Xiaowen Jiang

Bio: Xiaowen Jiang is an academic researcher from Jewish General Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: Mental health & Population. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 3 publications receiving 4 citations.

Comparison of Mental Health Symptoms prior to and during COVID-19: Evidence from a Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract: ObjectivesThe rapid pace, high volume, and limited quality of mental health evidence being generated during COVID-19 poses a barrier to effective decision-making. The objective of the present report is to compare mental health outcomes assessed during COVID-19 to outcomes prior to COVID-19 in the general population and other population groups. DesignLiving systematic review. Data SourcesMEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator). The initial search was conducted on April 13, 2020 with ongoing weekly updates. Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesFor this report, we included studies that compared general mental health, anxiety symptoms, or depression symptoms, assessed January 1, 2020 or later, to the same outcomes collected between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. We required [≥] 90% of participants pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 to be the same or the use of statistical methods to address missing data. For population groups with continuous outcomes for at least three studies in an outcome domain, we conducted restricted maximum-likelihood random-effects meta-analyses. ResultsAs of March 22, 2021, we had identified 36 unique eligible studies with data from 33 cohorts. All reported COVID-19 outcomes between March and June 2020, and 3 studies also reported outcomes between September and November 2020. Estimates of changes in general mental health were close to zero in the general population (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16, I2 = 94.6%; 4 studies, N = 19,707) and among older adults (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16, I2 = 90.4%; 4 studies, N = 5,520) and university students (SMD = -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.30, I2 = 92.0%; 3 studies, N = 3,372). Changes in anxiety symptoms were close to zero and not statistically significant in university students (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.36, I2 = 95.4%; 5 studies, N = 1,537); women or females (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.39, I2 = 92.3%; 3 studies, N = 2,778); and men or males (SMD = 0.07, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.15; I2 = 0.01%; 3 studies, N = 1,250); anxiety symptoms increased, however, among people with pre-existing medical conditions (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54, I2 = 91.0%; 3 studies, N = 2,053). Changes in depression symptoms were close to zero or small and not statistically significant among university students (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.45, I2 = 91.8%; 5 studies, N = 1,537); people with pre-existing medical conditions (SMD = 0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.17, I2 = 14.9%; 3 studies, N = 2,006); women or females (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.55, I2 = 91.2%; 3 studies, N = 2,843); and men or males (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.22; I2 = 92.3%; 4 studies, N = 3,661). In 3 studies with data from both March to June 2020 and September to November 2020, symptoms were unchanged from pre-COVID-19 at both time points or there were increases at the first assessment that had largely dissipated by the second assessment. ConclusionsEvidence does not suggest a widespread negative effect on mental health symptoms in COVID-19, although it is possible that gaps in data have not allowed identification of changes in some vulnerable groups. Continued updating is needed as evidence accrues. FundingCanadian Institutes of Health Research (CMS-171703; MS1-173070); McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity Emergency COVID-19 Research Fund (R2-42). RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42020179703); registered on April 17, 2020.

Effects of COVID-19 Mental Health Interventions among Community-based Children, Adolescents, and Adults: A Living Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

