For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
187
views
50
references
 Top references
cited by
1,381
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      122
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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 public mental health. Therefore, monitoring and oversight of the population mental health during crises such as a panedmic is an immediate priority. The aim of this study is to analyze the existing research works and findings in relation to the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

          Method

          In this systematic review and meta-analysis, articles that have focused on stress and anxiety prevalence among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic were searched in the Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases, without a lower time limit and until May 2020. In order to perform a meta-analysis of the collected studies, the random effects model was used, and the heterogeneity of studies was investigated using the I 2 index. Moreover. data analysis was conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software.

          Results

          The prevalence of stress in 5 studies with a total sample size of 9074 is obtained as 29.6% (95% confidence limit: 24.3–35.4), the prevalence of anxiety in 17 studies with a sample size of 63,439 as 31.9% (95% confidence interval: 27.5–36.7), and the prevalence of depression in 14 studies with a sample size of 44,531 people as 33.7% (95% confidence interval: 27.5–40.6).

          Conclusion

          COVID-19 not only causes physical health concerns but also results in a number of psychological disorders. The spread of the new coronavirus can impact the mental health of people in different communities. Thus, it is essential to preserve the mental health of individuals and to develop psychological interventions that can improve the mental health of vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

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

          Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study

          Nanshan Chen, Min Zhou, Xuan Dong … (2022)
          Summary Background In December, 2019, a pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) emerged in Wuhan, China. We aimed to further clarify the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 2019-nCoV pneumonia. Methods In this retrospective, single-centre study, we included all confirmed cases of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital from Jan 1 to Jan 20, 2020. Cases were confirmed by real-time RT-PCR and were analysed for epidemiological, demographic, clinical, and radiological features and laboratory data. Outcomes were followed up until Jan 25, 2020. Findings Of the 99 patients with 2019-nCoV pneumonia, 49 (49%) had a history of exposure to the Huanan seafood market. The average age of the patients was 55·5 years (SD 13·1), including 67 men and 32 women. 2019-nCoV was detected in all patients by real-time RT-PCR. 50 (51%) patients had chronic diseases. Patients had clinical manifestations of fever (82 [83%] patients), cough (81 [82%] patients), shortness of breath (31 [31%] patients), muscle ache (11 [11%] patients), confusion (nine [9%] patients), headache (eight [8%] patients), sore throat (five [5%] patients), rhinorrhoea (four [4%] patients), chest pain (two [2%] patients), diarrhoea (two [2%] patients), and nausea and vomiting (one [1%] patient). According to imaging examination, 74 (75%) patients showed bilateral pneumonia, 14 (14%) patients showed multiple mottling and ground-glass opacity, and one (1%) patient had pneumothorax. 17 (17%) patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome and, among them, 11 (11%) patients worsened in a short period of time and died of multiple organ failure. Interpretation The 2019-nCoV infection was of clustering onset, is more likely to affect older males with comorbidities, and can result in severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome. In general, characteristics of patients who died were in line with the MuLBSTA score, an early warning model for predicting mortality in viral pneumonia. Further investigation is needed to explore the applicability of the MuLBSTA score in predicting the risk of mortality in 2019-nCoV infection. Funding National Key R&D Program of China.
          Article 0 comments Cited 9323 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • 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.
            Article 0 comments Cited 5364 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors during the Initial Stage of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Epidemic among the General Population in China

              Cuiyan Wang, Riyu Pan, Xiaoyang Wan … (2020)
              Background: The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic is a public health emergency of international concern and poses a challenge to psychological resilience. Research data are needed to develop evidence-driven strategies to reduce adverse psychological impacts and psychiatric symptoms during the epidemic. The aim of this study was to survey the general public in China to better understand their levels of psychological impact, anxiety, depression, and stress during the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak. The data will be used for future reference. Methods: From 31 January to 2 February 2020, we conducted an online survey using snowball sampling techniques. The online survey collected information on demographic data, physical symptoms in the past 14 days, contact history with COVID-19, knowledge and concerns about COVID-19, precautionary measures against COVID-19, and additional information required with respect to COVID-19. Psychological impact was assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and mental health status was assessed by the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Results: This study included 1210 respondents from 194 cities in China. In total, 53.8% of respondents rated the psychological impact of the outbreak as moderate or severe; 16.5% reported moderate to severe depressive symptoms; 28.8% reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms; and 8.1% reported moderate to severe stress levels. Most respondents spent 20–24 h per day at home (84.7%); were worried about their family members contracting COVID-19 (75.2%); and were satisfied with the amount of health information available (75.1%). Female gender, student status, specific physical symptoms (e.g., myalgia, dizziness, coryza), and poor self-rated health status were significantly associated with a greater psychological impact of the outbreak and higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression (p < 0.05). Specific up-to-date and accurate health information (e.g., treatment, local outbreak situation) and particular precautionary measures (e.g., hand hygiene, wearing a mask) were associated with a lower psychological impact of the outbreak and lower levels of stress, anxiety, and depression (p < 0.05). Conclusions: During the initial phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, more than half of the respondents rated the psychological impact as moderate-to-severe, and about one-third reported moderate-to-severe anxiety. Our findings identify factors associated with a lower level of psychological impact and better mental health status that can be used to formulate psychological interventions to improve the mental health of vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 epidemic.
              Article 0 comments Cited 4005 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Nader Salari: n_s_514@yahoo.com
                Amin Hosseinian-Far: amin.hosseinian-far@northampton.ac.uk
                Rostam Jalali: ks_jalali@yahoo.com
                Aliakbar Vaisi-Raygani: visi_akbar@yahoo.com
                Shna Rasoulpoor: Shna.rasolpour@gmail.com
                Masoud Mohammadi:
                ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5722-8300
                Masoud.mohammadi1989@yahoo.com
                Shabnam Rasoulpoor: Sh.rasoulpour@gmail.com
                Behnam Khaledi-Paveh: bkhaledi@ymail.com
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Global Health
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Global Health
                Title: Globalization and Health
                Publisher: BioMed Central (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1744-8603
                Publication date (Electronic): 6 July 2020
                Publication date PMC-release: 6 July 2020
                Publication date Collection: 2020
                Volume: 16
                Electronic Location Identifier: 57
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.412112.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2012 5829, Department of Biostatistics, School of Health, , Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, ; Kermanshah, Iran
                [2 ]GRID grid.412112.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2012 5829, Sleep Disorders Research Center, , Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, ; Kermanshah, Iran
                [3 ]GRID grid.44870.3f, Department of Business Systems & Operations, , University of Northampton, ; Northampton, UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.412112.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2012 5829, Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, , Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, ; Kermanshah, Iran
                [5 ]GRID grid.466826.8, Department of Biology, , Islamic Azad University Urmia, ; Urmia, Iran
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5722-8300
                Article
                Publisher ID: 589
                DOI: 10.1186/s12992-020-00589-w
                PMC ID: 7338126
                PubMed ID: 32631403
                SO-VID: f4ac3282-184f-476e-825f-b345fd062507
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2020
                License:

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                Date received : 27 May 2020
                Date accepted : 29 June 2020
                Categories
                Subject: Research
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © The Author(s) 2020

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care
                Keywords: covid-19,coronavirus,prevalence,stress,anxiety,depression,general population,meta-analysis,systematic review
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care
                Keywords: covid-19, coronavirus, prevalence, stress, anxiety, depression, general population, meta-analysis, systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content122

                See all similar

                Cited by1,362

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,789

                See all reference authors