Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Lancet Public Health ; 7(5): e417-e426, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1799629

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To date, public health policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic have been evaluated on the basis of their ability to reduce transmission and minimise economic harm. We aimed to assess the association between COVID-19 policy restrictions and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this longitudinal analysis, we combined daily policy stringency data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker with psychological distress scores and life evaluations captured in the Imperial College London-YouGov COVID-19 Behaviour Tracker Global Survey in fortnightly cross-sections from samples of 15 countries between April 27, 2020, and June 28, 2021. The mental health questions provided a sample size of 432 642 valid responses, with an average of 14 918 responses every 2 weeks. To investigate how policy stringency was associated with mental health, we considered two potential mediators: observed physical distancing and perceptions of the government's handling of the pandemic. Countries were grouped on the basis of their response to the COVID-19 pandemic as those pursuing an elimination strategy (countries that aimed to eliminate community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within their borders) or those pursuing a mitigation strategy (countries that aimed to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission). Using a combined dataset of country-level and individual-level data, we estimated linear regression models with country-fixed effects (ie, dummy variables representing the countries in our sample) and with individual and contextual covariates. Additionally, we analysed data from a sample of Nordic countries, to compare Sweden (that pursued a mitigation strategy) to other Nordic countries (that adopted a near-elimination strategy). FINDINGS: Controlling for individual and contextual variables, higher policy stringency was associated with higher mean psychological distress scores and lower life evaluations (standardised coefficients ß=0·014 [95% CI 0·005 to 0·023] for psychological distress; ß=-0·010 [-0·015 to -0·004] for life evaluation). Pandemic intensity (number of deaths per 100 000 inhabitants) was also associated with higher mean psychological distress scores and lower life evaluations (standardised coefficients ß=0·016 [0·008 to 0·025] for psychological distress; ß=-0·010 [-0·017 to -0·004] for life evaluation). The negative association between policy stringency and mental health was mediated by observed physical distancing and perceptions of the government's handling of the pandemic. We observed that countries pursuing an elimination strategy used different policy timings and intensities compared with countries pursuing a mitigation strategy. The containment policies of countries pursuing elimination strategies were on average less stringent, and fewer deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: Changes in mental health measures during the first 15 months of the COVID-19 pandemic were small. More stringent COVID-19 policies were associated with poorer mental health. Elimination strategies minimised transmission and deaths, while restricting mental health effects. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Mental Health , Pandemics/prevention & control , Public Policy , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Perspect Psychol Sci ; 17(4): 915-936, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1624929

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 has infected millions of people and upended the lives of most humans on the planet. Researchers from across the psychological sciences have sought to document and investigate the impact of COVID-19 in myriad ways, causing an explosion of research that is broad in scope, varied in methods, and challenging to consolidate. Because policy and practice aimed at helping people live healthier and happier lives requires insight from robust patterns of evidence, this article provides a rapid and thorough summary of high-quality studies available through early 2021 examining the mental-health consequences of living through the COVID-19 pandemic. Our review of the evidence indicates that anxiety, depression, and distress increased in the early months of the pandemic. Meanwhile, suicide rates, life satisfaction, and loneliness remained largely stable throughout the first year of the pandemic. In response to these insights, we present seven recommendations (one urgent, two short-term, and four ongoing) to support mental health during the pandemic and beyond.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Loneliness/psychology , Mental Health , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
4.
Mol Neurobiol ; 58(2): 564-575, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-808452

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 is a highly infectious viral disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. While it was initially regarded as a strictly respiratory illness, the impact of COVID-19 on multiple organs is increasingly recognized. The brain is among the targets of COVID-19, and it can be impacted in multiple ways, both directly and indirectly. Direct brain infection by SARS-CoV-2 may occur via axonal transport via the olfactory nerve, eventually infecting the olfactory cortex and other structures in the temporal lobe, and potentially the brain stem. A hematogenous route, which involves viral crossing of blood-brain barrier, is also possible. Secondary mechanisms involve hypoxia due to respiratory failure, as well as aberrant immune response leading to various forms of encephalopathy, white matter damage, and abnormal blood clotting resulting in stroke. Multiple neurological symptoms of COVID-19 have been described. These involve anosmia/ageusia, headaches, seizures, mental confusion and delirium, and coma. There is a growing concern that in a number of patients, long-term or perhaps even permanent cognitive impairment will persist well after the recovery from acute illness. Furthermore, COVID-19 survivors may be at increased risk for developing neurodegenerative diseases years or decades later. Since COVID-19 is a new disease, it will take months or even years to characterize the exact nature, scope, and temporal extent of its long-term neurocognitive sequelae. To that end, rigorous and systematic longitudinal follow-up will be required. For this effort to succeed, appropriate protocols and patient registries should be developed and put in place without delay now.


Subject(s)
Anosmia/virology , Brain/virology , COVID-19/complications , Coma/virology , Delirium/virology , Headache/virology , Seizures/virology , Blood-Brain Barrier/virology , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL