Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY10032, USA.
Psychol Med. 2021 Apr;51(6):881-893. doi: 10.1017/S0033291721000933. Epub 2021 Mar 2.
COVID-19 physical distancing measures can potentially increase the likelihood of mental disorders. It is unknown whether these measures are associated with depression and anxiety.
To investigate meta-analytic global levels of depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic and how the implementation of mitigation strategies (i.e. public transportation closures, stay-at-home orders, etc.) impacted such disorders.
PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, BIOSIS Citation Index, Current Content Connect, PsycINFO, CINAHL, medRxiv, and PsyArXiv databases for depression and anxiety prevalences; Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker for the containment and closure policies indexes; Global Burden of Disease Study for previous levels of depression and anxiety.
Original studies conducted during COVID-19 pandemic, which assessed categorical depression and anxiety, using PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scales (cutoff ⩾10).
General population, healthcare providers, students, and patients. National physical distancing measures.
Meta-analysis and meta-regression.
In total, 226 638 individuals were assessed within the 60 included studies. Global prevalence of both depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic was 24.0% and 21.3%, respectively. There were differences in the prevalence of both anxiety and depression reported across regions and countries. Asia (17.6% and 17.9%), and China (16.2% and 15.5%) especially, had the lowest prevalence of both disorders. Regarding the impact of mitigation strategies on mental health, only public transportation closures increased the prevalence of anxiety, especially in Europe.
Country-level data on physical distancing measures and previous anxiety/depression may not necessarily reflect local (i.e. city-specific) contexts.
Mental health concerns should not be viewed only as a delayed consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also as a concurrent epidemic. Our data provide support for policy-makers to consider real-time enhanced mental health services, and increase initiatives to foster positive mental health outcomes.
COVID-19 物理疏离措施可能会增加精神障碍的可能性。目前尚不清楚这些措施是否与抑郁和焦虑有关。
调查 COVID-19 大流行期间全球范围内抑郁和焦虑的流行情况，以及减轻策略（例如公共交通停运、居家令等）的实施如何影响这些疾病。
PubMed、MEDLINE、Web of Science、BIOSIS 引文索引、Current Content Connect、PsycINFO、CINAHL、medRxiv 和 PsyArXiv 数据库，用于评估抑郁和焦虑患病率；牛津 COVID-19 政府反应追踪器用于评估遏制和关闭政策指数；全球疾病负担研究用于评估以前的抑郁和焦虑水平。
在 COVID-19 大流行期间进行的原始研究，使用 PHQ-9 和 GAD-7 量表（临界值 ⩾10）评估分类抑郁和焦虑。
一般人群、医疗保健提供者、学生和患者。国家物理疏离措施。
Meta 分析和 Meta 回归。
在纳入的 60 项研究中，共有 226638 人接受了评估。COVID-19 大流行期间，抑郁和焦虑的全球患病率分别为 24.0%和 21.3%。不同地区和国家报告的焦虑和抑郁患病率存在差异。亚洲（17.6%和 17.9%）和中国（16.2%和 15.5%）的发病率尤其低。关于减轻策略对心理健康的影响，只有公共交通停运增加了焦虑的患病率，尤其是在欧洲。
关于物理疏离措施和以前的焦虑/抑郁的国家数据不一定反映当地（即城市特定）的情况。
不应仅将心理健康问题视为 COVID-19 大流行的延迟后果，还应将其视为一种并发的流行病。我们的数据为决策者提供了支持，以考虑实时加强心理健康服务，并增加促进积极心理健康结果的举措。
