(English, Greek, German, French, Spanish, Turkish, Dutch, Latvian, Italian, Portuguese,
Finnish, Slovenian, Polish, Romanian, Hong Kong, Hungarian, Montenegrin, & Persian)
Health care personnel have been particularly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and exposed to more stressful circumstances than many other professional groups. This is due to several factors, including the increased infection risk, fear of infecting other people and being isolated from their families, working overtime, demanding work conditions with lengthy shifts, directly witnessing the suffering and death of patients, and witnessing the crowded and challenging situations in hospitals. Hence, it is not surprising that many studies on stress resilience and mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic have specifically focused on health care personnel. A meta-analysis of COVID-19-related stress and psychiatric symptoms in nurses already identified 93 studies published between January to September 2020 ( Al Maqbali et al., 2021 ). In this meta-analysis, over one third of over 90,000 nurses reported stress, sleep disturbances and increased mood and anxiety symptoms. This seems considerably higher than findings from studies in nurses working during smaller-scale pandemics like SARS or when compared to the general population at the same time period ( Chen et al., 2005 ). A similar picture arises from other studies. A survey of dental academics across 28 countries (March – May 2020, N = 1862) indicated considerable psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with significantly increased worries and altered individual behavior ( Ammar et al., 2020 ). Moreover, in a Spanish cohort of health care workers (April 2020, N = 1422) over half of the participants reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety disorders, and nearly 50% reported symptoms of depression, with women and younger people showing an even higher risk ( Luceno-Moreno et al., 2020 ). A study of medical staff in China (February – March 2020, N = 899) indicated a significantly increased prevalence of psychiatric symptoms such as depression, anxiety and insomnia compared to the general population ( Liang et al., 2020 ). A longitudinal study among Japanese adults (March 2020 and May 2020, N = 1015) showed that indices of fatigue, anxiety and depression increased among health care compared to non-health care workers during the COVID-19 outbreak ( Sasaki et al., 2020 ). In Portugal, a cross-sectional study (May 2020) showed that physicians working at the frontline of COVID-19 ( N = 420) presented worse mental health outcomes (anxiety, depression, stress and obsessive-compulsive symptoms) than other physicians. Moreover, this study found that being female and working at the frontline are risk factors for increased stress, while having a garden at home was a protective factor for anxiety and stress symptoms ( Ferreira et al., 2021 ). In Turkey, when 939 health care workers were assessed cross-sectionally in April-May 2020, more than 60% of the participants reported anxiety and depression symptoms ( Sahin et al., 2020 ). These studies stress the need for successful intervention or prevention strategies for health care personnel. To avoid long-term effects of stress, strategies to counteract the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, particularly in highly affected populations, may be helpful. For instance, in a group of Italian general practitioners ( N = 102), Di Monte and colleagues found that the implementation of task-orientated project management seemed protective against symptoms of burnout during the pandemic ( Di Monte et al., 2020 ). In another study, specific pandemic-related stress factors were identified in health care personnel, including workload burden and fear of infection ( Mosheva et al., 2020 ). Heath and colleagues reviewed several strategies to increase resilience among health care workers during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, also guided by the experiences of previous pandemics ( Heath et al., 2020 ). They identified several interventions and approaches, ranging from individual strategies without professional help (e.g. increased self-care or mindfulness practice) to strategies implemented at the group or organizational level (e.g. competency / resilience training, availability of psychological first aid or implementation of effective leadership and organizational justice). Importantly, some of these intervention strategies, including computer-assisted resilience training, have already been developed and successfully tested ( Aiello et al., 2011 ; Maunder et al., 2010 ; Weerkamp-Bartholomeus et al., 2020 ).
Conclusion: Overall, health care workers appear to be at an increased risk of stress-related psychological symptoms during a pandemic, compared to the general population. However, longitudinal studies are still largely lacking, and it remains to be seen whether the increase in symptoms is transient and can be considered a normal response to an abnormal temporally limited situation. For more solid conclusions, large-scale prospective longitudinal studies on the specific risk of health care personnel during and after a pandemic are needed. Such studies are already being planned ( Roberts et al., 2020 ). This is particularly relevant as the COVID-19 pandemic has been present over a prolonged period and already spans several waves of infection. Importantly, specific prevention and intervention strategies at the individual as well as at the organizational level may be crucial, with studies already showing beneficial effects of these strategies. See Table 2 for an overview of findings from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on the impact of COVID-19 on stress resilience and mental health in health care personnel.
The impact of COVID-19 on stress resilience and mental health in health care personnel.
