Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33875044›Full record

ArticlePsychological medicine2023

Refuting the myth of a 'tsunami' of mental ill-health in populations affected by COVID-19: evidence that response to the pandemic is heterogeneous, not homogeneous.

Mark Shevlin, Sarah Butter, Orla McBride, Jamie Murphy, Jilly Gibson-Miller, Todd K Hartman, Liat Levita, Liam Mason, Anton P Martinez, Ryan McKay and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
18.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 170 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Effects of COVID-19 lockdown on eating disorders and obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Mark ShevlinSchool of Psychology, Ulster University, Derry, Northern Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-6262-5223
Sarah ButterDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Orla McBrideSchool of Psychology, Ulster University, Derry, Northern Ireland.
Jamie MurphySchool of Psychology, Ulster University, Derry, Northern Ireland.
Jilly Gibson-MillerDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Todd K HartmanSheffield Methods Institute, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Liat LevitaDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Liam MasonDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Anton P MartinezDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Ryan McKayDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, London, UK.
Thomas V A StocksDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Kate BennettInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Philip HylandDepartment of Psychology, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Republic of Ireland.
Richard P BentallDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
University of Sheffield · GBUniversity of Ulster · GBNational University of Ireland, Maynooth · IERoyal Holloway University of London · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe current study argues that population prevalence estimates for mental health disorders, or changes in mean scores over time, may not adequately reflect the heterogeneity in mental health response to the COVID-19 pandemic within the population.

methodsThe COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study is a longitudinal, nationally representative, online survey of UK adults. The current study analysed data from its first three waves of data collection: Wave 1 (March 2020,

resultsOverall prevalence of anxiety-depression remained stable, while COVID-19 PTSD reduced between Waves 2 and 3. Heterogeneity in mental health response was found, and hypothesised classes reflecting (i) stability, (ii) improvement and (iii) deterioration in mental health were identified. Psychological factors were most likely to differentiate the improving, deteriorating and high-stable classes from the low-stable mental health trajectories.

conclusionsA low-stable profile characterised by little-to-no psychological distress ('resilient' class) was the most common trajectory for both anxiety-depression and COVID-19 PTSD. Monitoring these trajectories is necessary moving forward, in particular for the ~30% of individuals with increasing anxiety-depression levels.

Indexed as

COVID-19Stress Disorders, Post-TraumaticAdultAnxietyDepressionHumansMental HealthPandemics

Identifiers

PMID33875044
PMCPMC8111207
OpenAlexW3153333405

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.