30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mental Health in COVID-19 Pandemic: A Meta-Review of Prevalence Meta-Analyses

      systematic-review

      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

          Background: Mental health burden has been massively reported during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Aiming to summarise these data, we present a meta-review of meta-analyses that evaluated the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety, depressive and stress symptoms, psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder/symptoms (PTSD), and sleep disturbance, reporting its prevalence on general public (GP) and health care workers (HCW).

          Methods: A search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science. Sleep disturbances, psychological distress, stress, and burnout were grouped as “Psychophysiological stress,” and anxiety, depression, and PTSD were grouped as “Psychopathology.” A random-effects model, calculating the pooled prevalence together with 95% confidence interval was performed for each domain. Subgroup analyses were performed for each population type (GP and HCW) and for each mental health outcome. For anxiety and depression, subgroup analysis for population type was performed. Heterogeneity is reported as I 2. Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of the funnel plot, and further tested by Egger's test and trim and fill analyses.

          Results: A total of 18 meta-analyses were included. The prevalence of psychophysiological stress was 31.99% (CI: 26.88–37.58, I 2 = 99.9%). HCW showed a higher prevalence (37.74%, CI: 33.26–42.45, I 2 = 99.7%) than the GP (20.67%, 15.07–27.66, I 2 = 99.9%). The overall prevalence of insomnia, psychological distress, and stress were, respectively, 32.34% (CI: 25.65–39.84), 28.25% (CI: 18.12–41.20), and 36% (CI: 29.31–43.54). Psychopathology was present at 26.45% (CI: 24.22–28.79, I 2 = 99.9%) of the sample, with similar estimates for population (HCW 26.14%, CI: 23.37–29.12, I 2 = 99.9%; GP: 26.99%, CI: 23.41–30.9, I 2 = 99.9%). The prevalence of anxiety, depression, and PTSD was 27.77% (CI: 24.47–31.32), 26.93% (CI: 23.92–30.17), and 20% (CI: 15.54–24.37), respectively. Similar proportions between populations were found for anxiety (HCW = 27.5%, CI: 23.78–31.55; GP = 28.33%, CI: 22.1–35.5) and depression (HCW = 27.05%, CI: 23.14–31.36; GP = 26.7%, CI: 22.32–31.59). Asymmetry in the funnel plot was found, and a slight increase in the estimate of overall psychopathology (29.08%, CI: 26.42–31.89) was found after the trim and fill analysis.

          Conclusions: The prevalence of mental health problems ranged from 20 to 36%. HCW presented a higher prevalence of psychophysiological stress than the general population.

          Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=252221, identifier: CRD42021252221.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

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

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

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

              Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

              David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/494445/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/832240/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1349847/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1463842/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/133989/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/54675/overview
                URI : http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/139283/overview
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                21 September 2021
                2021
                21 September 2021
                : 12
                : 703838
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Laboratory of Hormone Measurement, Department of Physiology and Behaviour, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Norte , Natal, Brazil
                [2] 2Graduate Program in Psychobiology and Department of Physiology and Behaviour, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Norte , Natal, Brazil
                [3] 3Brain Institute, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Norte , Natal, Brazil
                [4] 4Department of Sports Methods and Techniques, Federal University of Santa Maria , Santa Maria, Brazil
                [5] 5National Science and Technology Institute for Translational Medicine (INCT-TM) , São Paulo, Brazil
                [6] 6NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University , Westmead, NSW, Australia
                Author notes

                Edited by: Fang Pan, Shandong University, China

                Reviewed by: Eric Mayor, University of Basel, Switzerland; Lin Sun, Weifang Medical University, China

                *Correspondence: Nicole Leite Galvão-Coelho nicolelgalvaocoelho@ 123456gmail.com

                This article was submitted to Psychology for Clinical Settings, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2021.703838
                8490780
                34621212
                c333b4cf-e8a0-4a8b-8782-c87c26d04b68
                Copyright © 2021 Sousa, Tavares, de Meiroz Grilo, Coelho, Lima-Araújo, Schuch and Galvão-Coelho.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 30 April 2021
                : 20 August 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 52, Pages: 9, Words: 6044
                Funding
                Funded by: Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia Translacional em Medicina, doi 10.13039/501100007762;
                Award ID: 2014/50891-1
                Award ID: 465458/2014-9
                Categories
                Psychology
                Systematic Review

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                covid-19,anxiety,depression,healthcare worker,general public
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                covid-19, anxiety, depression, healthcare worker, general public

                Comments

                Comment on this article