Taiwanese female nurses | Mid-May 2003,(at the peak of the SARS outbreak) | Cross-sectional and case control, = 128 (high risk group = 65, mean age 27.2 years (± 3.6), conscripted group = 21, mean age 26.1 years (± 2.9), control group = 42, mean age 25.7 years (± 2.2)) | Symptoms of distress when working during the SARS crisis | Working as a nurse in the Kaohsiung Municipal Hsiao-Kang hospital during mid May 2003 | 11% of the nurses surveyed had stress reaction syndrome. Symptoms included anxiety, depression, hostility, and somatization. The highest rate of stress reaction syndrome was observed in the group that originally worked in a high-risk unit, and the conscripted group experienced the most severe distress on average.. | |
Adult dentists worldwide (28 countries) | March - May 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 1862 (27.8% aged 25–35 years, 32.9% aged >35–45 years, 20.2% aged >45–55 years, 13.7% aged >55–65 years, 5.4% >65 years, 53.4% female) | Psychological impact of COVID-19 on dental academics globally and on changes in their behaviours | Being a dental academic, training and/or educating dental student in a university or institution at the time of the study | COVID-19 had a considerable psychological impact on dental academics. There was a direct, dose-dependent association between change in behaviours (more frequent handwashing, avoiding crowded places) and worries but no association between these changes and training on public health emergencies. | |
Spanish adult healthcare workers | April 1 – 30 2020, during lockdown | Cross-sectional, = 1422 (mean age 43.9 years (±10.8), 86.4% female) | Symptoms of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, depression, levels of burnout and resilience in Spanish health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic | Being a Spanish healthcare worker and being in contact with patients of COVID-19 | 56.6% of health workers presented symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, 58.6% anxiety disorder, 46% depressive disorder and 41.1% felt emotionally drained. | |
Chinese adult medical workers | February 14 - March 29 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 899 frontline medical workers (1.9% aged ≤ 20 years, 67.5% aged 21–40, 30.4% aged 41–60, 0.2% aged >60, 81.3% female) and = 1104 respondents in the general population (19.5% aged ≤ 20 years, 66.1% aged 21–40, 13.8% aged 41–60, 0.6% aged >60, 69.5% female) | Psychological symptoms in frontline medical workers during the COVID-19 epidemic in compared to the general population | Being a frontline medical worker during the COVID-19 pandemic | Overall, 30.43%, 20.29%, and 14.49% of frontline medical workers in Hubei Province and 23.13%, 13.14%, and 10.64% of frontline medical workers in other regions reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, and insomnia, respectively. In addition, 23.33%, 16.67%, and 6.67% of the general population in Hubei Province and 18.25%, 9.22%, and 7.17% of the general population in other regions reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, and insomnia, respectively.. | |
Sasaki, N. et al., 2020 | Japanese adults (healthcare and non-healthcare workers) | Two waves; T1 (March 19 – 22 2020) and T2 (May 22 – 26 2020). OnApril 16, a state of national emergency was declared, which continued until 25 May | Longitudinal, = 1015 with = 111 healthcare (21.6% aged 20–29 years, 31.5% aged 30–39 years, 22.5% aged 40–49 years, 21.6% aged 50–59 years, 2.7% >60 years, 64.9% female) and = 904 non-healthcare workers (17.8% aged 20–29 years, 27.2% aged 30–39 years, 26.3% aged 40–49 years, 26.8% aged 50–59 years, 1.9% >60 years, 47.8% female) | Longitudinal change in the mental health of healthcare and non-healthcare workers during two months of the COVID-19 outbreak in Japan | Being a Japanese full-time employee that had previously participated in a large digital marketing research survey | Psychological distress (and subscales of fatigue, anxiety, and depression) as well as fear and worry of COVID-19 increased statistically significantly more among healthcare than non-healthcare workers. |
Portuguese physicians | May 4 - 25 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 420 ( = 200 in frontline group (mean age 47.0 years, 53.5% female) and = 220 in the control group (mean age 60.0 years, 43.6% female) | Alterations in mental health status (depression, anxiety, stress measured with the DAS-21 and OCD symptoms, measured with OCI-R) of Portuguese physicians working at the COVID-19 frontline compared to those not working at the frontline | Being an active physician in Portugal | 7.5% of physicians in the frontline group had severe depressive symptoms, compared to 4.5% of physicians in the control group. Regarding anxiety, 9.0% of physicians in the frontline group presented severe symptoms of anxiety compared to 5.9% of physicians in the control group. 11.5% of participants in the frontline group presented severe stress symptoms, compared to 4.4% in the control group. Being female and working at the frontline were found as potential risk factors for stress. | |
Turkish healthcare workers | April 23 – May 23 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 939 (11.5% aged 18–25 years, 36.1% aged 26–30 years, 29.4% aged 31–40 years, 23.0% aged >40 years, 66.0% female) | Prevalence of depression, anxiety, distress, and insomnia and related factors in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey | Being a healthcare worker in Turkey between 23rd of April and 23rd of May 2020 | 729 (77.6%) participants exhibited depression, 565 (60.2%) anxiety, 473 (50.4%) insomnia, and 717 (76.4%) distress symptoms. Depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress symptoms were significantly greater among females, individuals with a history of psychiatric illness, and individuals receiving psychiatric support during the COVID-19 pandemic. | |
