Indirect effects of COVID-19 on child and adolescent mental health: an overview of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: To control the spread of COVID-19, mitigation strategies have been implemented globally, which may have unintended harmful effects on child and adolescent mental health. This study aims to synthesise the indirect mental health impacts on children and adolescents globally due to COVID-19 mitigation strategies. METHODS: We included relevant reviews from MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science until January 2022 that examined the impact of COVID-19-related lockdown and stay-at-home measures on the mental health of children and adolescents. Data extraction and quality assessments were completed independently and in duplicate by BC and LH. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 was used to assess the methodological quality. RESULTS: Eighteen systematic reviews, comprising 366 primary studies, found a pooled prevalence of 32% for depression (95% CI: 27 to 38, n=161 673) and 32% for anxiety (95% CI: 27 to 37, n=143 928) in children and adolescents globally following COVID-19 mitigation measures. Subgroup analyses also uncovered important differences for both depression and anxiety by World Health Organization regions with few studies from Africa and relative high burden of anxiety and depression in the Eastern Mediterranean region. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal a high prevalence of depression and anxiety in children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic, globally, compared with prepandemic estimates. These findings highlight the urgency for governments and policymakers to strengthen mental health systems in the COVID-19 recovery, especially in low-and middle-income countries where compounding psychological stress, access and affordability of care and discrepant reporting of mental health in this population remains a challenge. We also provide insight into how to alter mitigation strategies to reduce the unintended negative consequences for the health and well-being of children and adolescents in future pandemics. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022309348.

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).