Abstract: BackgroundScalable interventions to address COVID-19 mental health are needed. Our objective was to assess effects of mental health interventions for community-based children, adolescents, and adults. MethodsWe searched 9 databases (2 Chinese-language) from December 31, 2019 to March 22, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials with non-hospitalised, non-quarantined participants of interventions to address COVID-19 mental health challenges. We synthesized results descriptively but did not pool quantitatively due to substantial heterogeneity of populations and interventions and concerns about risk of bias. FindingsWe identified 9 eligible trials, including 3 well-conducted, well-reported trials that tested interventions designed specifically for COVID-19 mental health challenges, plus 6 trials of standard interventions (e.g., individual or group therapy, expressive writing, mindfulness recordings) minimally adapted for COVID-19, all with risk of bias concerns. Among the 3 COVID-19-specific intervention trials, one (N = 670) found that a self-guided, internet-based cognitive-behavioural intervention targeting dysfunctional COVID-19 worry significantly reduced COVID-19 anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.90) and depression symptoms (SMD 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55) in Swedish general population participants. A lay-delivered telephone intervention for homebound older adults in the United States (N = 240) and a peer-moderated education and support intervention for people with a rare autoimmune condition from 12 countries (N = 172) significantly improved anxiety (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.60; SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.58) and depressive symptoms (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56; SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55) 6-weeks post-intervention, but these were not significant immediately post-intervention. No trials in children or adolescents were identified. InterpretationInternet-based programs for the general population and lay-or peer-delivered interventions for vulnerable groups may be effective, scalable options for public mental health in COVID-19. More well-conducted trials, including for children and adolescents, are needed. FundingCanadian Institutes of Health Research (CMS-171703; MS1-173070); McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity Emergency COVID-19 Research Fund (R2-42). RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42020179703); registered on April 17, 2020. RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of interventions to address mental health challenges in COVID-19. We used searches from our living systematic review, which were not limited by study design and reviewed citations through April 29, 2021 from MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator). We identified 4 systematic reviews of interventions for COVID-19 mental health with search dates between April and September 2020. None, however, included evidence from any completed randomised controlled trials on mental health interventions for community-based children, adolescents, or adults during COVID-19. Added value of this studyOur systematic review is the only living systematic review on COVID-19 community-based mental health interventions registered in PROSPERO and, to the best of our knowledge, the first systematic review to synthesize evidence on completed randomised controlled trials of COVID-19 mental health interventions. The sheer volume of evidence being published in COVID-19 poses a barrier to effective synthesis and policy response. We reviewed over 45,000 citations in any language and distilled this to 9 verified eligible community-based trials. Of these, there were 3 well-conducted trials of interventions designed specifically to be scalable to address challenges of public mental health in COVID-19. One trial showed that internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy in the Swedish general population (N = 670) reduced COVID-19 anxiety and symptoms of depression. Trials that tested a lay-delivered telephone support intervention for homebound older adults in the United States (N = 240) and a peer-moderated group intervention for people with a rare autoimmune condition from 12 countries (N = 172) also found that they improved mental health outcomes, although not all outcomes were statistically significant. Implications of all the available evidenceEffective, scalable, and feasibly delivered mental health interventions are needed for the general public and vulnerable groups as lockdown restrictions continue, even intermittently, and because COVID-19 mental health implications will likely persist beyond the pandemic. Although we identified only 3 high-quality trials, they demonstrated approaches that can be feasibly adopted to meet the needs of adults in the general public and vulnerable groups. The successful internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy intervention was made available to the Swedish general public free-of-charge following testing and suggests that online tools tailored for specific concerns in COVID-19 may represent an efficient way of addressing public mental health. Two lay-and peer-delivered interventions, consistent with pre-COVID-19 evidence, suggest that low-intensity, non-professionally delivered, support-oriented approaches can be leveraged among vulnerable groups. The absence of trials of interventions for children and adolescents underlines the need for evidence on scalable strategies for this population, including school-based approaches.

Comparison of Mental Health Symptom Changes from pre-COVID-19 to COVID-19 by Sex or Gender: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract: Background: Women and gender-diverse individuals face disproportionate socioeconomic burden during COVID-19. We compared mental health symptom changes since pre-COVID-19 by sex or gender. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Open Science Framework December 31, 2019 to March 22, 2021 for studies that reported mental health outcomes prior to and during COVID-19 by sex or gender. We conducted restricted maximum-likelihood random-effects meta-analyses. Results: All 11 included studies (9 unique cohorts) compared females or women to males or men; none included gender-diverse individuals. Continuous symptom change differences were not statistically significant for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD]= 0.15, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.39; 3 studies, 4,159 participants; I2=77%) and stress (SMD= -0.09, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.02; 3 studies, 1,217 participants; I2=0%), but anxiety (SMD= 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.26; 3 studies, 4,028 participants; I2=34%) and general mental health (SMD= 0.15, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.18; 2 studies, 15,590 participants; I2=0%) worsened more among females or women than males or men. There were no significant differences in changes in proportion above a cut-off: anxiety (difference= 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; 2 studies, 6,684 participants; I2=0%), depression (difference= 0.12, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.28; 1 study, 217 participants), general mental health (difference= -0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04; 3 studies, 18,985 participants; I2=94%), stress (difference= 0.04, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.18; 1 study, 217 participants). Interpretation: Mental health outcomes did not differ or were somewhat worse among women than men.

Risk and protective factors, stressors, and symptoms of adjustment disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic - First results of the ESTSS COVID-19 pan-European ADJUST study

Abstract: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic exposes individuals to multiple stressors, such as quarantine, physical distancing, job loss, risk of infection, and loss of loved ones. Such a complex array of stressors potentially lead to symptoms of adjustment disorder. Objective: This cross-sectional exploratory study examined relationships between risk and protective factors, stressors, and symptoms of adjustment disorder during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Data from the first wave of the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) longitudinal ADJUST Study were used. N = 15,563 participants aged 18 years and above were recruited in eleven countries (Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden) from June to November 2020. Associations between risk and protective factors (e.g. gender, diagnosis of a mental health disorder), stressors (e.g. fear of infection, restricted face-to-face contact), and symptoms of adjustment disorder (ADNM-8) were examined using multivariate linear regression. Results: The prevalence of self-reported probable adjustment disorder was 18.2%. Risk factors associated with higher levels of symptoms of adjustment disorder were female gender, older age, being at risk for severe COVID-19 illness, poorer general health status, current or previous trauma exposure, a current or previous mental health disorder, and longer exposure to COVID19 news. Protective factors related to lower levels of symptoms of adjustment disorder were higher income, being retired, and having more face-to-face contact with loved ones or friends. Pandemic-related stressors associated with higher levels of symptoms of adjustment disorder included fear of infection, governmental crisis management, restricted social contact, work- related problems, restricted activity, and difficult housing conditions. Conclusions: We identified stressors, risk, and protective factors that may help identify individuals at higher risk for adjustment disorder.

