Search

Objectives Our objective was to assess the effects of mental health interventions for children, adolescents, and adults not quarantined or undergoing treatment due to COVID-19 infection. Methods We searched 9 databases (2 Chinese-language) from December 31, 2019, to March 22, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials of interventions to address COVID-19 mental health challenges among people not hospitalised or quarantined due to COVID-19 infection. We synthesized results descriptively due to substantial heterogeneity of populations and interventions and risk of bias concerns. Results We identified 9 eligible trials, including 3 well-conducted, well-reported trials that tested interventions designed specifically for COVID-19 mental health challenges, plus 6 other trials with high risk of bias and reporting concerns, all of which tested standard interventions (e.g., individual or group therapy, expressive writing, mindfulness recordings) minimally adapted or not specifically adapted for COVID-19. Among the 3 well-conducted and reported trials, 1 ( N = 670) found that a self-guided, internet-based cognitive-behavioural intervention targeting dysfunctional COVID-19 worry significantly reduced COVID-19 anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.90) and depression symptoms (SMD 0.38, 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.55) in Swedish general population participants. A lay-delivered telephone intervention for homebound older adults in the United States ( N = 240) and a peer-moderated education and support intervention for people with a rare autoimmune condition from 12 countries ( N = 172) significantly improved anxiety (SMD 0.35, 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.60; SMD 0.31, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.58) and depressive symptoms (SMD 0.31, 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.56; SMD 0.31, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.55) 6-week post-intervention, but these were not significant immediately post-intervention. No trials in children or adolescents were identified. Conclusions Interventions that adapt evidence-based strategies for feasible delivery may be effective to address mental health in COVID-19. More well-conducted trials, including for children and adolescents, are needed.

ObjectivesWe investigated meta-research studies that evaluated adherence to prominent reporting guidelines (CONSORT, PRISMA, STARD, STROBE) in health research studies to determine the proportion that (1) provided an explanation for how complex guideline items were rated for adherence and (2) provided results from individual studies reviewed in addition to aggregate results. We also examined the conclusions of each meta-research study to assess redundancy of findings across studies.DesignCross-sectional meta-research review.Data sourcesMEDLINE (Ovid) searched on July 5, 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies in any language were eligible if they used any version of the CONSORT, PRISMA, STARD, or STROBE reporting guidelines or their extensions to evaluate reporting in at least 10 human health research studies. We excluded studies that modified a reporting guideline or its items or evaluated fewer than half of reporting guideline items. Main outcomes were (1) the proportion of meta-research studies that provided a coding explanation that could be used to replicate the study or verify its results and (2) the proportion that provided individual-level study results in the main text, supplemental materials, or via an internet link.ResultsOf 148 included meta-research studies, 14 (10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6% to 15%) provided a fully replicable coding explanation, and 49 (33%, 95% CI 26% to 41%) completely reported individual study results. Of 90 studies that classified reporting as adequate or inadequate in the study abstract, 6 (7%, 95% CI 3% to 14%) concluded that reporting was adequate but none of those 6 studies provided information on how items were coded or provided item-level results for included studies.ConclusionsMuch of published meta-research on reporting in health research is likely wasteful. Few studies report enough information for verification or replication, and almost all find that reporting in health research studies is suboptimal. These findings highlight the importance of shifting the focus from assessing reporting adequacy to developing, testing, and implementing strategies to improve reporting.FundingThere was no specific funding for this study.ProtocolPosted on the Open Science Framework June 29, 2022 (https://osf.io/gtm4z/).

ObjectiveTo synthesise results of mental health outcomes in cohorts before and during the covid-19 pandemic.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Open Science Framework Preprints.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies comparing general mental health, anxiety symptoms, or depression symptoms assessed from 1 January 2020 or later with outcomes collected from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 in any population, and comprising ≥90% of the same participants before and during the covid-19 pandemic or using statistical methods to account for missing data. Restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analyses (worse covid-19 outcomes representing positive change) were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies.ResultsAs of 11 April 2022, 94 411 unique titles and abstracts including 137 unique studies from 134 cohorts were reviewed. Most of the studies were from high income (n=105, 77%) or upper middle income (n=28, 20%) countries. Among general population studies, no changes were found for general mental health (standardised mean difference (SMD)change0.11, 95% confidence interval −0.00 to 0.22) or anxiety symptoms (0.05, −0.04 to 0.13), but depression symptoms worsened minimally (0.12, 0.01 to 0.24). Among women or female participants, general mental health (0.22, 0.08 to 0.35), anxiety symptoms (0.20, 0.12 to 0.29), and depression symptoms (0.22, 0.05 to 0.40) worsened by minimal to small amounts. In 27 other analyses across outcome domains among subgroups other than women or female participants, five analyses suggested that symptoms worsened by minimal or small amounts, and two suggested minimal or small improvements. No other subgroup experienced changes across all outcome domains. In three studies with data from March to April 2020 and late 2020, symptoms were unchanged from pre-covid-19 levels at both assessments or increased initially then returned to pre-covid-19 levels. Substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias were present across analyses.ConclusionsHigh risk of bias in many studies and substantial heterogeneity suggest caution in interpreting results. Nonetheless, most symptom change estimates for general mental health, anxiety symptoms, and depression symptoms were close to zero and not statistically significant, and significant changes were of minimal to small magnitudes. Small negative changes occurred for women or female participants in all domains. The authors will update the results of this systematic review as more evidence accrues, with study results posted online (https://www.depressd.ca/covid-19-mental-health).Review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179703.

