27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews Translated title: Infodémie et désinformation sanitaire: revue systématique des revues Translated title: La infodemia y la información errónea sobre la salud: una revisión sistemática de las revisiones Translated title: المعلومات غير الدقيقة والمعلومات الصحية الخاطئة: مراجعة منهجية للمراجعات Translated title: 信息流行病和健康错误信息:针对审查的系统评价 Translated title: Инфодемия и дезинформация в области здравоохранения: систематический анализ обзоров

      review-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Objective

          To compare and summarize the literature regarding infodemics and health misinformation, and to identify challenges and opportunities for addressing the issues of infodemics.

          Methods

          We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Epistemonikos on 6 May 2022 for systematic reviews analysing infodemics, misinformation, disinformation and fake news related to health. We grouped studies based on similarity and retrieved evidence on challenges and opportunities. We used the AMSTAR 2 approach to assess the reviews’ methodological quality. To evaluate the quality of the evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines.

          Findings

          Our search identified 31 systematic reviews, of which 17 were published. The proportion of health-related misinformation on social media ranged from 0.2% to 28.8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram are critical in disseminating the rapid and far-reaching information. The most negative consequences of health misinformation are the increase of misleading or incorrect interpretations of available evidence, impact on mental health, misallocation of health resources and an increase in vaccination hesitancy. The increase of unreliable health information delays care provision and increases the occurrence of hateful and divisive rhetoric. Social media could also be a useful tool to combat misinformation during crises. Included reviews highlight the poor quality of published studies during health crises.

          Conclusion

          Available evidence suggests that infodemics during health emergencies have an adverse effect on society. Multisectoral actions to counteract infodemics and health misinformation are needed, including developing legal policies, creating and promoting awareness campaigns, improving health-related content in mass media and increasing people’s digital and health literacy.

          Résumé

          Objectif

          Comparer et synthétiser la littérature consacrée à l'infodémie et à la désinformation sanitaire, mais aussi identifier les défis et opportunités inhérents à la lutte contre cette problématique.

          Méthodes

          Nous avons exploré les bases de données MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus et Epistemonikos le 6 mai 2022 à la recherche de revues systématiques analysant les infodémies, la désinformation, les fausses informations et les «fake news» liées à la santé. Nous avons ensuite regroupé les études en fonction de leurs similitudes et en avons extrait des éléments probants relatifs aux défis et opportunités. Nous avons employé l'approche AMSTAR-2 afin de mesurer la qualité méthodologique des différentes revues. Enfin, pour évaluer la qualité des éléments probants, nous avons utilisé les critères du système GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, soit «grade donné aux recommandations, examen, élaboration et évaluation»).

          Résultats

          Nos recherches nous ont permis de dénicher 31 revues systématiques, dont 17 ont été publiées. Sur les réseaux sociaux, le pourcentage d'informations fallacieuses concernant la santé était compris entre 0,2 et 28,8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube et Instagram jouent un rôle prépondérant dans la propagation rapide d'informations à grande échelle. Cette désinformation entraîne de multiples conséquences négatives: hausse du nombre d'interprétations erronées ou trompeuses des preuves existantes, impact sur la santé mentale, mauvaise affectation des ressources en santé et méfiance croissante vis-à-vis de la vaccination. La prolifération des informations sanitaires non fiables retarde la prise en charge tout en alimentant les réticences et les discours clivants. Néanmoins, les réseaux sociaux peuvent aussi se révéler utiles dans la lutte contre la désinformation lors des crises. Les revues examinées soulignent la qualité médiocre des études publiées durant les crises sanitaires.

          Conclusion

          Tout porte à croire que les infodémies qui surgissent dans le cadre des urgences sanitaires sont néfastes pour la société. Des actions multisectorielles sont nécessaires pour combattre les fausses informations, notamment le développement de politiques juridiques, l'élaboration et le déploiement de campagnes de sensibilisation, l'amélioration des contenus dédiés à la santé dans les médias de masse, et une meilleure éducation à la culture numérique et à la santé.

          Resumen

          Objetivo

          Comparar y resumir la literatura relacionada con la infodemia y la información errónea sobre la salud, e identificar los desafíos y las oportunidades para abordar los problemas de la infodemia.

          Métodos

          Se realizaron búsquedas en MEDLINE®, Embase®, la Biblioteca Cochrane de Revisiones Sistemáticas, Scopus y Epistemonikos el 6 de mayo de 2022 para obtener revisiones sistemáticas que analizaran la infodemia, la información errónea, la desinformación y las noticias falsas relacionadas con la salud. Se agruparon los estudios en función de la similitud y se recuperaron las pruebas sobre los desafíos y las oportunidades. Se utilizó el enfoque AMSTAR-2 para valorar la calidad metodológica de las revisiones. Además, para evaluar la calidad de las pruebas, se utilizaron los criterios del sistema GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, o bien, el grado asignado a las recomendaciones, la valoración, el desarrollo y la evaluación).

