Changes in the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the pandemic: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

the MHCOVID Crowd Investigators

doi:10.1136/bmjment-2024-301018

Changes in the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the pandemic: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

the MHCOVID Crowd Investigators

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Aim To describe the pattern of the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and examine the impact of containment measures on these trends. Methods We identified articles published until 30 August 2021 that reported the prevalence of mental health problems in the general population at two or more time points. A crowd of 114 reviewers extracted data on prevalence, study and participant characteristics. We collected information on the number of days since the first SARS-CoV-2 infection in the study country, the stringency of containment measures and the number of cases and deaths. We synthesised changes in prevalence during the pandemic using a random-effects model. We used dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the trajectory of the changes in mental health problems. Results We included 41 studies for 7 mental health conditions. The average odds of symptoms increased during the pandemic (mean OR ranging from 1.23 to 2.08). Heterogeneity was very large and could not be explained by differences in participants or study characteristics. Average odds of psychological distress, depression and anxiety increased during the first 2 months of the pandemic, with increased stringency of the measures, reported infections and deaths. The confidence in the evidence was low to very low. Conclusions We observed an initial increase in the average risk of psychological distress, depression-related and anxiety-related problems during the first 2 months of the pandemic. However, large heterogeneity suggests that different populations had different responses to the challenges imposed by the pandemic.

Original language	English
Article number	e301018
Pages (from-to)	1-8
Number of pages	8
Journal	BMJ Mental Health
Volume	27
Issue number	1
Early online date	13 Jun 2024
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2024-301018
Publication status	Published - 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

Funding

TT, NP, AH, and GS received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Nr 198418). AC is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Cognitive Health Clinical Research Facility, by an NIHR Research Professorship (grant RP-2017- 08- ST2- 006), by the NIHR Oxford and Thames Valley Applied Research Collaboration and by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (grant NIHR203316). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK National Health Service, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health.IW was supported by the Medical Research Council Programme MC_UU_00004/06. CK is a UK Academy of Medical Sciences Newton Advanced Fellow and a Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq, Brazil) researcher. \"ME and ADH were supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grants 32FP30-189498 and 193381). From The MHCOVID Crowd Investigators: EO acknowledges research funding from NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford Thames Valley, NIHR Oxford Cognitive Health Clinical Research Facility, NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215- 20005) and Brasenose College Senior Hulme Scholarship. GA was supported by a grant from the Department of Health Planning, Evaluation and Knowledge Management, Government of Navarra, Spain (Ref. 0011-3638- 2020- 000010); the Ramon y Cajal grant RYC2020 ]030744 ]I funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033 and 'ESF Investing in your future'; and by the 2022-2023 Institute for Culture and Society (ICS) challenge on 'Youth, relationships and psychological well-being' of the University of Navarra. TT, NP, AH, and GS received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Nr 198418). AC is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Cognitive Health Clinical Research Facility, by an NIHR Research Professorship (grant RP-2017-08-ST2-006), by the NIHR Oxford and Thames Valley Applied Research Collaboration and by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (grant NIHR203316). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK National Health Service, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health.IW was supported by the Medical Research Council Programme MC_UU_00004/06. CK is a UK Academy of Medical Sciences Newton Advanced Fellow and a Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient\u00EDfico e Tecnol\u00F3gico (CNPq, Brazil) researcher. \u201CME and ADH were supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grants 32FP30-189498 and 193381). From The MHCOVID Crowd Investigators: EO acknowledges research funding from NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford Thames Valley, NIHR Oxford Cognitive Health Clinical Research Facility, NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20005) and Brasenose College Senior Hulme Scholarship. GA was supported by a grant from the Department of Health Planning, Evaluation and Knowledge Management, Government of Navarra, Spain (Ref. 0011-3638-2020-000010); the Ram\u00F3n y Cajal grant RYC2020\u2010030744\u2010I funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033 and \u2018ESF Investing in your future\u2019; and by the 2022-2023 Institute for Culture and Society (ICS) challenge on \u2018Youth, relationships and psychological well-being\u2019 of the University of Navarra.

Funders	Funder number
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
2022-2023 Institute for Culture and Society
European Social Fund Plus
Intensive Care Society
Agencia Estatal de Investigación
Universidad de Navarra
National Health Service	MC_UU_00004/06
NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre	NIHR203316
Ramon y Cajal	030744, RYC2020
National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley	BRC-1215-20005
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung	198418, Nr 198418, 193381, 189498
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico	32FP30-189498
Department of Health Planning	0011-3638-2020-000010
National Institute for Health and Care Research	RP-2017-08-ST2-006

