ArticleJournal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent2023
Commentary: School closures, the pandemic, and pediatric mental health: Scrutinizing the evidence.
Article in Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- What aspects of the pandemic had the greatest impact on adolescent mental health: duration of lockdown or subjective experience?Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2024Article
- Self-harm among youth during the first 28 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023Article
- RE: Commentary by Black et al (2023).Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent · 2023Article
- Is the journal a place for debates?Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent · 2023Article
- Rejoinder 2: Educating kids during a pandemic: More "farmers," fewer experts.Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent · 2023Article
- Introduction: The influence of COVID-19 pandemic policy on child and adolescent mental health: strong signal or mostly noise?Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent · 2023Article
- Aiming to broaden understanding of issues raised in articles in this journal.Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent · 2023Article
- Rejoinder 1: Advocating for children in the presence of imperfect evidence: A reply to Black et al.Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic arrived with significant hardship. The secondary impacts of the pandemic and our response with respect to pediatric mental health has been a subject of significant discussion in the lay public, media, and decision-maker groups. The initiatives to control SARS-CoV-2 have become politicized. A narrative emerged early that strategies to mitigate the spread of the virus were harming children's mental health. Position statements from professional organizations in Canada have been used to support this claim. The aim of this commentary is to provide a reanalysis of some of the data and research methodology used to support these position statements. Some of the direct claims such as "online learning is harmful," should be supported by a strong evidence base with significant consensus that speaks directly to causality. We find that the quality of the studies and the heterogeneity of the results does not support the strength of the unequivocal claims made by these position statements. In a sample of the current literature examining the issue, we find that outcomes range from improvements to deteriorations. Earlier studies relying on cross-sectional surveys typically have shown stronger negative effects than longitudinal cohort studies, which often have also shown groups of children experiencing no changes to measured mental health characteristics or groups that have experienced improvements. We argue it is imperative that policymakers use the highest quality evidence in making the best decisions. We as professionals must avoid discussing only one side of heterogeneous evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37181442PMC10168612What 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.