Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Living through the psychological consequences of COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review of effective mitigating interventions.
Lekagul, Angkana; Piancharoen, Peeraya; Chattong, Anamika; Suradom, Chawisa; Tangcharoensathien, Viroj.
  • Lekagul A; International Health Policy Program, Amphur Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand angkana@ihpp.thaigov.net.
  • Piancharoen P; International Health Policy Program, Amphur Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
  • Chattong A; International Health Policy Program, Amphur Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
  • Suradom C; Psychiatry, Chiang Mai University Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
  • Tangcharoensathien V; International Health Policy Program, Amphur Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
BMJ Open ; 12(7): e060804, 2022 07 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1962303
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

This review assesses interventions and their effectiveness in mitigating psychological consequences from pandemic.

METHOD:

Published English literatures were searched from four databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO) from January 2020 and September 2021. A total of 27 papers with 29 studies (one paper reported three studies) met inclusion criteria. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool is applied to assess the quality of all randomised controlled trials (RCT).

RESULTS:

All studies were recently conducted in 2020. Publications were from high-income (13, 44.8%), upper middle-income (12, 41.4%) and lower middle-income countries (3, 10.3%) and global (1, 3.5%). Half of the studies conducted for general population (51.7%). One-third of studies (8, 27.6%) provided interventions to patients with COVID-19 and 20.7% to healthcare workers. Of the 29 studies, 14 (48.3%) were RCT. All RCTs were assessed for risk of biases; five studies (15, 35.7%) had low risk as measured against all six dimensions reflecting high-quality study.Of these 29 studies, 26 diagnostic or screening measures were applied; 8 (30.9%) for anxiety, 7 (26.9%) for depression, 5 (19.2%) for stress, 5 (19.2%) for insomnia and 1 (3.8%) for suicide. Measures used to assess the baseline and outcomes of interventions were standardised and widely applied by other studies with high level of reliability and validity. Of 11 RCT studies, 10 (90.9%) showed that anxiety interventions significantly lowered anxiety in intervention groups. Five of the six RCT studies (83.3%) had significantly reduced the level of depression. Most interventions for anxiety and stress were mindfulness and meditation based.

CONCLUSIONS:

Results from RCT studies (11%, 78.6%) were effective in mitigating psychological consequences from COVID-19 pandemic when applied to healthcare workers, patients with COVID-19 and general population. These effective interventions can be applied and scaled up in other country settings through adaptation of modes of delivery suitable to country resources, pandemic and health system context.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Topics: Traditional medicine Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: BMJ Open Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Bmjopen-2022-060804

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Topics: Traditional medicine Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: BMJ Open Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Bmjopen-2022-060804