Global prevalence and determinants of mental health disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 5 million and lost the lives of more than 300 thousand people globally. It is the first-ever deadly pandemic with a significant degree of fear, worry and concern in the population at large. Therefore, this Meta-Analysis aims to assess the global prevalence and determinants of mental health disorders.Methods
A three-stage search strategy was conducted on PubMed/Medline, Science direct LILACS and PsycINFO databases. The Heterogeneity among the included studies was checked with forest plot, χ2 test, I2 test, and the p-values. Publication bias was checked with a funnel plot and the objective diagnostic test was conducted with Egger's correlation, Begg's regression tests, and Trim and fill method.Results
The Meta-Analysis revealed that the pooled prevalence of anxiety and depression 33.59% (95% confidence interval (CI): 27.21 to 39.97, 30 studies, 88,543 participants) and 29.98% (95% confidence interval (CI): 25.32 to 34.64, 25 studies, 78,191 participants) respectively.Conclusion
The review revealed that more than thirty percent of patients developed anxiety and depression during COVID-19 Pandemic. This presages the health care stakeholders to prevent and intervene in mental health disorders.Registration
This review was registered in Prospero international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020183146).
SUBMITTER: Chekole YA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8346529 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe global COVID-19 pandemic has generated major mental and psychological health problems worldwide. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of depression, anxiety, distress, and insomnia during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe searched online biomedical databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid, CNKI, and Wanfang Data) and preprint databases (SSRN, bioRxiv, and MedRxiv) for observational studies from January 1, 2020 to March 16, 2020 investigating the prevalence of mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsWe retrieved 821 citations from the biomedical databases and 53 citations from the preprint databases: 66 studies with 221,970 participants were included in our meta-analysis. The overall pooled prevalence of depression, anxiety, distress, and insomnia was 31.4%, 31.9%, 41.1% and 37.9%, respectively. Noninfectious chronic disease patients, quarantined persons, and COVID-19 patients had a higher risk of depression (Q=26.73, p<0.01) and anxiety (Q=21.86, p<0.01) than other populations. The general population and non-medical staff had a lower risk of distress than other populations (Q=461.21, p< 0.01). Physicians, nurses, and non-medical staff showed a higher prevalence of insomnia (Q=196.64, p<0.01) than other populations.LimitationsAll included studies were from the early phase of the global pandemic. Additional meta-analyses are needed to obtain more data in all phases of the pandemic.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic increases the mental health problems of the global population, particularly health care workers, noninfectious chronic disease patients, COVID-19 patients, and quarantined persons. Interventions for mental health are urgently needed for preventing mental health problems.
| S-EPMC7710473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Mental health burden has been massively reported during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Aiming to summarise these data, we present a meta-review of meta-analyses that evaluated the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety, depressive and stress symptoms, psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder/symptoms (PTSD), and sleep disturbance, reporting its prevalence on general public (GP) and health care workers (HCW). Methods: A search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science. Sleep disturbances, psychological distress, stress, and burnout were grouped as "Psychophysiological stress," and anxiety, depression, and PTSD were grouped as "Psychopathology." A random-effects model, calculating the pooled prevalence together with 95% confidence interval was performed for each domain. Subgroup analyses were performed for each population type (GP and HCW) and for each mental health outcome. For anxiety and depression, subgroup analysis for population type was performed. Heterogeneity is reported as I 2. Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of the funnel plot, and further tested by Egger's test and trim and fill analyses. Results: A total of 18 meta-analyses were included. The prevalence of psychophysiological stress was 31.99% (CI: 26.88-37.58, I 2 = 99.9%). HCW showed a higher prevalence (37.74%, CI: 33.26-42.45, I 2 = 99.7%) than the GP (20.67%, 15.07-27.66, I 2 = 99.9%). The overall prevalence of insomnia, psychological distress, and stress were, respectively, 32.34% (CI: 25.65-39.84), 28.25% (CI: 18.12-41.20), and 36% (CI: 29.31-43.54). Psychopathology was present at 26.45% (CI: 24.22-28.79, I 2 = 99.9%) of the sample, with similar estimates for population (HCW 26.14%, CI: 23.37-29.12, I 2 = 99.9%; GP: 26.99%, CI: 23.41-30.9, I 2 = 99.9%). The prevalence of anxiety, depression, and PTSD was 27.77% (CI: 24.47-31.32), 26.93% (CI: 23.92-30.17), and 20% (CI: 15.54-24.37), respectively. Similar proportions between populations were found for anxiety (HCW = 27.5%, CI: 23.78-31.55; GP = 28.33%, CI: 22.1-35.5) and depression (HCW = 27.05%, CI: 23.14-31.36; GP = 26.7%, CI: 22.32-31.59). Asymmetry in the funnel plot was found, and a slight increase in the estimate of overall psychopathology (29.08%, CI: 26.42-31.89) was found after the trim and fill analysis. Conclusions: The prevalence of mental health problems ranged from 20 to 36%. HCW presented a higher prevalence of psychophysiological stress than the general population. Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=252221, identifier: CRD42021252221.
| S-EPMC8490780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe challenge of COVID-19 is very high globally due to a lack of proven treatment and the complexity of its transmission. The prevalence of in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19 was very high which ranged from 1 to 52% of hospital admission. The prevalence of mortality among intensive care patients with COVID-19 was very high which ranged from 6% to 86% of admitted patients.MethodsA three-stage search strategy was conducted on PubMed/Medline; Science direct Cochrane Library. The Heterogeneity among the included studies was checked with forest plot, χ2 test, I2 test, and the p-values. Publication bias was checked with a funnel plot and the objective diagnostic test was conducted with Egger's correlation, Begg's regression tests.ResultThe Meta-Analysis revealed that the pooled prevalence of in-hospital mortality in patients with coronavirus disease was 15% (95% CI: 13 to 17). Prevalence of in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 was strongly related to different factors. Patients with Acute respiratory distress syndrome were eight times more likely to die as compared to those who didn't have, RR = 7.99(95% CI: 4.9 to 13).ConclusionThe review revealed that more than fifteen percent of patients admitted to the hospital with coronavirus died. This presages the health care stakeholders to manage morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus through the mobilization of adequate resources and skilled health care providers.RegistrationThis systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in research registry with UIN of reviewregistry1093.
| S-EPMC7931690 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST1055 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundSince the introduction of specified diagnostic criteria for mental disorders in the 1970s, there has been a rapid expansion in the number of large-scale mental health surveys providing population estimates of the combined prevalence of common mental disorders (most commonly involving mood, anxiety and substance use disorders). In this study we undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of this literature.MethodsWe applied an optimized search strategy across the Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE and PubMed databases, supplemented by hand searching to identify relevant surveys. We identified 174 surveys across 63 countries providing period prevalence estimates (155 surveys) and lifetime prevalence estimates (85 surveys). Random effects meta-analysis was undertaken on logit-transformed prevalence rates to calculate pooled prevalence estimates, stratified according to methodological and substantive groupings.ResultsPooling across all studies, approximately 1 in 5 respondents (17.6%, 95% confidence interval:16.3-18.9%) were identified as meeting criteria for a common mental disorder during the 12-months preceding assessment; 29.2% (25.9-32.6%) of respondents were identified as having experienced a common mental disorder at some time during their lifetimes. A consistent gender effect in the prevalence of common mental disorder was evident; women having higher rates of mood (7.3%:4.0%) and anxiety (8.7%:4.3%) disorders during the previous 12 months and men having higher rates of substance use disorders (2.0%:7.5%), with a similar pattern for lifetime prevalence. There was also evidence of consistent regional variation in the prevalence of common mental disorder. Countries within North and South East Asia in particular displayed consistently lower one-year and lifetime prevalence estimates than other regions. One-year prevalence rates were also low among Sub-Saharan-Africa, whereas English speaking counties returned the highest lifetime prevalence estimates.ConclusionsDespite a substantial degree of inter-survey heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, the findings confirm that common mental disorders are highly prevalent globally, affecting people across all regions of the world. This research provides an important resource for modelling population needs based on global regional estimates of mental disorder. The reasons for regional variation in mental disorder require further investigation.
