Link to Publisher's site
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Sep; 291: 113190.
Published online 2020 Jun 7. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113190
PMCID: PMC7276119
PMID: 32563745

The psychological and mental impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on medical staff and general public – A systematic review and meta-analysis

Min Luo,a Lixia Guo,b Mingzhou Yu,c Wenying Jiang,d and Haiyan Wange,⁎
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused enormous psychological impact worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the psychological and mental impact of COVID-19 among healthcare workers, the general population, and patients with higher COVID-19 risk published between 1 Nov 2019 to 25 May 2020. We conducted literature research using Embase, PubMed, Google scholar and WHO COVID-19 databases. Among the initial search of 9207 studies, 62 studies with 162,639 participants from 17 countries were included in the review. The pooled prevalence of anxiety and depression was 33% (95% confidence interval: 28%-38%) and 28% (23%-32%), respectively. The prevalence of anxiety and depression was the highest among patients with pre-existing conditions and COVID-19 infection (56% [39%-73%] and 55% [48%-62%]), and it was similar between healthcare workers and the general public. Studies from China, Italy, Turkey, Spain and Iran reported higher-than-pooled prevalence among healthcare workers and the general public. Common risk factors included being women, being nurses, having lower socioeconomic status, having high risks of contracting COVID-19, and social isolation. Protective factors included having sufficient medical resources, up-to-date and accurate information, and taking precautionary measures. In conclusion, psychological interventions targeting high-risk populations with heavy psychological distress are in urgent need.

Keywords: Psychological intervention, COVID-19, Review, Stress, Anxiety, Depression, Psychological impact

1. Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is posing a serious public health threat worldwide. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), as of 1 June 2020, 6,040,609 confirmed cases and 370,657 deaths have been reported globally (World Health Organization, 2020). A recent large-scale study has shown that multifaceted public health interventions are temporarily associated with improved control of COVID-19 pandemic (Pan et al., 2020). However, in addition to the physical health, the potential psychological and mental health impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic should also be taken seriously. Although previous research has suggested that the mental impact of a major disaster had a wider and longer effect on people compared to physical injuries, mental health attracts far fewer personnel for planning and resources (Allsopp et al., 2019).

Studies conducted on the psychological impact of previous infectious outbreaks, such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) that is similar to the COVID-19 pandemic, have found heavy psychological burdens among healthcare workers and the general public such as anxiety, depression, panic attacks, or psychotic symptoms (Maunder et al., 2003; Xiang et al., 2020). Healthcare workers who were quarantined, worked in SARS units, or had family or friends infected with SARS, had considerably more anxiety, depression, frustration, fear, and post-traumatic stress than those who had no such experience (Xiang et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2009). Similarly, many published studies have assessed the psychological impact of COVID-19 and have also found high levels of psychological distress (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Chew et al., 2020; Consolo et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Guiroy et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang and Ma, 2020; Li et al., 2020, Ren et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2020; Moghanibashi-Mansourieh, 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020, Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Sønderskov et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Nachimuthu et al., 2020; Durankuş and Aksu, 2020; Saccone et al., 2020; Salari et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020). A recent systematic review and meta-analysis has summarized the prevalence of depression and anxiety among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 (Pappa et al., 2020). The review was conducted at the early phase of the COVID-19 (before April 17th, 2020) and mainly included early studies published in Asia (China, Singapore). After the publication of the review (Pappa et al., 2020), many more studies from other countries (e.g. Italy, Spain, Iran, Israel) have been published (Consolo et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Guiroy et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2020; Moghanibashi-Mansourieh, 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020, Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Sønderskov et al., 2020; Nachimuthu et al., 2020; Durankuş and Aksu, 2020; Saccone et al., 2020; Salari et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020; Amin, 2020; Shacham et al., 2020; Jahanshahi et al., 2020; Moccia et al., 2020; Voitsidis et al., 2020; Suzuki, 2020), and some of these studies extended the study population from healthcare workers to the general public (Mazza et al., 2020; Moghanibashi-Mansourieh, 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020, Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Sønderskov et al., 2020; Jahanshahi et al., 2020; Moccia et al., 2020; Voitsidis et al., 2020) and patients with pre-existing conditions (e.g. cancer, psychiatry, epilepsy, type 2 diabetes) (Qian et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; Nachimuthu et al., 2020; Salari et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020) or infected by COVID-19 (Guo et al., 2020, Zhang et al., 2020; Bo et al., 2020). A few studies have suggested that the psychological impact of COVID-19 may be different among healthcare workers, the general public and patients (Zhang et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; Salari et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020). Since the case number of COVID-19 is still rapidly increasing in many countries, psychological disturbances may have impacted and will continue to impact millions of people around the world. Understanding the psychological impact from different populations and countries would provide theoretical basis for the identification of high-risk people and designing interventions, as well as planning resources and promulgating national and governmental policies, which is of critical importance and public health implication at a global level.

Therefore, we conducted the current systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the updated psychological and mental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic among healthcare workers, the general public and patients with pre-existing conditions or COVID-19. We searched on Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the daily updated WHO COVID-19 database (World Health Organization, 2020). Our primary aim was to evaluate the psychological and mental impacts of COVID-19. Our secondary aims was to explore factors associated with higher psychological distress.