Italian general practitioners (GPs) | March 10 – May 18 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 102 (mean age 55.1 years (±11.4), 62.7% female) | Dimensions of burnout and various psychological features among Italian general practitioners during the COVID-19 emergency | Being an active general practitioner in Italy between March 10th and May 18th 2020 | The COVID-19 emergency had a significant impact on GPs’ work Implementing task-oriented problem management, rather than emotional strategies, appears to protect against burnout in these circumstances. | |
Israeli physicians | March 19 – 22 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 1106 (mean age 46.1 years (±13.2), 49.0% female) | The association between pandemic‐related stress factors (PRSF) and anxiety and the potential effect of resilience on anxiety | Being a physician in Israel in March 2020 | Physicians reported high levels of anxiety with a mean score of 59.20 ± 7.95. An inverse association between resilience and anxiety was found. Four salient PRSF (mental exhaustion, anxiety about being infected, anxiety infecting family members, and sleep difficulties) positively associated with anxiety scores | |
Canadian adult hospital workers | September 2008-January 2009 | Cross-sectional, = 158 (86% female) | Feasibility and effectiveness of an interactive, computer-assisted training course (short, medium and high version) designed to build resilience to the stresses of working during a pandemic | Being employee/professional staff member of the Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Canada | Computer-assisted resilience training in healthcare workers appears to be of significant benefit and merits further study under pandemic conditions. Comparing three “doses” of the course suggested that the medium course was optimal. | |
Canadian adults | Unknown | Cross-sectional, = 1020 | Development, implementation, and results of resilience training in the Mount Sinai Hospital setting prior to the emergence of the H1N1 pandemic | Being a staff member of the Mount Sinai Hospital | The proportion of participants who felt better able to cope after the session (76%) was significantly higher than the proportion who felt prepared to deal confidently with the pandemic before the session (35%). Ten key themes emerged from a qualitative analysis of written comments, including family-work balance, antiviral prophylaxis, and mistrust or fear towards health care workers | |
Dutch patients with stress-related complaints | Precise period unknown, but during lockdown | Non randomized, single-arm intervention, = 37 (mean age 47.6 years (±18.7), 73% female) | Efficacy of remotely delivered ‘Wiring Affect with ReAttach’ (W.A.R.A.) in the reduction of negative affect and to compare the results with results of a previous study that investigated the efficacy of face-to-face W.A.R.A. in a cohort of 46 patients | Absence of suicidality risk and alcohol or drug abuse at the time of the online consultation | … |
It is plausible that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health might vary as a function of age and levels of educational attainment. In this section, we present findings focusing first on the effects of the pandemic on mental health in children and their parents, and subsequently we discuss findings in studies performed in adolescents and college students.
Due to measures to decrease the spread of the COVID-19 virus, schools have been closed and the opportunity to interact with peers, play outdoors and exercise decreased ( de Lannoy et al., 2020 ; Moore et al., 2020 ), whereas sleep and screen time have increased ( Orgiles et al., 2020 ). Parental stress significantly increased after the school closures ( Hiraoka and Tomoda, 2020 ). Parents experienced financial and health problems and needed to comply with home schooling in addition to their own responsibilities, which affected parental routines. Parents’ financial concerns increased verbal aggression, increased loneliness was associated with child neglect, whereas worries increased physical abuse of the children. In general, wellbeing of the parents significantly affected children's mental health ( Carroll et al., 2020 ). A national survey from the US in June 2020 ( N = 1011) reported worsening of mental health for 26.9% of the parents and 14.3% of the children, whereas the reported effect on physical health was smaller. Lost regular health care and delay in health care visits added to the worsening of children's mental health ( Patrick et al., 2020 ). In Italy (April – May 2020, N = 463) ( Cusinato et al., 2020 ) and in Spain (April 2020, N = 1049) ( Romero et al., 2020 ), parental stress was associated with more conduct problems of their children. In Hong Kong (March 2020, N = 29,202 families), children with special education needs, chronic illnesses, mothers with mental illness, and children coming from single-parent and low income families were reported as more vulnerable to the increased stress levels as a result of the pandemic ( Tso et al., 2020 ). In Brazil (April - May 2020, N = 289), parents reported anxiety in 19.4% of their children. In particular, children living with a person other than their parents reported higher anxiety levels, especially when a guardian had a lower age and lower educational level ( Garcia de Avila et al., 2020 ). Having a house without an outdoor exit to a garden or terrace significantly predicted psychiatric symptomatology ( Francisco et al., 2020 ). Overall, there are concerns that the risk of child maltreatment might be heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic due to a range of stressors such as increased loneliness, reduced physical activity, economic stress, social distancing, homeschooling, marital conflicts and violence, and intensified child–parent relationships ( Katz et al., 2020 ). In a recent study of 169 preschoolers, increased depressive and externalizing symptoms were observed compared to pre-COVID levels. A structured, predicable home environment adherent to family routines appears to mitigate these adverse effects ( Glynn et al., 2021 ).
