For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
1
views
54
references
 Top references
cited by
13
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      211
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      One Year On: What We Have Learned about the Psychological Effects of COVID-19 Social Restrictions – A Meta-Analysis

      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

          This paper reports on the first meta-analysis of studies on the association between government-imposed social restrictions and mental health outcomes published during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirty-three studies (N=131,844) were included. Social restrictions were significantly associated with increased mental health symptoms overall ( d=.41 [CI 95% .17 – .65]), including depression ( d=.83 [CI 95% .30–1.37]), stress ( d=.21 [CI 95% .01–.42]) and loneliness ( d=.30 [CI 95% .07–.52]), but not anxiety ( d=.26 [CI 95% -.04–.56]). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the strictness and length of restrictions had divergent effects on mental health outcomes, but there are concerns regarding study quality. The findings provide critical insights for future research on the effects of COVID-19 social restrictions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

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

          Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

          Jos I. M. Egger, G D Smith, M. Schneider … (1997)
          Article 0 comments Cited 6689 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            Julian P T Higgins, Simon G Thompson (2002)
            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Article 0 comments Cited 5637 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence

              Samantha K. Brooks, Rebecca K Webster, Louise E. Smith … (2022)
              Summary The December, 2019 coronavirus disease outbreak has seen many countries ask people who have potentially come into contact with the infection to isolate themselves at home or in a dedicated quarantine facility. Decisions on how to apply quarantine should be based on the best available evidence. We did a Review of the psychological impact of quarantine using three electronic databases. Of 3166 papers found, 24 are included in this Review. Most reviewed studies reported negative psychological effects including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma. Some researchers have suggested long-lasting effects. In situations where quarantine is deemed necessary, officials should quarantine individuals for no longer than required, provide clear rationale for quarantine and information about protocols, and ensure sufficient supplies are provided. Appeals to altruism by reminding the public about the benefits of quarantine to wider society can be favourable.
              Article 0 comments Cited 5417 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Curr Opin Psychol
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Curr Opin Psychol
                Title: Current Opinion in Psychology
                Publisher: Elsevier Ltd.
                ISSN (Print): 2352-250X
                ISSN (Electronic): 2352-2518
                Publication date PMC-release: 10 March 2022
                Publication date (Electronic): 10 March 2022
                Electronic Location Identifier: 101315
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Deakin University
                [2 ]University of Queensland
                [3 ]University of Minnesota
                Author notes
                [∗ ]Corresponding author. , School of Psychology, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, 3125.
                [1]

                Co-lead authors.

                Article
                Publisher Item ID: S2352-250X(22)00025-2 Publisher ID: 101315
                DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101315
                PMC ID: 8907153
                PubMed ID: 35398753
                SO-VID: 9a7e2320-d670-4f7e-ab58-4c7752a29cf6
                Copyright © © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                License:

                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
                Date received : 14 January 2022
                Date revision received : 7 February 2022
                Date accepted : 15 February 2022
                Categories
                Subject: Review

                Keywords: covid-19,lockdown,mental health,loneliness,meta-analysis
                Data availability:
                Keywords: covid-19, lockdown, mental health, loneliness, meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content211

                See all similar

                Cited by13

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors4,185

                See all reference authors