Abstract
Background
We
conducted
a
systematic
review
aimed
to
evaluate
the
effects
of
non-pharmaceutical
interventions
within
non-healthcare
workplaces
and
community-level
workplace
closures
lockdowns
on
COVID-19
morbidity
mortality,
selected
mental
disorders,
employment
outcomes
in
workers
or
general
population.
Methods
The
inclusion
criteria
included
randomized
controlled
trials
non-randomized
studies
interventions.
exclusion
modeling
studies.
Electronic
searches
were
using
MEDLINE,
Embase,
other
databases
from
January
1,
2020,
through
May
11,
2021.
Risk
bias
was
assessed
Bias
Non-Randomized
Studies
Interventions
(ROBINS-I)
tool.
Meta-analysis
sign
tests
performed.
Results
A
total
60
observational
met
criteria.
There
40
outcomes,
15
anxiety
depression
symptoms,
five
unemployment
labor
force
participation.
paucity
physical
distancing,
barriers,
symptom
temperature
screening
workplaces.
test
indicated
that
lockdown
reduced
incidence
case
growth
rate
(23
studies,
p
<
0.001),
reproduction
number
(11
mortality
death
(seven
0.05)
Lockdown
did
not
have
any
effect
symptoms
(pooled
standardized
mean
difference
=
-0.02,
95%
CI:
-0.06,
0.02).
had
small
increasing
0.16,
0.10,
0.21),
but
publication
could
account
for
observed
effect.
increased
4.48
percentage
points,
1.79,
7.17)
decreased
participation
-2.46
-3.16,
-1.77).
risk
most
moderate
serious.
serious
critical.
Conclusions
Empiric
impact
COVID-19,
it
notable
unwanted
effects.
is
pronounced
still-open
It
important
countries
implement
future
pandemics
consider
strategies
mitigate
these
unintended
consequences.
Systematic
registration
PROSPERO
#
CRD42020182660.
European Neuropsychopharmacology,
Год журнала:
2021,
Номер
55, С. 22 - 83
Опубликована: Окт. 29, 2021
The
global
public
health
crisis
caused
by
COVID-19
has
lasted
longer
than
many
of
us
would
have
hoped
and
expected.
With
its
high
uncertainty
limited
control,
the
pandemic
undoubtedly
asked
a
lot
from
all
us.
One
important
central
question
is:
how
resilient
we
proved
in
face
unprecedented
prolonged
coronavirus
pandemic?
There
is
vast
rapidly
growing
literature
that
examined
impact
on
mental
both
shorter
(2020)
(2021)
term.
This
not
only
concerns
pandemic-related
effects
resilience
general
population,
but
also
challenged
stress
outcomes
across
more
specific
vulnerable
population
groups:
patients
with
psychiatric
disorder,
diagnosed
patients,
care
workers,
children
adolescents,
pregnant
women,
elderly
people.
It
challenging
to
keep
up
date
with,
interpret,
this
increasing
scientific
literature.
In
review,
provide
critical
overview
impacted
human
been
shaped
dominated
wealth
data
which
are,
however,
always
highest
quality
heavily
depend
online
self-report
surveys.
Nevertheless,
it
appears
proven
surprisingly
over
time,
fast
recovery
measures.
Still,
groups
such
as
adolescents
personnel
severely
do
exist.
Large
interindividual
differences
exist,
for
future
pandemics
there
clear
need
comprehensively
integratively
assess
start
personalized
help
interventions
tailored
needs
groups.
Frontiers in Psychology,
Год журнала:
2021,
Номер
12
Опубликована: Апрель 16, 2021
The
COVID-19
outbreak
has
placed
extraordinary
demands
upon
healthcare
systems
worldwide.
Italy's
hospitals
have
been
among
the
most
severely
overwhelmed,
and
as
a
result,
Italian
workers'
(HCWs)
well-being
at
risk.
aim
of
this
study
is
to
explore
relationships
between
dimensions
burnout
various
psychological
features
workers
during
emergency.
A
group
267
HCWs
from
hospital
in
Lazio
Region
completed
self-administered
questionnaires
online
through
Google
Forms,
including
Maslach
Burnout
Inventory
(MBI),
Resilience
Scale,
Intolerance
Uncertainty
Scale
Short
Form
(IU).