In adolescents, determinants of resilience are less related to the parental situation and stressors associated with parental stress. A large-scale cross-sectional study from China (during the COVID-19 outbreak, N = 3613) revealed that among 3254 adolescents, anxiety and depressive symptoms were common during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Duan et al., 2020 ), as assessed by the Chinese version of the Spence Child Anxiety Scale (SCAS). In another cross-sectional study conducted in China (February – March 2020, N = 1784), following almost 30 days of confinement, depressive and anxiety symptoms were reported in around 23% of adolescents, with an association with less optimism about the pandemic and with being more worried about being infected with COVID-19 ( Xie et al., 2020 ). A Swiss survey study (November 2020, during the second pandemic wave, N = 11,612) found that the youngest age group (14–24 years old, including students) were at higher risk for moderate-severe depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥ 15) compared to individuals over 24 years old, and that this age-dependent effect became more prominent over the course of the pandemic ( https://osf.io/6cseh/ ). A cross-sectional study from China (March -April 2020, N = 7890) reported a prevalence of 21.7% for anxiety and 24.6% for depression symptoms (HADS subscale score >7) ( Li et al., 2021a ). Another study from China (March 2020, N = 8079) revealed that the prevalence of mild to severe depressive symptoms was 43.7% (assessed by the PHQ-9) and anxiety symptoms were 37.4% (assessed by the GAD-7) ( Zhou et al., 2020a ). Being in senior high school ( Zhou et al., 2020a ), female gender ( Zhou et al., 2020a ) ( Chen et al., 2020 ), lack of physical exercise ( Chen et al., 2020 ), and less social support increased the risk for depressive and anxiety symptomatology ( Qi et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, adverse childhood experiences, being exposed to COVID-19 and the presence of fear of exposure to COVID-19 were predictive of elevated levels of PTSD and anxiety in a Chinese cross-sectional cohort (February 2020, N = 6196) ( Guo et al., 2020 ). Moreover, a longitudinal study among Australian adolescents ( N = 248) showed that adolescents experienced significant increases in depressive and anxiety symptoms and a decrease in life satisfaction during the epidemic compared to 12 months leading up to the COVID-19 outbreak. COVID-19 related worries, online learning difficulties, and increased conflict with parents negatively affected the mental health outcomes, whereas adherence to lockdown measures and feeling socially connected during lockdown were protective factors ( Magson et al., 2020 ). In Indonesia, decreased parental support was associated with total mental health difficulties, whereas anxiety due to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with higher pro-social problems (April –May 2020, N = 113) ( Wiguna et al., 2020 ).
The previous findings seem to imply that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were unanimously negative regarding stress, coping and mental outcomes. However, the literature is more nuanced. A longitudinal study from the US ( N = 322) reported significantly lower internalizing, externalizing, and attention problems in adolescents during the lockdown (April 2020) compared to January 2020 (prior to the spread of COVID-19 in the US), which was associated with better family functioning in youth that reported elevated mental health problems before the pandemic ( Penner et al., 2020 ). Even though a decrease in physical activity and an increase in sleep and screen time were reported for adolescents in a Chinese cross-sectional study (May 2020, N = 10,082) ( Yang et al., 2020a ), an Italian study (April 2020, N = 306) showed that the great majority of the adolescents did not notice or only noticed very little changes in psychological well-being in the early phase of the pandemic ( Pigaiani et al., 2020 ). In Belgium and Italy (April - May 2020, N = 825), 5% of the participants reported having increased mental health care needs during the pandemic and 44% reported stability in needs for mental health care, with another 52% of the assessed youth reported no need for mental health care either before or after the pandemic ( Marchini et al., 2020 ). A study from Japan focusing on monthly suicide rates of people younger than 20 years old (January – May 2020, N = 138), found that suicide rates from March 2020 to May 2020 slightly decreased during the school closure time and were not significantly different from the previous two years ( Isumi et al., 2020 ). In Canada (March 2020, N = 683), almost half of a study sample of adolescents reported that the pandemic also exerted positive effects, with more time to spend with family and more time for exercise and hobbies. In addition, suicidal thoughts were reported to be lower than 6%. The type of motivation for social distancing was found to be associated with psychiatric symptomatology: social distancing due to fear of personally getting sick or to avoid judgement was related to higher anxiety, whereas social distancing due to the preference of staying home was associated with less anxiety and depressive symptoms ( Oosterhoff et al., 2020 ).