2. Methods

2.1. Search process

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on studies evaluating the psychological and mental impact of COVID-19, we followed the Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guideline (Liberati et al., 2009). We conducted a comprehensive literature search on original articles published from 1 Nov 2019 to 25 May 2020 in electronic databases of Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar and the daily updated WHO COVID-19 database (World Health Organization, 2020). Our search terms were (‘COVID-19’/exp OR COVID-19 OR ‘coronavirus’/exp OR coronavirus) AND (‘psychological’/exp OR psychological OR ‘mental’/exp OR mental OR ‘stress’/exp OR stress OR ‘anxiety’ OR anxiety OR ‘depression’ OR depression OR 'post-traumatic' OR 'post-traumatic'/exp OR 'trauma' OR 'trauma'/exp) for Embase, (“COVID-19”[All Fields] OR “coronavirus”[All Fields]) AND (“Stress, Psychological”[Mesh] OR “mental” OR “anxiety” OR “depression” OR “stress” OR “post-traumatic” OR “trauma”) for PubMed, (tw:(psychological)) OR (tw:(mental)) OR (tw:(stress)) OR (tw:(anxiety)) OR (tw:(depression)) OR (tw:(post-traumatic)) OR (tw:(trauma)) for the WHO COVID-19 database, and (“COVID-19” OR “coronavirus”) AND (“Psychological” OR “mental” OR “anxiety” OR “depression” OR “stress” OR “post-traumatic” OR “trauma”) for Google Scholar.

2.2. Eligibility criteria

We included original research of quantitative studies examining the psychological distress of COVID-19 among medical staff, the general public, and patients with pre-existing conditions or infected by COVID-19. We excluded studies if they: 1) were irrelevant to the exposure (COVID-19) or the outcome (psychological impact, mental impact); 2) were animal studies, experimental studies or genetic studies; 3) did not use a validated instrument to measure the psychological impact; 4) were not in English language.

The search was performed by two independent researchers (M.L. and L.G.). A total of three rounds of screening were performed. During the first round, the titles of the articles were screened, and the potential articles were further examined for abstracts in the second round. The potential articles identified after the second round were further reviewed for full paper to examine the eligibility. If two researchers had discrepancies on whether to include a certain study, the senior author (H.W.) was consulted to make the final decision.

2.3. Data extraction and appraisal of study quality

We extracted information from each study including author, population (medical staff, general population or patients, and country), socio-demographic characteristics (sample size, response rate, gender proportion, age, and study time), areas assessed, instrument used and prevalence. The study quality was assessed by the McMaster University critical appraisal tool (Law et al., 1998), which has been used in previous reviews of studies on infectious disease outbreaks (Ebola, H1N1, and SARS) (James et al., 2019; Chew et al., 2020). The appraisal tool assessed the research design, recruitment strategy, response rate, reliability of outcome determination, statistical analyses, and clinical implications of included articles with a total score of 12.

2.4. Statistical analysis

The overall prevalence and 95% confidence interval of the psychological distress was pooled with random effects models using the Metaprop module in STATA (Bacigalupo et al., 2018; Nyaga et al., 2014). The heterogeneity between studies was assessed by the Cochran χ2 and I2 statistics (Higgins et al., 2003). The 95% confidence of the psychological distress was calculated using the formula assuming a Poisson distribution of the phenomenon: π ± 1,96 × square (π × [1- π]/n), where π was the prevalence and n was the number of participants (Bacigalupo et al., 2018; Schoenberg, 1983).

3. Results

3.1. Search results

The original search identified 9207 references from three databases (Embase: n=1287; PubMed: n=1823; WHO COVID-19: n=1217; Google Scholar: n=4880). Among these articles, 3514 were deleted due to duplications, and 5613 were deleted due to the irrelevance of the exposure or outcome to the current review. A total of 80 articles were reviewed for full text, and 62 eligible studies were included in the current review (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Chew et al., 2020; Consolo et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Guiroy et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang and Ma, 2020; Li et al., 2020, Ren et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2020; Moghanibashi-Mansourieh, 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020, Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Sønderskov et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Nachimuthu et al., 2020; Durankuş and Aksu, 2020; Saccone et al., 2020; Salari et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Amin, 2020; Shacham et al., 2020; Jahanshahi et al., 2020; Moccia et al., 2020; Voitsidis et al., 2020; Suzuki, 2020; Hao et al., 2020, Bo et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Zhang and Ma, 2020; Qiu et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2020; Roy et al., 2020; Cai et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020). Two reviewers disagreed on 5 papers that only reported the mean score of the instrument but omitted the prevalence of the psychological distress, and the senior author decided to exclude these papers. The detailed search process is shown in Supplemental Figure S1.

These 62 studies included 162,639 participants from 17 countries around the world (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Chew et al., 2020; Consolo et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Guiroy et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang and Ma, 2020; Li et al., 2020, Ren et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2020; Moghanibashi-Mansourieh, 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020; Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Sønderskov et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Nachimuthu et al., 2020; Durankuş and Aksu, 2020; Saccone et al., 2020; Salari et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Amin, 2020; Shacham et al., 2020; Jahanshahi et al., 2020; Moccia et al., 2020; Voitsidis et al., 2020; Suzuki, 2020; Hao et al., 2020, Bo et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Zhang and Ma, 2020; Qiu et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2020; Roy et al., 2020; Cai et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020). Among them, 46 were from Asia (40 from China, 2 from Singapore, 2 from India, 1 from Japan, 1 from Pakistan, and 1 from Vietnam), 5 were from Middle East (4 from Iran and 1 from Israel), 10 were from Europe (4 from Italy, 2 from Spain, 2 from Turkey, 1 from Denmark and 1 from Greece), and 1 was from Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico). In addition, 19 studies were conducted among healthcare workers (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Chew et al., 2020; Consolo et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Guiroy et al., 2020; Amin, 2020; Shacham et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2020; Cai et al., 2020), 36 were among the general public (Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang and Ma, 2020; Li et al., 2020, Ren et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2020; Moghanibashi-Mansourieh, 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020, Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Sønderskov et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020; Durankuş and Aksu, 2020; Saccone et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Jahanshahi et al., 2020; Moccia et al., 2020; Voitsidis et al., 2020; Suzuki, 2020; Qiu et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020) and 7 were among patients (1 on cancer patients, 1 on psychiatric patients, 1 on epilepsy patients, 2 on COVID-19 patients, 1 on patients with type 2 diabetes, and 1 on patients with Parkinson's disease and their caregivers) (Qian et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Nachimuthu et al., 2020; Salari et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020, Bo et al., 2020). The detailed characteristics of all these studies were shown in Supplemental Tables S1-S3. Furthermore, no study used standardized clinical interviews to diagnose the presence of an actual disorder or the severity level. All studies used validated instruments and corresponding cut-off values for the evaluation.