          Resultados

          Nuestra búsqueda identificó 31 revisiones sistemáticas, de las que 17 estaban publicadas. El porcentaje de información errónea relacionada con la salud en las redes sociales osciló entre el 0,2 y el 28,8 %. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube e Instagram son fundamentales en la difusión de la información rápida y de gran alcance. Las consecuencias más negativas de la información errónea sobre la salud son el aumento de las interpretaciones engañosas o incorrectas de las pruebas disponibles, el impacto en la salud mental, la asignación inadecuada de los recursos sanitarios y el aumento de las dudas sobre la vacunación. El aumento de la información sanitaria poco fiable retrasa la prestación de cuidados y aumenta la aparición de una retórica de rechazo y división. Por otra parte, los medios sociales podrían ser una herramienta útil para combatir la información errónea durante las crisis. Las revisiones incluidas destacan la mala calidad de los estudios publicados durante las crisis sanitarias.

          Conclusión

          Las pruebas disponibles sugieren que la infodemia durante las emergencias sanitarias tiene un efecto adverso en la sociedad. Se necesitan acciones multisectoriales para contrarrestar la infodemia y la información errónea sobre la salud, como el desarrollo de políticas legales, la creación y promoción de campañas de sensibilización, la mejora de los contenidos relacionados con la salud en los medios de comunicación y el aumento de la alfabetización digital y sanitaria de la población.

          ملخص

          الغرض

          مقارنة وتلخيص المنشورات المتعلقة بالمعلومات غير الدقيقة والمعلومات الصحية الخاطئة، وتحديد التحديات والفرص لمواجهة مشكلات المعلومات غير الدقيقة.

          الطريقة

          قمنا بالبحث في MEDLINE®‎، وEmbase®‎، ومكتبة Cochrane للمراجعات المنهجية، وScopus، وEpistemonikos، في 6 مايو/أيار 2022 عن المراجعات المنهجية التي تحلل المعلومات غير الدقيقة، والمعلومات الخاطئة، والمعلومات المضللة، والأخبار الملفقة المتعلقة بالصحة. قمنا بتجميع الدراسات على أساس التشابه، واسترجعنا الأدلة على التحديات والفرص. وقمنا بالاستعانة بأسلوب AMSTAR-2 لتقييم الجودة المنهجية للمراجعات. لتقييم جودة الأدلة، قمنا بالاستعانة بتصنيف تقييم التوصيات (Grading of Recommendations Assessment)، وبالإرشادات الخاصة بالتطوير والتقييم (Development and Evaluation).

          النتائج

          حدد البحث الذي قمنا به عدد 31 مراجعة منهجية، تم نشر 17 منها. تراوحت نسبة المعلومات الخاطئة المتعلقة بالصحة على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي من 0.2% إلى 28.8%. تعد كل من منصات Twitter، وFacebook، وYouTube، وInstagram، منصات أساسية في نشر المعلومات السريعة وبعيدة الانتشار. تتمثل أكثر العواقب السلبية للمعلومات الصحية الخاطئة في زيادة التفسيرات المضللة أو غير الصحيحة للأدلة المتاحة، والتأثير على الصحة العقلية، وسوء تخصيص الموارد الصحية، وزيادة في التردد بخصوص التحصين. تؤدي زيادة المعلومات الصحية غير الموثوقة إلى تأخير تقديم الرعاية، وتزيد من حدوث خطاب الكراهية والانقسام. يمكن أن تكون وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي أيضًا أداة مفيدة لمواجهة المعلومات الخاطئة أثناء الأزمات. تسلط المراجعات المتضمنة الضوء على الجودة المنخفضة للدراسات المنشورة أثناء الأزمات الصحية.

          الاستنتاج

          تشير الأدلة المتاحة إلى أن المعلومات غير الدقيقة أثناء حالات الطوارئ الصحية لها تأثير سلبي على المجتمع. هناك حاجة إلى إجراءات متعددة القطاعات لمواجهة المعلومات غير الدقيقة والمعلومات الصحية الخاطئة، بما في ذلك تطوير السياسات القانونية، وإطلاق حملات للتوعية وترويجها، وتحسين المحتوى المتعلق بالصحة في وسائل الإعلام، وزيادة المعرفة الرقمية والصحية للأشخاص.

          摘要

          目的

          比较和总结与信息流行病和健康错误信息有关的文献,并确定在解决信息流行病问题方面所面临的挑战和机遇。

          方法

          我们已于 2022 年 5 月 6 日搜索了 MEDLINE®、Embase®、Cochrane 系统评价图书馆、Scopus 和 Epistemonikos,通过分析信息流行病以及与健康相关的错误信息、虚假信息和假新闻,完成了系统评价。我们基于相似性对研究进行了分组,并检索了与挑战和机遇有关的证据。我们使用 AMSTAR-2 方法来评估审查的方法学质量。为了评估证据的质量,我们使用了《推荐意见评估、制定和评价分级指南》。

          结果

          经搜索,我们发现了 31 篇系统评价,其中 17 篇已发表。社交媒体上健康相关错误信息的比例占 0.2% 至 28.8% 不等。推特网 (Twitter)、脸书 (Facebook)、YouTube 和 Instagram 是致使信息得以快速传播并造成深远影响的重要渠道。健康错误信息导致的最严重负面影响是对现有证据的误导或错误理解进一步加剧、对心理健康造成不利影响、导致卫生资源分配错误以及导致疫苗接种犹豫人群的比例增加。不可靠健康信息的增加导致护理服务延迟提供且反对和分裂言论增多。社交媒体也可成为在危机期间打击错误信息的有用工具。有些评论强调,健康危机期间所公布的研究质量较差。

          结论

          现有证据表明,卫生突发事件期间信息流行病对社会产生了不利影响。需要多个部门共同行动以抵制信息流行病和健康错误信息,包括制定法律政策、创建和推广意识活动、加强对大众媒体健康相关内容的管理以及提高人们的数字和健康素养。

          Резюме

          Цель

          Сопоставить и обобщить литературу по инфодемии и дезинформации в области здравоохранения, а также определить сложные задачи и возможности для решения проблем инфодемии.

          Методы

          6 мая 2022 г. авторы выполнили поиск информации в базе данных MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus и Epistemonikos на предмет систематических обзоров, анализирующих инфодемию, ложную информацию, дезинформацию и фейковые новости о здравоохранении. Авторы сгруппировали исследования на основе сходства и получили данные о сложных задачах и возможностях. Авторы использовали подход AMSTAR-2 для оценки методологического качества обзоров. Для оценки качества данных авторы использовали Руководство по ранжированию оценки, разработки и экспертизы рекомендаций.

          Результаты

          Поиск выявил 31 систематический обзор, 17 из которых были опубликованы. Доля дезинформации в области здравоохранения в социальных сетях колебалась от 0,2 до 28,8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube и Instagram играют решающую роль в быстром и широкомасштабном распространении информации. Наиболее негативными последствиями дезинформации в области здравоохранения являются увеличение количества вводящих в заблуждение или неверных интерпретаций имеющихся данных, воздействие на психическое здоровье, нерациональное использование ресурсов в сфере здравоохранения и усиление сомнений в необходимости вакцинации. Увеличение количества недостоверной информации в области здоровья задерживает оказание медицинской помощи и увеличивает количество проявлений ненависти и разногласий. Социальные сети также могут быть полезным инструментом для борьбы с дезинформацией во время кризисов. Во всех включенных обзорах подчеркивается низкое качество опубликованных исследований во время кризисов в области здравоохранения.

          Вывод

          Имеющиеся данные свидетельствуют о том, что инфодемия во время чрезвычайных ситуаций в области здравоохранения оказывает неблагоприятное воздействие на общество. Необходимы многосекторальные действия по противодействию инфодемии и дезинформации в области здравоохранения, включая разработку правовой политики, создание и продвижение кампаний по повышению осведомленности, улучшение контента, связанного со здоровьем, в средствах массовой информации и повышение цифровой и медицинской грамотности населения.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

            The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, June 24–30, 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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Bull World Health Organ
                Bull World Health Organ
                BLT
                Bulletin of the World Health Organization
                World Health Organization
                0042-9686
                1564-0604
                01 September 2022
                30 June 2022
                : 100
                : 9
                : 544-561
                Affiliations
                [a ]School of Medicine and University Hospital, Federal University of Minas Gerais , Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
                [b ]Clinical Research Center, Fundación Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia.
                [c ]Department of Computer Science, Institute of Exact Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais , Brazil.
                [d ]Division of Country Health Policies and Systems, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, UN City, Marmorvej 51, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
                [e ]Faculty of Medicine, Lund University , Lund, Sweden.
                Author notes
                Correspondence to David Novillo-Ortiz (email: dnovillo@ 123456who.int ).
                Article
                BLT.21.287654
                10.2471/BLT.21.287654
                9421549
                36062247
                7ae70d2d-6bc9-475b-870f-148354a16b60
                (c) 2022 The authors; licensee World Health Organization.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution IGO License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/legalcode), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any reproduction of this article there should not be any suggestion that WHO or this article endorse any specific organization or products. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.

                History
                : 15 December 2021
                : 31 May 2022
                : 31 May 2022
                Categories
                Systematic Reviews

                Comments

                Comment on this article