Among university students in Spain (March 2020, N = 2530), moderate to extremely severe levels of anxiety, depression, and stress were reported by 21%, 34%, and 28% of the participants, respectively ( Odriozola-Gonzalez et al., 2020 ). In a Chinese cross-sectional study (February – March 2020, N = 407), the incidence of concerns about somatic symptoms, assessed by a somatic self-rating scale among college students, was 35%, mainly related to concerns regarding COVID-19 ( Liu et al., 2020a ). In Bangladesh (May 2020, N = 476), over 80% of students exhibited any form of (mild to severe) depressive and anxiety symptoms, also related to worrying about academic activities ( Islam et al., 2020 ). In France (April – May 2020, N = 69,054), the prevalence of suicidal thoughts, severe depression, and high levels of anxiety were 11%, 16%, and 28%, respectively ( Wathelet et al., 2020 ). In separate studies, female gender, social isolation, low quality of social relations were found as risk factors for lower mental health ( Wathelet et al., 2020 ). In a US study (April 2020, N = 195), 71% of college students reported increased stress and anxiety, worry about their own and loved ones’ health, sleep disruptions, difficulty with concentration, and concerns about academic performance as pandemic-related stressors ( Son et al., 2020 ). For Chinese college students, 25% of the students reported mild to moderate anxiety when cross-sectionally assessed during the pandemic ( N = 7143), with living in urban areas, income stability, social support, and living with parents as protective factors against anxiety ( Cao et al., 2020 ). Worry about the economic influences of the pandemic, the academic delays and the influence of the pandemic on daily life also contributed to students’ anxiety ( Cao et al., 2020 ). In a Dutch study which ecologically followed students before and during the lockdown (March 2020, N = 78), mood homeostasis decreased significantly during lockdown, a finding that was in turn associated with lower mood and decreased engagement in activities that improved mood. Also, participants with previous mental illness showed a significantly higher decrease in mood homeostasis ( Taquet et al., 2020 ). In Italy (March – April 2020, N = 934), students’ concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic increased PTSD symptoms, whereas positive thoughts about managing the epidemic showed the opposite effect ( Nania et al., 2020 ). Another longitudinal study conducted in the US ( N = 675) showed that a group of college students reported a slight improvement in internalizing symptoms, but worsening of externalizing symptoms and attention when assessed before (beginning of Spring semester 2020) and during the pandemic (end of Spring semester 2020) ( Copeland et al., 2021 ). Around 70% of a sample of 950 US students (March 2020) reported that using a coping strategy such as staying connected, trying to relax, keeping busy, having a day-to-day routine, hobbies, doing school work and exercising, were protective factors during the pandemic ( Waselewski et al., 2020 ). A cohort from the Zurich Project on the Social Development from Childhood to Adulthood ( N = 768) was assessed before the pandemic at the age of 20 and during the pandemic at the age of 22, and it was found that even though internalizing symptoms decreased, stress levels and anger increased during the pandemic. Moreover, only 30.5% reported feeling notably worse, whereas others were either feeling the same or better ( Shanahan et al., 2020 ).
Conclusion: In general, the pandemic has had negative effects on the mental health of children, adolescents, and students. Nevertheless, the effects vary widely within and across groups, and there are many methodological shortcomings in the current literature which is often cross-sectional and relies on self-report. Moreover, it is difficult to directly compare results across many of the studies. In children and younger adolescents, parental stress and decreased physical activity seem to be important risk factors for worse mental health, but for adolescents and students, COVID-19-and academic related worries, familial conflicts, loneliness, and not engaging in health behaviors seem to be important risk factors. Although children, adolescent, and students seem particularly vulnerable for the negative effects of the pandemic in general, there are also some studies finding signs of resilience, such as the use of effective coping strategies. Findings from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on the impact of COVID-19 on stress resilience and mental health in children, adolescents and college students are presented in Table 3 .
The impact of COVID-19 on stress resilience and mental health in parents, children, adolescents, and college students.
Canadian children 5–17 years old | Precise period unknown, but during the initial period of the COVID-19 crisis | Cross-sectional, = 1472 (mean age of age group 5–11 years = 8.12 (±2.04), mean age of age group 12–17 years = 14.85 (±1.68), 52.6% female) | The impact of COVID-19 restrictions on movement and play behaviours in children and youth (parent-reported) | Being a volunteer participant of the Manu/Matchbox consumer online database | There was a significant decline in all physical activities in both children and youth. The highest decline was observed in outdoor physical activity and sport. Leisure screen time and social media use was higher than before. | |
Italian and Spanish children 3 to 18 years old | Italy: March 25 – April 9 2020,, Spain: March 31 – April 15 2020,, data collection in both countries started 15 days after lockdown | Cross-sectional, = 1143 (mean age 9.08 years (± 4.22), 47.5% female) | Emotional impact of the quarantine on children and adolescents from Italy and Spain (parent-reported) | Unknown | Children had more difficulty concentrating (76.6%), felt more bored than usual (52%), were more irritable (39%), were more restless (38.8%), were more nervous (38%), felt lonelier (31.3%), were more uneasy (30.4%), and more worried. | |
