Dataset Information

Living through the psychological consequences of COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review of effective mitigating interventions.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This review assesses interventions and their effectiveness in mitigating psychological consequences from pandemic.

Method

Published English literatures were searched from four databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO) from January 2020 and September 2021. A total of 27 papers with 29 studies (one paper reported three studies) met inclusion criteria. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool is applied to assess the quality of all randomised controlled trials (RCT).

Results

All studies were recently conducted in 2020. Publications were from high-income (13, 44.8%), upper middle-income (12, 41.4%) and lower middle-income countries (3, 10.3%) and global (1, 3.5%). Half of the studies conducted for general population (51.7%). One-third of studies (8, 27.6%) provided interventions to patients with COVID-19 and 20.7% to healthcare workers. Of the 29 studies, 14 (48.3%) were RCT. All RCTs were assessed for risk of biases; five studies (15, 35.7%) had low risk as measured against all six dimensions reflecting high-quality study.Of these 29 studies, 26 diagnostic or screening measures were applied; 8 (30.9%) for anxiety, 7 (26.9%) for depression, 5 (19.2%) for stress, 5 (19.2%) for insomnia and 1 (3.8%) for suicide. Measures used to assess the baseline and outcomes of interventions were standardised and widely applied by other studies with high level of reliability and validity. Of 11 RCT studies, 10 (90.9%) showed that anxiety interventions significantly lowered anxiety in intervention groups. Five of the six RCT studies (83.3%) had significantly reduced the level of depression. Most interventions for anxiety and stress were mindfulness and meditation based.

Conclusions

Results from RCT studies (11%, 78.6%) were effective in mitigating psychological consequences from COVID-19 pandemic when applied to healthcare workers, patients with COVID-19 and general population. These effective interventions can be applied and scaled up in other country settings through adaptation of modes of delivery suitable to country resources, pandemic and health system context.

SUBMITTER: Lekagul A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9329730 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo examine the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical trainees (residents and fellows) working at Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) in New York City (NYC), the initial epicenter of the United States pandemic.MethodThe authors administered a survey to 991 trainees in frontline specialties working at MSH in NYC between April and May 2020. The instrument assessed symptoms of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, COVID-19-related posttraumatic stress disorder, and burnout. Psychiatric screens were aggregated into 1 composite measure, and meeting criteria on any of the 3 scales was considered a positive screen for psychiatric symptoms. The survey also assessed COVID-19-related exposures, worries, coping strategies, and desired interventions. Multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to identify factors associated with psychiatric symptoms and burnout.ResultsOf the 560 respondents (56.6% response rate), 29.7% screened positive for psychiatric symptoms and 35.8% screened positive for burnout. History of a mental illness, COVID-19-related duties and personal/career worries, and coping by substance use were associated with increased likelihood of screening positive for psychiatric symptoms. Positive emotion-focused coping and feeling valued by supervisors were associated with decreased likelihood. Internal medicine and surgical specialties, a history of mental illness, increased duty hours, duty-related worries, personal/career worries, coping via self-blame and venting, and coping via substance use were associated with higher odds of burnout. Feeling valued by supervisors was associated with decreased burnout odds. The most common crisis-related needs included access to personal protective equipment, food provisions, and financial support.ConclusionsPsychological distress and burnout affected approximately one-third of trainees sampled during the height of the pandemic in NYC. As the pandemic surged beyond NYC, these findings suggest that interventions should include addressing basic needs, promoting leadership affirmation, moderating duty hours, supporting trainees financially, and enhancing mental health support.

Project description:IntroductionThe global spread of COVID-19 has raised concerns about its possible impact on mental health. People living with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) are considered potentially vulnerable to the mental health effects of the pandemic, as they may be subject to increased social isolation.AimTo systematically review the current evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health outcomes among PwMS.MethodWe searched four major databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo and Scopus) and the WHO Global Health COVID-19 research database. We included peer-reviewed primary research studies using validated health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and psychometric screening tools to evaluate mental health outcomes among PwMS during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies reporting data on the prevalence of mental health disorders, severity of psychological symptoms and contributing demographic and clinical factors for PwMS during the COVID-19 pandemic were included.ResultsOur initial search yielded 268 records; 19 studies (13 cross-sectional, 6 longitudinal) were included. Most were conducted during a peak in the pandemic in the host country via an online platform. The main mental health outcomes were depression, anxiety, stress, sleep quality and HRQOL. The included studies used a variety of outcome assessment tools and study designs. The prevalence of mental health issues such as depression, anxiety and stress were high among PwMS during the pandemic. In addition, compared to control populations, PwMS experienced more severe symptoms of depression and stress during the COVID-19 outbreak. However, results from longitudinal studies demonstrate that the severity of mental health symptoms among PwMS during the pandemic were not significantly different compared with the pre-pandemic period.ConclusionAlthough mental health issues such as anxiety and depression were common among PwMS during the pandemic, current evidence suggests that mental health among PwMS has not been significantly affected by pandemic-related restrictive measures. Instead, the observed differences may be the result of pre-pandemic differences in prevalence and severity. Where possible, future studies should seek to address the methodological issues identified in the included studies to ensure that data collected during the pandemic can be synthesized into recommendations for policy and practice.