ImportanceWomen and gender-diverse individuals have faced disproportionate socioeconomic burden during COVID-19. There have been reports that this has translated into greater negative changes in mental health, but this has been based on cross-sectional research that has not accounted for pre-COVID-19 differences.ObjectiveTo compare mental health symptom changes since pre-COVID-19 by sex or gender.Data SourcesMEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Open Science Framework (December 31, 2019 to August 30, 2021).Study SelectionEligible studies compared mental health symptom changes from pre-COVID-19 to COVID-19 by sex or gender.Data Extraction and SynthesisData was extracted by a single reviewer with validation by a second reviewer. Adequacy of study methods and reporting was assessed using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies. A restricted maximum-likelihood random-effects meta-analyses was conducted.Main Outcomes and MeasuresAnxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, general mental health, and stress measured continuously or dichotomously.Results12 studies (10 unique cohorts) were included. All compared females or women to males or men; none included gender-diverse individuals. Continuous symptom change differences were not statistically significant for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD]= 0.12, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.33; 4 studies, 4,475 participants; I2=69.0%) and stress (SMD= - 0.10, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.01; 4 studies, 1,533 participants; I2=0.0%), but anxiety (SMD= 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.22; 4 studies, 4,344 participants; I2=3.0%) and general mental health (SMD= 0.15, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.18; 3 studies, 15,692 participants; I2=0.0%) worsened more among females or women than males or men during COVID-19. There were no significant differences in changes in proportion above a cut-off: anxiety (difference= -0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.11; 1 study, 217 participants), depression (difference= 0.12, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.28; 1 study, 217 participants), general mental health (difference= -0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04; 3 studies, 18,985 participants; I2=94.0%), stress (difference= 0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.17; 1 study, 217 participants).Conclusion and RelevanceMental health outcomes did not differ or were worse by amounts below thresholds for clinical significance for women compared to men.RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42020179703).KEY MESSAGESQuestionDid mental health symptoms worsen more for females or women than males or men in COVID-19?FindingsWe reviewed almost 65,000 citations and identified 12 studies that provided data to directly compare mental health symptom changes from pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 for females or women versus males or men. Statistically significant, but small, sex- or gender-based differences were found in 2 of 8 mental health outcomes.MeaningMental health changes among females or women were not significantly different from males or men for most outcomes, and differences that were identified were small and less than minimally important difference thresholds.

ObjectivesThe rapid pace, high volume, and limited quality of mental health evidence that has been generated during COVID-19 poses a barrier to understanding mental health outcomes. We sought to summarize results from studies that compared mental health outcomes during COVID-19 to outcomes assessed prior to COVID-19 in the same cohort in the general population and in other groups for which data have been reported.DesignLiving systematic review.Data SourcesMEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator).Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesFor this report, we included studies that compared general mental health, anxiety symptoms, or depression symptoms, assessed January 1, 2020 or later, to the same outcomes collected between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Any population was eligible. We required ≥ 90% of participants pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 to be the same or the use of statistical methods to address missing data. For population groups with continuous outcomes for at least two studies in an outcome domain, we conducted restricted maximum-likelihood random-effects meta-analyses. Worse COVID-19 mental health outcomes are reported as positive. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies.ResultsAs of April 11, 2022, we had reviewed 94,411 unique titles and abstracts and identified 137 unique eligible studies with data from 134 cohorts. Almost all studies were from high-income (105, 77%) or upper-middle income (28, 20%) countries. Among adult general population studies, we did not find changes in general mental health (standardized mean difference of change [SMDchange= 0.11, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.22) or anxiety symptoms (SMDchange= 0.05, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.13), but depression symptoms worsened minimally (SMDchange= 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.24). Among women or females, mental health symptoms worsened by minimal to small amounts in general mental health (SMDchange= 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.35), anxiety symptoms (SMDchange= 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.29), and depression symptoms (SMDchange= 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.40). Of 27 other analyses across outcome domains, among subgroups other than women or females, 5 analyses suggested minimal or small amounts of symptom worsening, and 2 suggested minimal or small symptom improvements. No other subgroup experienced statistically significant changes across outcome domains. In the 3 studies with data from March to April 2020 and later in 2020, symptoms either were unchanged from pre-COVID-19 at both time points or increased initially then returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. Heterogeneity measured by the I2statistic was high (e.g., > 80%) for most analyses, and there was concerning risk of bias in most studies.ConclusionsHigh risk of bias in many studies and substantial heterogeneity suggest that point estimates should be interpreted cautiously. Nonetheless, there was general consistency across analyses in that most symptom change estimates were close to zero and not statistically significant, and changes that were identified were of minimal to small magnitudes. There were, however, small negative changes for women or females in all domains. It is possible that gaps in data have not allowed identification of changes in some vulnerable groups. Continued updating is needed as evidence accrues.Funding:Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CMS-171703; MS1-173070; GA4-177758; WI2-179944); McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity Emergency COVID-19 Research Fund (R2-42).Registration:PROSPERO (CRD42020179703); registered on April 17, 2020.

BackgroundScalable interventions to address COVID-19 mental health are needed. Our objective was to assess effects of mental health interventions for community-based children, adolescents, and adults.MethodsWe searched 9 databases (2 Chinese-language) from December 31, 2019 to March 22, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials with non-hospitalised, non-quarantined participants of interventions to address COVID-19 mental health challenges. We synthesized results descriptively but did not pool quantitatively due to substantial heterogeneity of populations and interventions and concerns about risk of bias.FindingsWe identified 9 eligible trials, including 3 well-conducted, well-reported trials that tested interventions designed specifically for COVID-19 mental health challenges, plus 6 trials of standard interventions (e.g., individual or group therapy, expressive writing, mindfulness recordings) minimally adapted for COVID-19, all with risk of bias concerns. Among the 3 COVID-19-specific intervention trials, one (N = 670) found that a self-guided, internet-based cognitive-behavioural intervention targeting dysfunctional COVID-19 worry significantly reduced COVID-19 anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.90) and depression symptoms (SMD 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55) in Swedish general population participants. A lay-delivered telephone intervention for homebound older adults in the United States (N = 240) and a peer-moderated education and support intervention for people with a rare autoimmune condition from 12 countries (N = 172) significantly improved anxiety (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.60; SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.58) and depressive symptoms (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56; SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55) 6-weeks post-intervention, but these were not significant immediately post-intervention. No trials in children or adolescents were identified.InterpretationInternet-based programs for the general population and lay-or peer-delivered interventions for vulnerable groups may be effective, scalable options for public mental health in COVID-19. More well-conducted trials, including for children and adolescents, are needed.FundingCanadian Institutes of Health Research (CMS-171703; MS1-173070); McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity Emergency COVID-19 Research Fund (R2-42).RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42020179703); registered on April 17, 2020.RESEARCH IN CONTEXTEvidence before this studyWe searched for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of interventions to address mental health challenges in COVID-19. We used searches from our living systematic review, which were not limited by study design and reviewed citations through April 29, 2021 from MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator). We identified 4 systematic reviews of interventions for COVID-19 mental health with search dates between April and September 2020. None, however, included evidence from any completed randomised controlled trials on mental health interventions for community-based children, adolescents, or adults during COVID-19.Added value of this studyOur systematic review is the only living systematic review on COVID-19 community-based mental health interventions registered in PROSPERO and, to the best of our knowledge, the first systematic review to synthesize evidence on completed randomised controlled trials of COVID-19 mental health interventions. The sheer volume of evidence being published in COVID-19 poses a barrier to effective synthesis and policy response. We reviewed over 45,000 citations in any language and distilled this to 9 verified eligible community-based trials. Of these, there were 3 well-conducted trials of interventions designed specifically to be scalable to address challenges of public mental health in COVID-19. One trial showed that internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy in the Swedish general population (N = 670) reduced COVID-19 anxiety and symptoms of depression. Trials that tested a lay-delivered telephone support intervention for homebound older adults in the United States (N = 240) and a peer-moderated group intervention for people with a rare autoimmune condition from 12 countries (N = 172) also found that they improved mental health outcomes, although not all outcomes were statistically significant.Implications of all the available evidenceEffective, scalable, and feasibly delivered mental health interventions are needed for the general public and vulnerable groups as lockdown restrictions continue, even intermittently, and because COVID-19 mental health implications will likely persist beyond the pandemic. Although we identified only 3 high-quality trials, they demonstrated approaches that can be feasibly adopted to meet the needs of adults in the general public and vulnerable groups. The successful internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy intervention was made available to the Swedish general public free-of-charge following testing and suggests that online tools tailored for specific concerns in COVID-19 may represent an efficient way of addressing public mental health. Two lay-and peer-delivered interventions, consistent with pre-COVID-19 evidence, suggest that low-intensity, non-professionally delivered, support-oriented approaches can be leveraged among vulnerable groups. The absence of trials of interventions for children and adolescents underlines the need for evidence on scalable strategies for this population, including school-based approaches.