Japanese parents of 0–18 year old children | April 29–30 2020, many children had remained at home from school from March 2 to at least until the end of April 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 353 (mean age 37.6 (±6.11), 78% female) | Qualitative structure of parenting stress | Unknown | Personal distress scores (Parenting Stress Index- Short Form) before school closures and after school closures were 2.39 (SD = 0.80) and 2.49 (SD = 0.72), respectively. Parents’ current personal distress levels were significantly higher ( = 4.89, < 0.01, = 0.12) than before the school closures had occurred. | |
Canadian families of young children | April 20 -May 15 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 235 mothers and = 126 father from 254 families (children's mean age = 6 years (±2.0), mothers’ mean age = 37 years (±4.8), fathers’ mean age = 39 years (±5.5)) | Health behaviours, level of stress, financial and food security among Canadian families with young children. | Being a family with at least one child between 18 months and 5 years of age at the time of registration for the study, living within the Guelph-Wellington area in Ontario, being comfortable with English to respond to survey questionnaires | More than half the sample (mothers, 70%; fathers, 60%; children, 51%) stated their eating and meal routines has changed since COVID-19. Screen time increased among 74% of mothers, 61% of fathers, and 87% of children and physical activity decreased among 59% of mothers, 52% of fathers, and 52% of children | |
US parents and their children (aged < 18 years) | June 2020 | Cross-sectional, N = 1011 | Physical and emotional well-being of parents and children through early June 2020, using March 2020 as the reference point for the period before or at the beginning of the pandemic | Being a participating parent in the Ipsos KnowledgePanel and having at least 1 child aged <18 years old in the household | Compared to March 2020, 26.9% of parents reported worsening of mental health, 14.3% reported worsening in their children's behavioural health and 9.6% reported worsening of both their mental health and their children's behavioural health. Female and unmarried parents reported higher rates of worsening of their own mental health. | |
Italian parents of children aged 5–17 years | April 25 – May 8 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 463 parents’ (mean age = 43.4 years (±5.88), 90.5% female, children's mean age = 9.72 (±3.29, 43.8% female) | Potential risk and protective factors for parents’ and children's well-being during a potentially traumatic event such as the COVID-19 quarantine | Having at least one child aged 5 to 17 years old living at home and having answered both child behavior questionnaires in their entirety | Confinement measures and changes in daily routine negatively affected parents’ psychological dimensions, thus exposing children to a significant risk for their well-being. | |
Caregivers of Spanish children | April 2020 (precise period unknown, lockdown started on March 142,020 and on March 29, even more restrictive measures were imposed) | Cross-sectional, = 1049 caregivers (data of = 1123 children with a mean age of 7.26 years (±2.39), 50% female) | Effects of the Spanish confinement derived from the COVID-19 crisis on children and their families, accounting for child's age | Unknown | Preschool children showed a higher increase (38.2%) in conduct problems and hyperactivity as compared to their school-aged counterparts (20.3–24.4%). Child adjustment was influenced by a chain of effects, derived from parents’ perceived distress and emotional response to the COVID-19 crisis, via parenting distress and specific parenting practices. | |
Parents with 2–12 year old children from Hong Kong | March 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 29,202 families ( = 12,163 parents with children aged 2–5 years and = 17,029 parents with children aged 6–12 years. Mean age children 6.50 years (±2.84), 48.6% female | Characteristics of children vulnerable to the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic factors that can promote psychosocial wellbeing within families during the COVID-1 pandemic (parent-reported) | Being a parent of a child aged 2–12 years | Compared to the reference means, children demonstrated significantly more psychosocial problems measured by the SDQ total difficulties score (12.79 (5.13) for age 2–5 and 11.59 (5.57) for age 6–12), fewer prosocial behaviours measured by the SDQ prosocial behavior score (6.19 (1.97) for age 2–5 and 6.49 (2.00) for age 6–12), and poorer functioning measured by PedsQL total score (79.83 (13.38) for age 2–5 and 79.67 (13.41) for age 6–12). Compared to the reference group, their parents exhibited higher levels of parenting stress measured by the PSS scale (48.88 (10.10) for age 2–5 and 49.72 (10.72) for age 6–12). | |
Brazilian children aged 6–12 years and their guardians (mean age = 38.97 years (±6.54)) | April 25 – May 25 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 289 (157 girls and 132 boys, mean age 8.84 years (±2.05), 54.3% female | Prevalence of anxiety (Children's Anxiety Questionnaire; CAQ) among Brazilian children and its associated factors during social distancing during COVID-19 (parent-reported) | Unknown | The prevalence of anxiety among the children during the COVID-19 pandemic in this group was 19.4% ( = 56), according to the CAQ, and 21.8% ( = 63), according to the NRS. These results are higher than the prevalence reported for children under normal conditions (6.5%). | |
Italian, Spanish and Portuguese children and adolescents aged 3–18 years old | 15 days between March and April 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 1480 children (mean age 9.15 years (±4.27), 47.2& female) | Immediate psychological and behavioural symptoms (anxiety, mood, sleep, behavioural, feeding, and cognitive alterations) associated with COVID-19 quarantine in children and adolescents, its explanatory factors and differences across countries (parent-reported) | Unknown | An increase in children's psychological and behavioural symptoms, increased screen-time, reduced physical activity, and more sleep hours/night was observed, with Portuguese and Spanish children presenting more psychological and behavioural symptoms compared with Italian children. Having an outdoor exit in the house was associated with lower levels of psychological and behavioural symptomatology. | |
