- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: not found
A systematic review of mHealth application interventions for peripartum mood disorders: trends and evidence in academia and industry
review-article
Publication date (Electronic):
30 April 2021
Journal:
Archives of Women's Mental Health
Publisher:
Springer Vienna
Read this article at
There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
In this review, we aim to summarize research findings and marketplace apps for women with perinatal mood disorders with the goal of informing clinicians and patients about current risks and benefits, as well as proposing clinical implementation advice and a harmonized agenda for both academic and industry advancement in this space. Multiple searches were run of academic databases in 2018–2020, examining literature on mobile apps for peripartum mental health. Multiple searches were also run of the iOS and Android app stores in 2019 and 2020, looking at apps for peripartum mental health. Results were compared within the academic dataset as well within the commercial app dataset; the two datasets were also examined for overlap. The academic search results were notable for small sample sizes and heterogeneous endpoints. The app store search results were notable for apps of generally poor quality (as assessed by a modified Silberg scale). Very few of the mHealth interventions studied in the academic literature were available in the app store; very few of the apps from the commercial stores were supported by academic literature. The disconnect between academically developed apps and commercially available apps highlights the need for better collaboration between academia and industry. More collaboration between the two approaches may benefit both app developers and patients in this demographic moving forwards. Additionally, we present a set of practice guidelines for mHealth in perinatal psychiatry based on the trends identified in this review.
Related collections
Most cited references29
- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2017)
Introduction Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field [1],[2], and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research [3], and some health care journals are moving in this direction [4]. As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in four leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all eight explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies [5]. In 1987, Sacks and colleagues [6] evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in six domains. Reporting was generally poor; between one and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement [7]. In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials [8]. In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1: Conceptual Issues in the Evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA Completing a Systematic Review Is an Iterative Process The conduct of a systematic review depends heavily on the scope and quality of included studies: thus systematic reviewers may need to modify their original review protocol during its conduct. Any systematic review reporting guideline should recommend that such changes can be reported and explained without suggesting that they are inappropriate. The PRISMA Statement (Items 5, 11, 16, and 23) acknowledges this iterative process. Aside from Cochrane reviews, all of which should have a protocol, only about 10% of systematic reviewers report working from a protocol [22]. Without a protocol that is publicly accessible, it is difficult to judge between appropriate and inappropriate modifications. Conduct and Reporting Research Are Distinct Concepts This distinction is, however, less straightforward for systematic reviews than for assessments of the reporting of an individual study, because the reporting and conduct of systematic reviews are, by nature, closely intertwined. For example, the failure of a systematic review to report the assessment of the risk of bias in included studies may be seen as a marker of poor conduct, given the importance of this activity in the systematic review process [37]. Study-Level Versus Outcome-Level Assessment of Risk of Bias For studies included in a systematic review, a thorough assessment of the risk of bias requires both a “study-level” assessment (e.g., adequacy of allocation concealment) and, for some features, a newer approach called “outcome-level” assessment. An outcome-level assessment involves evaluating the reliability and validity of the data for each important outcome by determining the methods used to assess them in each individual study [38]. The quality of evidence may differ across outcomes, even within a study, such as between a primary efficacy outcome, which is likely to be very carefully and systematically measured, and the assessment of serious harms [39], which may rely on spontaneous reports by investigators. This information should be reported to allow an explicit assessment of the extent to which an estimate of effect is correct [38]. Importance of Reporting Biases Different types of reporting biases may hamper the conduct and interpretation of systematic reviews. Selective reporting of complete studies (e.g., publication bias) [28] as well as the more recently empirically demonstrated “outcome reporting bias” within individual studies [40],[41] should be considered by authors when conducting a systematic review and reporting its results. Though the implications of these biases on the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews themselves are unclear, some previous research has identified that selective outcome reporting may occur also in the context of systematic reviews [42]. Terminology The terminology used to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time. One reason for changing the name from QUOROM to PRISMA was the desire to encompass both systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have adopted the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration [9]. A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies. Developing the PRISMA Statement A three-day meeting was held in Ottawa, Canada, in June 2005 with 29 participants, including review authors, methodologists, clinicians, medical editors, and a consumer. The objective of the Ottawa meeting was to revise and expand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram, as needed. The executive committee completed the following tasks, prior to the meeting: a systematic review of studies examining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews, and a comprehensive literature search to identify methodological and other articles that might inform the meeting, especially in relation to modifying checklist items. An international survey of review authors, consumers, and groups commissioning or using systematic reviews and meta-analyses was completed, including the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). The survey aimed to ascertain views of QUOROM, including the merits of the existing checklist items. The results of these activities were presented during the meeting and are summarized on the PRISMA Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/). Only items deemed essential were retained or added to the checklist. Some additional items are nevertheless desirable, and review authors should include these, if relevant [10]. For example, it is useful to indicate whether the systematic review is an update [11] of a previous review, and to describe any changes in procedures from those described in the original protocol. Shortly after the meeting a draft of the PRISMA checklist was circulated to the group, including those invited to the meeting but unable to attend. A disposition file was created containing comments and revisions from each respondent, and the checklist was subsequently revised 11 times. The group approved the checklist, flow diagram, and this summary paper. Although no direct evidence was found to support retaining or adding some items, evidence from other domains was believed to be relevant. For example, Item 5 asks authors to provide registration information about the systematic review, including a registration number, if available. Although systematic review registration is not yet widely available [12],[13], the participating journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [14] now require all clinical trials to be registered in an effort to increase transparency and accountability [15]. Those aspects are also likely to benefit systematic reviewers, possibly reducing the risk of an excessive number of reviews addressing the same question [16],[17] and providing greater transparency when updating systematic reviews. The PRISMA Statement The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist (Table 1; see also Text S1 for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use) and a four-phase flow diagram (Figure 1; see also Figure S1 for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use). The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews. However, the PRISMA checklist is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.g001 Figure 1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.t001 Table 1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis. Section/Topic # Checklist Item Reported on Page # TITLE Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. ABSTRACT Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. INTRODUCTION Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). METHODS Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. Risk of bias in individual studies 12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. RESULTS Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome-level assessment (see Item 12). Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group and (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). DISCUSSION Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., health care providers, users, and policy makers). Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. FUNDING Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. From QUOROM to PRISMA The new PRISMA checklist differs in several respects from the QUOROM checklist, and the substantive specific changes are highlighted in Table 2. Generally, the PRISMA checklist “decouples” several items present in the QUOROM checklist and, where applicable, several checklist items are linked to improve consistency across the systematic review report. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.t002 Table 2 Substantive specific changes between the QUOROM checklist and the PRISMA checklist (a tick indicates the presence of the topic in QUOROM or PRISMA). Section/Topic Item QUOROM PRISMA Comment Abstract √ √ QUOROM and PRISMA ask authors to report an abstract. However, PRISMA is not specific about format. Introduction Objective √ This new item (4) addresses the explicit question the review addresses using the PICO reporting system (which describes the participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcome(s) of the systematic review), together with the specification of the type of study design (PICOS); the item is linked to Items 6, 11, and 18 of the checklist. Methods Protocol √ This new item (5) asks authors to report whether the review has a protocol and if so how it can be accessed. Methods Search √ √ Although reporting the search is present in both QUOROM and PRISMA checklists, PRISMA asks authors to provide a full description of at least one electronic search strategy (Item 8). Without such information it is impossible to repeat the authors' search. Methods Assessment of risk of bias in included studies √ √ Renamed from “quality assessment” in QUOROM. This item (12) is linked with reporting this information in the results (Item 19). The new concept of “outcome-level” assessment has been introduced. Methods Assessment of risk of bias across studies √ This new item (15) asks authors to describe any assessments of risk of bias in the review, such as selective reporting within the included studies. This item is linked with reporting this information in the results (Item 22). Discussion √ √ Although both QUOROM and PRISMA checklists address the discussion section, PRISMA devotes three items (24–26) to the discussion. In PRISMA the main types of limitations are explicitly stated and their discussion required. Funding √ This new item (27) asks authors to provide information on any sources of funding for the systematic review. The flow diagram has also been modified. Before including studies and providing reasons for excluding others, the review team must first search the literature. This search results in records. Once these records have been screened and eligibility criteria applied, a smaller number of articles will remain. The number of included articles might be smaller (or larger) than the number of studies, because articles may report on multiple studies and results from a particular study may be published in several articles. To capture this information, the PRISMA flow diagram now requests information on these phases of the review process. Endorsement The PRISMA Statement should replace the QUOROM Statement for those journals that have endorsed QUOROM. We hope that other journals will support PRISMA; they can do so by registering on the PRISMA Web site. To underscore to authors, and others, the importance of transparent reporting of systematic reviews, we encourage supporting journals to reference the PRISMA Statement and include the PRISMA Web address in their Instructions to Authors. We also invite editorial organizations to consider endorsing PRISMA and encourage authors to adhere to its principles. The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Paper In addition to the PRISMA Statement, a supporting Explanation and Elaboration document has been produced [18] following the style used for other reporting guidelines [19]–[21]. The process of completing this document included developing a large database of exemplars to highlight how best to report each checklist item, and identifying a comprehensive evidence base to support the inclusion of each checklist item. The Explanation and Elaboration document was completed after several face to face meetings and numerous iterations among several meeting participants, after which it was shared with the whole group for additional revisions and final approval. Finally, the group formed a dissemination subcommittee to help disseminate and implement PRISMA. Discussion The quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal [22]–[27]. In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias [22], even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence [28] and its impact on the results of systematic reviews [29]. Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately [30]. Although the absence of reporting such an assessment does not necessarily indicate that it was not done, reporting an assessment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review. Several approaches have been developed to conduct systematic reviews on a broader array of questions. For example, systematic reviews are now conducted to investigate cost-effectiveness [31], diagnostic [32] or prognostic questions [33], genetic associations [34], and policy making [35]. The general concepts and topics covered by PRISMA are all relevant to any systematic review, not just those whose objective is to summarize the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. However, some modifications of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in particular circumstances. For example, assessing the risk of bias is a key concept, but the items used to assess this in a diagnostic review are likely to focus on issues such as the spectrum of patients and the verification of disease status, which differ from reviews of interventions. The flow diagram will also need adjustments when reporting individual patient data meta-analysis [36]. We have developed an explanatory document [18] to increase the usefulness of PRISMA. For each checklist item, this document contains an example of good reporting, a rationale for its inclusion, and supporting evidence, including references, whenever possible. We believe this document will also serve as a useful resource for those teaching systematic review methodology. We encourage journals to include reference to the explanatory document in their Instructions to Authors. Like any evidence-based endeavor, PRISMA is a living document. To this end we invite readers to comment on the revised version, particularly the new checklist and flow diagram, through the PRISMA Web site. We will use such information to inform PRISMA's continued development. Supporting Information Figure S1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review (downloadable template document for researchers to re-use). (0.08 MB DOC) Click here for additional data file. Text S1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis (downloadable template document for researchers to re-use). (0.04 MB DOC) Click here for additional data file.
- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, June 24–30, 2020
Mark Czeisler, Rashon Lane, Emiko Petrosky … (2020)
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been associated with mental health challenges related to the morbidity and mortality caused by the disease and to mitigation activities, including the impact of physical distancing and stay-at-home orders.* Symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder increased considerably in the United States during April–June of 2020, compared with the same period in 2019 ( 1 , 2 ). To assess mental health, substance use, and suicidal ideation during the pandemic, representative panel surveys were conducted among adults aged ≥18 years across the United States during June 24–30, 2020. Overall, 40.9% of respondents reported at least one adverse mental or behavioral health condition, including symptoms of anxiety disorder or depressive disorder (30.9%), symptoms of a trauma- and stressor-related disorder (TSRD) related to the pandemic † (26.3%), and having started or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID-19 (13.3%). The percentage of respondents who reported having seriously considered suicide in the 30 days before completing the survey (10.7%) was significantly higher among respondents aged 18–24 years (25.5%), minority racial/ethnic groups (Hispanic respondents [18.6%], non-Hispanic black [black] respondents [15.1%]), self-reported unpaid caregivers for adults § (30.7%), and essential workers ¶ (21.7%). Community-level intervention and prevention efforts, including health communication strategies, designed to reach these groups could help address various mental health conditions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. During June 24–30, 2020, a total of 5,412 (54.7%) of 9,896 eligible invited adults** completed web-based surveys †† administered by Qualtrics. §§ The Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee of Monash University (Melbourne, Australia) reviewed and approved the study protocol on human subjects research. Respondents were informed of the study purposes and provided electronic consent before commencement, and investigators received anonymized responses. Participants included 3,683 (68.1%) first-time respondents and 1,729 (31.9%) respondents who had completed a related survey during April 2–8, May 5–12, 2020, or both intervals; 1,497 (27.7%) respondents participated during all three intervals ( 2 , 3 ). Quota sampling and survey weighting were employed to improve cohort representativeness of the U.S. population by gender, age, and race/ethnicity. ¶¶ Symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder were assessed using the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire*** ( 4 ), and symptoms of a COVID-19–related TSRD were assessed using the six-item Impact of Event Scale ††† ( 5 ). Respondents also reported whether they had started or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID-19 or seriously considered suicide in the 30 days preceding the survey. §§§ Analyses were stratified by gender, age, race/ethnicity, employment status, essential worker status, unpaid adult caregiver status, rural-urban residence classification, ¶¶¶ whether the respondent knew someone who had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, or who had died from COVID-19, and whether the respondent was receiving treatment for diagnosed anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time of the survey. Comparisons within subgroups were evaluated using Poisson regressions with robust standard errors to calculate prevalence ratios, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values to evaluate statistical significance (α = 0.005 to account for multiple comparisons). Among the 1,497 respondents who completed all three surveys, longitudinal analyses of the odds of incidence**** of symptoms of adverse mental or behavioral health conditions by essential worker and unpaid adult caregiver status were conducted on unweighted responses using logistic regressions to calculate unadjusted and adjusted †††† odds ratios (ORs), 95% CI, and p-values (α = 0.05). The statsmodels package in Python (version 3.7.8; Python Software Foundation) was used to conduct all analyses. Overall, 40.9% of 5,470 respondents who completed surveys during June reported an adverse mental or behavioral health condition, including those who reported symptoms of anxiety disorder or depressive disorder (30.9%), those with TSRD symptoms related to COVID-19 (26.3%), those who reported having started or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID-19 (13.3%), and those who reported having seriously considered suicide in the preceding 30 days (10.7%) (Table 1). At least one adverse mental or behavioral health symptom was reported by more than one half of respondents who were aged 18–24 years (74.9%) and 25–44 years (51.9%), of Hispanic ethnicity (52.1%), and who held less than a high school diploma (66.2%), as well as those who were essential workers (54.0%), unpaid caregivers for adults (66.6%), and who reported treatment for diagnosed anxiety (72.7%), depression (68.8%), or PTSD (88.0%) at the time of the survey. TABLE 1 Respondent characteristics and prevalence of adverse mental health outcomes, increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID-19 pandemic, and suicidal ideation — United States, June 24–30, 2020 Characteristic All respondents who completed surveys during June 24–30, 2020 weighted* no. (%) Weighted %* Conditions Started or increased substance use to cope with pandemic-related stress or emotions¶ Seriously considered suicide in past 30 days ≥1 adverse mental or behavioral health symptom Anxiety disorder† Depressive disorder† Anxiety or depressive disorder† COVID-19–related TSRD§ All respondents 5,470 (100) 25.5 24.3 30.9 26.3 13.3 10.7 40.9 Gender Female 2,784 (50.9) 26.3 23.9 31.5 24.7 12.2 8.9 41.4 Male 2,676 (48.9) 24.7 24.8 30.4 27.9 14.4 12.6 40.5 Other 10 (0.2) 20.