10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Investigating the prevalence of anxiety and depression during the first COVID‐19 lockdown in the United Kingdom: Systematic review and meta‐analyses

      research-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

          Background

          The COVID‐19 pandemic has had a significant impact on mental health. Specifically, the stringent lockdown restrictions have heightened anxiety and depression. Therefore, monitoring and supporting the mental health of the population during these unprecedented times is an immediate priority.

          Methods

          In this systematic review and meta‐analyses, articles that explored the prevalence of anxiety and depression during the first COVID‐19 lockdown in the United Kingdom were included. We searched the databases Embase, Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, and PsycINFO for cross‐sectional studies. We conducted meta‐analyses of prevalence rates using a random‐effects model, and the heterogeneity of studies was examined using the I 2 index.

          Results

          Fourteen studies involving 46,158 participants were included in the review. The studies use clinical cut‐off scores on anxiety and depression measures to define cases. While the prevalence of anxiety was 31.00% (95% CI = 26.00 to 35.00), the prevalence of depression was 32.00% (95% CI = 29.00 to 35.00). The prevalence of anxiety pre‐pandemic was 4.65%, indicating a 26.35% increase. Whereas the prevalence of depression pre‐pandemic was 4.12%, indicating a 27.88% increase. Moreover, participants experienced a slightly greater prevalence of depression than anxiety by 1.00%.

          Conclusions

          To conclude, the first COVID‐19 lockdown in the United Kingdom increased the prevalence of anxiety and depression among the general population, compared to pre‐pandemic data. Hence, it is vital that policymakers and mental health services maximize their efforts to monitor mental health and provide interventions to support those in need.

          Practitioner points

          Clinical implications

          • Awareness of the high prevalence of anxiety and depression during the first lockdown in the United Kingdom can inform policy development that substantial effort, time, and funding of mental health services are required to support those in need.

          • Similarly, awareness of the prevalence of anxiety and depression in the United Kingdom can contribute to the development of nation‐specific interventions and initiatives.

          Limitations

          • The current review focuses on the UK general population which does not allow the findings to be generalized to the global population.

          • The indirect comparison of the current prevalence rates with the corresponding pre‐pandemic prevalence rates obtained from a different study sample increases individual differences, weakening the reliability of the findings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

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

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

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

            A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

            Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                lmd55@bath.ac.uk
                Journal
                Br J Clin Psychol
                Br J Clin Psychol
                10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8260
                BJC
                The British Journal of Clinical Psychology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0144-6657
                2044-8260
                09 February 2022
                09 February 2022
                : 10.1111/bjc.12360
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Addiction and Mental Health Group Department of Psychology University of Bath UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence should be addressed to Luca Marie Dettmann, Addiction and Mental Health Group, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK (email: lmd55@ 123456bath.ac.uk ).

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3057-7444
                Article
                BJC12360
                10.1111/bjc.12360
                9111383
                35137427
                e6584827-beb5-4032-8fe9-1aff2ad5e122
                © 2022 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society.

                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
                : 20 January 2022
                : 02 December 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 5, Pages: 24, Words: 9906
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                corrected-proof
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.6 mode:remove_FC converted:17.05.2022

                anxiety,covid‐19,depression,lockdown,mental health,united kingdom

                Comments

                Comment on this article