Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35012486›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2022

Time trends in mental health indicators during the initial 16 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark.

Michelle T Pedersen, Thea O Andersen, Amy Clotworthy, Andreas K Jensen, Katrine Strandberg-Larsen, Naja H Rod, Tibor V Varga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Comparing the effects of reduced social contact on psychosocial wellbeing before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal survey from two Norwegian counties.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with bipolar disorder in Japan.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Michelle T PedersenSection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thea O AndersenSection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Amy ClotworthySection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Andreas K JensenSection of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Katrine Strandberg-LarsenSection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Naja H RodSection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tibor V VargaSection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. tibor.varga@sund.ku.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-2383-699X

Funding

Velux Fonden 36336
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic and its associated national lockdowns have been linked to deteriorations in mental health worldwide. A number of studies analysed changes in mental health indicators during the pandemic; however, these studies generally had a small number of timepoints, and focused on the initial months of the pandemic. Furthermore, most studies followed-up the same individuals, resulting in significant loss to follow-up and biased estimates of mental health and its change. Here we report on time trends in key mental health indicators amongst Danish adults over the course of the pandemic (March 2020 - July 2021) focusing on subgroups defined by gender, age, and self-reported previously diagnosed chronic and/or mental illness.

methodsWe used time-series data collected by Epinion (N=8,261) with 43 timepoints between 20 March 2020 and 22 July 2021. Using a repeated cross-sectional study design, independent sets of individuals were asked to respond to the Copenhagen Corona-Related Mental Health questionnaire at each timepoint, and data was weighted to population proportions. The six mental health indicators examined were loneliness, anxiety, social isolation, quality of life, COVID-19-related worries, and the mental health scale. Gender, age, and the presence of previously diagnosed mental and/or chronic illness were used to stratify the population into subgroups for comparisons.

resultsPoorer mental health were observed during the strictest phases of the lockdowns, whereas better outcomes occurred during reopening phases. Women, young individuals (<34 yrs), and those with a mental- and/or chronic illness demonstrated poorer mean time-series than others. Those with a pre-existing mental illness further had a less reactive mental health time-series. The greatest differences between women/men and younger/older age groups were observed during the second lockdown.

conclusionsPeople with mental illness have reported disadvantageous but stable levels of mental health indicators during the pandemic thus far, and they seem to be less affected by the factors that result in fluctuating time-series in other subgroups.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultAgedCommunicable Disease ControlCross-Sectional StudiesDenmarkFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthPandemicsQuality of LifeSARS-CoV-2AnxietyCOVID-19LonelinessLongitudinalMental healthMental illnessProspectiveQuality of lifeTime-seriesTrendWorries

Identifiers

PMID35012486
PMCPMC8743441

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.