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 0.0 30.0 Age group (yrs) 18–24 731 (13.4) 49.1 52.3 62.9 46.0 24.7 25.5 74.9 25–44 1,911 (34.9) 35.3 32.5 40.4 36.0 19.5 16.0 51.9 45–64 1,895 (34.6) 16.1 14.4 20.3 17.2 7.7 3.8 29.5 ≥65 933 (17.1) 6.2 5.8 8.1 9.2 3.0 2.0 15.1 Race/Ethnicity White, non-Hispanic 3,453 (63.1) 24.0 22.9 29.2 23.3 10.6 7.9 37.8 Black, non-Hispanic 663 (12.1) 23.4 24.6 30.2 30.4 18.4 15.1 44.2 Asian, non-Hispanic 256 (4.7) 14.1 14.2 18.0 22.1 6.7 6.6 31.9 Other race or multiple races, non-Hispanic** 164 (3.0) 27.8 29.3 33.2 28.3 11.0 9.8 43.8 Hispanic, any race(s) 885 (16.2) 35.5 31.3 40.8 35.1 21.9 18.6 52.1 Unknown 50 (0.9) 38.0 34.0 44.0 34.0 18.0 26.0 48.0 2019 Household income (USD) <25,000 741 (13.6) 30.6 30.8 36.6 29.9 12.5 9.9 45.4 25,000–49,999 1,123 (20.5) 26.0 25.6 33.2 27.2 13.5 10.1 43.9 50,999–99,999 1,775 (32.5) 27.1 24.8 31.6 26.4 12.6 11.4 40.3 100,999–199,999 1,301 (23.8) 23.1 20.8 27.7 24.2 15.5 11.7 37.8 ≥200,000 282 (5.2) 17.4 17.0 20.6 23.1 14.8 11.6 35.1 Unknown 247 (4.5) 19.6 23.1 27.2 24.9 6.2 3.9 41.5 Education Less than high school diploma 78 (1.4) 44.5 51.4 57.5 44.5 22.1 30.0 66.2 High school diploma 943 (17.2) 31.5 32.8 38.4 32.1 15.3 13.1 48.0 Some college 1,455 (26.6) 25.2 23.4 31.7 22.8 10.9 8.6 39.9 Bachelor's degree 1,888 (34.5) 24.7 22.5 28.7 26.4 14.2 10.7 40.6 Professional degree 1,074 (19.6) 20.9 19.5 25.4 24.5 12.6 10.0 35.2 Unknown 33 (0.6) 25.2 23.2 28.2 23.2 10.5 5.5 28.2 Employment status†† Employed 3,431 (62.7) 30.1 29.1 36.4 32.1 17.9 15.0 47.8 Essential 1,785 (32.6) 35.5 33.6 42.4 38.5 24.7 21.7 54.0 Nonessential 1,646 (30.1) 24.1 24.1 29.9 25.2 10.5 7.8 41.0 Unemployed 761 (13.9) 32.0 29.4 37.8 25.0 7.7 4.7 45.9 Retired 1,278 (23.4) 9.6 8.7 12.1 11.3 4.2 2.5 19.6 Unpaid adult caregiver status§§ Yes 1,435 (26.2) 47.6 45.2 56.1 48.4 32.9 30.7 66.6 No 4,035 (73.8) 17.7 16.9 22.0 18.4 6.3 3.6 31.8 Region ¶¶ Northeast 1,193 (21.8) 23.9 23.9 29.9 22.8 12.8 10.2 37.1 Midwest 1,015 (18.6) 22.7 21.1 27.5 24.4 9.0 7.5 36.1 South 1,921 (35.1) 27.9 26.5 33.4 29.1 15.4 12.5 44.4 West 1,340 (24.5) 25.8 24.2 30.9 26.7 14.0 10.9 43.0 Rural-urban classification*** Rural 599 (10.9) 26.0 22.5 29.3 25.4 11.5 10.2 38.3 Urban 4,871 (89.1) 25.5 24.6 31.1 26.4 13.5 10.7 41.2 Know someone who had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 Yes 1,109 (20.3) 23.8 21.9 29.6 21.5 12.9 7.5 39.2 No 4,361 (79.7) 26.0 25.0 31.3 27.5 13.4 11.5 41.3 Knew someone who died from COVID-19 Yes 428 (7.8) 25.8 20.6 30.6 28.1 11.3 7.6 40.1 No 5,042 (92.2) 25.5 24.7 31.0. 26.1 13.4 10.9 41.0 Receiving treatment for previously diagnosed condition Anxiety Yes 536 (9.8) 59.6 52.0 66.0 51.9 26.6 23.6 72.7 No 4,934 (90.2) 21.8 21.3 27.1 23.5 11.8 9.3 37.5 Depression Yes 540 (9.9) 52.5 50.6 60.8 45.5 25.2 22.1 68.8 No 4,930 (90.1) 22.6 21.5 27.7 24.2 12.0 9.4 37.9 Posttraumatic stress disorder Yes 251 (4.6) 72.3 69.1 78.7 69.4 43.8 44.8 88.0 No 5,219 (95.4) 23.3 22.2 28.6 24.2 11.8 9.0 38.7 Abbreviations: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; TSRD = trauma- and stressor-related disorder. * Survey weighting was employed to improve the cross-sectional June cohort representativeness of the U.S. population by gender, age, and race/ethnicity according to the 2010 U.S. Census with respondents in which gender, age, and race/ethnicity were reported. Respondents who reported a gender of “Other” or who did not report race/ethnicity were assigned a weight of one. † Symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder were assessed via the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4). Those who scored ≥3 out of 6 on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-2) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) subscales were considered symptomatic for each disorder, respectively. § Disorders classified as TSRDs in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5) include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), acute stress disorder (ASD), and adjustment disorders (ADs), among others. Symptoms of a TSRD precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic were assessed via the six-item Impact of Event Scale (IES-6) to screen for overlapping symptoms of PTSD, ASD, and ADs. For this survey, the COVID-19 pandemic was specified as the traumatic exposure to record peri- and posttraumatic symptoms associated with the range of stressors introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Those who scored ≥1.75 out of 4 were considered symptomatic. ¶ 104 respondents selected “Prefer not to answer.” ** The Other race or multiple races, non-Hispanic category includes respondents who identified as not being Hispanic and as more than one race or as American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or “Other.” †† Essential worker status was self-reported. The comparison was between employed respondents (n = 3,431) who identified as essential vs. nonessential. For this analysis, students who were not separately employed as essential workers were considered nonessential workers. §§ Unpaid adult caregiver status was self-reported. The definition of an unpaid caregiver for adults was a person who had provided unpaid care to a relative or friend aged ≥18 years to help them take care of themselves at any time in the last 3 months. Examples provided included helping with personal needs, household chores, health care tasks, managing a person’s finances, taking them to a doctor’s appointment, arranging for outside services, and visiting regularly to see how they are doing. ¶¶ Region classification was determined by using the U.S. Census Bureau’s Census Regions and Divisions of the United States. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf. *** Rural-urban classification was determined by using self-reported ZIP codes according to the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy definition of rurality. https://www.hrsa.gov/rural-health/about-us/definition/datafiles.html. Prevalences of symptoms of adverse mental or behavioral health conditions varied significantly among subgroups (Table 2). Suicidal ideation was more prevalent among males than among females. Symptoms of anxiety disorder or depressive disorder, COVID-19–related TSRD, initiation of or increase in substance use to cope with COVID-19–associated stress, and serious suicidal ideation in the previous 30 days were most commonly reported by persons aged 18–24 years; prevalence decreased progressively with age. Hispanic respondents reported higher prevalences of symptoms of anxiety disorder or depressive disorder, COVID-19–related TSRD, increased substance use, and suicidal ideation than did non-Hispanic whites (whites) or non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) respondents. Black respondents reported increased substance use and past 30-day serious consideration of suicide in the previous 30 days more commonly than did white and Asian respondents. Respondents who reported treatment for diagnosed anxiety, depression, or PTSD at the time of the survey reported higher prevalences of symptoms of adverse mental and behavioral health conditions compared with those who did not. Symptoms of a COVID-19–related TSRD, increased substance use, and suicidal ideation were more prevalent among employed than unemployed respondents, and among essential workers than nonessential workers. Adverse conditions also were more prevalent among unpaid caregivers for adults than among those who were not, with particularly large differences in increased substance use (32.9% versus 6.3%) and suicidal ideation (30.7% versus 3.6%) in this group. TABLE 2 Comparison of symptoms of adverse mental health outcomes among all respondents who completed surveys (N = 5,470), by respondent characteristic* — United States, June 24–30, 2020 Characteristic Prevalence ratio ¶ (95% CI¶) Symptoms of anxiety disorder or depressive disorder † Symptoms of a TSRD related to COVID-19 § Started or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID-19 Serious consideration of suicide in past 30 days Gender Female vs. male 1.04 (0.96–1.12) 0.88 (0.81–0.97) 0.85 (0.75–0.98) 0.70 (0.60–0.82)** Age group (yrs) 18–24 vs. 25–44 1.56 (1.44–1.68)** 1.28 (1.16–1.41)** 1.31 (1.12–1.53)** 1.59 (1.35–1.87)** 18–24 vs. 45–64 3.10 (2.79–3.44)** 2.67 (2.35–3.03)** 3.35 (2.75–4.10)** 6.66 (5.15–8.61)** 18–24 vs. ≥65 7.73 (6.19–9.66)** 5.01 (4.04–6.22)** 8.77 (5.95–12.93)** 12.51 (7.88–19.86)** 25–44 vs. 45–64 1.99 (1.79–2.21)** 2.09 (1.86–2.35)** 2.56 (2.14–3.07)** 4.18 (3.26–5.36)** 25–44 vs. ≥65 4.96 (3.97–6.20)** 3.93 (3.18–4.85)** 6.70 (4.59–9.78)** 7.86 (4.98–12.41)** 45–64 vs. ≥65 2.49 (1.98–3.15)** 1.88 (1.50–2.35)** 2.62 (1.76–3.9)** 1.88 (1.14–3.10) Race/Ethnicity†† Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic black 1.35 (1.18–1.56)** 1.15 (1.00–1.33) 1.19 (0.97–1.46) 1.23 (0.98–1.55) Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic Asian 2.27 (1.73–2.98)** 1.59 (1.24–2.04)** 3.29 (2.05–5.28)** 2.82 (1.74–4.57)** Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic other race or multiple races 1.23 (0.98–1.55) 1.24 (0.96–1.61) 1.99 (1.27–3.13)** 1.89 (1.16–3.06) Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic white 1.40 (1.27–1.54)** 1.50 (1.35–1.68)** 2.09 (1.79–2.45)** 2.35 (1.96–2.80)** Non-Hispanic black vs. non-Hispanic Asian 1.68 (1.26–2.23)** 1.38 (1.07–1.78) 2.75 (1.70–4.47)** 2.29 (1.39–3.76)** Non-Hispanic black vs. non-Hispanic other race or multiple races 0.91 (0.71–1.16) 1.08 (0.82–1.41) 1.67 (1.05–2.65) 1.53 (0.93–2.52) Non-Hispanic black vs. non-Hispanic white 1.03 (0.91–1.17) 1.30 (1.14–1.48)** 1.75 (1.45–2.11)** 1.90 (1.54–2.36)** Non-Hispanic Asian vs. non-Hispanic other race or multiple races 0.54 (0.39–0.76)** 0.78 (0.56–1.09) 0.61 (0.32–1.14) 0.67 (0.35–1.29) Non-Hispanic Asian vs. non-Hispanic white 0.62 (0.47–0.80)** 0.95 (0.74–1.20) 0.64 (0.40–1.02) 0.83 (0.52–1.34) Non-Hispanic other race or multiple races vs. non-Hispanic white 1.14 (0.91–1.42) 1.21 (0.94–1.56) 1.05 (0.67–1.64) 1.24 (0.77–2) Employment status Employed vs. unemployed 0.96 (0.87–1.07) 1.28 (1.12–1.46)** 2.30 (1.78–2.98)** 3.21 (2.31–4.47)** Employed vs. retired 3.01 (2.58–3.51)** 2.84 (2.42–3.34)** 4.30 (3.28–5.63)** 5.97 (4.20–8.47)** Unemployed vs. retired 3.12 (2.63–3.71)** 2.21 (1.82–2.69)** 1.87 (1.30–2.67)** 1.86 (1.16–2.96) Essential vs. nonessential worker§§ 1.42 (1.30–1.56)** 1.52 (1.38–1.69)** 2.36 (2.00–2.77)** 2.76 (2.29–3.33)** Unpaid caregiver for adults vs. not¶¶` 2.55 (2.37–2.75)** 2.63 (2.42–2.86)** 5.28 (4.59–6.07)** 8.64 (7.23–10.33)** Rural vs. urban residence*** 0.94 (0.82–1.07) 0.96 (0.83–1.11) 0.84 (0.67–1.06) 0.95 (0.74–1.22) Knows someone with positive SARS-CoV-2 test result vs. not 0.95 (0.86–1.05) 0.78 (0.69–0.88)** 0.96 (0.81–1.14) 0.65 (0.52–0.81)** Knew someone who died from COVID-19 vs. not 0.99 (0.85–1.15) 1.08 (0.92–1.26) 0.84 (0.64–1.11) 0.69 (0.49–0.97) Receiving treatment for anxiety vs. not 2.43 (2.26–2.63)** 2.21 (2.01–2.43)** 2.27 (1.94–2.66)** 2.54 (2.13–3.03)** Receiving treatment for depression vs. not 2.20 (2.03–2.39)** 1.88 (1.70–2.09)** 2.13 (1.81–2.51)** 2.35 (1.96–2.82)** Receiving treatment for PTSD vs. not 2.75 (2.55–2.97)** 2.87 (2.61–3.16)** 3.78 (3.23–4.42)** 4.95 (4.21–5.83)** Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder; TSRD = trauma- and stressor-related disorder. * Number of respondents for characteristics: gender (female = 2,784, male = 2,676), age group in years (18–24 = 731; 25–44 = 1,911; 45–64 = 1,895; ≥65 = 933), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white = 3453, non-Hispanic black = 663, non-Hispanic Asian = 256, non-Hispanic other race or multiple races = 164, Hispanic = 885). † Symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder were assessed via the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4). Those who scored ≥3 out of 6 on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-2) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) subscales were considered to have symptoms of these disorders. § Disorders classified as TSRDs in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5) include PTSD, acute stress disorder (ASD), and adjustment disorders (ADs), among others. Symptoms of a TSRD precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic were assessed via the six-item Impact of Event Scale (IES-6) to screen for overlapping symptoms of PTSD, ASD, and ADs. For this survey, the COVID-19 pandemic was specified as the traumatic exposure to record peri- and posttraumatic symptoms associated with the range of stressors introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Persons who scored ≥1.75 out of 4 were considered to be symptomatic. ¶ Comparisons within subgroups were evaluated on weighted responses via Poisson regressions used to calculate a prevalence ratio, 95% CI, and p-value (not shown). Statistical significance was evaluated at a threshold of α = 0.005 to account for multiple comparisons. In the calculation of prevalence ratios for started or increased substance use, respondents who selected “Prefer not to answer” (n = 104) were excluded. ** P-value is statistically significant (p<0.005). †† Respondents identified as a single race unless otherwise specified. The non-Hispanic, other race or multiple races category includes respondents who identified as not Hispanic and as more than one race or as American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or ‘Other’. §§ Essential worker status was self-reported. The comparison was between employed respondents (n = 3,431) who identified as essential vs. nonessential. For this analysis, students who were not separately employed as essential workers were considered nonessential workers. ¶¶ Unpaid adult caregiver status was self-reported. The definition of an unpaid caregiver for adults was having provided unpaid care to a relative or friend aged ≥18 years to help them take care of themselves at any time in the last 3 months. Examples provided included helping with personal needs, household chores, health care tasks, managing a person’s finances, taking them to a doctor’s appointment, arranging for outside services, and visiting regularly to see how they are doing. *** Rural-urban classification was determined by using self-reported ZIP codes according to the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy definition of rurality. https://www.hrsa.gov/rural-health/about-us/definition/datafiles.html. Longitudinal analysis of responses of 1,497 persons who completed all three surveys revealed that unpaid caregivers for adults had a significantly higher odds of incidence of adverse mental health conditions compared with others (Table 3). Among those who did not report having started or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID-19 in May, unpaid caregivers for adults had 3.33 times the odds of reporting this behavior in June (adjusted OR 95% CI = 1.75–6.31; p<0.001). Similarly, among those who did not report having seriously considered suicide in the previous 30 days in May, unpaid caregivers for adults had 3.03 times the odds of reporting suicidal ideation in June (adjusted OR 95% CI = 1.20–7.63; p = 0.019). TABLE 3 Odds of incidence* of symptoms of adverse mental health, substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID–19 pandemic, and suicidal ideation in the third survey wave, by essential worker status and unpaid adult caregiver status among respondents who completed monthly surveys from April through June (N = 1,497) — United States, April 2–8, May 5–12, and June 24–30, 2020 Symptom or behavior Essential worker† vs. all other employment statuses (nonessential worker, unemployed, retired) Unpaid caregiver for adults§ vs. not unpaid caregiver Unadjusted Adjusted¶ Unadjusted Adjusted** OR (95% CI)†† p-value†† OR (95% CI)†† p-value†† OR (95% CI)†† p-value†† OR (95% CI)†† p-value†† Symptoms of anxiety disorder§§ 1.92 (1.29–2.87) 0.001 1.63 (0.99–2.69) 0.056 1.97 (1.25–3.11) 0.004 1.81 (1.14–2.87) 0.012 Symptoms of depressive disorder§§ 1.49 (1.00–2.22) 0.052 1.13 (0.70–1.82) 0.606 2.29 (1.50–3.50) <0.001 2.22 (1.45–3.41) <0.001 Symptoms of anxiety disorder or depressive disorder§§ 1.67 (1.14–2.46) 0.008 1.26 (0.79–2.00) 0.326 1.84 (1.19–2.85) 0.006 1.73 (1.11–2.70) 0.015 Symptoms of a TSRD related to COVID–19¶¶ 1.55 (0.86–2.81) 0.146 1.27 (0.63–2.56) 0.512 1.88 (0.99–3.56) 0.054 1.79 (0.94–3.42) 0.076 Started or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID–19 2.36 (1.26–4.42) 0.007 2.04 (0.92–4.48) 0.078 3.51 (1.86–6.61) <0.001 3.33 (1.75–6.31) <0.001 Serious consideration of suicide in previous 30 days 0.93 (0.31–2.78) 0.895 0.53 (0.16–1.70) 0.285 3.00 (1.20–7.52) 0.019 3.03 (1.20–7.63) 0.019 Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, COVID–19 = coronavirus disease 2019, OR = odds ratio, TSRD = trauma– and stressor–related disorder. * For outcomes assessed via the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ–4), odds of incidence were marked by the presence of symptoms during May 5–12 or June 24–30, 2020, after the absence of symptoms during April 2–8, 2020. Respondent pools for prospective analysis of odds of incidence (did not screen positive for symptoms during April 2–8): anxiety disorder (n = 1,236), depressive disorder (n = 1,301) and anxiety disorder or depressive disorder (n = 1,190). For symptoms of a TSRD precipitated by COVID–19, started or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID–19, and serious suicidal ideation in the previous 30 days, odds of incidence were marked by the presence of an outcome during June 24–30, 2020, after the absence of that outcome during May 5–12, 2020. Respondent pools for prospective analysis of odds of incidence (did not report symptoms or behavior during May 5–12): symptoms of a TSRD (n = 1,206), started or increased substance use (n = 1,408), and suicidal ideation (n = 1,456). † Essential worker status was self–reported. For Table 3, essential worker status was determined by identification as an essential worker during the June 24–30 survey. Essential workers were compared with all other respondents, not just employed respondents (i.e., essential workers vs. all other employment statuses (nonessential worker, unemployed, and retired), not essential vs. nonessential workers). § Unpaid adult caregiver status was self–reported. The definition of an unpaid caregiver for adults was having provided unpaid care to a relative or friend 18 years or older to help them take care of themselves at any time in the last 3 months. Examples provided included helping with personal needs, household chores, health care tasks, managing a person’s finances, taking them to a doctor’s appointment, arranging for outside services, and visiting regularly to see how they are doing. ¶ Adjusted for gender, employment status, and unpaid adult caregiver status. ** Adjusted for gender, employment status, and essential worker status. †† Respondents who completed surveys from all three waves (April, May, June) were eligible to be included in an unweighted longitudinal analysis. Comparisons within subgroups were evaluated via logit–linked Binomial regressions used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and p–values. Statistical significance was evaluated at a threshold of α = 0.05. In the calculation of odds ratios for started or increased substance use, respondents who selected “Prefer not to answer” (n = 11) were excluded. §§ Symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder were assessed via the PHQ–4. Those who scored ≥3 out of 6 on the two–item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD–2) and two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ–2) subscales were considered symptomatic for each disorder, respectively. ¶¶ Disorders classified as TSRDs in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5) include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), acute stress disorder (ASD), and adjustment disorders (ADs), among others. Symptoms of a TSRD precipitated by the COVID–19 pandemic were assessed via the six–item Impact of Event Scale (IES–6) to screen for overlapping symptoms of PTSD, ASD, and ADs. For this survey, the COVID–19 pandemic was specified as the traumatic exposure to record peri– and posttraumatic symptoms associated with the range of potential stressors introduced by the COVID–19 pandemic. Those who scored ≥1.75 out of 4 were considered symptomatic. Discussion Elevated levels of adverse mental health conditions, substance use, and suicidal ideation were reported by adults in the United States in June 2020. The prevalence of symptoms of anxiety disorder was approximately three times those reported in the second quarter of 2019 (25.5% versus 8.1%), and prevalence of depressive disorder was approximately four times that reported in the second quarter of 2019 (24.3% versus 6.5%) ( 2 ). However, given the methodological differences and potential unknown biases in survey designs, this analysis might not be directly comparable with data reported on anxiety and depression disorders in 2019 ( 2 ). Approximately one quarter of respondents reported symptoms of a TSRD related to the pandemic, and approximately one in 10 reported that they started or increased substance use because of COVID-19. Suicidal ideation was also elevated; approximately twice as many respondents reported serious consideration of suicide in the previous 30 days than did adults in the United States in 2018, referring to the previous 12 months (10.7% versus 4.3%) ( 6 ). Mental health conditions are disproportionately affecting specific populations, especially young adults, Hispanic persons, black persons, essential workers, unpaid caregivers for adults, and those receiving treatment for preexisting psychiatric conditions. Unpaid caregivers for adults, many of whom are currently providing critical aid to persons at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19, had a higher incidence of adverse mental and behavioral health conditions compared with others. Although unpaid caregivers of children were not evaluated in this study, approximately 39% of unpaid caregivers for adults shared a household with children (compared with 27% of other respondents). Caregiver workload, especially in multigenerational caregivers, should be considered for future assessment of mental health, given the findings of this report and hardships potentially faced by caregivers. The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, a diagnostic evaluation for anxiety disorder or depressive disorder was not conducted; however, clinically validated screening instruments were used to assess symptoms. Second, the trauma- and stressor-related symptoms assessed were common to multiple TSRDs, precluding distinction among them; however, the findings highlight the importance of including COVID-19–specific trauma measures to gain insights into peri- and posttraumatic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic ( 7 ). Third, substance use behavior was self-reported; therefore, responses might be subject to recall, response, and social desirability biases. Finally, given that the web-based survey might not be fully representative of the United States population, findings might have limited generalizability. However, standardized quality and data inclusion screening procedures, including algorithmic analysis of click-through behavior, removal of duplicate responses and scrubbing methods for web-based panel quality were applied. Further