Mental Health Outcomes of Coronavirus Infection Survivors: A Rapid Meta-Analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liu D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7576143 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We aimed to characterize the long-term health outcomes of survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and determine their recovery status and possible immunological basis. Although health outcomes continued to improve, SARS survivors still suffered from physical fatigue, osteoporosis, and necrosis of the femoral head 18 years after discharge, possibly related to plasma metabolic disorders and immunological alterations.
2023-09-06 | GSE216357 | GEO
Project description:COVID-19 survivors are at increased risk of persistent psychopathology after the infection. Despite long-term sequelae are an increasing concern, long-term neuropsychiatric consequences remain largely unclear. This cohort study aimed at investigating the psychopathological impact of COVID-19 in Italy one year after infection, outlining the trajectory of symptomatology at one, six-, and twelve-months follow-up. We evaluated 402, 216, and 192 COVID-19 survivors respectively at one, six, and 12 months. A subgroup of 95 patients was evaluated longitudinally both at one, six, and 12 months. Validated self-report questionnaires were administered to assess depression, fatigue, anxiety, and post-traumatic distress. Socio-demographics and setting of care information were gathered for each participant. At six and twelve months, respectively 94 (44%) and 86 (45%) patients self-rated in the clinical range in at least one psychopathological dimension. Pathological fatigue at twelve months was detected in 63 patients (33%). Considering the longitudinal cohort an interaction effect of sex and time was observed for depression (F = 8.63, p < 0.001) and anxiety (F = 5.42, p = 0.005) with males showing a significant increasing trend of symptoms, whereas an opposite course was observed in females. High prevalence of psychiatric sequelae six and 12 months after COVID-19 was reported for the first time. These findings confirm the need to provide integrated multidisciplinary services to properly address long-lasting mental health sequelae of COVID-19 and to treat them with the aim of reducing the disease burden and related years of life lived with disability.
| S-EPMC8607816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth care workers (HCW) are at high risk of developing physical/mental health outcomes related to coronavirus syndromes. Nature and frequency of these outcomes are undetermined.MethodsPRISMA/MOOSE-compliant (PROSPERO-CRD42020180205) systematic review of Web of Science/grey literature until 15th April 2020, to identify studies reporting physical/mental health outcomes in HCW infected/exposed to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome -SARS-, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome -MERS-, Novel coronavirus -COVID-19-. Proportion random effect meta-analyses, I2 statistic, quality assessment and sensitivity analysis.Results115 articles were included (n=60,458 HCW, age 36.1±7.1, 77.1% female). Physical health outcomes: 75.9% HCW infected by SARS/MERS/COVID-19 reported fever (95%CI=65.9-83.7%, k=12, n=949), 47.9% cough (95%CI=39.2-56.8%, k=14, n=970), 43.6% myalgias (95%CI=31.9-56.0%, k=13, n=898), 42.3% chills (95%CI=20.2-67.9%, k=7, n=716), 41.2% fatigue (95%CI=18.2-68.8%, k=6, n=386), 34.6% headaches (95%CI=23.1-48.2%, k=11, n=893), 31.2% dyspnoea (95%CI=23.2-40.5%, k=12, n=1003), 25.3% sore throat (95%CI=18.8-33.2%, k=8, n=747), 22.2% nausea/vomiting (95%CI=14.9-31.8%, k=6, n=662), 18.8% diarrhoea (95%CI=11.9-28.4%, k=9, n=824). Mental health outcomes: 62.5% HCW exposed to SARS/MERS/COVID-19 reported general health concerns (95%CI=57.0-67,8%, k=2, n=2254), 43.7% fear (95%CI=33.9-54.0%, k=4, n=584), 37.9% insomnia (95%CI=30.9-45.5%, k=6, n=5067), 37.8% psychological distress (95%CI=28.4-48.2%, k=15, n=24,346), 34.4% burnout (95%CI=19.3-53.5%, k=3, n=1337), 29.0% anxiety features (95%CI=14.2-50.3%, k=6, n=9191), 26.3% depressive symptoms (95%CI=12.5-47.1%, k=8, n=9893), 20.7% post-traumatic stress disorder features (95%CI=13.2-31%, k=11, n=3826), 16.1% somatisation (95%CI=0.2-96.0%, k=2, n=2184), 14.0% stigmatisation feelings (95%CI=6.4-28.1%, k=2, n=411).LimitationsLimited amount of evidence for some outcomes and suboptimal design in several studies included.ConclusionsSARS/MERS/COVID-19 have a substantial impact on the physical and mental health of HCW, which should become a priority for public health strategies.
