Research priorities for the COVID‐19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science

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

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) that has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic represents the greatest international biopsychosocial emergency the world has faced for a century, and psychological science has an integral role to offer in helping societies recover. The aim of this paper is to set out the shorter‐ and longer‐term priorities for research in psychological science that will (a) frame the breadth and scope of potential contributions from across the discipline; (b) enable researchers to focus their resources on gaps in knowledge; and (c) help funders and policymakers make informed decisions about future research priorities in order to best meet the needs of societies as they emerge from the acute phase of the pandemic. The research priorities were informed by an expert panel convened by the British Psychological Society that reflects the breadth of the discipline; a wider advisory panel with international input; and a survey of 539 psychological scientists conducted early in May 2020. The most pressing need is to research the negative biopsychosocial impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic to facilitate immediate and longer‐term recovery, not only in relation to mental health, but also in relation to behaviour change and adherence, work, education, children and families, physical health and the brain, and social cohesion and connectedness. We call on psychological scientists to work collaboratively with other scientists and stakeholders, establish consortia, and develop innovative research methods while maintaining high‐quality, open, and rigorous research standards.

Related collections

Most cited references 82

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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

Samantha K. Brooks, Rebecca K Webster, Louise E. Smith … (2022)

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.

0 comments Cited 5426 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

OpenSAFELY: factors associated with COVID-19 death in 17 million patients

Elizabeth J Williamson, Alex J Walker, Krishnan Bhaskaran … (2020)

COVID-19 has rapidly impacted on mortality worldwide. 1 There is unprecedented urgency to understand who is most at risk of severe outcomes, requiring new approaches for timely analysis of large datasets. Working on behalf of NHS England we created OpenSAFELY: a secure health analytics platform covering 40% of all patients in England, holding patient data within the existing data centre of a major primary care electronic health records vendor. Primary care records of 17,278,392 adults were pseudonymously linked to 10,926 COVID-19 related deaths. COVID-19 related death was associated with: being male (hazard ratio 1.59, 95%CI 1.53-1.65); older age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); diabetes; severe asthma; and various other medical conditions. Compared to people with white ethnicity, black and South Asian people were at higher risk even after adjustment for other factors (HR 1.48, 1.29-1.69 and 1.45, 1.32-1.58 respectively). We have quantified a range of clinical risk factors for COVID-19 related death in the largest cohort study conducted by any country to date. OpenSAFELY is rapidly adding further patients’ records; we will update and extend results regularly.

0 comments Cited 2966 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

Emily A. Holmes, Rory C O'Connor, V. Perry … (2020)

Summary The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time. The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative. International collaboration and a global perspective will be beneficial. An immediate priority is collecting high-quality data on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the whole population and vulnerable groups, and on brain function, cognition, and mental health of patients with COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research to address how mental health consequences for vulnerable groups can be mitigated under pandemic conditions, and on the impact of repeated media consumption and health messaging around COVID-19. Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required. Rising to this challenge will require integration across disciplines and sectors, and should be done together with people with lived experience. New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure. This Position Paper provides a strategy that may be both adapted for, and integrated with, research efforts in other countries.

0 comments Cited 2596 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Daryl B. O'Connor:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4117-4093

d.b.oconnor@leeds.ac.uk

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Br J Psychol

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Br J Psychol

Journal ID (doi): 10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8295

Journal ID (publisher-id): BJOP

Title: British Journal of Psychology

Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )

ISSN (Print): 0007-1269

ISSN (Electronic): 2044-8295

Publication date (Electronic): 19 July 2020

Electronic Location Identifier: e12468

Affiliations

[ ¹ ] School of Psychology University of Leeds UK

[ ² ] School of Psychology Cardiff University UK

[ ³ ] School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences University of Reading UK

[ ⁴ ] Alliance Manchester Business School University of Manchester UK

[ ⁵ ] Departments of Experimental Psychology and Psychiatry University of Oxford UK

[ ⁶ ] Educational Psychology Group Division of Psychology and Language Sciences University College London UK

[ ⁷ ] Department of Psychology and School of International and Public Affairs Princeton University New Jersey USA

[ ⁸ ] Department of Psychiatry University of Cambridge UK

[ ⁹ ] Leeds School of Social Sciences Leeds Beckett University UK

[ ¹⁰ ] School of Psychology University of Central Lancashire Preston UK

[ ¹¹ ] Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool UK

[ ¹² ] Department of Psychology Manchester Metropolitan University UK

[ ¹³ ] School of Psychological Social & Behavioural Sciences Coventry University UK

[ ¹⁴ ] School of Psychology Manchester Metropolitan University UK

[ ¹⁵ ] Department of Psychology Nottingham Trent University UK

[ ¹⁶ ] Edge Hill University Lancashire UK

[ ¹⁷ ] Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience College of Health and Life Sciences Brunel University London UK

[ ¹⁸ ] School of Psychological Science and Cabot Institute University of Bristol UK

[ ¹⁹ ] Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School University of Bristol UK

[ ²⁰ ] British Psychological Society Leicester UK

[ ²¹ ] Department of Psychology University of York UK

[ ²² ] Systems Immunity URI Cardiff School of Medicine Cardiff University UK

[ ²³ ] School of Psychology and Neuroscience University of St Andrews UK

[ ²⁴ ] Department of Psychology Harvard University Cambridge Massachusetts USA

[ ²⁵ ] School of Psychology Keele University UK

[ ²⁶ ] School of Psychology Ulster University Coleraine UK

[ ²⁷ ] School of Education University of Sheffield UK

[ ²⁸ ] Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London UK

[ ²⁹ ] South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust UK

[ ³⁰ ] Manchester Centre for Health Psychology School of Health Sciences University of Manchester UK

[ ³¹ ] Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Manchester Academic Health Science Centre UK

Author notes

[*] [* ] Correspondence should be addressed to Daryl B. O'Connor, School of Psychology, University of Leeds, UK (email: d.b.oconnor@ 123456leeds.ac.uk ).

Author information

Daryl B. O'Connor https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4117-4093

Article

Publisher ID: BJOP12468

DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12468

PMC ID: 7404603

PubMed ID: 32683689

SO-VID: 5d262e57-7e80-4ae6-bc2d-ee4e1be84d14

License:

This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

History

Date received : 26 May 2020

Date revision received : 23 June 2020

Page count

Figures: 0, Tables: 3, Pages: 27, Words: 26929

Custom metadata

source-schema-version-number 2.0

edited-state corrected-proof

details-of-publishers-convertor Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.8.6 mode:remove_FC converted:05.08.2020

Keywords: behaviour change,children,covid‐19,education,families,health,human development,mental health,neuroscience,pandemic,psychological science,psychology,school,stress,trauma,work

Data availability:

Keywords: behaviour change, children, covid‐19, education, families, health, human development, mental health, neuroscience, pandemic, psychological science, psychology, school, stress, trauma, work

Research priorities for the COVID‐19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

UCL: Covid-19 Research

Most cited references 82

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

OpenSAFELY: factors associated with COVID-19 death in 17 million patients

Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Page count

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 294

Cited by 86

Most referenced authors 3,163