SynthesisBMJ open2022
Living through the psychological consequences of COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review of effective mitigating interventions.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of a Smartphone-Based Stress Management Program for Depression in Hospital Nurses During COVID-19 in Vietnam and Thailand: 2-Arm Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Trial
- Sustaining the adequacy and competency of CDC Staff in China after COVID-19.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Towards the Science of Engagement with Digital Interventions.Current directions in psychological science · 2024Article
- Mental health impact on patients with COVID-19 in the community under a long period of full lockdown in Vietnam.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Article
- Paro Declaration: commitment to addressing mental health challenges in the South-East Asia Region.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2023Article
- Health Experiences of Nurses during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed Methods Study.Western journal of nursing research · 2023Article
- COVID-19-related mental health difficulties among marginalised populations: A literature review.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2023Review
- Experiences Shared by the (Future) Public Health Workforce during the COVD-19 Pandemic in Germany: Results of a Survey on Workload, Work Content, and Related Challenges among Students and Young Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Global Impact of COVID-19 on Threat Appraisals.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.