US Mother-child pairs of preschool children in Southern California | May 5 2020, (On March 19 2020,, a state-wide stay at home order was issued which was in place until May 8 2020,) | Cross-sectional, = 169 children (mean age 4.1 years (±0.93, 46.7% female) | Mental health symptoms in American preschool children during the COVID-19 pandemic (parent-reported)) | Having completed the survey by June 9, 2020 | 39.9% of the children scored above the recommended cut-off (≥3) for referral for further evaluation for clinical depression. The proportion of children scoring above the cut-off was elevated compared to those reported in a pre-COVID German population–based sample (5.7%; Fuhrmann et al., 2014) and more similar to a pre-COVID high risk US sample enriched for depression (43.7%); Luby et al., 2012). | |
Chinese children and adolescents | During the COVID-19 outbreak (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 3613 (9.9% aged 7–12 years, 90.1% aged 13–18 years, 49.9% female) | Psychological effects on children and adolescents associated with the early phase of COVID-19 pandemic | Being in high school (grade one to grade three; aged 7–18 years) in mainland China | Findings indicate that the COVID-19 outbreak has had a significant psychosocial impact on children and adolescents. 22.28% was suffering from depressive symptoms and levels of anxiety in children and adolescents during the epidemic were much higher than before the pandemic. | |
Chinese children | February 28 – March 5 2020,, participants had been restricted to home for a mean (SD) of 33.7 (2.1) days when completing the survey | Cross-sectional, = 1784 (43.3% female) | Depressive and anxiety symptoms among adolescents in Hubei province, China | Being in primary school (grade 2 through 6) in Hubei province | 22.6% and 18.9% of adolescents reported having depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms, respectively. | |
Li, W. et al., 2021 | Chinese high school students | March 30 - April 7 2020, (quarantine was imposed in Wuhan from January 23, 2020, to April 8, 2020) | Cross-sectional, = 7890 (37.6% aged 12–14 years, 35.1% aged 15–16 years, 27.2% aged 17–18 years, 52.1% female) | Prevalence of depression and anxiety and their associations with lifestyle changes among adolescents in Wuhan | Being a current resident in Wuhan, aged 12–18 years old, not having a diagnosis of COVID-19 | During the COVID-19 quarantine period, more than 20% of adolescents had anxiety and depression. The prevalence was 21.7% (n = 1708) for anxiety and 24.6% (n = 1941) for depression. |
The Swiss Corona Stress Study: second pandemic wave, November 2020 (pre-print: ) | General Swiss population aged ≥14 years | November 11–19 2020 (during the second pandemic wave) | Cross-sectional, = 11,612 (mean age 39.3 years (±13.4), 73.8% female) | Stress levels and depressive symptoms (PHQ-9) in comparison to the first survey during lockdown in April 2020 | Living in Switzerland, being ≥14 years | While the proportion of people reporting maximum stress levels was around 11% during the April lockdown, it rose to 20% in the second pandemic wave in November. The proportion of respondents with moderately severe or severe depressive symptoms was 3% before the pandemic, 9% during the April lockdown, and 12% during May, it increased to 18% in November. |
Zhou, S. J. et al., 2020 | Chinese adolescents | March 8 - 15 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 8079 (median age 16 years, 53.5% female) | Prevalence rate and socio-demographic correlates of depressive and anxiety symptoms | Having an age of 12–18 years | The prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and a combination of depressive and anxiety symptoms was 43.7%, 37.4%, and 31.3%, respectively, among Chinese high school students during the COVID-19 outbreak. |
Chinese children and adolescents | April 16 - 23 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 1109 ( = 343 aged 6–8 years, = 310 ages 9–12 years, = 353 13–15 years, 45.5% female) | Prevalence of depression and anxiety among Chinese children and adolescents | Unknown | 112 (11.78%) adolescents with depression, 196 (18.92%) adolescents with anxiety, and 68 (6.56%) adolescents with both depression and anxiety were identified. | |
Chinese adolescents | March 8 - 15 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 7202 (median age 16.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 2.0, range 14.0–18.0), 53.6% female) | The association between the levels of social support and mental health) among Chinese adolescents | Being a junior high school or senior high school student, being a WeChat or QQ user, having submitted only one survey using the same IP address | COVID-19 exposure was associated with a higher prevalence of depression symptoms (OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.14–1.66) and anxiety symptoms (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.04–1.52). Only 24.6% of adolescents reported high levels of social support. | |
Chinese adolescents | February 8 −27 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 6196 (age range 11–18 years, 52.10% female) | Levels of anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms and whether pre-pandemic maltreatment experiences exacerbate this impact on mental health in adolescents | Being a student at one of the selected high school and middle schools in Zhenping County of Henan Province | Exposure to COVID-19 predicted higher levels of PTSS and anxiety with effect sizes ranging from 0.06 to 0.15 (standardized betas). The largest variance in PTSS and anxiety problems was explained by adverse childhood events (ACEs), with more pre-pandemic maltreatment experiences predicting more PTSS and more anxiety. | |
Australian adolescents | Two waves; T1 (12 months leading up to the COVID-19 outbreak) and T2 (two months following the implementation of government restrictions and online learning). | Longitudinal, = 248 (mean age 14.4 years (± 0.5), 51% female, 81.8% Caucasian) | The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents’ mental health | Being part of the larger longitudinal Risks to Adolescent Wellbeing Project (the RAW Project) | Significant increases in adolescents’ symptoms of depression, (t(1, 247) = 6.26, p < 0.001, d = 0.15), and anxiety, (t(1, 244) = 5.26, p < 0.001, d = 0.40), and a significant decrease in life satisfaction, (t(1, 244) = −5.26, p < 0.001, d = 0.61) from T1 (before the pandemic) to T2 (2 months into the pandemic) was observed. | |
