[Evidence syntheses in public health: An overview]. / Evidenzsynthesen in Public Health: ein Überblick.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a high demand for rapid evidence syntheses to answer urgent public health questions. This article provides an overview of different types of reviews for public health questions and a synthesis of existing recommendations for the preparation of reviews. The aim is to support the planning of one's own review and the critical evaluation of published reviews. METHODS: The basis of this summary is an extensive search for guidelines and recommendations for different review types. Furthermore, internal journal clubs were held to determine knowledge needs and to critically discuss the various review types. For results dissemination, fact sheets were developed for the individual review types including the most important information, prerequisites and work steps, as well as a decision tree for identifying the appropriate review type for the respective question. RESULTS: Of the review types identified, Systematic, Rapid, Scoping, Umbrella, and Narrative Reviews were considered in more detail because they are particularly relevant to public health issues. Together with scoping and umbrella reviews, systematic reviews have the highest resource requirements due to the demands for extensive, systematic evidence synthesis and reproducibility. Rapid methods can accelerate the review process, for example by a very narrowly formulated question, a limited literature search, or the execution of certain steps by one instead of two persons. DISCUSSION: Systematic Reviews may be considered as the gold standard, but they were developed primarily for clinical questions relating to interventions. Instead, this article was focused on review types that consider the diversity of questions as well as the predominant use of quantitative methods in the field of public health. The fact sheets developed and the decision tree should enable low-threshold access to reviews while linking the perspectives of research and resource planning. They complement existing guidelines and recommendations. CONCLUSION: To answer the diverse spectrum of public health questions, various types of reviews with various requirements and approaches are available. Given this diversity, a systematic introduction can be helpful for researchers planning or assessing a review.

Time trends in mental health indicators in Germany's adult population before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background Times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to compromise mental health. Despite a large number of studies, evidence on the development of mental health in general populations during the pandemic is inconclusive. One reason may be that representative data spanning the whole pandemic and allowing for comparisons to pre-pandemic data are scarce. Methods We analyzed representative data from telephone surveys of Germany's adults. Three mental health indicators were observed in ~1,000 and later up to 3,000 randomly sampled participants monthly until June 2022: symptoms of depression (observed since April 2019, PHQ-2), symptoms of anxiety (GAD-2), and self-rated mental health (latter two observed since March 2021). We produced time series graphs including estimated three-month moving means and proportions of positive screens (PHQ/GAD-2 score ≥ 3) and reports of very good/excellent mental health, as well as smoothing curves. We also compared time periods between years. Analyses were stratified by sex, age, and level of education. Results While mean depressive symptom scores declined from the first wave of the pandemic to summer 2020, they increased from October 2020 and remained consistently elevated throughout 2021 with another increase between 2021 and 2022. Correspondingly, the proportion of positive screens first decreased from 11.1% in spring/summer 2019 to 9.3% in the same period in 2020 and then rose to 13.1% in 2021 and to 16.9% in 2022. While depressive symptoms increased in all subgroups at different times, developments among women (earlier increase), the youngest (notable increase in 2021) and eldest adults, as well as the high level of education group (both latter groups: early, continuous increases) stand out. However, the social gradient in symptom levels between education groups remained unchanged. Symptoms of anxiety also increased while self-rated mental health decreased between 2021 and 2022. Conclusion Elevated symptom levels and reduced self-rated mental health at the end of our observation period in June 2022 call for further continuous mental health surveillance. Mental healthcare needs of the population should be monitored closely. Findings should serve to inform policymakers and clinicians of ongoing dynamics to guide health promotion, prevention, and care.

[Mental health surveillance at the Robert Koch Institute - strategies for monitoring the mental health of the population]. / Mental Health Surveillance am Robert Koch-Institut ­ Strategien zur Beobachtung der psychischen Gesundheit der Bevölkerung.

The continuous and systematic surveillance of the health of populations is fundamental for effective public health practice. In light of the growing importance of mental health within population health, a Mental Health Surveillance for Germany is being established at the Robert Koch Institute. Its aim is to continually provide reliable information on the current state and development of the mental health of the population.Three surveillance strategies are currently being pursued: 1) Regular comprehensive assessments aim to describe the mental health status of the population using a wide range of indicators and data sources and to observe long-term developments. They build on existing work in epidemiology and health services research. 2) High-frequency monitoring of a selection of indicators is used for the early detection of trends. 3) A continuous literature review collates current findings on mental health developments in the COVID-19 pandemic on a monthly basis. The latter two strategies were implemented in response to new information needs in the pandemic.This paper describes and discusses these three strategies and their functions, limitations, and potential for development. Their results are communicated through different forms of reporting and serve to identify needs for action and research in public mental health. The further development and long-term operation of the Mental Health Surveillance as a whole has the potential to facilitate the achievement of public mental health objectives and to contribute on different levels to the improvement of population health.

Time trends in mental health indicators in Germany's adult population before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to compromise mental health. Despite a large number of studies, evidence on the development of mental health in general populations during the pandemic is inconclusive. One reason may be that representative data spanning the whole pandemic and allowing for comparisons to pre-pandemic data are scarce. Methods: We analyzed representative data from telephone surveys of Germany's adults. Three mental health indicators were observed in ~1,000 and later up to 3,000 randomly sampled participants monthly until June 2022: symptoms of depression (observed since April 2019, PHQ-2), symptoms of anxiety (GAD-2), and self-rated mental health (latter two observed since March 2021). We produced time series graphs including estimated three-month moving means and proportions of positive screens (PHQ/GAD-2 score ≥ 3) and reports of very good/excellent mental health, as well as smoothing curves. We also compared time periods between years. Analyses were stratified by sex, age, and level of education. Results: While mean depressive symptom scores declined from the first wave of the pandemic to summer 2020, they increased from October 2020 and remained consistently elevated throughout 2021 with another increase between 2021 and 2022. Correspondingly, the proportion of positive screens first decreased from 11.1% in spring/summer 2019 to 9.3% in the same period in 2020 and then rose to 13.1% in 2021 and to 16.9% in 2022. While depressive symptoms increased in all subgroups at different times, developments among women (earlier increase), the youngest (notable increase in 2021) and eldest adults, as well as the high level of education group (both latter groups: early, continuous increases) stand out. However, the social gradient in symptom levels between education groups remained unchanged. Symptoms of anxiety also increased while self-rated mental health decreased between 2021 and 2022. Conclusion: Elevated symptom levels and reduced self-rated mental health at the end of our observation period in June 2022 call for further continuous mental health surveillance. Mental healthcare needs of the population should be monitored closely. Findings should serve to inform policymakers and clinicians of ongoing dynamics to guide health promotion, prevention, and care.

Mental health of the adult population in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid Review.

This rapid review examines how the mental health of adults in the general population in Germany changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a systematic literature search and included 68 publications as of July 30 2021. The underlying studies were classified according to their suitability for representative statements for the general population and for estimating changes in mental health over time. In addition, the observation period and operationalisation of outcomes were considered. The first wave of infection and the summer plateau were mapped by 65% of the studies. Studies that were particularly suitable for representative statements due to their research design showed mixed results, which tend to indicate a largely resilient adult population with a proportion of vulnerable individuals. A predominantly negative development of mental health was described by results from more bias-prone study designs. Routine data analyses showed decreases in outpatient and especially inpatient care, increased use of a crisis service, mixed results for outpatient diagnoses, incapacity to work and mortality as well as indications of shifts in the spectrum of diagnoses. As the current evidence is ambiguous, generalised statements should be reflected in favour of a differentiated view. There is a need for research on the further course of the pandemic, specific risk groups and the prevalence of mental disorders.