Knowing Well, Being Well: well-being born of understanding: Addressing Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders Amid and Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic

Johnson, Sara S.; Czeisler, Mark É; Rajaratnam, Shanthakumar M W; Sumner, Jennifer A.; Kubzansky, Laura D.; Mochari‐Greenberger, Heidi; Pande, Reena L.; Mendell, Gary

doi:10.1177/0890117120983982

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 161 publications

(193 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context, it is worth emphasising that NPIs are associated with significant increases in psychological stress and mental health burdens [ 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 ]. Dos Santos (2020) expressed concern that social distancing or isolation measures can cause ‘social disruption stress’ among vulnerable groups and those of low socioeconomic status, particularly because of a potential change in stress-related immune responses and in the gene expression profile, which may impair the immune response to viruses [ 136 ].…”

Section: Review Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) for Population Health and Health Inequalities

ÓhAiseadha

Quinn

Connolly³

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, governments around the world have adopted an array of measures intended to control the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, using both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). NPIs are public health interventions that do not rely on vaccines or medicines and include policies such as lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, school closures, and travel restrictions. Although the intention was to slow viral transmission, emerging research indicates that these NPIs have also had unintended consequences for other aspects of public health. Hence, we conducted a narrative review of studies investigating these unintended consequences of NPIs, with a particular emphasis on mental health and on lifestyle risk factors for non-communicable diseases (NCD): physical activity (PA), overweight and obesity, alcohol consumption, and tobacco smoking. We reviewed the scientific literature using combinations of search terms such as ‘COVID-19′, ‘pandemic’, ‘lockdowns’, ‘mental health’, ‘physical activity’, and ‘obesity’. NPIs were found to have considerable adverse consequences for mental health, physical activity, and overweight and obesity. The impacts on alcohol and tobacco consumption varied greatly within and between studies. The variability in consequences for different groups implies increased health inequalities by age, sex/gender, socioeconomic status, pre-existing lifestyle, and place of residence. In conclusion, a proper assessment of the use of NPIs in attempts to control the spread of the pandemic should be weighed against the potential adverse impacts on other aspects of public health. Our findings should also be of relevance for future pandemic preparedness and pandemic response teams.

show abstract

Section: Review Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) for Population Health and Health Inequalities

ÓhAiseadha

Quinn

Connolly³

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Is the cure worse than the disease? Proponents of Paradigm 2 are highly concerned about the negative effects that NPIs have on health and society, [92][93][94] e.g., morbidity and mortality implications of delayed cancer care; [95,96] mental health burden; [67,68] elderly care [98][99][100]; domestic violence [101] and education; [97] Therefore, while proponents of Paradigm 1 are convinced that these adverse impacts are a necessary evil, many in Paradigm 2 believe that the cure is worse than the disease.…”

Section: Conflicting Scientific Conclusion In "Following the Science" With Each Paradigm How Effective Have The Various Npis Been?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Tale of Two Scientific Paradigms: Conflicting Scientific Opinions on What “Following the Science” Means for Sars-Cov-2 and the Covid-19 Pandemic

Quinn¹,

Connolly²,

ÓhAiseadha³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments have adopted responses revolving around the open-ended use of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including “lockdowns”, “stay-at-home” orders, travel restrictions, mask-wearing, and regulated social distancing. Initially these were introduced with the stated goals of “flattening the curve” of hospital demand and/or the eradication of the virus from the country (i.e., “zero covid” policies). Over time, these goals have shifted to maintaining sufficient NPIs in place until such time as population-wide vaccination programmes have achieved an appropriate level of herd immunity to allow lifting of these measures without excessive hospital demand. Supporters of this approach have claimed to be “following the science”, insisting that criticism of any aspects of these measures is non-scientific or even “scientific misinformation”. This idea that only one set of scientifically valid opinions on COVID-19 exists has encouraged the media, social media and even scientific journals to suppress and/or dismiss any differing scientific opinions as “erroneous”, “discredited” or “debunked”, resulting in discouragement of open-minded scientific inquiry or discussion. Accordingly, in the current article we identify two distinct scientific paradigms to analysing COVID-19 adopted within the medical and scientific community. Paradigm 1 is primarily model-driven, while Paradigm 2 is primarily empirically-driven. Using these two paradigms we have analysed the epidemiological data for 30 northern hemisphere countries (with a total population of 882 million). Remarkably, we find using each paradigm leads to diametrically opposite conclusions on many policy-relevant issues. We discuss how these conflicting results might be reconciled and provide recommendations for scientists and policymakers.

show abstract

“…However, some critical aspects are not covered in depth in the article. Amid the fight against cancer, other challenges often arise, including the economic burden borne by families (Johnson et al 2021). PC, as an approach that emphasizes improving cancer patients' and their families' quality of life, often carries significant financial consequences (Gaertner et al 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic burden on families: Analyzing the financial impact of palliative care for cancer patients

Saputra,

Setyorini,

Ramadhani

et al. 2024

Pall Supp Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowing Well, Being Well: well-being born of understanding: Addressing Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders Amid and Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic

Cited by 6 publications

References 161 publications

Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) for Population Health and Health Inequalities

Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) for Population Health and Health Inequalities

A Tale of Two Scientific Paradigms: Conflicting Scientific Opinions on What “Following the Science” Means for Sars-Cov-2 and the Covid-19 Pandemic

Economic burden on families: Analyzing the financial impact of palliative care for cancer patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About