3.3. Primary outcome: psychological and mental impacts

Anxiety. A total of 41 studies measured anxiety as an indicator for psychological impact (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Chew et al., 2020; Consolo et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020, Ren et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2020; Moghanibashi-Mansourieh, 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020, Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Nachimuthu et al., 2020; Saccone et al., 2020; Salari et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020), among them 13 were conducted among medical staff (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Chew et al., 2020; Consolo et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020), 24 were among the general public (Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020, Ren et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2020; Moghanibashi-Mansourieh, 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020, Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020; Saccone et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020), and 4 were among patients (1 on cancer patients, 1 on COVID-19 patients, 1 on patients with type 2 diabetes, and 1 on patients with Parkinson's and their caregivers) (Qian et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Nachimuthu et al., 2020; Salari et al., 2020) ( Fig. 1 ). Studies used different validated scales to measure anxiety including the Beck Anxiety Inventory, the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2/-7, the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire-4/-9, and the Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale. A total of 37 studies reported the prevalence of having anxiety (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Consolo et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020, Ren et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2020; Moghanibashi-Mansourieh, 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020, Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Nachimuthu et al., 2020; Saccone et al., 2020; Salari et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020), and four studies reported the proportions of having moderate-to-severe anxiety (Chew et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020). The overall prevalence of anxiety was 33% (28%-38%) with substantial heterogeneity (I2=99.7%, P<0.001). The prevalence of anxiety was higher among patients (56% [39%-73%]) compared to healthcare workers (26% [18%-34%]) and the general public (32% [25%-39%]), and the prevalence was similar between healthcare workers and the general public with overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Among healthcare workers, the prevalence ranged between 7% (5%-9%) in Singapore to 57% (52%-63%) in Italy, and the prevalence from three studies conducted in China and Italy was higher than the pooled anxiety prevalence. Among the general public, the highest prevalence of anxiety was observed in Italy (81% [80%-83%]), and the prevalence ranged between 8% (7%-10%) and 55% (45%-64%) in other studies; in addition, the prevalence from six studies conducted in China, Italy, Iran, Turkey, and Spain was higher than the pooled anxiety prevalence. Among patients with pre-existing conditions and COVID-19, the prevalence of anxiety was consistently high; it ranged between 40% (30%-50%) among patients with type 2 diabetes in India and 82% (74%-88%) among patients with Parkinson's disease in Iran. The anxiety prevalence was 47% (34%-61%) among patients infected by COVID-19, and it was 50% (41%-59%) among cancer patients and 58% (47%-68%) among caregivers of patients with Parkinson's disease ( Fig. 1 ). In addition, psychiatric patients reported a prevalence of moderate-to-severe anxiety of 24% (14%-33%) (Hao et al., 2020).

Forest plot of the prevalence of anxiety.

Figure legend: The square markers indicate the prevalence of anxiety. The size of the marker correlates to the inverse variance of the effect estimate and indicates the weight of the study. The diamond data marker indicates the pooled prevalence.

Depression. A total of 41 studies measured depression as an indicator for the psychological distress (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Chew et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Guiroy et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020, Ren et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020, Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Sønderskov et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Durankuş and Aksu, 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020), among them 14 were conducted among medical staff (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Chew et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Guiroy et al., 2020), 14 were among the general public (Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020, Ren et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020, Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Sønderskov et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020; Durankuş and Aksu, 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020), and 3 were among patients (1 among cancer patients, 1 among psychiatric patients, and 1 among COVID-19 patients) (Qian et al., 2020, Hao et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020) ( Fig. 2 ). Different validated scales used to measure depression included the Beck Depression Inventory, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, the Children's Depression Inventory—Short Version, the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire-4/-9, and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale. A total of 37 studies reported the prevalence of having depression (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Guiroy et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020, Ren et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020; Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Sønderskov et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Durankuş and Aksu, 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020), and four studies reported the proportions of having moderate-to-severe depression (Chew et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020). The overall prevalence of depression was 28% (23%-32%) with substantial heterogeneity (I2=99.6%, P<0.001). The prevalence of depression was higher among patients (55% [48%-62%]) compared to healthcare workers (25% [17%-33%]) and the general public (27% [22%-33%]), and the prevalence was similar between healthcare workers and the general public with overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Among healthcare workers, the prevalence ranged between 9% (7%-12%) in Singapore to 51% (48%-53%) in China, and the prevalence from three studies conducted in China was higher than the pooled depression prevalence. Among the general public, the highest prevalence of depression was observed in Italy (67% [65%-69%]), and the prevalence ranged between 10% (9%-11%) and 60% (50%-70%) in other studies; in addition, the prevalence from five studies conducted in China and Italy was higher than the pooled depression prevalence. Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, the prevalence of depression ranged between 50% (41%-59%) among cancer patients and 65% (51%-77%) among patients with COVID-19 in China ( Fig. 2 ). In addition, psychiatric patients reported a prevalence of moderate-to-severe depression of 22% (13%-32%) (Hao et al., 2020).

Forest plot of the prevalence of depression.

Figure legend: The square markers indicate the prevalence of depression. The size of the marker correlates to the inverse variance of the effect estimate and indicates the weight of the study. The diamond data marker indicates the pooled prevalence.

Other indicators. In addition to anxiety and depression, other less commonly reported indicators included distress (Lai et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Chew et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; Saccone et al., 2020; Shacham et al., 2020; Jahanshahi et al., 2020; Moccia et al., 2020; Qiu et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020), stress (Li et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Chew et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang and Ma, 2020; Li et al., 2020, Ren et al., 2020; Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020), insomnia (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Li et al., 2020, Hao et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Voitsidis et al., 2020), and post-traumatic stress symptoms/disorders (Ren et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2020; Bo et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020). The overall prevalence of distress, stress, and insomnia was 35% (23%-47%), 40% (20%-60%), and 32% (25%-39%), respectively, and the prevalence was similar between healthcare workers and the general public. The prevalence of post-traumatic stress symptoms/disorders was the highest among patients with COVID-19 (93% [92%-95%]), which was higher than that reported in healthcare workers and the general public (prevalence ranged between 3% [2%-4%] to 16% [15%-17%]). In addition, fiver studies reported the overall prevalence of psychological disturbances, and it ranged between 14% (12%-16%) and 72% (67%-78%) among healthcare workers (Amin, 2020; Kang et al., 2020; Cai et al., 2020); and it ranged between 40% (36%-44%) and 54% (51%-57%) in the general public (Wang et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2020).

3.4. Secondary outcomes: factors of psychological impacts

Risk factors for higher psychological impact of COVID-19 were substantially similar across healthcare workers, the general population, and patients. Common risk factors included being women (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020, Mazza et al., 2020, Moghanibashi-Mansourieh; 2020, Özdin and Özdin, 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Jahanshahi et al., 2020; Moccia et al., 2020; Voitsidis et al., 2020; Qiu et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020), having higher COVID-19 contraction risk (poorer health, contact with COVID-19 patients) (Zhang et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Chew et al., 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Mazza et al., 2020; Moghanibashi-Mansourieh, 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020; Shacham et al., 2020), having lower socio-economic status (living in rural areas, having unstable income, having lower education) (Zhang et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020; Lei et al., 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2020), social isolation (Lei et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2020; Durankuş and Aksu, 2020), and spending longer time watching COVID-19 related news (Li et al., 2020; Moghanibashi-Mansourieh, 2020; Hao et al., 2020); although some studies did not observed significant associations (Huang and Zhao, 2020; Ni et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2020; Özdin and Özdin, 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020; Shacham et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020). Among healthcare workers, being nurses (Lai et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020), working in front-line with direct contact with COVID-19 patients (Lai et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2020), and working in the hardest-hit area were additional associated with higher psychological distress (Lai et al., 2020; Du et al., 2020). Nevertheless, protective factors against a greater psychological distress included having family support (Cao et al., 2020), having sufficient local medical resources (Qiu et al., 2020), having highly efficient health systems and effective prevention and control measures against the epidemic (Qiu et al., 2020), having up-to-date and accurate health information (e.g. treatment, local outbreak situation) (Wang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020), and taking precautionary measures (e.g. hand hygiene, wearing masks) (Wang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020).

4. Discussion

4.1. Main findings

In the current systematic review and meta-analysis, we have observed an overall high psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic among healthcare workers, the general public, and patients with pre-existing conditions or COVID-19. The most common indicators of psychological impact reported across studies were anxiety and depression, and the respective prevalence was 33% (28%-38%) and 28% (23%-32%). Patients with pre-existing conditions or COVID-19 had significantly higher prevalence of anxiety and depression compared to healthcare workers and the general public, and studies reported higher-than-pooled prevalence of anxiety and depression among the latter two groups included studies conducted in China, Italy, Turkey, Spain and Iran. Common risk factors of heavier psychological burden included being women, being nurses, having high risks of contracting COVID-19, having lower socioeconomic status, social isolation, and spending longer time watching COVID-19 related news; protective factors included having sufficient medical resources, having up-to-date and accurate health information, and taking precautionary measures.

4.2. In comparison with previous studies

Similar to the current study, a high prevalence of psychological symptoms, such as anxiety and depression, has been reported in frontline medical workers, the general public, and patients with suboptimal health across outbreaks of Ebola, H1N1 and SARS (Maunder et al., 2003; Xiang et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2009; Chew et al., 2020). Compared to the existing meta-analysis on psychological impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers from 13 Asian studies that reported a pooled prevalence of 23.2% in anxiety and 22.8% in depression (Pappa et al., 2020), the current meta-analysis found a similar prevalence of anxiety (26% [18%-34%]) and depression (25% [17%-33%]) among healthcare workers. In addition, we extended the existing evidence by showing that the prevalence of anxiety and depression was significantly higher among patients with pre-existing conditions or COVID-19 infection compared to healthcare workers and the general public, which was supported by a few studies that showed higher prevalence of psychological distress among patients compared to healthy controls (Hao et al., 2020; Salari et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2020). Furthermore, our studies showed that the prevalence of anxiety and depression was similar between healthcare workers and the general public. A study conducted in China corroborated our finding by showing that the prevalence of anxiety and depression was similar between healthcare workers and the general public (Ni et al., 2020); however, three other studies from China showed that healthcare workers had higher prevalence of anxiety and depression (Zhang et al., 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020; Huang and Zhao, 2020). Among healthcare professionals working in the hospital, one study showed that medical workers had higher psychological distress compared to administrative staff (Lu et al., 2020), while another study showed that the psychological distress was higher among non-medical workers in hospitals (Tan et al., 2020). Our findings suggested that patients with pre-existing conditions and COVID-19 infection are at the highest risk of psychological distress and should be targeted for psychological assessment and appropriate intervention.

