Living Systematic Review of Mental Health in COVID-19
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
COVID-19 is a serious health threat, and the situation is evolving daily. The risk will vary between and within communities.
Mental health during the current COVID-19 outbreak may be negatively affected by fear of long-term personal, social, and societal implications of the crisis and from isolation due to social distancing and movement restrictions that have been put into place
Our protocol for living systematic review
Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for a Living Systematic Review of Symptom Levels, Factors Associated with Symptoms, and Intervention Effectiveness [PDF]. Available on the Open Science Framework [Check]. The living systematic review is also described in an editorial in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research [Check].
Expert Comments on Available Evidence
Living Systematic Review Team Members
Brett Thombs
Andrea Benedetti
Jill Boruff
Danielle Rice
Sarah Markham
Yin Wu
Sheryl Sun
Ankur Krishnan
Chen He
Marleine Azar
Olivia Bonardi
Ian Thombs-Vite
Yutong Wang
Tiffany Dal Santo
Amina Tasleem
Anneke Yao
Kexin Li
Diana Jiang
Continuous Update of COVID-19 Mental Health Evidence
Last update: 13 Apr 2021
Number of Titles/Abstracts Reviewed
47,344
Number of Trial Registrations Reviewed
403
83
Number of Eligible Registered Trials
NOTE: As of September 12th, 2020, the team has stopped reviewing new references for research question 2, “Factors Associated with Levels or Changes in Symptoms”. Questions 1 and 3, symptom changes and interventions, will remain living systematic reviews. Since the project’s beginning, question 2 has posed challenges, as it assesses findings from cross-sectional studies, not studies which evaluate changes over time. Even in well-conducted studies, it is impossible to ascertain the degree to which risk factors identified reflect COVID-19-specific factors or replicate associations present prior to the pandemic. Additionally, the very high volume of low-quality studies eligible for question 2 has posed a challenge to the team’s ability to keep evidence current. Since cross-sectional model-based studies are highly dependent on completeness and design of the models, many eligible studies have been at high risk of bias. This has negatively impacted our ability to highlight trends and report useful conclusions. Due to these concerns, including the rapidly expanding volume of potentially eligible studies for question 2 and our team’s limited resources, we will analyze studies published as of September 12, 2020, but will not maintain a living systematic review for question 2 after that date.
Our Sponsors
