100
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The impact of the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic on stress resilience and mental health: a critical review across waves

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          The global public health crisis caused by COVID-19 has lasted longer than many of us would have hoped and expected. With its high uncertainty and limited control, the COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly asked a lot from all of us. One important central question is: how resilient have we proved in face of the unprecedented and prolonged coronavirus pandemic? There is a vast and rapidly growing literature that has examined the impact of the pandemic on mental health both on the shorter (2020) and longer (2021) term. This not only concerns pandemic-related effects on resilience in the general population, but also how the pandemic has challenged stress resilience and mental health outcomes across more specific vulnerable population groups: patients with a psychiatric disorder, COVID-19 diagnosed patients, health care workers, children and adolescents, pregnant women, and elderly people. It is challenging to keep up to date with, and interpret this rapidly increasing scientific literature. In this review, we provide a critical overview on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted mental health and how human stress resilience has been shaped by the pandemic on the shorter and longer term. The vast literature is dominated by a wealth of data which are, however, not always of the highest quality and heavily depend on online and self-report surveys. Nevertheless, it appears that we have proven surprisingly resilient over time, with fast recovery from COVID-19 measures. Still, vulnerable groups such as adolescents and health care personnel that have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic do exist. Large interindividual differences exist, and for future pandemics there is a clear need to comprehensively and integratively assess resilience from the start to provide personalized help and interventions tailored to the specific needs for vulnerable groups.

          • The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic were often associated with increased levels of distress and depressive and anxiety symptoms in the general population.

          • A substantial group of individuals has been either largely unaffected or is even doing better during the pandemic.

          • Longitudinal follow up showed remarkable signs of resilience.

          • Health care workers appear to be at an increased risk of stress-related psychological symptoms.

          • The mental health of children, adolescents, and students has been particularly affected by the pandemic.

          • Elderly people are more vulnerable to the physical effects of COVID-19, but also report lower psychopathology during the pandemic.

          • Individuals with an existing psychiatric disorder are experiencing detrimental impact on their mental health from the COVID-19 pandemic, but do not seem to have further increased symptom severity compared with their pre-pandemic levels.

          • A high risk exists for psychiatric sequelae following a COVID-19 infection.

          • Many methodological shortcomings occur in the current literature which is often cross-sectional and relies on self-report, and it is moreover hard to directly compare results across many of the studies.

          • There is an urgent need for a personalized approach when it comes to identifying individuals at risk or resilient for the stressful effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

          • The effects of stress and the resilience capacity are dependent on (neuro)biological, psychological, and environmental factors and also are heavily dependent on an individual's unique context.

          Related collections

          Most cited references187

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China

          Highlights • Methods of guiding students to effectively and appropriately regulate their emotions during public health emergencies and avoid losses caused by crisis events have become an urgent problem for colleges and universities. Therefore, we investigated and analyzed the mental health status of college students during the epidemic for the following purposes. (1) To evaluate the mental situation of college students during the epidemic; (2) to provide a theoretical basis for psychological interventions with college students; and (3) to provide a basis for the promulgation of national and governmental policies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A Longitudinal Study on the Mental Health of General Population during the COVID-19 Epidemic in China

            Highlights • A significant reduction in psychological impact 4 weeks after COVID outbreak. • The mean scores of respondents in both surveys were above PTSD cut-offs. • Female gender, physical symptoms associated with a higher psychological impact. • Hand hygiene, mask-wearing & confidence in doctors reduced psychological impact. • Online trauma-focused psychotherapy may be helpful to public during COVID-19.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic

              Summary Background Before the COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses caused two noteworthy outbreaks: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), starting in 2002, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), starting in 2012. We aimed to assess the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases (from their inception until March 18, 2020), and medRxiv, bioRxiv, and PsyArXiv (between Jan 1, 2020, and April 10, 2020) were searched by two independent researchers for all English-language studies or preprints reporting data on the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of individuals with suspected or laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection (SARS coronavirus, MERS coronavirus, or SARS coronavirus 2). We excluded studies limited to neurological complications without specified neuropsychiatric presentations and those investigating the indirect effects of coronavirus infections on the mental health of people who are not infected, such as those mediated through physical distancing measures such as self-isolation or quarantine. Outcomes were psychiatric signs or symptoms; symptom severity; diagnoses based on ICD-10, DSM-IV, or the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (third edition) or psychometric scales; quality of life; and employment. Both the systematic review and the meta-analysis stratified outcomes across illness stages (acute vs post-illness) for SARS and MERS. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and the meta-analytical effect size was prevalence for relevant outcomes, I 2 statistics, and assessment of study quality. Findings 1963 studies and 87 preprints were identified by the systematic search, of which 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprints met inclusion criteria. The number of coronavirus cases of the included studies was 3559, ranging from 1 to 997, and the mean age of participants in studies ranged from 12·2 years (SD 4·1) to 68·0 years (single case report). Studies were from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Saudi Arabia, France, Japan, Singapore, the UK, and the USA. Follow-up time for the post-illness studies varied between 60 days and 12 years. The systematic review revealed that during the acute illness, common symptoms among patients admitted to hospital for SARS or MERS included confusion (36 [27·9%; 95% CI 20·5–36·0] of 129 patients), depressed mood (42 [32·6%; 24·7–40·9] of 129), anxiety (46 [35·7%; 27·6–44·2] of 129), impaired memory (44 [34·1%; 26·2–42·5] of 129), and insomnia (54 [41·9%; 22·5–50·5] of 129). Steroid-induced mania and psychosis were reported in 13 (0·7%) of 1744 patients with SARS in the acute stage in one study. In the post-illness stage, depressed mood (35 [10·5%; 95% CI 7·5–14·1] of 332 patients), insomnia (34 [12·1%; 8·6–16·3] of 280), anxiety (21 [12·3%; 7·7–17·7] of 171), irritability (28 [12·8%; 8·7–17·6] of 218), memory impairment (44 [18·9%; 14·1–24·2] of 233), fatigue (61 [19·3%; 15·1–23·9] of 316), and in one study traumatic memories (55 [30·4%; 23·9–37·3] of 181) and sleep disorder (14 [100·0%; 88·0–100·0] of 14) were frequently reported. The meta-analysis indicated that in the post-illness stage the point prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder was 32·2% (95% CI 23·7–42·0; 121 of 402 cases from four studies), that of depression was 14·9% (12·1–18·2; 77 of 517 cases from five studies), and that of anxiety disorders was 14·8% (11·1–19·4; 42 of 284 cases from three studies). 446 (76·9%; 95% CI 68·1–84·6) of 580 patients from six studies had returned to work at a mean follow-up time of 35·3 months (SD 40·1). When data for patients with COVID-19 were examined (including preprint data), there was evidence for delirium (confusion in 26 [65%] of 40 intensive care unit patients and agitation in 40 [69%] of 58 intensive care unit patients in one study, and altered consciousness in 17 [21%] of 82 patients who subsequently died in another study). At discharge, 15 (33%) of 45 patients with COVID-19 who were assessed had a dysexecutive syndrome in one study. At the time of writing, there were two reports of hypoxic encephalopathy and one report of encephalitis. 68 (94%) of the 72 studies were of either low or medium quality. Interpretation If infection with SARS-CoV-2 follows a similar course to that with SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV, most patients should recover without experiencing mental illness. SARS-CoV-2 might cause delirium in a significant proportion of patients in the acute stage. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, and rarer neuropsychiatric syndromes in the longer term. Funding Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University College London.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur Neuropsychopharmacol
                Eur Neuropsychopharmacol
                European Neuropsychopharmacology
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
                0924-977X
                1873-7862
                29 October 2021
                29 October 2021
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Section of Psychiatry, Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
                [2 ]Unit of Clinical Psychiatry, University Hospital Agency of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
                [3 ]Department of Pharmacology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Psychiatry (GGZ inGeest), Amsterdam UMC (location VUmc), Vrije University, Amsterdam Public Health and Amsterdam Neuroscience research institutes, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [5 ]Department of Psychiatry, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
                [6 ]Research Center for Translational Medicine, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey
                [7 ]Research Group Neurobiology of Stress Resilience, Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Munich, Germany
                [8 ]Division of Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, Department of Medicine, University of Basel, Switzerland
                [9 ]Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
                [10 ]Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
                [11 ]Dept Anatomy & Neuroscience, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland & APC Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
                [12 ]King's College London, London, SE5 8AF Imperial College London, London, W12 0NN Lundbeck A/v, Valby, Denmark
                [13 ]Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
                [14 ]ICVS/3B's - PT Government Associate Laboratory, Braga/Guimarães, Portugal
                [15 ]Department of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center, LUMC Neuroscience and Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden, the Netherlands
                [16 ]Dept. of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
                [17 ]Center for Basics in NeuroModulation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
                [18 ]Department of Cell Biology and Neurosciences, Section of Behavioural Neurosciences, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
                [19 ]Department of Psychiatry (GGZ inGeest), Amsterdam UMC (location VUmc), Vrije University, Amsterdam Public Health and Amsterdam Neuroscience research institutes, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [20 ]Department of Anatomy and Neurosciences, Amsterdam UMC (location VUmc), Vrije University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author:
                Article
                S0924-977X(21)01635-7
                10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.10.864
                8554139
                34818601
                d804c57c-f521-41af-ba01-44330c4993a3
                © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine
                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article