stress levels in healthy individuals and intensifies the symptoms of those with pre-existing psychiatric disorders.11 During epidemics, the number of people whose mental health is affected tends to be greater than the number of people affected by the infection.12 Past tragedies have shown that the mental health implications can last longer and have greater prevalence than the epidemic itself and that the psychosocial and economic impacts can be incalculable if we consider their resonance in different contexts.11,12 Since the economic costs associated with mental disorders is high, improving mental health treatment strategies can lead to gains in both physical health and the economic sector. In addition to a concrete fear of death, the COVID-19 pandemic has implications for other spheres: family organization, closings of schools, companies and public places, changes in work routines, isolation, leading to feelings of helplessness and abandonment. Moreover, it can heighten insecurity due to the economic and social repercussions of this large-scale tragedy. During the Ebola outbreak, for example, fear-related behaviors had an epidemiological impact both individually and collectively during all phases of the event, increasing the suffering and psychiatric symptom rates of the population, which contributed to increases in indirect mortality from causes other than Ebola.13 Currently, ease of access to communication technologies and the transmission of sensational, inaccurate or false information can increase harmful social reactions, such as anger and aggressive behavior.14 Diagnostic, tracking, monitoring and containment measures for COVID-19 have been established in several countries.6 However, there are still no accurate epidemiological data on disease-related psychiatric implications or their impact on public health. A Chinese study provided some insights in this regard. Approximately half of the interviewees classified the psychological impact of the epidemic as moderate to severe, and about a third reported moderate to severe anxiety.15 Similar data have been reported in Japan, where the economic impact has also been dramatic.11 Another study reported that patients infected with COVID-19 (or suspected of being infected) may experience intense emotional and behavioral reactions, such as fear, boredom, loneliness, anxiety, insomnia or anger,11 as has been reported about similar situations in the past.16 Such conditions can evolve into disorders, whether depressive, anxiety (including panic attacks and post-traumatic stress), psychotic or paranoid, and can even lead to suicide.17,18 These conditions can be especially prevalent in quarantined patients, whose psychological distress tends to be higher.16 In some cases, uncertainty about infection and death or about infecting family and friends can potentiate dysphoric mental states.11,18 Even among patients with common flu symptoms, stress and fear due to the similarity of the conditions can generate mental distress and worsen psychiatric symptoms.15,19 Despite the fact that the rate of confirmed vs. suspected cases of COVID-19 is relatively low and that the majority of cases are considered asymptomatic or mild, as well as that the disease has a relatively low mortality rate,20,21 the psychiatric implications can be significantly high, overloading emergency services and the health system as a whole. In conjunction with actions to help infected and quarantined patients, strategies targeting the general population and specific groups must be developed, including health professionals who are directly exposed to the pathogen and have high stress rates.22 Although some protocols for clinicians have been established, most health professionals who work in isolation units and hospitals are neither trained to provide mental health assistance during pandemics1,17 nor receive specialized care. Previous studies have reported high rates of anxiety and stress symptoms, as well as mental disorders, such as post-traumatic stress, in this population (especially among nurses and doctors), which reinforces the need for care.22,23 Other specific groups are especially vulnerable in pandemics: older adults, the immunocompromised, patients with previous clinical and psychiatric conditions, family members of infected patients and residents of high-incidence areas. In these groups, social rejection, discrimination, and even xenophobia are frequent.17 Providing psychological first aid is an essential care component for populations that have been victims of emergencies and disasters, but there are no universal protocols or guidelines for the most effective psychosocial support practices.24 Although some reports on local mental health care strategies have been published, more comprehensive emergency guidelines for such scenarios are unknown,1,17,19 since previous evidence refers only to specific situations.24 In Brazil, a large developing country with pronounced social disparity, low education levels and humanitarian-cooperative culture, there are no parameters for estimating the impact of this phenomenon on the population’s mental health or behavior. Will it be possible to implement effective preventive and emergency actions aimed at the psychiatric implications of this biological pandemic in broad spheres of society? Specifically for this new COVID-19 scenario, Xiang et al., suggest that three main factors should be considered when developing mental health strategies: 1) multidisciplinary mental health teams (including psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, clinical psychologists and other mental health professionals); 2) clear communication involving regular, accurate updates on the COVID-19 outbreak; and 3) establishing safe psychological counseling services (for example, via electronic devices or apps).17 Finally, it is extremely necessary to implement public mental health policies in conjunction with epidemic and pandemic response strategies before, during and after the event.13 Mental health professionals, such as psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers, must be on the front line and play a leading role in emergency planning and management teams.1 Assistance protocols, such as those used in disaster situations, should cover areas relevant to the individual and collective mental health of the population. Recently, the WHO25 and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention26 published a series of psychosocial and mental health recommendations, several of which are included in Box 1. This is in line with longitudinal data from the WHO demonstrating that psychological factors are directly related to the main causes of morbidity and mortality in the world.25 Thus, increased investment in research and strategic actions for mental health in parallel with infectious outbreaks is urgently needed worldwide.1 Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                03 March 2021
                March 2021
                : 18
                : 5
                : 2470
                Affiliations
                School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Jackson State University, Jackson, MS 39213, USA; eakjones@ 123456yahoo.com (E.A.K.J.); azad.r.bhuiyan@ 123456jsums.edu (A.R.B.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: amal.k.mitra@ 123456jsums.edu ; Tel.: +1-601-979-8788
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4667-3238
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4238-7322
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3631-5296
                Article
                ijerph-18-02470
                10.3390/ijerph18052470
                7967607
                33802278
                1fa7edea-d851-48a6-95f1-34536cdbacb2
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 12 February 2021
                : 01 March 2021
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                mental health,mental illness,mental disorder,psychiatric illness,anxiety,depression,covid 19,coronavirus,2019-ncov,sars-cov-2,cov-19,adolescent,teenagers

                Comments

                Comment on this article