| S-EPMC3997379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis review provides an estimate of the global prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms among doctors, based on analysis of evidence from the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify suitable studies. Final searches were conducted on 3rd March 2021. Papers were initially screened by title and abstract, based on pre-agreed inclusion criteria, followed by full-text review of eligible studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Data from studies rated as low or medium risk of bias were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore heterogeneity.ResultsFifty-five studies were included after full-text review. Of these, thirty studies were assessed as low or medium risk of bias and were included in primary analyses. These comprised twenty-six studies of depression (31,447 participants) and thirty studies of anxiety (33,281 participants). Pooled prevalence of depression and anxiety was 20.5% (95% CI 16.0%-25.3%) and 25.8% (95% CI 20.4%-31.5%) respectively.InterpretationEvidence from the first year of the pandemic suggests that a significant proportion of doctors are experiencing high levels of symptoms of depression and anxiety, although not conclusively more so than pre-pandemic levels. Differences in study methodology and variation in job demands may account for some of the observed heterogeneity.LimitationsFindings must be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity and moderate risk of bias evident in the majority of included studies.
| S-EPMC8596335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background The COVID-19 pandemic impacted mental health, but the global evolution of mental health problems during the pandemic is not known. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies to evaluate the global evolution of mental health problems during the pandemic. Methods To conduct this systematic review, we searched for published articles from APA PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Web of Science. Longitudinal (at least 2 waves during the COVID-19 pandemic) and peer-reviewed articles on mental health problems conducted as from 2020 and after were included in the current study. Of 394 eligible full texts, 64 articles were included in the analysis. We computed random effects, standardized mean differences, and log odds ratio (LOR) with 95 % CIs. The meta-analysis protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021273624). Results Results showed that anxiety (LOR = −0.33; 95 % CI, −0.54, −0.12) and depression symptoms (LOR = −0.12; 95 % CI, −0.21, −0.04) decreased from baseline to follow up. However, other mental health problems showed no change. Higher prevalence rates (40.9 %; 95 % CI, 16.1 %–65.8 %) of psychological distress were found in months after July 2020, respectively, while there were no significant month differences for the prevalence of other mental health problems. Higher means of anxiety (d = 3.63, 95 % CI, 1.66, 5.61), depression (d = 3.93; 95 % CI, 1.68, 6.17), and loneliness (d = 5.96; 95 % CI, 3.22, 8.70) were observed in May 2020. Higher prevalence of anxiety, depression, and PTSD and higher means of anxiety, depression and loneliness were observed in North America. The prevalence of psychological distress and insomnia was higher in Latin America and Europe, respectively. Limitations There is a lack of longitudinal studies in some parts of the world, such as Africa, the Caribbean, India, the Middle East, in Latin America, and Asia. Conclusions Results indicated that anxiety and depression symptoms decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic while other mental health problems showed no statistical change. The findings reveal that mental health problems peaked in April and May 2020. Prevalence of mental health problems remains high during the pandemic and mental health prevention, promotion and intervention programs should be implemented to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global population.
