Investigating the effect of national government physical distancing measures on depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic through meta-analysis and meta-regression.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated meta-analytic global levels of depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic and how the implementation of mitigation strategies (i.e. public transportation closures, stay-at-home orders, etc.) impacted such disorders.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: COVID-19 physical distancing measures can potentially increase the likelihood of mental disorders. It is unknown whether these measures are associated with depression and anxiety. OBJECTIVES: To investigate meta-analytic global levels of depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic and how the implementation of mitigation strategies (i.e. public transportation closures, stay-at-home orders, etc.) impacted such disorders. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, BIOSIS Citation Index, Current Content Connect, PsycINFO, CINAHL, medRxiv, and PsyArXiv databases for depression and anxiety prevalences; Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker for the containment and closure policies indexes; Global Burden of Disease Study for previous levels of depression and anxiety. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original studies conducted during COVID-19 pandemic, which assessed categorical depression and anxiety, using PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scales (cutoff ⩾10). PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: General population, healthcare providers, students, and patients. National physical distancing measures. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Meta-analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: In total, 226 638 individuals were assessed within the 60 included studies. Global prevalence of both depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic was 24.0% and 21.3%, respectively. There were differences in the prevalence of both anxiety and depression reported across regions and countries. Asia (17.6% and 17.9%), and China (16.2% and 15.5%) especially, had the lowest prevalence of both disorders. Regarding the impact of mitigation strategies on mental health, only public transportation closures increased the prevalence of anxiety, especially in Europe. LIMITATIONS: Country-level data on physical distancing measures and previous anxiety/depression may not necessarily reflect local (i.e. city-specific) contexts. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Mental health concerns should not be viewed only as a delayed consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also as a concurrent epidemic. Our data provide support for policy-makers to consider real-time enhanced mental health services, and increase initiatives to foster positive mental health outcomes.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the association between the number of COVID-19 symptoms at intake and depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic symptoms approximately two months later, adjusting for previous mental health status, time between baseline and outcome, and other confounders.
Abstract: Background It remains unclear whether COVID-19 is associated with psychiatric symptoms during or after the acute illness phase. Being affected by the disease exposes the individual to an uncertain prognosis and a state of quarantine. These factors can predispose individuals to the development of mental symptoms during or after the acute phase of the disease. There is a need for prospective studies assessing psychiatric symptoms in COVID-19 patients in the post-infection period. Methods In this prospective cohort study, nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 tests were collected at patients' homes under the supervision of trained healthcare personnel. Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were classified as mild cases (N = 895) at treatment intake were further assessed for the presence of psychiatric symptoms (on average, 56.6 days after the intake). We investigated the association between the number of COVID-19 symptoms at intake and depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic symptoms approximately two months later, adjusting for previous mental health status, time between baseline and outcome, and other confounders. Multivariate logistic regression and generalized linear models were employed for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results A clinically significant level of depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms were reported by 26.2% (N = 235), 22.4% (N = 201), and 17.3% (N = 155) of the sample. Reporting an increased number of COVID-related symptoms was associated with the presence of clinically significant levels of depressive (aOR = 1.059;95%CI = 1.002–1.119), anxiety (aOR = 1.072;95%CI = 1.012–1.134), and post-traumatic stress (aOR = 1.092;95%CI = 1.024–1.166) symptoms. Sensitivity analyses supported findings for both continuous and categorical measures. Conclusion Exposure to an increased number of COVID-19 symptoms may be associated with depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic symptoms after the acute phase of the disease. These patients should be monitored for the development of psychiatric symptoms after COVID-19 treatment discharge. Early interventions, such as brief interventions of psychoeducation on coping strategies, could benefit these individuals.