Cluster
analysis
highlighted
two
opposite
risk
profiles:
low
high-risk
burnout.
had
lower
resilience
greater
difficulties
tolerating
uncertainty
than
low-burnout
group.
set
general
linear
models
confirmed
that
both
IU
subscales,
prospective
inhibition,
moderated
relationship
(specifically
depersonalization
dimension).
In
conclusion,
results
showed
individual
levels
one's
ability
tolerate
significant
factors
determining
impact
emergency
on
HCWs.
use
emotional
strategies
allow
individuals
stay
critical
situation
without
need
control
it
appears
protect
against
these
circumstances.
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences,
Год журнала:
2022,
Номер
31
Опубликована: Янв. 1, 2022
Abstract
Aims
Due
to
the
coronavirus
disease
2019
(COVID-19)
different
countries
implemented
quarantine
measures
limit
spread
of
virus.
Many
studies
analysed
mental
health
consequences
restrictive
confinement,
some
which
focused
their
attention
on
specific
populations.
The
general
public's
also
requires
significant
attention,
however.
This
study
aimed
evaluate
effects
COVID-19
population's
in
European
countries.
Risk
and
protective
factors
associated
with
psychological
symptoms
were
analysed.
Methods
A
systematic
search
was
conducted
four
electronic
databases
(PubMed,
PsycINFO,
Scopus
Google
Scholar).
Studies
published
up
until
20th
April
2021,
following
eligibility
criteria
selected
for
this
review.
One
thousand
three
hundred
thirty-five
(1335)
screened,
105
included.
Via
network
analysis,
current
investigated
pathways
that
underlie
possible
risk
outcomes.
Results
Anxiety,
depression,
distress
post-traumatic
are
frequently
experienced
during
often
changes
sleeping
eating
habits.
Some
socio-demographic
COVID-19-related
variables
found
be
an
individual's
wellbeing.
In
particular,
being
female,
young,
having
a
low
income,
unemployed
COVID-19-like
or
chronic
disorders,
most
common
symptoms.
Conclusions
pandemic
represented
unprecedented
threat
globally.
order
prevent
morbidity
offer
support
tailored
short-,
medium-
long-term
negative
outcomes,
it
is
essential
identify
direct
indirect
psychosocial
lockdown
measures,
especially
certain
vulnerable
groups.
addition
reduce
curve
viral
transmission,
policy
makers
should
urgently
take
into
consideration
provisions
alleviate
hazards
health.
European Psychologist,
Год журнала:
2021,
Номер
26(4), С. 310 - 322
Опубликована: Окт. 1, 2021
Abstract.
The
COVID-19
pandemic
is
one
of
the
most
serious
health
and
economic
crises
21st
century.
From
a
psychological
point
view,
its
consequences
can
be
conceptualized
as
multidimensional
potentially
toxic
stressor
for
mental
in
general
population.
This
selective
literature
review
provides
an
overview
longitudinal
studies
published
until
June
2021
that
have
investigated
impact
on
European
Risk
protective
factors
identified
are
summarized.
Forty-two
met
inclusion
search
criteria
(
COVID-19,
health,
longitudinal,
Europe)
PubMed,
PsycInfo,
Web
Science
databases
indicate
differential
effects
distress,
depression,
anxiety,
depending
samples
methods
used.
Age-specific
(e.g.,
young
age),
social
female,
ethnical
minority,
loneliness),
well
physical
health-related
pre-pandemic
illness)
were
risk
poor
health.
to
several
such
support,
higher
cognitive
ability,
resilience,
self-efficacy.
Increasing
evidence
supports
assumption
being
with
some
populations
appearing
more
vulnerable
than
others,
although
inconsistencies
arise.
Whether
will
lead
increase
prevalence
disorders
open
question.
Further
high-quality
multi-national
meta-analyses
needed
draw
complete
picture
medRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory),
Год журнала:
2021,
Номер
unknown
Опубликована: Май 11, 2021
ABSTRACT
Objectives
The
rapid
pace,
high
volume,
and
limited
quality
of
mental
health
evidence
that
has
been
generated
during
COVID-19
poses
a
barrier
to
understanding
outcomes.
We
sought
summarize
results
from
studies
compared
outcomes
assessed
prior
in
the
same
cohort
general
population
other
groups
for
which
data
have
reported.
Design
Living
systematic
review.
Data
Sources
MEDLINE
(Ovid),
PsycINFO
CINAHL
(EBSCO),
EMBASE
Web
Science
Core
Collection:
Citation
Indexes,
China
National
Knowledge
Infrastructure,
Wanfang,
medRxiv
(preprints),
Open
Framework
Preprints
(preprint
server
aggregator).
Eligibility
criteria
selecting
For
this
report,
we
included
health,
anxiety
symptoms,
or
depression
January
1,
2020
later,
collected
between
2018
December
31,
2019.
Any
was
eligible.
required
≥
90%
participants
pre-COVID-19
be
use
statistical
methods
address
missing
data.
with
continuous
at
least
two
an
outcome
domain,
conducted
restricted
maximum-likelihood
random-effects
meta-analyses.
Worse
are
reported
as
positive.
Risk
bias
using
adapted
version
Joanna
Briggs
Institute
Checklist
Prevalence
Studies.
Results
As
April
11,
2022,
had
reviewed
94,411
unique
titles
abstracts
identified
137
eligible
134
cohorts.
Almost
all
were
high-income
(105,
77%)
upper-middle
income
(28,
20%)
countries.
Among
adult
studies,
did
not
find
changes
(standardized
mean
difference
change
[SMD
=
0.11,
95%
CI
-0.00
0.22)
symptoms
(SMD
0.05,
-0.04
0.13),
but
worsened
minimally
0.12,
0.01
0.24).
women
females,
by
minimal
small
amounts
0.22,
0.08
0.35),
0.20,
0.12
0.29),
0.05
0.40).
Of
27
analyses
across
domains,
among
subgroups
than
5
suggested
symptom
worsening,
2
improvements.
No
subgroup
experienced
statistically
significant
domains.
In
3
March
later
2020,
either
unchanged
both
time
points
increased
initially
then
returned
levels.
Heterogeneity
measured
I
statistic
(e.g.,
>
80%)
most
analyses,
there
concerning
risk
studies.
Conclusions
High
many
substantial
heterogeneity
suggest
point
estimates
should
interpreted
cautiously.
Nonetheless,
consistency
close
zero
significant,
magnitudes.
There
were,
however,
negative
females
It
is
possible
gaps
allowed
identification
some
vulnerable
groups.
Continued
updating
needed
accrues.
Funding:
Canadian
Institutes
Health
Research
(CMS-171703;
MS1-173070;
GA4-177758;
WI2-179944);
McGill
Interdisciplinary
Initiative
Infection
Immunity
Emergency
Fund
(R2-42).
Registration:
PROSPERO
(CRD42020179703);
registered
on
17,
2020.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research,
Год журнала:
2022,
Номер
158, С. 110917 - 110917
Опубликована: Апрель 14, 2022
To
investigate
the
impact
of
coronavirus
pandemic
on
mental
health
in
hemodialysis
patients,
we
assessed
depression,
anxiety
and
quality
life
with
valid
measures
before
after
start
pandemic.
Data
were
used
from
121
patients
ongoing
prospective
multicenter
DIVERS-II
study.
COVID-19
related
stress
was
measured
Perceived
Stress
Scale
–
10,
depression
Beck
Depression
Inventory
second
edition
(BDI-II)),
Anxiety
(BAI)
Short
Form
12
(SF-12).
Scores
during
first
wave
Netherlands
compared
to
data
prior
linear
mixed
models.
No
significant
differences
found
BDI-II,
BAI
SF-12
scores
between
During
wave,
33%
participants
reported
37%.
These
had
higher
levels
(mean
difference
(MD)
4.7
(95%CI
1.5;
8.0),
p
=
0.005)
BDI-II
(MD
4.9
0.7;
9.0),
0.021)
lower
component
summary
-5.3
-9.0,
−1.6),
0.006)
than
who
did
not
experienced
stress.
already
present
The
does
seem
influence
patients.
However,
a
substantial
subgroup
pre-existent
problems
may
be
more
susceptible
experience