COVID-19 and mental health in 8 low- and middle-income countries: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated mitigation policies created a global economic and health crisis of unprecedented depth and scale, raising the estimated prevalence of depression by more than a quarter in high-income countries. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) suffered the negative effects on living standards the most severely. However, the consequences of the pandemic for mental health in LMICs have received less attention. Therefore, this study assesses the association between the COVID-19 crisis and mental health in 8 LMICs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the correlation between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health in 10 populations from 8 LMICs in Asia, Africa, and South America. The analysis included 21,162 individuals (mean age 38.01 years, 64% female) who were interviewed at least once pre- as well as post-pandemic. The total number of survey waves ranged from 2 to 17 (mean 7.1). Our individual-level primary outcome measure was based on validated screening tools for depression and a weighted index of depression questions, dependent on the sample. Sample-specific estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between COVID-19 periods and mental health were estimated using linear regressions with individual fixed effects, controlling for independent time trends and seasonal variation in mental health where possible. In addition, a regression discontinuity design was used for the samples with multiple surveys conducted just before and after the onset of the pandemic. We aggregated sample-specific coefficients using a random-effects model, distinguishing between estimates for the short (0 to 4 months) and longer term (4+ months). The random-effects aggregation showed that depression symptoms are associated with a increase by 0.29 standard deviations (SDs) (95% CI [-.47, -.11], p-value = 0.002) in the 4 months following the onset of the pandemic. This change was equivalent to moving from the 50th to the 63rd percentile in our median sample. Although aggregate depression is correlated with a decline to 0.21 SD (95% CI [-0.07, -.34], p-value = 0.003) in the period thereafter, the average recovery of 0.07 SD (95% CI [-0.09, .22], p-value = 0.41) was not statistically significant. The observed trends were consistent across countries and robust to alternative specifications. Two limitations of our study are that not all samples are representative of the national population, and the mental health measures differ across samples. CONCLUSIONS: Controlling for seasonality, we documented a large, significant, negative association of the pandemic on mental health, especially during the early months of lockdown. The magnitude is comparable (but opposite) to the effects of cash transfers and multifaceted antipoverty programs on mental health in LMICs. Absent policy interventions, the pandemic could be associated with a lasting legacy of depression, particularly in settings with limited mental health support services, such as in many LMICs. We also demonstrated that mental health fluctuates with agricultural crop cycles, deteriorating during "lean", pre-harvest periods and recovering thereafter. Ignoring such seasonal variations in mental health may lead to unreliable inferences about the association between the pandemic and mental health.

Gender-Based Violence Risk Mitigation by Non-GBV Specialists Prior to and during COVID-19: A Global Survey of Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Humanitarian Practitioners.

Available evidence indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic and response measures may lead to increased risk of gender-based violence (GBV), including in humanitarian contexts. This study examined the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of humanitarian practitioners related to GBV risk mitigation approaches during COVID-19 in order to refine current guidance and inform future materials. A global, online cross-sectional survey of humanitarian practitioners was conducted between November 2020 and April 2021. We calculated descriptive statistics and used Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests to compare knowledge, attitudes, and practices among GBV specialists and non-specialists. Of 170 respondents, 58% were female and 44% were GBV specialists. Almost all (95%) of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they have a role to play in GBV risk mitigation. Compared to GBV specialists, a higher proportion of non-specialists reported little to no knowledge on GBV risk mitigation global guidance (38% vs. 7%, p < 0.001) and on how to respond to a disclosure of GBV (18% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Respondents reported several barriers to integrating GBV risk mitigation into their work during COVID-19, including insufficient funding, capacity, knowledge, and guidance. Efforts to mainstream GBV risk mitigation actions should continue and intensify, leveraging the lessons and experiences generated thus far.

Measuring gender-based violence risk mitigation in humanitarian settings: results from a comprehensive desk review and systematic mapping.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically document measurement approaches used in the monitoring and evaluation of gender-based violence (GBV) risk mitigation activities, categorise the types of available literature produced by sector, identify existing tools and measures and identify knowledge gaps within the humanitarian sector. DESIGN: Systematic mapping and in-depth review. DATA SOURCES: Pubmed, Global Health, PsychInfo, ReliefWeb, OpenGrey (grey literature), Google Scholar, Web of Science (Social Science Index)Eligibility criteria: a structured search strategy was systematically applied to 17 databases as well as registers, websites and other resources to identify materials published between 1 January 2005 and 15 May 2019. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Those resources that met the inclusion criteria underwent a comprehensive full-text review. A detailed matrix was developed and key data from each resource were extracted to allow for the assessment of patterns in thematic areas. RESULTS: A total of 2108 documents were screened. Overall, 145 documents and 112 tools were reviewed, representing 10 different humanitarian sectors. While numerous resources exist, many lack sufficient information on how to monitor outputs or outcomes of GBV risk mitigation activities. There is also limited guidance on how to integrate the measurement of GBV risk mitigation into existing monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Those reports that aimed to measure GBV risk mitigation activities mostly employed qualitative methods and few measured the impact of a GBV risk mitigation with robust research designs. CONCLUSIONS: Recent efforts to adapt humanitarian response to COVID-19 have highlighted new and existing challenges for GBV risk mitigation. There is a significant gap in the evidence base around the effectiveness of GBV risk mitigation across all sectors. Understanding and strengthening measurement approaches in GBV risk mitigation remains a critical task for humanitarian response.

Prioritizing vulnerable populations and women on the frontlines: COVID-19 in humanitarian contexts.

The COVID-19 outbreak has been declared a global pandemic and cases are being reported among displaced populations that are particularly vulnerable to infection. Humanitarian workers on the frontlines of the response are working in some of the most challenging contexts and also face elevated risk of contracting COVID-19 and potential stigmatization or violence in the community. Women humanitarians may be at even greater risk, but their protection is dependent on organization-specific policies and procedures. Without gender balance in leadership positions, the specific needs of women may not be prioritized and women may not be included in decision-making or design of responses. Ensuring gender equitable access to personal protective equipment and information is imperative, but additional measures must be put into place to ensure the protection of women on the frontlines while reducing COVID-19 deaths and adverse health effects among displaced populations.