Keywords

COVID-19
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Depression

Access to Document

10.1136/bmjment-2024-301018

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{14fb2974d1ea42f9b948b1359972080d,

title = "Changes in the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the pandemic: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis",

abstract = "Aim To describe the pattern of the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and examine the impact of containment measures on these trends. Methods We identified articles published until 30 August 2021 that reported the prevalence of mental health problems in the general population at two or more time points. A crowd of 114 reviewers extracted data on prevalence, study and participant characteristics. We collected information on the number of days since the first SARS-CoV-2 infection in the study country, the stringency of containment measures and the number of cases and deaths. We synthesised changes in prevalence during the pandemic using a random-effects model. We used dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the trajectory of the changes in mental health problems. Results We included 41 studies for 7 mental health conditions. The average odds of symptoms increased during the pandemic (mean OR ranging from 1.23 to 2.08). Heterogeneity was very large and could not be explained by differences in participants or study characteristics. Average odds of psychological distress, depression and anxiety increased during the first 2 months of the pandemic, with increased stringency of the measures, reported infections and deaths. The confidence in the evidence was low to very low. Conclusions We observed an initial increase in the average risk of psychological distress, depression-related and anxiety-related problems during the first 2 months of the pandemic. However, large heterogeneity suggests that different populations had different responses to the challenges imposed by the pandemic.",

keywords = "COVID-19, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Depression",

author = "Georgia Salanti and Peter, \{Natalie Luise\} and Thomy Tonia and Alexander Holloway and Leila Darwish and Kessler, \{Ronald C.\} and Ian White and Vigod, \{Simone N.\} and Matthias Egger and Haas, \{Andreas D.\} and Seena Fazel and Helen Herrman and Christian Kieling and Vikram Patel and Tianjing Li and Pim Cuijpers and Andrea Cipriani and Furukawa, \{Toshi A.\} and Stefan Leucht and Harrison Nelson and Tsai, \{Tou Yuan\} and Andrea Zucchetti and Alessandro Rodolico and Amin Sharifan and Solis, \{Ana Cristina\} and Antonio Vita and Akira Sato and Lasserre, \{Aur{\'e}lie M.\} and Bartosz Helfer and Carmen Concerto and Chinonso Igwesi-Chidobe and Carlos Rios-Gonzalez and Caroline Zangani and Anna Ceraso and Baldez, \{Daniel Prates\} and Demir, \{Dicle Dilay\} and Raman Sharma and Erika Kalocs{\'a}nyiov{\'a} and Ostinelli, \{Edoardo G.\} and Lin, \{Ying Chun\} and Elena Invernizzi and Beraldi, \{Gabriel Henrique\} and Gamze Erzin and Gandy Dolores-Maldonado and Gonzalo Arrondo and Giulia Ottaviano and Wang, \{Yuan Pang\} and Balbin-Ram{\'o}n, \{Graciela J.\} and Ho, \{Chin Yen\} and Helio Elkis and Irene Bighelli and Liu, \{Yun Chen\} and Hong, \{James S.W.\} and Javier Ballesteros and Jing Tian and Johanna Schneckenburger and Lin, \{Jessie Jingxia\} and Sambo, \{Abdulkadir Usman\} and Smith, \{Katharine A.\} and Lena Feber and Wewege, \{Michael A.\} and Lin Ma and Marialena Trivella and Mattia Marchetti and Mauro Italia and Mengchang Qin and Lin, \{Yi Chih\} and Meenakshi Sharma and Salahuddin, \{Nurul Husna\} and Kenji Omae and Michael Ostacher and Rossella Virgillito and Ogulcan Ciray and Rie Toyomoto and Ethan Sahker and Samuele Cortese and Sanae Kishimoto and Covarrubias-Castillo, \{Sergio A.\} and Letao Sun and Shimeng Dong and Shino Kikuchi and Yun Hsia and Silviya Ralovska and Trevor Thompson and Akira Onishi and Tu, \{Shiue Shiuan\} and Shankar, \{Vidya Giri\} and Virginia Chiocchia and Yikang Zhu and Kazufumi Yoshida and Tu, \{Yu Kang\} and Dongfang Wang and \{the MHCOVID Crowd Investigators\}",

year = "2024",

doi = "10.1136/bmjment-2024-301018",

language = "English",

volume = "27",

pages = "1--8",

journal = "BMJ Mental Health",

issn = "2755-9734",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Changes in the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the pandemic

T2 - a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

AU - Salanti, Georgia

AU - Peter, Natalie Luise

AU - Tonia, Thomy

AU - Holloway, Alexander

AU - Darwish, Leila

AU - Kessler, Ronald C.

AU - White, Ian

AU - Vigod, Simone N.

AU - Egger, Matthias

AU - Haas, Andreas D.

AU - Fazel, Seena

AU - Herrman, Helen

AU - Kieling, Christian

AU - Patel, Vikram

AU - Li, Tianjing

AU - Cuijpers, Pim

AU - Cipriani, Andrea

AU - Furukawa, Toshi A.

AU - Leucht, Stefan

AU - Nelson, Harrison

AU - Tsai, Tou Yuan

AU - Zucchetti, Andrea

AU - Rodolico, Alessandro

AU - Sharifan, Amin

AU - Solis, Ana Cristina

AU - Vita, Antonio

AU - Sato, Akira

AU - Lasserre, Aurélie M.