The current review found that women and nurses had higher psychological distress compared to men and doctors, respectively, which were consistent with previous findings that women and nurses were more vulnerable to stress (Qiu et al., 2020, Sareen et al., 2013; Chou et al., 2014). In addition, the current review also found that social isolation, financial security, and being more susceptible to COVID-19 infections (have complications, older age) are associated with higher levels of psychological distress. A recent review published on the Lancet Psychiatry corroborated with our findings by showing that social isolation and loneliness are strongly associated with anxiety and depression, and populations with worse health or social inequality are more vulnerable to the psychological distress of COVID-19 (Holmes et al., 2020). These findings highlighted the importance to design interventions to target women, nurses, people with complications or older age, and those with unstable income, whom may have higher psychological burden (Zhou et al., 2020). Furthermore, we found that some factors, such as having sufficient medical resources, having up-to-date and accurate health information, and taking precautionary measures could help decrease the psychological impact among the general public. This highlighted the importance to ensure an effective public health system at the governmental level and taking precautionary measures at the personal level to decrease the mental impact.

The current study had important clinical and public health implications. First, we identified high-risk population and risk factors of higher psychological distress that could be used for risk stratification and the design of effective psychological interventions at both clinical and community levels. Second, heavy psychological distress has been observed in the general public in various countries that suffered from COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, this finding underscored the importance to implement and roll out psychological services and intervention programs across all countries that have experienced COVID-19 pandemic. After the outbreak, China implemented rapid psychological crisis intervention including releasing free self-help manual online (Bao et al., 2020), and initiating 24-hour psychological hotlines and online consultations for the general public (Bao et al., 2020) and healthcare workers (Zhou, 2020; Jiang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). In other countries that suffered from COVID-19 pandemic at a later stage such as Korea, Singapore and Italy, psychological support and interventions have also been prepared and rolled out to take care of high-risk populations during the COVID-19 pandemic (D’Agostino et al., 2020; Jung et al., 2020; Ho et al., 2020). Third, since most countries around the world are currently prioritizing their medical resources for the containment of COVID-19 and the treatment of patients with COVID-19, there may be limited resources available for psychological services and interventions. Therefore, improving knowledge, awareness, and self-coping strategies are critical in the current situation. A prior study has found that 50.4% of study participants had accessed psychological resources through books or media, and 17.5% had sought counseling or psychotherapy (Kang et al., 2020). In addition, the study also found that people with mild or lower disturbances preferred to obtain such services from media sources, while those with heavier burdens expressed their needs to seek services directly from professionals (e.g. psychologists, psychiatrists) (Kang et al., 2020). This finding suggested that psychological screening could be conducted among people, and triaged therapies could be delivered to people with different levels of psychological impacts. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions and the feasibility to scale up to a larger population.

4.3. Strengths and limitations

Compared to the last systematic review and meta-analysis that comprised 13 studies from Asian countries (n=33,062) (Pappa et al., 2020), the current meta-analysis included more studies (62 studies from 17 countries) with a much bigger sample size (n=162,639). In addition, we conducted comprehensive literature search in multiple important databases, and the results of the current study had important clinical and public health implication globally. However, several limitations merit consideration. First, the current review included studies using different instruments to measure psychological impacts (anxiety, depression, and others). However, since no study utilized standardized clinical interviews for diagnosis, it is not known whether the presence of an actual disorder exist. In addition, the outbreak of COVID-19 was observed in China first and then subsequently in other countries; therefore, the majority of the included studies were conducted in China (65%). Although we included studies from 17 countries, the sampling bias may still exist as papers from many other countries may not have been published yet. Moreover, we only included publications in English language, which may have brought publication bias. However, the limitation in language could also ensure the quality of the included articles. Furthermore, all quantitative studies were cross-sectional surveys or cohort studies with short follow-up duration; therefore, long-term mental health implications and how these base rates of mental health symptoms compare to other time periods cannot be inferred from these studies.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused heavy psychological impact among medical workers and the general public. Psychological interventions identifying and targeting people with heavy psychological burdens are in urgent need. Future studies are warranted to design and evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions.

Funding

None.

Declaration of Competing Interest

None.

Footnotes

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113190.

Appendix. Supplementary materials

Click here to view.(212 bytes, xml)Image, application 1

References

  • Ahmed MZ, Ahmed O, Zhou A, Sang H, Liu S, Siyu L, Ahmad A. Epidemic of COVID-19 in China and associated psychological problems. Asian J. Psychiatr. 2020;51 doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102092. 102092. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cai W, Lian B, Song X, Hou T, Deng G, Li H. A cross-sectional study on mental health among health care workers during the outbreak of Corona Virus Disease. Asian J. Psychiatr. 2020;51 doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102111. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cao W, Fang Z, Hou G, Han M, Xu X, Dong J. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Res. 2020;287 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cao J, Wei J, Zhu H, Duan Y, Geng W, Hong X. A study of basic needs and psychological wellbeing of medical workers in the fever clinic of a tertiary general hospital in Beijing during the COVID-19 outbreak. Psychother Psychosom. 2020:1–3. doi: 10.1159/000507453. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang J, Wu W, Zhao X, Zhang W. Recommended psychological crisis intervention response to the 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia outbreak in China: a model of West China Hospital. Precis. Clin. Med. 2020;3(1):3–8. doi: 10.1093/pcmedi/pbaa006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chen Y, Zhou H, Zhou Y, Zhou F. Prevalence of self-reported depression and anxiety among pediatric medical staff members during the COVID-19 outbreak in Guiyang. Psychiatry Res. 2020;288 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113005. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Holmes EA, O’Connor RC, Perry VH, Tracey I, Wessely S, Arseneault L. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(6):547–560. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Huang Y, Zhao N. Chinese mental health burden during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian J. Psychiatr. 2020;51 doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102052. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Huang Y, Zhao N. Generalized anxiety disorder, depressive symptoms and sleep quality during COVID-19 outbreak in China: a web-based cross-sectional survey. Psychiatry Res. 2020;288 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112954. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang J, Lu H, Zeng H, Zhang S, Du Q, Jiang T. The differential psychological distress of populations affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Brain, Behav. Immun. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.031. S0889-1591(20)30535-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang Y, Ma ZF. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on mental health and quality of life among local residents in Liaoning province, China: a cross-sectional study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17(7):2381. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17072381. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • World Health Organization. Global research on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) 2020. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov (assessed 1 June 2020).
  • Hao X, Zhou D, Li Z, Zeng G, Hao N, Li E, et al. 2020. Severe psychological distress among patients with epilepsy during the COVID-19 outbreak in southwest China. Epilepsia. doi: 10.1111/epi.16544. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef]
  • Salari M, Zali A, Ashrafi F, Etemadifar M, Sharma S, Hajizadeh N, et al., 2020. Incidence of anxiety in Parkinson's disease during the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Movement Disorders. doi.org/10.1002/mds.28116. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019 (accessed 1 June 2020).
  • Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, Fan G, Liu Y, Liu Z. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet. 2020;395(10229):1054–1062. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhou SJ, Zhang LG, Wang LL, Guo ZC, Wang JQ, Chen JC. Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of psychological health problems in Chinese adolescents during the outbreak of COVID-19. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 2020:1–10. doi: 10.1007/s00787-020-01541-4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhu J, Sun L, Zhang L, Wang H, Fan A, Yang B. Prevalence and influencing factors of anxiety and depression symptoms in the first-line medical staff fighting against COVID-19 in Gansu. Front. Psychiatry. 2020;11:386. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00386. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Liu N, Zhang F, Wei C, Jia Y, Shang Z, Sun L. Prevalence and predictors of PTSS during COVID-19 outbreak in China hardest-hit areas: Gender differences matter. Psychiatry Res. 2020;287 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112921. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lu W, Wang H, Lin Y, Li L. Psychological status of medical workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. Psychiatry Res. 2020;288 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112936. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Maunder R, Hunter J, Vincent L, Bennett J, Peladeau N, Leszcz M. The immediate psychological and occupational impact of the 2003 SARS outbreak in a teaching hospital. CMAJ. 2003;168(10):1245–1251. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Moccia L, Janiri D, Pepe M, Dattoli L, Molinaro M, De Martin V. Affective temperament, attachment style, and the psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak: an early report on the Italian general population. Brain Behav. Immunit. 2020;(20) doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.048. S0889-1591(20)30586-9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Moghanibashi-Mansourieh A. Assessing the anxiety level of Iranian general population during COVID-19 outbreak. Asian J. Psychiatry. 2020;51 doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102076. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nyaga VN, Arbyn M, Aerts M. Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch. Public Health. 2014;72(1):39. doi: 10.1186/2049-3258-72-39. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gao J, Zheng P, Jia Y, Chen H, Mao Y, Chen S. Mental health problems and social media exposure during COVID-19 outbreak. PLoS One. 2020;15(4) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231924. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • González-Sanguino C, Ausín B, Castellanos M, Saiz J, López-Gómez A, Ugidos C. Mental health consequences during the initial stage of the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) in Spain. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.040. S0889-1591(20)30812-6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Guiroy A, Gagliardi M, Coombes N, Landriel F, Zanardi C, Camino Willhuber G. COVID-19 impact among spine surgeons in Latin America. Global Spine J. 2020 doi: 10.1177/2192568220928032. 2192568220928032. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tan BYQ, Chew NWS, Lee GKH, Jing M, Goh Y, Yeo LLL. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Health Care workers in Singapore. Ann Intern Med. 2020 doi: 10.7326/M20-1083. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang C, Pan R, Wan X, Tan Y, Xu L, McIntyre RS. A longitudinal study on the mental health of general population during the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.028. S0889-1591(20)30511-0. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang S, Xie L, Xu Y, Yu S, Yao B, Xiang D. Sleep disturbances among medical workers during the outbreak of COVID-2019. Occup. Med. (Lond.) 2020 doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqaa074. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wu P, Fang Y, Guan Z, Fan B, Kong J, Yao Z. The psychological impact of the SARS epidemic on hospital employees in China: exposure, risk perception, and altruistic acceptance of risk. Can. J. Psychiat. 2009;54(5):302–311. doi: 10.1177/070674370905400504. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Xiang YT, Yang Y, Li W, Zhang L, Zhang Q, Cheung T. Timely mental health care for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is urgently needed. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(3):228–229. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30046-8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Xie X, Xue Q, Zhou Y, Zhu K, Liu Q, Zhang J. Mental health status among children in home confinement during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in Hubei province, China. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1619. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang SX, Liu J, Afshar Jahanshahi A, Nawaser K, Yousefi A, Li J. At the height of the storm: healthcare staff’s health conditions and job satisfaction and their associated predictors during the epidemic peak of COVID-19. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.010. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • D’Agostino A, Demartini B, Cavallotti S, Gambini O. Mental health services in Italy during the COVID-19 outbreak. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(5):385–387. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30133-4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Du J, Dong L, Wang T, Yuan C, Fu R, Zhang L. Psychological symptoms among frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2020.03.011. S0163-8343(20)30045-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Durankuş F, Aksu E. Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety and depressive symptoms in pregnant women: a preliminary study. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020:1–7. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1763946. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhu S, Wu Y, Zhu C-Y, Hong W-C, Yu Z-X, Chen Z-K. The immediate mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic among people with or without quarantine managements. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.045. S0889-1591(20)30601-2. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nachimuthu S, Vijayalakshmi R, Sudha M, Viswanathan V. Coping with diabetes during the COVID – 19 lockdown in India: results of an online pilot survey. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. 2020;14(4):579–582. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.053. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ozamiz-Etxebarria N, Dosil-Santamaria M, Picaza-Gorrochategui M, Idoiaga-Mondragon N. Stress, anxiety, and depression levels in the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in a population sample in the northern Spain. Cadernos de Saúde Pública. 2020;36(4):e00054020. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00054020. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Özdin S, Özdin ŞB. Levels and predictors of anxiety, depression and health anxiety during COVID-19 pandemic in Turkish society: the importance of gender. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry. 2020 doi: 10.1177/0020764020927051. 20764020927051. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pan A, Liu L, Wang C, Guo H, Hao X, Wang Q. Association of Public Health Interventions with the Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Wuhan. JAMA. 2020;323:1915–1923. [Google Scholar]
  • Allsopp K, Brewin CR, Barrett A, Williams R, Hind D, Chitsabesan P. Responding to mental health needs after terror attacks. BMJ. 2019;366 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4828. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Amin S. The psychology of coronavirus fear: are healthcare professionals suffering from corona-phobia? Int. J. Healthcare Manag. 2020 doi: 10.1080/20479700.2020.1765119. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Mazza C, Ricci E, Biondi S, Colasanti M, Ferracuti S, Napoli C. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Italian people during the COVID-19 pandemic: immediate psychological responses and associated factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17(9):3165. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17093165. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tang W, Hu T, Hu B, Jin C, Wang G, Xie C. Prevalence and correlates of PTSD and depressive symptoms one month after the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic in a sample of home-quarantined Chinese university students. J. Affect. Disord. 2020;274:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.009. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sun N, Shi S, Jiao D, Song R, Ma L, Wang H. A qualitative study on the psychological experience of caregivers of COVID-19 patients. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2020;48(6):592–598. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.03.018. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Suzuki S. Psychological status of postpartum women under the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020:1–3. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1763949. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bao Y, Sun Y, Meng S, Shi J, Lu L. 2019-nCoV epidemic: address mental health care to empower society. Lancet. 2020;395(10224):e37–ee8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30309-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Liang L, Ren H, Cao R, Hu Y, Qin Z, Li C. The effect of COVID-19 on Youth mental health. Psychiatr. Q. 2020:1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11126-020-09744-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jiang X, Deng L, Zhu Y, Ji H, Tao L, Liu L. Psychological crisis intervention during the outbreak period of new coronavirus pneumonia from experience in Shanghai. Psychiatry Res. 2020;286 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112903. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jung SJ, Health Jun JY.Mental, Outbreak Psychological Intervention Amid COVID-19. Perspectives from South Korea. Yonsei Med. J. 2020;61(4):271–272. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2020.61.4.271. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kang L, Ma S, Chen M, Yang J, Wang Y, Li R. Impact on mental health and perceptions of psychological care among medical and nursing staff in Wuhan during the 2019 novel coronavirus disease outbreak: A cross-sectional study. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lai J, Ma S, Wang Y, Cai Z, Hu J, Wei N. Factors associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3) doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3976. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jahanshahi AA, Dinani MM, Madavani AN, Li J, Zhang SX. The distress of Iranian adults during the Covid-19 pandemic - More distressed than the Chinese and with different predictors. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020;(20) doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.081. S0889-1591(20)30712-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chew NWS, Lee GKH, Tan BYQ, Jing M, Goh Y, Ngiam NJH. A multinational, multicentre study on the psychological outcomes and associated physical symptoms amongst healthcare workers during COVID-19 outbreak. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.049. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nguyen HC, Nguyen MH, Do BN, Tran CQ, Nguyen TTP, Pham KM. People with suspected COVID-19 symptoms were more likely depressed and had lower health-related quality of life: the potential benefit of health literacy. J. Clin. Med. 2020;9(4):965. doi: 10.3390/jcm9040965. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ni MY, Yang L, Leung CMC, Li N, Yao XI, Wang Y. Mental health, risk factors, and social media use during the COVID-19 epidemic and cordon sanitaire among the community and health professionals in Wuhan, China: Cross-sectional survey. JMIR Ment Health. 2020;7(5):e19009. doi: 10.2196/19009. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Guo Q, Zheng Y, Shi J, Wang J, Li G, Li C. Immediate psychological distress in quarantined patients with COVID-19 and its association with peripheral inflammation: a mixed-method study. Brain, Behav. Immun. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.038. S0889-1591(20)30618-8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hao F, Tan W, Jiang L, Zhang L, Zhao X, Zou Y. Do psychiatric patients experience more psychiatric symptoms during COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown? A case-control study with service and research implications for immunopsychiatry. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.069. S0889-1591(20)30626-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Roy D, Tripathy S, Kar SK, Sharma N, Verma SK, Kaushal V. Study of knowledge, attitude, anxiety & perceived mental healthcare need in Indian population during COVID-19 pandemic. Asian J. Psychiatr. 2020;51 doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102083. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Saccone G, Florio A, Aiello F, Venturella R, De Angelis MC, Locci M. Psychological Impact of COVID-19 in pregnant women. Am. J Obstetr. Gynecol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.009. S0002-9378(20)30527-5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sareen J, Erickson J, Medved MI, Asmundson GJ, Enns MW, Stein M. Risk factors for post-injury mental health problems. Depress Anxiety. 2013;30(4):321–327. doi: 10.1002/da.22077. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schoenberg BS. Calculating confidence intervals for rates and ratios. Neuroepidemiology. 1983;2(3-4):257–265. doi: 10.1159/000110529. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang C, Pan R, Wan X, Tan Y, Xu L, Ho CS. Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17(5):1729. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051729. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang C, Pan R, Wan X, Tan Y, Xu L, Ho CS. Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19) epidemic among the general population in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17(5):1729. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051729. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Voitsidis P, Gliatas I, Bairachtari V, Papadopoulou K, Papageorgiou G, Parlapani E. Insomnia during the COVID-19 pandemic in a Greek population. Psychiatry Res. 2020;289 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113076. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang Y, Ma ZF. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and quality of life among local residents in Liaoning province, China: a cross-sectional study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17(7):2381. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17072381. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pappa S, Ntella V, Giannakas T, Giannakoulis VG, Papoutsi E, Katsaounou P. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behavi. Immun. 2020;(20) doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.026. S0889-1591(20)30845-X. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Qian Y, Wu K, Xu H, Bao D, Ran F, Wei W. A survey on physical and mental distress among cancer patients during the COVID-19 epidemic in wuhan, China. J Palliat Med. 2020 doi: 10.1089/jpm.2020.0240. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cao W, Fang Z, Hou G, Han M, Xu X, Dong J. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Res. 2020;287 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Shacham M, Hamama-Raz Y, Kolerman R, Mijiritsky O, Ben-Ezra M, Mijiritsky E. COVID-19 factors and psychological factors associated with elevated psychological distress among dentists and dental hygienists in Israel. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17(8):2900. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17082900. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sønderskov KM, Dinesen PT, Santini ZI, Østergaard SD. The depressive state of denmark during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2020:1–3. doi: 10.1017/neu.2020.15. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Qiu J, Shen B, Zhao M, Wang Z, Xie B, Xu Y. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: implications and policy recommendations. Gen. Psychiatr. 2020;33(2) doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ren Y, Zhou Y, Qian W, Li Z, Liu Z, Wang R. Letter to the editor “A longitudinal study on the mental health of general population during the COVID-19 epidemic in China” Brain Behav. Immun. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.004. S0889-1591(20)30761-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bo H-X, Li W, Yang Y, Wang Y, Zhang Q, Cheung T. Posttraumatic stress symptoms and attitude toward crisis mental health services among clinically stable patients with COVID-19 in China. Psychol. Med. 2020:1–2. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720000999. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Law M, Steinwender S, Leclair L. Occupation, health and well-being. Can. J.Occupat. Therapy. 1998;65(2):81–91. doi: 10.1177/000841749806500204. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lei L, Huang X, Zhang S, Yang J, Yang L, Xu M. Comparison of prevalence and associated factors of anxiety and depression among people affected by versus People Unaffected by Quarantine During the COVID-19 epidemic in Southwestern China. Med. Sci. Monit. 2020;26 doi: 10.12659/MSM.924609. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Li G, Miao J, Wang H, Xu S, Sun W, Fan Y. Psychological impact on women health workers involved in COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan: a cross-sectional study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323134. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Li Y, Qin Q, Sun Q, Sanford LD, Vgontzas AN, Tang X. Insomnia and psychological reactions during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. J. Clin. Sleep Med. 2020 doi: 10.5664/jcsm.8524. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Li Y, Wang Y, Jiang J, Valdimarsdóttir UA, Fall K, Fang F. Psychological distress among health professional students during the COVID-19 outbreak. Psychol. Med. 2020:1–3. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720001555. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Li S, Wang Y, Xue J, Zhao N, Zhu T. The Impact of COVID-19 Epidemic Declaration on Psychological Consequences: A Study on Active Weibo Users. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17(6):2032. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17062032. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Li J, Yang Z, Qiu H, Wang Y, Jian L, Ji J. Anxiety and depression among general population in China at the peak of the COVID-19 epidemic. World Psychiatry. 2020;19(2):249–250. doi: 10.1002/wps.20758. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chew QH, Wei KC, Vasoo S, Chua HC, Sim K. Narrative synthesis of psychological and coping responses towards emerging infectious disease outbreaks in the general population: practical considerations for the COVID-19 pandemic. Singapore Med. J. 2020 doi: 10.11622/smedj.2020046. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chou L-P, Li C-Y, Hu SC. Job stress and burnout in hospital employees: comparisons of different medical professions in a regional hospital in Taiwan. BMJ Open. 2014;4(2) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhou J, Liu L, Xue P, Yang X, Tang X. Mental Health response to the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Am. J. Psychiatry. 2020 doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20030304. appiajp202020030304. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bacigalupo I, Mayer F, Lacorte E, Di Pucchio A, Marzolini F, Canevelli M. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of dementia in Europe: estimates from the highest-quality studies adopting the DSM IV diagnostic criteria. J. Alzheimers. Dis. 2018;66(4):1471–1481. doi: 10.3233/JAD-180416. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang C, Yang L, Liu S, Ma S, Wang Y, Cai Z. Survey of insomnia and related social psychological factors among medical staff involved in the 2019 novel coronavirus disease outbreak. Front. Psychiatry. 2020;11:306. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00306. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhou X. Psychological crisis interventions in Sichuan Province during the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak. Psychiatry Res. 2020;286 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112895. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • James PB, Wardle J, Steel A, Adams J. Post-Ebola psychosocial experiences and coping mechanisms among Ebola survivors: a systematic review. Tropic. Med. Int. Health. 2019;24(6):671–691. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13226. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang WR, Wang K, Yin L, Zhao WF, Xue Q, Peng M. mental health and psychosocial problems of medical health workers during the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Psychother Psychosom. 2020 doi: 10.1159/000507639. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Consolo U, Bellini P, Bencivenni D, Iani C, Checchi V. Epidemiological aspects and psychological reactions to COVID-19 of dental practitioners in the Northern Italy districts of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Int  J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3459. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17103459. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ho CS, Chee CY, Ho RC. Mental health strategies to combat the psychological impact of COVID-19 beyond paranoia and panic. Ann. Acad. Med. Singapore. 2020;49(3):155–160. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Formats: