Search

The COVID-19 pandemic arrived with significant hardship. The secondary impacts of the pandemic and our response with respect to pediatric mental health has been a subject of significant discussion in the lay public, media, and decision-maker groups. The initiatives to control SARS-CoV-2 have become politicized. A narrative emerged early that strategies to mitigate the spread of the virus were harming children’s mental health. Position statements from professional organizations in Canada have been used to support this claim. The aim of this commentary is to provide a reanalysis of some of the data and research methodology used to support these position statements. Some of the direct claims such as “online learning is harmful,” should be supported by a strong evidence base with significant consensus that speaks directly to causality. We find that the quality of the studies and the heterogeneity of the results does not support the strength of the unequivocal claims made by these position statements. In a sample of the current literature examining the issue, we find that outcomes range from improvements to deteriorations. Earlier studies relying on cross-sectional surveys typically have shown stronger negative effects than longitudinal cohort studies, which often have also shown groups of children experiencing no changes to measured mental health characteristics or groups that have experienced improvements. We argue it is imperative that policymakers use the highest quality evidence in making the best decisions. We as professionals must avoid discussing only one side of heterogeneous evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]