Changes in mental health problems and suicidal behaviour in students and their associations with COVID-19-related restrictions in Norway: a national repeated cross-sectional analysis

Abstract: Objective The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on higher education, with the closure of student campuses. The aim of this study was to examine changes and prevalence of mental health problems, suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour, and their associations with COVID-19-related restrictions. Design, setting and participants As part of the SHoT-study in Norway, 62 498 students completed an online questionnaire (65.6% women; response rate of 34.4%) in March 2021. Data were compared with previous waves, conducted in 2018, 2014 and 2010. Primary and secondary outcome measures Mental health problems were assessed using the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist. Suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-harm (NSSH) were assessed with three items drawn from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, and thoughts of NSSH were assessed with one item from the Child and Adolescent Self-Harm in Europe study. Results There was a significant increase in mental health problems from 2010 to 2021, and especially from 2018 (men: 27%/women: 45%) to 2021 (men: 41%/women: 62%, p <0.001). A similar pattern was also observed for suicidal thoughts. Unlike previous waves, there were large geographical differences in mental health problems in 2021, which mapped onto the different levels of COVID-19 cases and regional COVID-19-related restrictions. There was a significant negative dose–response association between days spent physically on campus and both mental health problems and indicators of suicide risk. We found the fewer days spent on campus in the last 2 weeks, the higher levels of mental health problems during the same time period. There was also an association between days on campus and a higher prevalence of suicidal thoughts, NSSH and suicide attempts in the last year. Conclusion This study demonstrates a sharp increase and disturbing levels of mental health problems and suicide risk among students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although causal conclusions cannot be drawn, the associations between closure of campuses and mental problems emphasise the importance of having access to campuses for student well-being.

Annual Research Review: The impact of Covid-19 on psychopathology in children and young people worldwide: systematic review of studies with pre- and within-pandemic data.

Abstract: BACKGROUND The high volume and pace of research has posed challenges to researchers, policymakers and practitioners wanting to understand the overall impact of the pandemic on children and young people's mental health. We aimed to search for and review the evidence from epidemiological studies to answer the question: how has mental health changed in the general population of children and young people? METHODS Four databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychINFO) were searched in October 2021, with searches updated in February 2022. We aimed to identify studies of children or adolescents with a mean age of 18 years or younger at baseline, that reported change on a validated mental health measure from prepandemic to during the pandemic. Abstracts and full texts were double-screened against inclusion criteria and quality assessed using a risk of bias tool. Studies were narratively synthesised, and meta-analyses were performed where studies were sufficiently similar. RESULTS 6917 records were identified, and 51 studies included in the review. Only four studies had a rating of high quality. Studies were highly diverse in terms of design, setting, timing in relation to the pandemic, population, length of follow-up and choice of measure. Methodological heterogeneity limited the potential to conduct meta-analyses across studies. Whilst the evidence suggested a slight deterioration on some measures, overall, the findings were mixed, with no clear pattern emerging. CONCLUSIONS Our findings highlight the need for a more harmonised approach to research in this field. Despite the sometimes-inconsistent results of our included studies, the evidence supports existing concerns about the impact of Covid-19 on children's mental health and on services for this group, given that even small changes can have a significant impact on provision at population level. Children and young people must be prioritised in pandemic recovery, and explicitly considered in planning for any future pandemic response.

Systematic review of mental health symptom changes by sex or gender in early-COVID-19 compared to pre-pandemic

Abstract: Women and gender-diverse individuals have faced disproportionate socioeconomic burden during COVID-19. There have been reports of greater negative mental health changes compared to men based on cross-sectional research that has not accounted for pre-COVID-19 differences. We compared mental health changes from pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 by sex or gender. MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator) were searched to August 30, 2021. Eligible studies included mental health symptom change data by sex or gender. 12 studies (10 unique cohorts) were included, all of which reported dichotomized sex or gender data. 9 cohorts reported results from March to June 2020, and 2 of these also reported on September or November to December 2020. One cohort included data pre-November 2020 data but did not provide dates. Continuous symptom change differences were not statistically significant for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12, 95% CI -0.09-0.33; 4 studies, 4,475 participants; I2 = 69.0%) and stress (SMD = - 0.10, 95% CI -0.21-0.01; 4 studies, 1,533 participants; I2 = 0.0%), but anxiety (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07-0.22; 4 studies, 4,344 participants; I2 = 3.0%) and general mental health (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.12-0.18; 3 studies, 15,692 participants; I2 = 0.0%) worsened more among females/women than males/men. There were no significant differences in changes in proportions above cut-offs: anxiety (difference = - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.20-0.11; 1 study, 217 participants), depression (difference = 0.12, 95% CI -0.03-0.28; 1 study, 217 participants), general mental health (difference = - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.09-0.04; 3 studies, 18,985 participants; I2 = 94.0%), stress (difference = 0.04, 95% CI - 0.10-0.17; 1 study, 217 participants). Mental health outcomes did not differ or were worse by small amounts among women than men during early COVID-19.