Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33648613›Full record

SynthesisPsychological medicine2021

Investigating the effect of national government physical distancing measures on depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic through meta-analysis and meta-regression.

João M Castaldelli-Maia, Megan E Marziali, Ziyin Lu, Silvia S Martins

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychological medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Loneliness, depression, and generalized anxiety across eight countries.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

João M Castaldelli-MaiaDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY10032, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9621-2291
Megan E MarzialiDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY10032, USA.
Ziyin LuDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY10032, USA.
Silvia S MartinsDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY10032, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 physical distancing measures can potentially increase the likelihood of mental disorders. It is unknown whether these measures are associated with depression and anxiety.

objectivesTo investigate meta-analytic global levels of depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic and how the implementation of mitigation strategies (i.e. public transportation closures, stay-at-home orders, etc.) impacted such disorders. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, BIOSIS Citation Index, Current Content Connect, PsycINFO, CINAHL, medRxiv, and PsyArXiv databases for depression and anxiety prevalences; Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker for the containment and closure policies indexes; Global Burden of Disease Study for previous levels of depression and anxiety. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original studies conducted during COVID-19 pandemic, which assessed categorical depression and anxiety, using PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scales (cutoff ⩾10). PARTICIPANTS AND

interventionsGeneral population, healthcare providers, students, and patients. National physical distancing measures. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

methodsMeta-analysis and meta-regression.

resultsIn total, 226 638 individuals were assessed within the 60 included studies. Global prevalence of both depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic was 24.0% and 21.3%, respectively. There were differences in the prevalence of both anxiety and depression reported across regions and countries. Asia (17.6% and 17.9%), and China (16.2% and 15.5%) especially, had the lowest prevalence of both disorders. Regarding the impact of mitigation strategies on mental health, only public transportation closures increased the prevalence of anxiety, especially in Europe. LIMITATIONS: Country-level data on physical distancing measures and previous anxiety/depression may not necessarily reflect local (i.e. city-specific) contexts. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY

findingsMental health concerns should not be viewed only as a delayed consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also as a concurrent epidemic. Our data provide support for policy-makers to consider real-time enhanced mental health services, and increase initiatives to foster positive mental health outcomes.

Indexed as

Federal GovernmentPhysical DistancingAnxietyAsiaChinaCOVID-19DepressionEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthPrevalenceSARS-CoV-2AnxietyCOVID-19depressionpublic transportsocial isolation

Identifiers

PMID33648613
PMCPMC7985907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.