Prevalence of mental health symptoms in children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its accompanying infection control measures introduced sudden and significant disruptions to the lives of children and adolescents around the world. Given the potential for negative impacts on the mental health of youths as a result of these changes, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbances in children and adolescents during the pandemic. We searched major literature databases for relevant cross-sectional or longitudinal studies that included primary and secondary school students or children and adolescents ≤18 years of age. Prevalence values were extracted, logit-transformed, and pooled. Based on 191 included studies with 1,389,447 children and adolescents, we found the pooled prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbances to be 31%, 31%, and 42%, respectively. Age, grade levels, education levels, gender, geographical regions, and electronics use were correlated with the prevalence of mental health symptoms. The prevalence of mental health symptoms also increased with time, although signs of recovery and stabilization were also observed. Overall, the results from this review demonstrate the need for increased mental health research, monitoring, and intervention for children and adolescents during the current and future pandemics.

Efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in COVID-19 management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of acute COVID-19 is still under investigation, with conflicting results reported from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Different dosing regimens may have contributed to the contradictory findings. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SSRIs and the effect of different dosing regimens on the treatment of acute COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Seven databases were searched from January 2020 to December 2022. Trial registries, previous reviews, and preprint servers were hand-searched. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs and observational studies with no language restrictions. PARTICIPANTS: COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients. INTERVENTIONS: SSRIs prescribed after diagnosis were compared against a placebo or standard of care. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Risk of bias was rated using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials version 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, hypoxemia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, ventilator support, and serious adverse events. RCT data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Observational findings were narratively described. Subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of SSRI dose, and sensitivity analyses were performed excluding studies with a high risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Six RCTs (N = 4197) and five observational studies (N = 1156) were included. Meta-analyses associated fluvoxamine with reduced mortality (risk ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) and hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99) on the basis of moderate quality of evidence. Medium-dose fluvoxamine (100 mg twice a day) was associated with reduced mortality, hospitalization, and composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, but low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice a day) was not. Fluvoxamine was not associated with increased serious adverse events. Observational studies support the use of fluvoxamine and highlight fluoxetine as a possible alternative to SSRIs for the treatment of COVID-19. DISCUSSION: Fluvoxamine remains a candidate pharmacotherapy for treating COVID-19 in outpatients. Medium-dose fluvoxamine may be preferable over low-dose fluvoxamine.

Review of frailty measurement of older people: Evaluation of the conceptualization, included domains, psychometric properties, and applicability.

The purposes of this review are to describe the existing research on frailty measurement of older people and to understand their characteristics, with a focus on conceptual definitions, psychometric properties, and diagnostic accuracies. We reviewed the published literature to explore if cross-cultural studies of different types of frailty measurements have been conducted and to determine their applicability in the community setting. Narrative review with limited electronic database search and cross reference searching of included studies was performed. Studies published after year 2001 were searched for using MEDLINE and CINAHL Plus databases with keywords. A total of 5144 search results were obtained, but only 42 frailty measurements were identified in 68 studies. For the type, three different measurements were indicated, namely, self-report instrument (n = 17), clinical observation assessment (n = 19), and mixed frailty assessment instrument (n = 6). Only 12 (29%) measurements examined reliability and validity. Nevertheless, over 35% did not perform any psychometric testing before applying. For diagnosis accuracies, 35 (83%) frailty measurements reported the cut-off value(s) for determining level of the frailty. However, the sensitivity (56%-89.5%) and specificity (52%-91.3%) varied. The applicability was also diverse and some frailty instruments should be only used in some specific population and mode of administration. This review provides an overview of three major types of frailty measurements used in different settings with different purposes. For estimating the prevalence of frailty of older people in a community, the self-report type may be appropriate. The psychometric properties of many reviewed instruments are reported insufficiently. The cut-off value(s) are usually suggested with diverse sensitivity and specificity. Self-report instruments, such as Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), are the most extensively examined in terms of satisfactory psychometric properties. Thus, GFI and TFI, with the current evidence, are recommended to be used in the community setting for frailty screening tools.

The prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and sleep disturbance in higher education students during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its accompanying infection control measures introduced significant disruptions to the routines of many higher education students around the world. It also deprived them of in-person counselling services and social support. These changes have put students at a greater risk of developing mental illness. The objective of this review is to assess the prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and sleep disturbances in higher education students during the pandemic. A systematic search of English and Chinese databases was conducted current to January 1st, 2021. The quality of included studies was evaluated using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and sleep disturbances were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Eighty-nine studies (n=1,441,828) were included. The pooled prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbances was 34%, 32% and 33%, respectively. The prevalence values differ based on geographical regions, diagnostic criteria, education level, undergraduate year of study, financial situation, living arrangements and gender. Overall, the prevalence of depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms synthesized in this study was higher compared to pre-pandemic prevalence in similar populations. Evidently, mental health screening and intervention should be a top priority for universities and colleges during the pandemic.

The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances in COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis.

Evidence from previous coronavirus outbreaks has shown that infected patients are at risk for developing psychiatric and mental health disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances. To construct a comprehensive picture of the mental health status in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances in this population. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Wanfang Data, Wangfang Med Online, CNKI, and CQVIP for relevant articles, and we included 31 studies (n = 5153) in our analyses. We found that the pooled prevalence of depression was 45% (95% CI: 37-54%, I2  = 96%), the pooled prevalence of anxiety was 47% (95% CI: 37-57%, I2  = 97%), and the pooled prevalence of sleeping disturbances was 34% (95% CI: 19-50%, I2  = 98%). We did not find any significant differences in the prevalence estimates between different genders; however, the depression and anxiety prevalence estimates varied based on different screening tools. More observational studies assessing the mental wellness of COVID-19 outpatients and COVID-19 patients from countries other than China are needed to further examine the psychological implications of COVID-19 infections.

Perceived Risk and Protection From Infection and Depressive Symptoms Among Healthcare Workers in Mainland China and Hong Kong During COVID-19.

Psychological health among healthcare workers (HCWs) has become a major concern since the COVID-19 outbreak. HCWs perceived risks of contracting COVID-19, in relation to depression were investigated. It was hypothesized that perceived high risk of contracting COVID-19 (close contact with cases, inadequate provision of personal protective equipment, insufficient infection control training, and presence of symptoms) would be significant predictors of depression. Our cross-sectional survey was completed by HCWs across three regions (Hubei, Guangdong, Hong Kong) between March 9 to April 9 2020 using convenience sampling. Depression was assessed using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Prevalence of depression was 50.4% (95% CI: 44.5-56.2), 15.1% (10.1-21.9) and 12.9% (10.3-16.2) for HCWs in Hong Kong, Hubei and Guangdong, respectively. The strongest significant risk factors for depression, after adjustment, were HCWs who reported the greatest extent of feeling susceptible to contracting COVID-19 and those who reported the greatest difficulty obtaining face masks. HCWs whose family/peers greatly encouraged face mask use had lower prevalence of depression. Access to adequate supplies of personal protective equipment is essential for the psychological health of HCWs working in stressful environments, through potentially easing their perceptions of vulnerability to COVID-19.