| S-EPMC7314697 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: To assess the psychiatric status of Chinese civil servants aiding in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) control. Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese civil servants have faced high workloads that may contribute to mental disorders. We assessed the prevalence of both depression and anxiety symptoms among civil servants in Jiangsu and surrounding provinces using the Chinese versions of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale. Methods: The PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were used to assess the severity of symptoms of depression and anxiety, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with mental health outcomes. Results: In total, 867 Chinese civil servants aiding in COVID-19 control were included in our study. Overall, 37.25 and 38.06% of all respondents reported having symptoms of depression and anxiety, respectively. Respondents who were younger and more educated and those who had fewer years of work experience had higher scores for both depression and anxiety. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that being a woman, being younger, having more education and having fewer years of work experience were associated with a higher risk of symptoms of depression and anxiety. However, whether they had experience combating infectious diseases or worked in frontline, there was no significant difference between respondents with and without experience, as well as between frontline and non-frontline workers, in both symptoms of depression and anxiety. Conclusions: The civil servants aiding in COVID-19 control reported suffering from varying degrees of mental disorders. Therefore, more attention should be devoted to the psychological distress of these civil servants.
| S-EPMC8118382 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceHealth care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) could be psychologically stressed.ObjectiveTo assess the magnitude of mental health outcomes and associated factors among health care workers treating patients exposed to COVID-19 in China.Design, settings, and participantsThis cross-sectional, survey-based, region-stratified study collected demographic data and mental health measurements from 1257 health care workers in 34 hospitals from January 29, 2020, to February 3, 2020, in China. Health care workers in hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 were eligible.Main outcomes and measuresThe degree of symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress was assessed by the Chinese versions of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, the 7-item Insomnia Severity Index, and the 22-item Impact of Event Scale-Revised, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with mental health outcomes.ResultsA total of 1257 of 1830 contacted individuals completed the survey, with a participation rate of 68.7%. A total of 813 (64.7%) were aged 26 to 40 years, and 964 (76.7%) were women. Of all participants, 764 (60.8%) were nurses, and 493 (39.2%) were physicians; 760 (60.5%) worked in hospitals in Wuhan, and 522 (41.5%) were frontline health care workers. A considerable proportion of participants reported symptoms of depression (634 [50.4%]), anxiety (560 [44.6%]), insomnia (427 [34.0%]), and distress (899 [71.5%]). Nurses, women, frontline health care workers, and those working in Wuhan, China, reported more severe degrees of all measurements of mental health symptoms than other health care workers (eg, median [IQR] Patient Health Questionnaire scores among physicians vs nurses: 4.0 [1.0-7.0] vs 5.0 [2.0-8.0]; P = .007; median [interquartile range {IQR}] Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale scores among men vs women: 2.0 [0-6.0] vs 4.0 [1.0-7.0]; P < .001; median [IQR] Insomnia Severity Index scores among frontline vs second-line workers: 6.0 [2.0-11.0] vs 4.0 [1.0-8.0]; P < .001; median [IQR] Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores among those in Wuhan vs those in Hubei outside Wuhan and those outside Hubei: 21.0 [8.5-34.5] vs 18.0 [6.0-28.0] in Hubei outside Wuhan and 15.0 [4.0-26.0] outside Hubei; P < .001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed participants from outside Hubei province were associated with lower risk of experiencing symptoms of distress compared with those in Wuhan (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.88; P = .008). Frontline health care workers engaged in direct diagnosis, treatment, and care of patients with COVID-19 were associated with a higher risk of symptoms of depression (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.11-2.09; P = .01), anxiety (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.22-2.02; P < .001), insomnia (OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.92-4.60; P < .001), and distress (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.25-2.04; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey of heath care workers in hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan and other regions in China, participants reported experiencing psychological burden, especially nurses, women, those in Wuhan, and frontline health care workers directly engaged in the diagnosis, treatment, and care for patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7090843 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9817425 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe uptake of evidence-based guideline recommendations appears to be challenging. In the midst of the discussion on how to overcome these barriers, the question of whether the use of guidelines leads to improved patient outcomes threatens to be overlooked. This study examined the effectiveness of evidence-based guidelines for all psychiatric disorders on patient health outcomes in specialist mental health care. All types of evidence-based guidelines, such as psychological and medication-focused guidelines, were eligible for inclusion. Provider performance was measured as a secondary outcome. Time to remission when treated with the guidelines was also examined.MethodSix databases were searched until 10 August 2020. Studies were selected, and data were extracted independently according to the PRISMA guidelines. Random effects meta-analyses were used to pool estimates across studies. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group criteria.ProsperoCRD42020171311.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 18 studies (N = 5380). Guidelines showed a positive significant effect size on the severity of psychopathological symptoms at the patient level when compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) (d = 0.29, 95%-CI = (0.19, 0.40), p < 0.001). Removal of a potential outlier gave globally the same results with Cohen's d = 0.26. Time to remission was shorter in the guideline treatment compared with TAU (HR = 1.54, 95%-CI = (1.29, 1.84), p = 0.001, n = 3).ConclusionsPatients cared for with guideline-adherent treatments improve to a greater degree and more quickly than patients treated with TAU. Knowledge on the mechanisms of change during guideline-adherent treatment needs to be developed further such that we can provide the best possible treatment to patients in routine care.
| S-EPMC8456921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:It is presumed that pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of prenatal common mental disorders can mitigate associated adverse effects in offspring, yet strong evidence for the prophylactic benefits of treatment is lacking. We therefore examined the effect of prenatal treatments for common mental disorders on offspring outcomes. METHODS:For this meta-analysis, articles published up to August 31, 2017, were obtained from PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Included studies needed to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of treatment of prenatal common mental disorders comparing an intervention to a control condition, including offspring outcome(s). Random effects models were used to calculate Hedges' g in the program Comprehensive Meta-Analysis© (version 3.0). RESULTS:Sixteen randomized controlled trials among 2778 pregnant women compared offspring outcomes between prenatal interventions and control groups. There were zero pharmacological, 13 psychological, and three other interventions (homeopathy, relaxation interventions, and short psycho-education). Birth weight (mean difference 42.88 g, g?=?0.08, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.22, p?=?0.27, n?=?11), Apgar scores (g?=?0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.54, p?=?0.53, n?=?4), and gestational age (g?=?0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.54, p?=?0.49, n?=?10) were not significantly affected. Other offspring outcomes could not be meta-analyzed due to the inconsistent reporting of offspring outcomes and an insufficient number of studies. CONCLUSIONS:Non-pharmacological interventions had no significant effect on birth outcomes, although this outcome should be considered with caution due to the risk of biases. No randomized controlled trial examined the effects of prenatal pharmacological treatments as compared to treatment as usual for common mental disorders on offspring outcomes. Present clinical guidelines may require more research evidence on offspring outcomes, including child development, in order to warrant the current recommendation to routinely screen and subsequently treat prenatal common mental disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42016047190.
| S-EPMC6237028 | biostudies-other
Project description:Rationale: Increasingly, patients are surviving acute respiratory failure (ARF), prompting the need to better understand standardized outcome measures commonly used during ARF follow-up studies. Objectives: Investigate standardized outcome measures (patient-reported physical and mental health measures, and cognitive testing) compared with findings from semistructured, qualitative interviews. Methods: As part of two ARF multicenter follow-up studies, standardized outcome measures were obtained, followed by qualitative evaluation via an in-depth, semistructured interview conducted and coded by two independent researchers. Qualitative interviews revealed the following post-ARF survivorship themes: physical impairment; anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms; and cognitive impairment. Scores from standardized measures related to these themes were compared for ARF survivors reporting versus not reporting these themes in their qualitative interviews. Results: Of 59 invited ARF survivors, 48 (81%) completed both standardized outcome measures and qualitative interviews. Participants' median (interquartile range) age was 53 (43-64) years; 54% were female, and 88% were living independently before hospitalization. The two independent reviewers classifying the presence or absence of themes from the qualitative interviews had excellent agreement (κ = 0.80). There were significantly worse scores on standardized outcome measures for survivors reporting (vs. not reporting) physical and mental health impairments in their qualitative interviews. However, standardized cognitive test scores did not differ between patients reporting versus not reporting cognitive impairments in their qualitative interviews. Conclusions: These findings support the use of recommended, commonly used standardized outcome measures for physical and mental health impairments in ARF survivorship research. However, caution is needed in interpreting self-reported cognitive function compared with standardized cognitive testing.
| S-EPMC6543476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The multidimensional Positive Mental Health Instrument (PMHI) has 47 items and six subscales. This study aimed to develop and validate a short unidimensional version of the PMHI among Singapore's adult resident population. METHODS:Using pooled data from three earlier studies (n = 1050), PMHI items were reduced by Partial Credit Rasch Model (PCRM) runs in a random split-half sample, while psychometric properties of the resulting measure were tested through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), item response theory-graded response model and internal consistency reliability in the other half. Its reliability, construct and concurrent validity, agreement with the original scale, floor and ceiling effect, and scale estimates were further investigated in an external representative general population sample (n = 1925). RESULTS:The average age of the participants was around 41 years. Four PCRM re-runs for item selection resulted in a 6-item unidimensional Rapid PMHI (R-PMHI). CFA confirmed the unidimensional structure of the R-PMHI in the internal (RMSEA = 0.075, CFI = 0.985, TLI = 0.974) and external (RMSEA = 0.051, CFI = 0.992, TLI = 0.987) validation samples. In the external validation sample, the R-PMHI met concurrent validity criteria, showing high agreement with the 47-item version with intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.872 (95% CI: 0.861 to 0.882) and low floor and ceiling effects. Weight-adjusted mean (SE, 95% CI) R-PMHI score in the population was 4.86 (0.2, 4.82-4.90). CONCLUSION:The unidimensional 6-item R-PMHI offers brevity over the original multidimensional measure while appropriately representing the positive mental health construct. Prospective studies are needed to assess its responsiveness and test-retest reliability.
| S-EPMC7146878 | biostudies-literature