Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health of young people and adults: a systematic review protocol of observational studies

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction</jats:title><jats:p>Since the WHO declared COVID-19 as a pandemic, the spread of the new coronavirus has been the focus of attention of scientists, governments and populations. One of the main concerns is the impact of this pandemic on health outcomes, mainly on mental health. Even though there are a few empirical studies on COVID-19 and mental health, so far, there is no systematic review about the impact of COVID-19 on mental health of young people and adults yet. We aim to critically synthesise the scientific evidence about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of young people and adults.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods and analysis</jats:title><jats:p>A systematic review will be performed through eight databases: MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), ISI-of-Knowledge, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), SCOPUS, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), PsycINFO (Psychology Information) and CNKI (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure), from inception until 30 June 2020. No restriction regarding the publication date, setting or languages will be considered. Preliminary search strategies were carried out on 29 March 2020 and will be updated in June 2020. The primary outcomes will be the prevalence and the severity of psychological symptoms in young people and adults (&gt;18 years old) resulting from the impact of COVID-19 pandemic. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Pooled standardised mean differences and 95% CIs will be calculated. The risk of bias of the observational studies will be assessed through the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS). Additionally, if sufficient data are available, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Heterogeneity between the studies will be determined by the I<jats:sup>2</jats:sup> statistics. Subgroup analyses will also be performed. Publication bias will be checked with funnel plots and Egger’s test. Heterogeneity will be explored by random-effects analysis.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Ethics and dissemination</jats:title><jats:p>Ethical assessment was not required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and will be presented at conferences related to this field.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>PROSPERO registration number</jats:title><jats:p>CRD42020177366.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers at acute hospital settings in the South-East of Ireland: an observational cohort multicentre study

“…Undoubtedly, working in such unprecedented times would affect one's mental well-being. 5 A study undertaken in Singapore found HCWs suffered from a high level of psychological distress and represent a vulnerable group where psychological intervention may be beneficial. 6 With this in mind, our study aims to understand the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic among HCWs at acute hospital settings in the South-East of Ireland, as a crucial step in guiding policies and interventions to maintain their psychological well-being.…”

Effectiveness of mass testing for control of COVID-19: a systematic review protocol

“…The SMD was chosen as a measure of the pooled results considering the likely variability in the measuring scales for continuous outcomes. 42 The effect size will be interpreted by Cohen’s proposal: 0.20 corresponds to a small effect size, 0.50 corresponds to a medium effect size and 0.80 corresponds to a large effect size. 43 …”

“…The SMD was chosen as a measure of the pooled results considering the likely variability in the measuring scales for continuous outcomes. 42 The effect size will be interpreted by Cohen's proposal: 0.20 corresponds to a small effect size, 0.50 corresponds to a medium effect size and 0.80 corresponds to a large effect size. 43 A random effects model will be selected under the assumption that the studies included in the metaanalysis were carried out with heterogeneous populations.…”

“…Heterogeneity will also be tested by the I 2 statistic, which can quantify the heterogeneity as ranging from 0% (no heterogeneity) to 100% (the differences between the effect sizes can completely be explained by chance alone), and the interpretations of the percentages are as follows: 0%-40% indicates potentially unimportant heterogeneity, 30%-60% indicates moderate heterogeneity, 50%-90% indicates substantial heterogeneity and 75%-100% indicates considerable heterogeneity. 42 To explore the heterogeneity across studies, subgroup analysis will be performed using a mixed effects model according to the following variables: sex, population (children, adolescents, young adults, adults and aged), COVID-19 test type and country income classification (high, upper middle, lower middle and low).…”

Covid-19 em Crianças com Câncer

“…Nesse cenário incerto e sem precedentes, imposto pela atual pandemia da Covid-19, grupos de pesquisa e profissionais de saúde têm se preocupado em reunir e fornecer recomendações sobre adaptações razoáveis e seguras para serem aplicadas nos serviços de oncologia, protegendo não só o paciente, como também suas famílias e a equipe de saúde interdisciplinar no cuidado ao câncer 18,19,22,23 . Um exemplo disso é o guia clínico internacional publicado como relato especial na revista Pediatric Blood & Cancer 18 , que reuniu informações das principais organizações de câncer infantojuvenil, tais como a International Society for Pediatric Oncology (SIOP), o Children's Oncology Group (COG) e o St. Jude Global, o qual forneceu orientações de adaptações que poderão ajudar a gerenciar as demandas da pandemia e nortear preparações para os impactos a longo prazo, como diagnósticos tardios 18 .…”