Impact of isolation precautions on quality of life: a meta-analysis

Sharma, Abha; Pillai, Dylan R.; Lu, Mingshan; Doolan, Cody; Leal, Jenine; Kim, Joseph; Hollis, Aidan

doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2020.02.004

Cited by 79 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present findings support previous reports suggesting several psychological perturbations and mood disturbances such as stress, depression, irritability, insomnia, fear, confusion, anger, frustration, boredom, and stigma during quarantine periods of earlier infection. 10,20,21 Regarding the COVID-19 related research, first results from Chinese studies indicate that the COVID-19 outbreak engendered anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and other psychological problems. 22,23 The significantly lower total SWEMWBS score and higher total SMFQ score "during" compared to "before" confinement support the negative effects of the current COVID-19 pandemic on mental wellbeing and emotional state in participants from Western Asian, North Africa and Europe.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotional consequences of COVID-19 home confinement: The ECLB-COVID19 multicenter study

Ammar

Mueller

Trabelsi

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Public health recommendations and government measures during the COVID-19 pandemic have enforced restrictions on daily living, which may include social distancing, remote work/school, and home confinement. While these measures are imperative to abate the spreading of COVID-19, the impact of these restrictions on mental health and emotional wellbeing is undefined. Therefore, an international online survey was launched on April 6, 2020 in seven languages to elucidate the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on mental health and emotional well-being. This report presents the preliminary results from the first thousand responders on mental wellbeing and mood and feelings questionnaires. Methods: The ECLB-COVID19 electronic survey was designed by a steering group of multidisciplinary scientists and academics, following a structured review of the literature. The survey was uploaded and shared on the Google online survey platform. Thirty-five research organizations from Europe, North-Africa, Western Asia and the Americas promoted the multi-languages survey through their networks to general society. Of the 64 questions, 7 were from the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS), and 13 were from the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ), which are both validated instruments. Results: Analysis was conducted on the first 1047 replies (54% women) from Asia (36%), Africa (40%), Europe (21%) and other (3%). The COVID-19 home confinement had a negative effect on both mental wellbeing and on mood and feelings. Specifically, a significant decrease (p<0.001 and Δ%= 9.4 %) in the total score of mental wellbeing was noted. More individuals (+12.89%) reported a low mental wellbeing during compared to before home confinement. Furthermore, results from the mood and feelings questionnaire (i.e., depressive symptoms) showed a significant increase by 44.9% (p<0.001) in total score with more people (+10%) developing depressive symptoms during compared to before home confinement. Conclusion: The ECLB-COVID19 survey revealed an increased psychosocial strain triggered by the enforced home confinement. To mitigate this high risk of mental disorders and to foster an Active and Healthy Confinement Lifestyle (AHCL), a crisis-oriented interdisciplinary intervention is urgently needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotional consequences of COVID-19 home confinement: The ECLB-COVID19 multicenter study

Ammar

Mueller

Trabelsi

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Totally, 1364 citations were considered in this review and 771 unique records were screened after removing 593 duplicate records (Figure 1). At the end of full-text screening, a total of eight reviews were included in this umbrella review (Table 2) [28,29, [40][41][42][43][44][45]. These reviews have been published between 2009 and 2020, whereas most (number of reviews, n = 5) reviews were published since 2018.…”

Section: E P U B a H E A D O F P R I N Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most reviews included cohort studies (n = 6; number/range of primary studies in each review, s = 1 to 12), followed by cross-sectional studies ( n = 5, s = 2 to 11), qualitative studies (n = 3, s = 2 to 10), case-control studies (n = 1, s = 6), quasi-experimental studies (n = 2, s = 2), case studies (n = 1, s = 2), mixed method studies (n = 1, s = 2), reviews (n = 1, s = 1), and psychological evaluation (n = 1, s = 1). In quality assessment (Supplementary material 1), three reviews were found to have high quality [28, 44,45], whereas most (n = 5) studies had a medium quality [29, [40][41][42][43].…”

Section: E P U B a H E A D O F P R I N Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Abad and colleagues evaluated studies focusing on isolation [41], whereas three studies specified source isolation across the primary studies [28, 42,43]. Moreover, three reviews focused on contact precaution or isolation [40,44,45]. One study by Brooks and colleagues emphasized on primary studies conducted on quarantine [29].…”

Section: Infectious Diseases or Conditions For Quarantine And Isolatimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several infectious agents or conditions were found to be associated with quarantine or isolation across the study populations. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was the most commonly reported (number of reviews, n =6) reason for isolating the patients [28, [41][42][43][44][45].…”

