Living through the psychological consequences of COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review of effective mitigating interventions

Abstract

ObjectiveThis review assesses interventions and their effectiveness in mitigating psychological consequences from pandemic.MethodPublished 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).ResultsAll 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.ConclusionsResults 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.

Health Experiences of Nurses during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed Methods Study

“…COVID-19 has imposed new challenges for the well-being of nurses, and nurses are leaving health care or seeking non-direct care positions that will accentuate the shortage of nurses ( American Nurses Foundation, 2022 ; Costa & Friese, 2022 ; Kurtzman et al, 2022 ; LeClaire et al, 2022 ). Findings from this study and supported by others suggest the following three broad recommendations: (1) promoting the well-being of nurses and the nursing workforce; (2) providing safe and supportive work environments; and (3) preparing the nursing workforce for pandemic response ( Busch et al, 2021 ; Costa & Friese, 2022 ; Grailey et al., 2021 ; Halms et al, 2021 ; Hossain & Clatty, 2021 ; Joo & Liu, 2021 ; Lekagul et al, 2022 ; Ness et al, 2021 ; Norman et al., 2021 ; Preti et al, 2020 ; Shah et al, 2021 ; Sriharan et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Multifaceted and multilevel approaches at the individual, organizational, and policy level are necessary to promote nurses’ well-being ( Costa & Friese, 2022 ; Hossain & Clatty, 2021 ). Given our findings, organizations must make improving nurse well-being a priority by creating work environments, cultures, and policies that address adequate resources such as staffing, scheduling, PPE, workload, and decision-making, as well as systems of care delivery that facilitate collaboration, communication, and professionalism ( Busch et al, 2021 ; Buselli et al, 2021 ; DePierro et al, 2020 ; Lekagul et al, 2022 ; Rauch et al, 2020 ). Frontline nurses must have a voice; that is, to be proactively engaged in designing resources they perceive as valuable to foster their well-being rather than having the resources imposed on them ( Tebes et al, 2022 ).…”

The Global Impact of COVID-19 on Threat Appraisals

“…Important evidence has emerged from several clinical trials, recently meta-analyzed by Lekagul and colleagues [ 14 ], revealing that the accurate estimation of the burden of COVID-19-related threat appraisals is essential for establishing effective measures for mitigating the psychological consequences of the ongoing pandemic on COVID-19 patients, healthcare workers as well as within the general population. We, hence, planned this infodemiological analysis for attempting to estimate the global impact of COVID-19 on threat appraisals.…”

Experiences Shared by the (Future) Public Health Workforce during the COVD-19 Pandemic in Germany: Results of A Survey on Workload, Work Content, and Related Challenges among Students and Young Professionals

“…It has been declared as a worldwide pandemic in March 2020 by the World Health Organization [2], leading to containment measures varying over time and region, such as physical distancing (in terms of local, regional or national shutdowns or lockdowns), hygiene measures and the halt of all non-essential travel installed by political administrations all over the world [3,4]. While these strategies aimed at reducing risks of transmitting the infection, particularly lockdown regulations (e.g., staying at home, distance learning at schools and universities) may hinder important means for socializing, finding a partner, and building meaningful relationships which are of pivotal importance according to personality development theories [3,5,6].…”