Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35398753›Full record

SynthesisCurrent opinion in psychology2022

One year on: What we have learned about the psychological effects of COVID-19 social restrictions: A meta-analysis.

Laura Knox, Gery C Karantzas, Daniel Romano, Judith A Feeney, Jeffry A Simpson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current opinion in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. COVID-19 and changes in young adults' weight concerns.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Psychological Reactions during and after a Lockdown: Self-Efficacy as a Protective Factor of Mental Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    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

5 authors.

Laura KnoxDeakin University, Australia.
Gery C KarantzasDeakin University, Australia. Electronic address: gery.karantzas@deakin.edu.au.
Daniel RomanoDeakin University, Australia.
Judith A FeeneyUniversity of Queensland, Australia.
Jeffry A SimpsonUniversity of Minnesota, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article reports on the first meta-analysis of studies on the association between government-imposed social restrictions and mental health outcomes published during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirty-three studies (N = 131,844) were included. Social restrictions were significantly associated with increased mental health symptoms overall (d = .41 [CI 95% .17-.65]), including depression (d = .83 [CI 95% .30-1.37]), stress (d = .21 [CI 95% .01-.42]) and loneliness (d = .30 [CI 95% .07-.52]), but not anxiety (d= .26 [CI 95% -.04-.56]). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the strictness and length of restrictions had divergent effects on mental health outcomes, but there are concerns regarding study quality. The findings provide critical insights for future research on the effects of COVID-19 social restrictions.

Indexed as

COVID-19AnxietyHumansLonelinessPandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19LockdownLonelinessMental healthMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID35398753
PMCPMC8907153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.