| S-EPMC9278995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mucormycosis, a secondary fungal infection, gained much attention in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This deadly infection has a high all-cause mortality rate and imposes a significant economic, epidemiological, and humanistic burden on the patients and healthcare system. Evidence from the published epidemiological studies showed the varying prevalence of COVID-19-associated mucormycosis (CAM). This study aims to compute the pooled prevalence of CAM and other associated clinical outcomes. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and WHO COVID-19 databases were scanned to retrieve the relevant articles until August 2021. All studies reporting the prevalence of mucormycosis among COVID-19 patients were eligible for inclusion. Two investigators independently screened the articles against the selection criteria, extracted the data, and performed the quality assessment using the JBI tool. The pooled prevalence of CAM was the primary outcome, and the pooled prevalence of diabetes, steroid exposure, and the mortality rate were the secondary outcomes of interest. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2 was used for performing the meta-analysis. This meta-analysis comprised six studies with a pooled sample size of 52,916 COVID-19 patients with a mean age of 62.12 ± 9.69 years. The mean duration of mucormycosis onset was 14.59 ± 6.88 days after the COVID-19 diagnosis. The pooled prevalence of CAM (seven cases per 1000 patients) was 50 times higher than the highest recorded background of mucormycosis (0.14 cases per 1000 patients). A high mortality rate was found among CAM patients with a pooled prevalence rate of 29.6% (95% CI: 17.2-45.9%). Optimal glycemic control and the judicious use of steroids should be the approach for tackling rising CAM cases.
| S-EPMC8624337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo identify the prevalence of mental health problems and sleep disturbances among nursing students during the COVID-19 pandemic.BackgroundAs a future professional workforce, nursing students are expected to play a role in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic; however, physical and mental health problems may hinder their willingness to stay in the nursing profession. Evidence of the prevalence of the health problems among nursing students related to COVID-19 may allow educators to manage their students' health problems and make them feel more positive about their future careers.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO.Data sourcesDatabases, including CINAHL, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science, were searched for all related journal articles, from database inception to June 29, 2021, published between 2020 and 2021.MethodsThis review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PICOS search strategy. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model was used to estimate the prevalence and potential heterogeneity among the selected studies using the Cochran Q statistic and I-square test. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger intercept test.ResultsSeventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis, representing 13,247 nursing students. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence of four health problems and sleep disturbances were identified. The health problem with the highest prevalence in nursing students was depression (52%). Other COVID-19-related health problems were fear (41%), anxiety (32%) and stress (30%) and sleep disturbances (27%).ConclusionsThe findings from this study showed that strategies are necessary to manage nursing students' teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic or similar future situations. Our results suggest that preparing modified distance learning might reduce the prevalence of health problems related to the educational process. In addition, providing regular mental health assessments or online mental health services to students may improve their mental health and increase their well-being. Nursing education policies regarding clinical practice remain to be formulated to ensure the achievement of competencies to support future careers while considering the mental readiness and safety of students.
| S-EPMC8496961 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the prevalence and risk factors of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We applied an optimized search strategy across the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, and four Chinese databases, with hand searching supplemented to identify relevant surveys. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in peer-reviewed literature and used a validated method to assess the prevalence and risk factors of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Heterogeneity was quantified using Q statistics and the I 2 statistics. The potential causes of heterogeneity were investigated using subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the robustness of the results. Results: We pooled and analyzed data from 20 studies comprising 10,886 healthcare workers. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, post-traumatic stress symptoms, phobia, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and somatization symptoms was 24.1, 28.6, 44.1, 25.6, 35.0, 16.2, and 10.7%, respectively. Female and nurses had a high prevalence of depression and anxiety. Frontline healthcare workers had a higher prevalence of anxiety and a lower prevalence of depression than the those in the second-line. Furthermore, the proportion of moderate-severe depression and anxiety is higher in the frontline. Additionally, four studies reported on risk factors of mental health problems. Conclusions: In this systematic review, healthcare workers have a relatively high prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, post-traumatic stress symptoms, phobia, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and somatization symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, and focus should be on the healthcare workers at high risk of mental problems. Mental health problems in healthcare workers should be taken seriously, and timely screening and appropriate intervention for the high-risk group are highly recommended. Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020179189.
| S-EPMC8239157 | biostudies-literature