Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35137427›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of clinical psychology2022

Investigating the prevalence of anxiety and depression during the first COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom: Systematic review and meta-analyses.

Luca Marie Dettmann, Sally Adams, Gemma Taylor

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of clinical psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Positive Mental Health of Migrants in the UK during COVID-19: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
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

3 authors.

Luca Marie DettmannAddiction and Mental Health Group, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3057-7444
Sally AdamsAddiction and Mental Health Group, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, UK.
Gemma TaylorAddiction and Mental Health Group, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on mental health. Specifically, the stringent lockdown restrictions have heightened anxiety and depression. Therefore, monitoring and supporting the mental health of the population during these unprecedented times is an immediate priority.

methodsIn this systematic review and meta-analyses, articles that explored the prevalence of anxiety and depression during the first COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom were included. We searched the databases Embase, Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, and PsycINFO for cross-sectional studies. We conducted meta-analyses of prevalence rates using a random-effects model, and the heterogeneity of studies was examined using the I

resultsFourteen studies involving 46,158 participants were included in the review. The studies use clinical cut-off scores on anxiety and depression measures to define cases. While the prevalence of anxiety was 31.00% (95% CI = 26.00 to 35.00), the prevalence of depression was 32.00% (95% CI = 29.00 to 35.00). The prevalence of anxiety pre-pandemic was 4.65%, indicating a 26.35% increase. Whereas the prevalence of depression pre-pandemic was 4.12%, indicating a 27.88% increase. Moreover, participants experienced a slightly greater prevalence of depression than anxiety by 1.00%.

conclusionsTo conclude, the first COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom increased the prevalence of anxiety and depression among the general population, compared to pre-pandemic data. Hence, it is vital that policymakers and mental health services maximize their efforts to monitor mental health and provide interventions to support those in need. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Clinical implications Awareness of the high prevalence of anxiety and depression during the first lockdown in the United Kingdom can inform policy development that substantial effort, time, and funding of mental health services are required to support those in need. Similarly, awareness of the prevalence of anxiety and depression in the United Kingdom can contribute to the development of nation-specific interventions and initiatives. Limitations The current review focuses on the UK general population which does not allow the findings to be generalized to the global population. The indirect comparison of the current prevalence rates with the corresponding pre-pandemic prevalence rates obtained from a different study sample increases individual differences, weakening the reliability of the findings.

Indexed as

COVID-19AnxietyCommunicable Disease ControlCross-Sectional StudiesDepressionHumansPandemicsPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsUnited KingdomanxietyCOVID-19depressionlockdownmental healthUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID35137427
PMCPMC9111383

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.