Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35882462›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Living through the psychological consequences of COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review of effective mitigating interventions.

Angkana Lekagul, Peeraya Piancharoen, Anamika Chattong, Chawisa Suradom, Viroj Tangcharoensathien

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Towards the Science of Engagement with Digital Interventions.Current directions in psychological science · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. The Global Impact of COVID-19 on Threat Appraisals.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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.

Angkana LekagulInternational Health Policy Program, Amphur Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand angkana@ihpp.thaigov.net.ORCID 0000-0002-7335-9028
Peeraya PiancharoenInternational Health Policy Program, Amphur Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Anamika ChattongInternational Health Policy Program, Amphur Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Chawisa SuradomPsychiatry, Chiang Mai University Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Viroj TangcharoensathienInternational Health Policy Program, Amphur Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis review assesses interventions and their effectiveness in mitigating psychological consequences from pandemic.

methodPublished English literatures were searched from four databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO) from January 2020 and September 2021. A total of 27 papers with 29 studies (one paper reported three studies) met inclusion criteria. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool is applied to assess the quality of all randomised controlled trials (RCT).

resultsAll studies were recently conducted in 2020. Publications were from high-income (13, 44.8%), upper middle-income (12, 41.4%) and lower middle-income countries (3, 10.3%) and global (1, 3.5%). Half of the studies conducted for general population (51.7%). One-third of studies (8, 27.6%) provided interventions to patients with COVID-19 and 20.7% to healthcare workers. Of the 29 studies, 14 (48.3%) were RCT. All RCTs were assessed for risk of biases; five studies (15, 35.7%) had low risk as measured against all six dimensions reflecting high-quality study.Of these 29 studies, 26 diagnostic or screening measures were applied; 8 (30.9%) for anxiety, 7 (26.9%) for depression, 5 (19.2%) for stress, 5 (19.2%) for insomnia and 1 (3.8%) for suicide. Measures used to assess the baseline and outcomes of interventions were standardised and widely applied by other studies with high level of reliability and validity. Of 11 RCT studies, 10 (90.9%) showed that anxiety interventions significantly lowered anxiety in intervention groups. Five of the six RCT studies (83.3%) had significantly reduced the level of depression. Most interventions for anxiety and stress were mindfulness and meditation based.

conclusionsResults from RCT studies (11%, 78.6%) were effective in mitigating psychological consequences from COVID-19 pandemic when applied to healthcare workers, patients with COVID-19 and general population. These effective interventions can be applied and scaled up in other country settings through adaptation of modes of delivery suitable to country resources, pandemic and health system context.

Indexed as

COVID-19AnxietyAnxiety DisordersHealth PersonnelHumansPandemicsCOVID-19mental healthpsychiatrypublic health

Identifiers

PMID35882462
PMCPMC9329730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.