IntroductionTo 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsEighteen 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.ConclusionsOur 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 numberCRD42022309348.

CONTEXT Previous reviews of mental health interventions have focused on adolescents (10–19 years), with a paucity of comprehensive evidence syntheses on preventive interventions for school-aged children (5–10 years). OBJECTIVE To summarize and synthesize the available evidence from systematic reviews of mental health and positive development interventions for children aged 5–14.9 years in both high-income (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), with a focus on preventive and promotive strategies. DATA SOURCES This overview includes all relevant reviews from OVID Medline, The Cochrane Library, and Campbell Systematic Reviews through December 2020. STUDY SELECTION We included systematic reviews that synthesized empirical studies using experimental or quasi-experimental designs to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in children aged 5–14.9 years. DATA EXTRACTION Data extraction and quality assessment were completed independently and in duplicate by two review authors. The AMSTAR2 tool was used to assess methodological quality. RESULTS We included 162 reviews. The greatest evidence was found in support of school-based universal and anti-bullying interventions in predominantly HIC. Moderate evidence was found for the use of substance abuse prevention, and early learning and positive development interventions in mixed settings. In LMIC-only contexts, the most promising evidence was found for positive youth development programs. LIMITATIONS The review was primarily limited by paucity of high-quality research due to methodological issues and high heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS This overview of reviews highlights the need for further research to consolidate findings and understand the specific criteria involved in creating positive mental health and development outcomes from the various interventions considered.

Suboptimal complementary feeding practices remain highly prevent. This review aims to comprehensively synthesize new emerging evidence on a set of topics related to the selection and consumption of complementary foods. We synthesized evidence related to five key topics focused on nutritional interventions that target the complementary feeding period, based on four systematic reviews that include updated evidence to February 2022. While there have been many studies examining interventions during the complementary feeding period, there is an overall lack of relevant information through which to draw conclusions on the ideal feeding schedule by food type. Similarly, few studies have examined the effects of animal milk versus infant formula for non-breastfed infants (6–11 months), though those that did found a greater risk of anemia among infants who were provided cow’s milk. This review highlights a number of interventions that are successful at improving micronutrient status and anthropometry during the complementary feeding period, including fortified blended foods, locally and commercially produced supplementary foods, and small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplements. Complementary feeding education for caregivers can also be used to improve nutrition outcomes among infants in both food secure and insecure populations.