Section: Infectious Diseases or Conditions For Quarantine And Isolatimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mental health outcomes of quarantine and isolation for infection prevention: A systematic umbrella review of the global evidence

Hossain¹,

Sultana²,

Purohit³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Transmission of infectious diseases is often prevented by quarantine and isolation of the populations at risk. These approaches restrict the mobility, social interactions, and daily activities of the affected individuals. In recent novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, quarantine and isolation are being adopted in many contexts, which necessitates an evaluation of global evidence on how such measures impact the mental health outcomes among populations. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize the available evidence on mental health outcomes of quarantine and isolation for preventing infectious diseases.Materials and methods: We searched nine major databases and additional sources and included articles if they were systematically conducted reviews, published as peer-reviewed journal articles, and reported mental health outcomes of quarantine or isolation in any population.Results: Among 1364 citations, only eight reviews met our criteria. Most of the primary studies in those reviews were conducted in high-income nations and in hospital settings. These articles reported a high burden of mental health problems among patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare providers who experienced quarantine or isolation. Prevalent mental health problems among the affected individuals include depression, anxiety, mood disorders, psychological distress, posttraumatic stress disorder, insomnia, fear, stigmatization, low self-esteem, lack of self-control, and other adverse mental health outcomes.Conclusion: This umbrella review found severe mental health problems among individuals and populations who have undergone quarantine and isolation in different contexts. This evidence necessitates multipronged interventions including policy measures for strengthening mental health services globally and promoting psychosocial wellbeing among high-risk populations.

show abstract

Changes in Patient Experiences of Hospital Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Elliott,

Beckett,

Cohea

et al. 2023

JAMA Health Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceIt is important to assess how the COVID-19 pandemic was adversely associated with patients’ care experiences.ObjectiveTo describe differences in 2020 to 2021 patient experiences from what would have been expected from prepandemic (2018-2019) trends and assess correlates of changes across hospitals.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study compared 2020 to 2021 data with 2018 to 2019 data from 3 900 887 HCAHPS respondents discharged from 3381 HCAHPS-participating US hospitals. The data were analyzed from 2022 to 2023.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was an HCAHPS summary score (HCAHPS-SS), which averaged 10 HCAHPS measures. The primary analysis estimated whether HCAHPS scores from patients discharged from 2020 to 2021 differed from scores that would be expected based on quarterly and linear trends from 2018 to 2019 discharges. Secondary analyses stratified hospitals by prepandemic overall star ratings and staffing levels.ResultsOf the 3 900 887 HCAHPS 2020 to 2021 respondents, 59% were age 65 years or older, and 35% (11%) were in the surgical (maternity) service lines. Compared with trends expected based on prepandemic (2018-2019) data, HCAHPS-SS was 1.2 percentage points (pp) lower for quarter (Q) 2/2020 discharges and −1.9 to −2.0 pp for Q3/2020 to Q1/2021, which then declined to −3.6 pp by Q4/2021. The most affected measures (Q4/2021) were staff responsiveness (−5.6 pp) and cleanliness (−4.9 pp); the least affected were discharge information (−1.6 pp) and quietness (−1.8 pp). Overall rating and hospital recommendation measures initially exhibited smaller-than-average decreases, but then fell as much as the more specific experience measures by Q2/2021. Quietness did not decline until Q2/2021. The HCAHPS-SS fell most for hospitals with the lowest prepandemic staffing levels; hospitals with bottom-quartile staffing showed the largest decrements, whereas top-quartile hospitals showed smaller decrements in most quarters. Hospitals with better overall prepandemic quality showed consistently smaller HCAHPS-SS drops, with effects for 5-star hospitals about 25% smaller than for 1-star and 2-star hospitals.Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this cohort study of HCAHPS-participating hospitals found that patient experience scores declined during 2020 to 2021. By Q4/2021, the HCAHPS-SS was 3.6 pp lower than would have been expected, a medium effect size. The most affected measures (staff responsiveness and cleanliness) showed large effect sizes, possibly reflecting high illness-associated hospital workforce absenteeism. Hospitals that were lower performing and less staffed prepandemic may have been less resilient to reduced staff availability and other pandemic-associated challenges. However, by Q4/2021, even prepandemic high-performing hospitals had similar declines.

show abstract

Impact of isolation precautions on quality of life: a meta-analysis

Cited by 79 publications

References 24 publications

Emotional consequences of COVID-19 home confinement: The ECLB-COVID19 multicenter study

Emotional consequences of COVID-19 home confinement: The ECLB-COVID19 multicenter study

Mental health outcomes of quarantine and isolation for infection prevention: A systematic umbrella review of the global evidence

Changes in Patient Experiences of Hospital Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About