Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

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

BMJ open
January 1, 1970
Angkana Lekagul et al. (5 authors)
Journal ArticleSystematic ReviewResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tHuman Study
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to assess the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions in mitigating psychological consequences (e.g., anxiety, depression, stress) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results Summary

Mindfulness and meditation-based interventions significantly reduced anxiety in 90.9% of RCTs and depression in 83.3% of RCTs, demonstrating effectiveness in alleviating psychological distress. The interventions were standardized and showed high reliability and validity in outcome measures.

Population

General population, healthcare workers, and patients with COVID-19.

Effective Dosage

Not specified

Duration

Not specified

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (4)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
anxiety interventions
decrease
anxiety
intervention groups
-
significantly lowered
#1
interventions
decrease
level of depression
-
-
significantly reduced
#2
mindfulness and meditation based interventions
neutral
anxiety and stress
-
-
-
#3
interventions
decrease
psychological consequences from COVID-19 pandemic
healthcare workers, patients with COVID-19 and general population
-
effective in mitigating
#4
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This review assesses interventions and their effectiveness in mitigating psychological consequences from pandemic. METHOD: Published 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). RESULTS: All 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. CONCLUSIONS: Results 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.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
AnxietyAnxiety DisordersCOVID-19Health PersonnelHumansPandemics
Study Links
Quality Scores
SafetyNot Assessed
Efficacy85/10
Quality78/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations11
Citations/Year3.7
Relative Citation Ratio1.93
NIH Percentile73.4%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.50
Weight Score1.64
Normalized Score0.70
Related Supplements