AU - Helfer, Bartosz

AU - Concerto, Carmen

AU - Igwesi-Chidobe, Chinonso

AU - Rios-Gonzalez, Carlos

AU - Zangani, Caroline

AU - Ceraso, Anna

AU - Baldez, Daniel Prates

AU - Demir, Dicle Dilay

AU - Sharma, Raman

AU - Kalocsányiová, Erika

AU - Ostinelli, Edoardo G.

AU - Lin, Ying Chun

AU - Invernizzi, Elena

AU - Beraldi, Gabriel Henrique

AU - Erzin, Gamze

AU - Dolores-Maldonado, Gandy

AU - Arrondo, Gonzalo

AU - Ottaviano, Giulia

AU - Wang, Yuan Pang

AU - Balbin-Ramón, Graciela J.

AU - Ho, Chin Yen

AU - Elkis, Helio

AU - Bighelli, Irene

AU - Liu, Yun Chen

AU - Hong, James S.W.

AU - Ballesteros, Javier

AU - Tian, Jing

AU - Schneckenburger, Johanna

AU - Lin, Jessie Jingxia

AU - Sambo, Abdulkadir Usman

AU - Smith, Katharine A.

AU - Feber, Lena

AU - Wewege, Michael A.

AU - Ma, Lin

AU - Trivella, Marialena

AU - Marchetti, Mattia

AU - Italia, Mauro

AU - Qin, Mengchang

AU - Lin, Yi Chih

AU - Sharma, Meenakshi

AU - Salahuddin, Nurul Husna

AU - Omae, Kenji

AU - Ostacher, Michael

AU - Virgillito, Rossella

AU - Ciray, Ogulcan

AU - Toyomoto, Rie

AU - Sahker, Ethan

AU - Cortese, Samuele

AU - Kishimoto, Sanae

AU - Covarrubias-Castillo, Sergio A.

AU - Sun, Letao

AU - Dong, Shimeng

AU - Kikuchi, Shino

AU - Hsia, Yun

AU - Ralovska, Silviya

AU - Thompson, Trevor

AU - Onishi, Akira

AU - Tu, Shiue Shiuan

AU - Shankar, Vidya Giri

AU - Chiocchia, Virginia

AU - Zhu, Yikang

AU - Yoshida, Kazufumi

AU - Tu, Yu Kang

AU - Wang, Dongfang

AU - the MHCOVID Crowd Investigators

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - Aim To describe the pattern of the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and examine the impact of containment measures on these trends. Methods We identified articles published until 30 August 2021 that reported the prevalence of mental health problems in the general population at two or more time points. A crowd of 114 reviewers extracted data on prevalence, study and participant characteristics. We collected information on the number of days since the first SARS-CoV-2 infection in the study country, the stringency of containment measures and the number of cases and deaths. We synthesised changes in prevalence during the pandemic using a random-effects model. We used dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the trajectory of the changes in mental health problems. Results We included 41 studies for 7 mental health conditions. The average odds of symptoms increased during the pandemic (mean OR ranging from 1.23 to 2.08). Heterogeneity was very large and could not be explained by differences in participants or study characteristics. Average odds of psychological distress, depression and anxiety increased during the first 2 months of the pandemic, with increased stringency of the measures, reported infections and deaths. The confidence in the evidence was low to very low. Conclusions We observed an initial increase in the average risk of psychological distress, depression-related and anxiety-related problems during the first 2 months of the pandemic. However, large heterogeneity suggests that different populations had different responses to the challenges imposed by the pandemic.

AB - Aim To describe the pattern of the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and examine the impact of containment measures on these trends. Methods We identified articles published until 30 August 2021 that reported the prevalence of mental health problems in the general population at two or more time points. A crowd of 114 reviewers extracted data on prevalence, study and participant characteristics. We collected information on the number of days since the first SARS-CoV-2 infection in the study country, the stringency of containment measures and the number of cases and deaths. We synthesised changes in prevalence during the pandemic using a random-effects model. We used dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the trajectory of the changes in mental health problems. Results We included 41 studies for 7 mental health conditions. The average odds of symptoms increased during the pandemic (mean OR ranging from 1.23 to 2.08). Heterogeneity was very large and could not be explained by differences in participants or study characteristics. Average odds of psychological distress, depression and anxiety increased during the first 2 months of the pandemic, with increased stringency of the measures, reported infections and deaths. The confidence in the evidence was low to very low. Conclusions We observed an initial increase in the average risk of psychological distress, depression-related and anxiety-related problems during the first 2 months of the pandemic. However, large heterogeneity suggests that different populations had different responses to the challenges imposed by the pandemic.

KW - COVID-19

KW - Data Interpretation, Statistical

KW - Depression

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85196241973

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85196241973&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjment-2024-301018

DO - 10.1136/bmjment-2024-301018

M3 - Article

C2 - 38876492

AN - SCOPUS:85196241973

SN - 2755-9734

VL - 27

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - BMJ Mental Health

JF - BMJ Mental Health

IS - 1

M1 - e301018

ER -

Changes in the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the pandemic: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this