OBJECTIVE: To review the most common mental health strategies aimed at alleviating and/or preventing mental health problems in individuals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other coronavirus pandemics.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature assessing three databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, and PsycINFO). A meta-analysis was performed with data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For non-RCT studies, a critical description of recommendations was performed.
RESULTS: From a total of 2,825 articles, 125 were included. Of those, three RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the interventions promoted better overall mental health outcomes as compared to control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.87 [95%CI 0.33-1.41], p < 0.001, I2 = 69.2%), but did not specifically improve anxiety (SMD = 0.98 [95%CI -0.17 to 2.13], p > 0.05; I2 = 36.8%). Concerning the systematic review, we found a large body of scientific literature proposing recommendations involving psychological/psychiatric interventions, self-care, education, governmental programs, and the use of technology and media.
CONCLUSIONS: We found a large body of expert recommendations that may help health practitioners, institutional and governmental leaders, and the general population cope with mental health issues during a pandemic or a crisis period. However, most articles had a low level of evidence, stressing the need for more studies with better design (especially RCTs) investigating potential mental health interventions during COVID-19.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42020190212.
BACKGROUND: Infectious outbreaks, most recently coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have required pervasive public health strategies, termed lockdown measures, including quarantine, social distancing, and closure of workplaces and educational establishments. Although evidence analysing immediate effects is expanding, repercussions following lockdown measures remain poorly understood. This systematic review aims to analyse biopsychosocial consequences after lockdown measures end according to short, medium, and long-term impacts.
METHODS: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to January 12, 2021. Reference lists were manually reviewed. Eligible studies analysed biopsychosocial functioning after lockdown measures secondary to recent infectious outbreaks ended. Lockdown measures were defined as quarantine, isolation, workplace or educational closures, social or physical distancing, and national or local closure of public institutions deemed non-essential. Studies exclusively researching outcomes during lockdown measures, examined infectious participants, or analysed lockdown measures not pertaining to an infectious outbreak were excluded. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed bias with a third resolving discrepancies. Data was extracted from published reports with further information requested from authors where necessary. The mixed methods appraisal tool assessed study quality, languages were restricted to English, German, Italian, and French and narrative synthesis was applied.
RESULTS: Of 5149 identified studies, 40 were eligible for inclusion. Psychological distress, economic repercussions, social, biological, and behavioural ramifications were observed. Short to medium-term effects comprised reactions relating to early trauma processing whereas medium to long-term repercussions manifested in maladaptive behaviours and mental health deterioration. Increased alcohol intake, stigmatisation, and economic effects were also identified consequences. High-risk groups included health care workers, children, elderly, inpatients, those with pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses, and socially isolated individuals.
CONCLUSIONS: Supporting vulnerable groups and offering education, workplace modifications, financial, and social assistance may mitigate negative repercussions. Establishing a rapid and comprehensive evidence base appraising the efficacy of such interventions and identifying areas for development is essential. This review was limited by study heterogeneity and lack of randomisation in available literature. Given the unprecedented nature and progression of COVID-19, the relevance of previous outcomes remains uncertain.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42020181134.
BACKGROUND: Novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) is a global reminder of the need to attend to the mental health of patients and health professionals who are suddenly facing this public health crisis. In the last two decades, a number of medical pandemics have yielded insights on the mental health impact of these events. Based on these experiences and given the magnitude of the current pandemic, rates of mental health disorders are expected to increase. Mental health interventions are urgently needed to minimize the psychological sequelae and provide timely care to affected individuals.
METHOD: We conducted a rapid systematic review of mental health interventions during a medical pandemic, using three electronic databases. Of the 2404 articles identified, 21 primary research studies are included in this review.
RESULT: We categorized the findings from the research studies using the following questions: What kind of emotional reactions do medical pandemics trigger? Who is most at risk of experiencing mental health sequelae? What works to treat mental health sequelae (psychosocial interventions and implementation of existing or new training programs)? What do we need to consider when designing and implementing mental health interventions (cultural adaptations and mental health workforce)? What still needs to be known?
CONCLUSION: Various mental health interventions have been developed for medical pandemics, and research on their effectiveness is growing. We offer recommendations for future research based on the evidence for providing mental health interventions and supports to those most in need.
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.
OBJECTIVE: Review of the evidence on the psychosocial impact of quarantine measures during serious coronavirus outbreaks before COVID-19. Such information is highly relevant in regard to the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: Search of the MEDLINE database for relevant studies related to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks.
RESULTS: Across 13 identified studies, quarantine measures were consistently associated with negative psychosocial outcomes, including depressive symptoms, anxiety, anger, stress, posttraumatic stress, social isolation, loneliness and stigmatization. Determinants comprised duration of quarantine measures and income losses. Health care workers constituted a particularly vulnerable group.
CONCLUSION: Quarantine measures during serious coronavirus outbreaks have extensive negative consequences for mental health. Prevention and intervention approaches to attenuate the psychosocial impact should be an integral component of crisis response during pandemic conditions.
To review the most common mental health strategies aimed at alleviating and/or preventing mental health problems in individuals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other coronavirus pandemics.
METHODS:
We conducted a systematic review of the literature assessing three databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, and PsycINFO). A meta-analysis was performed with data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For non-RCT studies, a critical description of recommendations was performed.
RESULTS:
From a total of 2,825 articles, 125 were included. Of those, three RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the interventions promoted better overall mental health outcomes as compared to control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.87 [95%CI 0.33-1.41], p < 0.001, I2 = 69.2%), but did not specifically improve anxiety (SMD = 0.98 [95%CI -0.17 to 2.13], p > 0.05; I2 = 36.8%). Concerning the systematic review, we found a large body of scientific literature proposing recommendations involving psychological/psychiatric interventions, self-care, education, governmental programs, and the use of technology and media.
CONCLUSIONS:
We found a large body of expert recommendations that may help health practitioners, institutional and governmental leaders, and the general population cope with mental health issues during a pandemic or a crisis period. However, most articles had a low level of evidence, stressing the need for more studies with better design (especially RCTs) investigating potential mental health interventions during COVID-19.