43 citations
Obafemi Awolowo University1, Alexandria University2, University of California, Riverside3, Nigerian Institute of Medical Research4, Government College5, University of Health and Allied Sciences6, University of Dammam7, University of KwaZulu-Natal8, Maastricht University9, Jazan University10, University of the Punjab11, University of Ibadan12, University of the West of Scotland13, University of Szeged14, Lead City University15, Taibah University16, RMIT University17, University of Turku18, University of Southern California19
TL;DR: In this article, an online survey was conducted to identify factors associated with financial insecurity, food insecurity and poor quality of daily lives of adults in Nigeria during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Abstract: An online survey was conducted to identify factors associated with financial insecurity, food insecurity and poor quality of daily lives of adults in Nigeria during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The associations between the outcome (experience of financial loss, changes in food intake and impact of the pandemic on daily lives) and the explanatory (age, sex, education level, anxiety, depression, HIV status) variables were determined using logistic regression analysis. Of the 4439 respondents, 2487 (56.0%) were financially insecure, 907 (20.4%) decreased food intake and 4029 (90.8%) had their daily life negatively impacted. Males (AOR:0.84), people who felt depressed (AOR:0.62) and people living with HIV -PLHIV- (AOR:0.70) had significantly lower odds of financial insecurity. Older respondents (AOR:1.01) had significantly higher odds of financial insecurity. Those depressed (AOR:0.62) and PLHIV (AOR:0.55) had significantly lower odds of reporting decreased food intake. Respondents who felt anxious (AOR:0.07), depressed (AOR: 0.48) and who were PLHIV (AOR:0.68) had significantly lower odds of reporting a negative impact of the pandemic on their daily lives. We concluded the study findings may reflect a complex relationship between financial insecurity, food insecurity, poor quality of life, mental health, and socioeconomic status of adults living in Nigeria during the COVID-19 pandemic.
26 citations
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors test for differential item functioning on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) based on age, sex (males and females), and country.
Abstract: The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) are self-report measures of major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder. The primary aim of this study was to test for differential item functioning (DIF) on the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 items based on age, sex (males and females), and country.Data from nationally representative surveys in UK, Ireland, Spain, and Italy (combined N = 6,054) were used to fit confirmatory factor analytic and multiple-indictor multiple-causes models.Spain and Italy had higher latent variable means than the UK and Ireland for both anxiety and depression, but there was no evidence for differential items functioning.The PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores were found to be unidimensional, reliable, and largely free of DIF in data from four large nationally representative samples of the general population in the UK, Ireland, Italy and Spain.
23 citations
03 Sep 2021
TL;DR: In this article, an ecological time-series study was performed, analyzing mental health appointments before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (from 2016 and 2020) from the Brazilian governmental database.
Abstract: Background Studies have reported the worsening of psychiatric symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, few studies have evaluated the impact on the access to mental health services during COVID-19. Our aim was to analyze temporal trends and prediction of appointments held in Brazil's public health system, to compare the observed and expected number of mental healthcare appointments during the COVID-19 pandemics. Methods An ecological time-series study was performed, analyzing mental health appointments before and during the pandemic (from 2016 and 2020) from the Brazilian governmental database. The structural break in the data series was assessed using the Chow test, with the break considered in March 2020. Bayesian structural time-series models were used to estimate current average appointments and the predicted expectation if there was no pandemic. Findings Compared to the expected, between March and August 2020 about 28% less outpatient appointments in mental health were observed, totaling 471,448 individuals with suspended assistance. Group appointments and psychiatric hospitalizations were also severely impacted by the pandemic (decreased of 68% and 33%, respectively). On the other hand, mental health emergency consultations and home care increased during this period (36% and 52%, respectively). Interpretation Our findings demonstrate a dramatic change in mental health assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic, which corroborates a recent WHO survey. This phenomenon can aggravate the mental health crisis and generate a parallel pandemic that may last for a longer time than the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding This study was financed in part by the Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.
23 citations
TL;DR: 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, and it is vital that policymakers and mental health services maximize their efforts to monitor mental health and provide interventions to support those in need.
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.
22 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
62,157 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.
Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7
In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).
Box 1
Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA
46,935 citations
TL;DR: In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity, which makes it a useful clinical and research tool.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity.
26,004 citations
TL;DR: A checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion should improve the usefulness ofMeta-an analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers.
Abstract: ObjectiveBecause of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health
and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature,
research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used
to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A
workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting
of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid
authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.ParticipantsTwenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based
on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social
sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open
to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.EvidenceWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the
conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE,
Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index
to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved
and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group
discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity,
study categorization, and statistical methods.Consensus ProcessFrom the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a
checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational
studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference
attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed.ConclusionsThe proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses
of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy,
methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should
improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers,
and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are
explored.
17,663 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity, and increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment.
Abstract: Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
15,911 citations