the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder were largely consistent with findings from the Household Pulse Survey during June ( 1 ). Markedly elevated prevalences of reported adverse mental and behavioral health conditions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the broad impact of the pandemic and the need to prevent and treat these conditions. Identification of populations at increased risk for psychological distress and unhealthy coping can inform policies to address health inequity, including increasing access to resources for clinical diagnoses and treatment options. Expanded use of telehealth, an effective means of delivering treatment for mental health conditions, including depression, substance use disorder, and suicidal ideation ( 8 ), might reduce COVID-19-related mental health consequences. Future studies should identify drivers of adverse mental and behavioral health during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether factors such as social isolation, absence of school structure, unemployment and other financial worries, and various forms of violence (e.g., physical, emotional, mental, or sexual abuse) serve as additional stressors. Community-level intervention and prevention efforts should include strengthening economic supports to reduce financial strain, addressing stress from experienced racial discrimination, promoting social connectedness, and supporting persons at risk for suicide ( 9 ). Communication strategies should focus on promotion of health services §§§§ , ¶¶¶¶ , ***** and culturally and linguistically tailored prevention messaging regarding practices to improve emotional well-being. Development and implementation of COVID-19–specific screening instruments for early identification of COVID-19–related TSRD symptoms would allow for early clinical interventions that might prevent progression from acute to chronic TSRDs. To reduce potential harms of increased substance use related to COVID-19, resources, including social support, comprehensive treatment options, and harm reduction services, are essential and should remain accessible. Periodic assessment of mental health, substance use, and suicidal ideation should evaluate the prevalence of psychological distress over time. Addressing mental health disparities and preparing support systems to mitigate mental health consequences as the pandemic evolves will continue to be needed urgently. Summary What is already known about this topic? Communities have faced mental health challenges related to COVID-19–associated morbidity, mortality, and mitigation activities. What is added by this report? During June 24–30, 2020, U.S. adults reported considerably elevated adverse mental health conditions associated with COVID-19. Younger adults, racial/ethnic minorities, essential workers, and unpaid adult caregivers reported having experienced disproportionately worse mental health outcomes, increased substance use, and elevated suicidal ideation. What are the implications for public health practice? The public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic should increase intervention and prevention efforts to address associated mental health conditions. Community-level efforts, including health communication strategies, should prioritize young adults, racial/ethnic minorities, essential workers, and unpaid adult caregivers.
- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: not found
Prevalence of suicidality during pregnancy and the postpartum.
Aislinn Pearson, L Colpe, V Lindahl (2005)
This review examined the available prevalence estimates of suicidality (suicide deaths, attempts, and ideation including thoughts of self harm) in pregnancy and the postpartum. Studies that used defined community or clinic samples were identified through multiple electronic databases and contacts with primary authors. Definitions of and measurement of suicide deaths, intentional self-harming behavior, suicide attempts, and thoughts of death and self-harm were varied and are described with each study. While suicide deaths and attempts are lower during pregnancy and the postpartum than in the general population of women, when deaths do occur, suicides account for up to 20% of postpartum deaths. Self-harm ideation is more common than attempts or deaths, with thoughts of self-harm during pregnancy and the postpartum ranging from 5 to 14%. The risk for suicidality is significantly elevated among depressed women during the perinatal period, and suicide has been found to be the second or leading cause of death in this depressed population.
Author and article information
Contributors
Natalie Feldman:
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7507-9978
nsfeldman@partners.org
Diana Back: dback@bwh.harvard.edu
Robert Boland: rboland@menninger.edu
John Torous: jtorous@bidmc.harvard.edu
Journal
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Arch Womens Ment Health
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Arch Womens Ment Health
Title:
Archives of Women's Mental Health
Publisher:
Springer Vienna
(Vienna
)
ISSN
(Print):
1434-1816
ISSN
(Electronic):
1435-1102
Publication date
(Electronic):
30
April
2021
Pages: 1-12
Affiliations
[1
]GRID grid.62560.37, ISNI 0000 0004 0378 8294, Department of Psychiatry, , Brigham and Women’s Hospital, ; Boston, MA USA
Author information
Natalie Feldman
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7507-9978
Article
Publisher ID: 1138DOI: 10.1007/s00737-021-01138-z
PMC ID: 8085644
PubMed ID: 33929636
SO-VID: 502d8f3a-031e-4a30-bb3b-01308459d436
Copyright © © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of
Springer Nature 2021
License:
This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
History
Date
received
: 15
February
2021
Date
accepted
: 22
April
2021
Categories
Subject:
Review Article
ScienceOpen disciplines: Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry