Reimagining the journey to recovery: The COVID-19 pandemic and global mental health.

In this editorial, guest editors Vikram Patel, Daisy Fancourt, Lola Kola, and Toshi Furukawa discuss the contents of the special issue on the pandemic and global mental health, highlighting key themes and providing important context.

Some concerns about imputation methods for missing data

Comments on an article by RJ Van Lieshout et al. (see record 2022-41504-002). Van Lieshout and colleagues1 conducted a randomized clinical trial of an online 1-day cognitive behavioral therapy workshop vs waiting list in a population at risk of postpartum depression and evaluated the effect using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, a patient-reported outcome measure of depressive symptom severity. Second, although they used LMM, we have concerns about whether this method adequately imputed the missing outcomes. In general, repeated outcome measurements are required to correctly estimate the missing values using LMM. However, this study had only a single follow-up point, and in LMM the baseline measure must be used as a covariate and not as an outcome. We wonder how such a model could have accounted for missing outcomes. More details about the specific LMM methods used would be helpful. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

CBT treatment delivery formats for panic disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Several in-person and remote delivery formats of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for panic disorder are available, but up-to-date and comprehensive evidence on their comparative efficacy and acceptability is lacking. Our aim was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of all CBT delivery formats to treat panic disorder. To answer our question we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL, from inception to 1st January 2022. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO. We found a total of 74 trials with 6699 participants. Evidence suggests that face-to-face group [standardised mean differences (s.m.d.) -0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.87 to -0.07; CINeMA = moderate], face-to-face individual (s.m.d. -0.43, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.15; CINeMA = Moderate), and guided self-help (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.07; CINeMA = low), are superior to treatment as usual in terms of efficacy, whilst unguided self-help is not (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.16; CINeMA = low). In terms of acceptability (i.e. all-cause discontinuation from the trial) CBT delivery formats did not differ significantly from each other. Our findings are clear in that there are no efficacy differences between CBT delivered as guided self-help, or in the face-to-face individual or group format in the treatment of panic disorder. No CBT delivery format provided high confidence in the evidence at the CINeMA evaluation.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Control Measures on the Mental Health of the General Population : A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To what extent the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures influenced mental health in the general population is still unclear. PURPOSE: To assess the trajectory of mental health symptoms during the first year of the pandemic and examine dose-response relations with characteristics of the pandemic and its containment. DATA SOURCES: Relevant articles were identified from the living evidence database of the COVID-19 Open Access Project, which indexes COVID-19-related publications from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo. Preprint publications were not considered. STUDY SELECTION: Longitudinal studies that reported data on the general population's mental health using validated scales and that were published before 31 March 2021 were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: An international crowd of 109 trained reviewers screened references and extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, and symptom scores at each timepoint. Data were also included for the following country-specific variables: days since the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the stringency of governmental containment measures, and the cumulative numbers of cases and deaths. DATA SYNTHESIS: In a total of 43 studies (331 628 participants), changes in symptoms of psychological distress, sleep disturbances, and mental well-being varied substantially across studies. On average, depression and anxiety symptoms worsened in the first 2 months of the pandemic (standardized mean difference at 60 days, -0.39 [95% credible interval, -0.76 to -0.03]); thereafter, the trajectories were heterogeneous. There was a linear association of worsening depression and anxiety with increasing numbers of reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increasing stringency in governmental measures. Gender, age, country, deprivation, inequalities, risk of bias, and study design did not modify these associations. LIMITATIONS: The certainty of the evidence was low because of the high risk of bias in included studies and the large amount of heterogeneity. Stringency measures and surges in cases were strongly correlated and changed over time. The observed associations should not be interpreted as causal relationships. CONCLUSION: Although an initial increase in average symptoms of depression and anxiety and an association between higher numbers of reported cases and more stringent measures were found, changes in mental health symptoms varied substantially across studies after the first 2 months of the pandemic. This suggests that different populations responded differently to the psychological stress generated by the pandemic and its containment measures. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Swiss National Science Foundation. (PROSPERO: CRD42020180049).

Retracted randomized controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been retracted. METHODS: In this meta-epidemiological study, we included SRs and CPGs citing the retracted RCTs from the Retraction Watch Database. We investigated how often the retracted RCTs were cited in SRs and CPGs. We also investigated whether and when such SRs and CPGs corrected themselves. RESULTS: We identified 587 articles (525 SRs and 62 CPGs) citing retracted RCTs. Among the 587 articles, 252 (43%) were published after retraction, and 335 (57%) were published before retraction. Among 127 articles published citing already retracted RCTs in their evidence synthesis without caution, none corrected themselves after publication. Of 335 articles published before retraction, 239 included RCTs that were later retracted in their evidence synthesis. Among them, only 5% of SRs (9/196) and 5% of CPGs (2/43) corrected or retracted their results. CONCLUSION: Many SRs and CPGs included already or later retracted RCTs without caution. Most of them were never corrected. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs.

Psychological Impact of Masks and Infection-Prevention Plastic Partitions on Anxiety for Infection and Patient-Doctor Relationships During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: To investigate the impact of masks and plastic partitions on patient-doctor communication and subjective anxiety for infection in patients with psychiatric disorders.Methods: Subjects were patients who visited a psychiatric clinic in Japan from April 27 to August 31, 2020. Anxiety of being infected and the psychological barrier to communication were evaluated on a 5-point scale.Results: The final analysis included 425 patients. Most participants answered that there was no change with regard to communication when the doctor was wearing a mask (n = 353, 91.0%) or using a plastic partition (n = 318, 82.8%). Most participants responded that anxiety for being infected was very mild, a little mild, or not changed by the doctor wearing a mask and using a plastic partition. Most participants felt significantly less anxiety with the doctor wearing a mask/using a plastic partition before than after the state of emergency declaration (P = .005 for mask and P < .001 for plastic partition). Participants in the older age range felt significantly higher anxiety compared to those in the younger and middle age range groups from doctors wearing masks (P < .001) and compared to those in the middle age range group from plastic partitions (P = .001).Conclusions: Use of masks and plastic partitions in psychiatric practice is recommended, as it may result in reduction of anxiety for infection without affecting patient-doctor communication in patients with psychiatric disorders. The generalizability of the results of the present study should be tested.