Indonesian adolescents | April 15 - May 10 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 113 mean age 14.07 years (±2.18), 46.9% female) | Behavioural and emotional problems during the pandemic | Being a family with at least one child of 11–17 years old, informed consent by parents and child | 10.6% of the participating adolescents were at risk for emotional problems, 15.0% for conduct behavior, 38.1% for peer-relationship problems, 8% for hyperactivity behavior, and 28.3% for pro-social behavior problems. | |
US adolescents | Baseline measure (January 2020, prior to the spread of COVID-19 in the United States) and follow-up measures (mid-April 2020, 1 Month After School In-Person Closure) | Longitudinal, = 322 (mean age 11.99 years (± 1.16), 55.0% female, 72.7% Hispanic/Latin, 9.3% = Black or African American, 5.9% Multiple Races, 5.0% Asian, 1.6% White, 1.2% American Indian, and 4.3% ‘other’ | Longitudinal change in mental health before and during the pandemic | Being a public school student (grade 5–8) | For adolescents who had elevated levels of internalizing, attention, externalizing, or total problems before the pandemic, a significant reduction in mental health problems from baseline to follow-up measures was observed, controlling for age and gender. | |
Yang, S. et al., 2020 | Chinese adolescents | Early May 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 10,082 (mean age 17.5 years (±1.2), 71.7% female) | The impact of the pandemic on obesity, weight, BMI and activity patterns among youth | Unknown | During the COVID-19 lockdown, the prevalence of overweight/obesity and obesity significantly increased in all participating adolescents and significant changes were observed in patterns of all forms of physical activity, with more adolescents having increased their sedentary, sleeping, and screen time. |
Italian adolescents | April 1 – 10 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 306 (mean age 18.1 years (±0.9), 27.1% female) | Lifestyle behaviours, coping strategies and well-being among Italian adolescents | Being 18 years or older, being a student at one of the three participating high schools located in Verona, Milan and Rome | Although most students (50.7%))did not report or reported only a little change in subjective well-being, 49.4% and 39.9% reported a change in subjective well-being and symptoms of anxiety respectively. Factors predicting a change in subjective wellbeing included adaptive coping strategies (physical activity, engaging in different activities than before), family issues (finding hard to stay at home, having quarrels), school-related behaviours (fearing a negative educational outcome) and female gender. | |
Italian, Belgian adolescents | April 7 - May 4 2020, (just after the enactment of lockdown measures in Italy (March 9) and Belgium (March 18)) | Cross-sectional, = 825 (median age 20 years (IQR 20–24 years), 74.7% female, 53.7% living in Belgium, 46.3% living in Italy) | The relationship between resilience and loneliness and the emergence of new or increased mental health care needs (MHCNs) during lockdown measures | Speaking French or Italian, being a resident in Belgium or Italy | More loneliness, and lower resilience was observed in youth who needed help prior/during lockdown. | |
Japanese adolescents | January 2018 - May 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 138 | Suicide rates per month between January 2018 and May 2020 from public data on suicide statistics compiled by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare | Being younger than 20 years old | During the school closure due to the COVID-19 crisis (March to May 2020), no significant change of suicide rates was found (incidence rate ratio (IRR) =1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81 to 1.64), compared with the same months in 2018 and 2019. | |
Oosterhoff, B. et al., 2020 | US adolescents | March 29–30 2020 (two weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency in the US) | Cross-sectional, = 683 (mean age 16.35 years (±1.13), 75.3% female, 77.0% white/Caucasian, 15.5% Hispanic/Latino, 5.6% African-American/Black, 11.2% Asian American/Pacific Islander, 3.2% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 2.9% other | Connections between social distancing motivation, anxiety and depressive symptoms and social health (belongingness and burdensomeness) | Being 13 – 18 years old | Almost all respondents (98.1%) reported engaging in at least a little social distancing. No evidence of an association between degree of social distancing engagement and any indicator of mental or social health was found. |
Spanish university members | March 28 – April 4 2020, (during the first days of confinement | Cross-sectional, = 3707 (mean age 27.9 years (±12.4), 66,1% female, 76.8% students) | The emotional impact of COVID-19 in the university community, using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the Impact of Event Scale (IES) | Being a university member living in Spain | 50.43% of the participating university members reported moderate to severe emotional impact of the COVID-19 outbreak 21.34%, 34.19% and 28.14% of the respondents reported moderate to extremely severe scores of anxiety, depression and stress, respectively. | |
Liu, S., et al., 2020 | Chinese primary and university students | February - March 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 407 ( = 209 primary school, = 198 college, 60.4% female) | The impact of the COVID −19 pandemic on primary and university students | Being a university or primary school student in Sichuan Province | Somatic symptoms were observed in 34.85% of the college students and in 2.39% of the primary school students. Somatic symptoms were associated with concerns about COVID-19. |
Bangladeshi university students | May 6 – 12 2020 (all education institutions were closed initially from March 18 to March 31, 2020 and later extended to the mid of June 2020 in phases) | Cross-sectional, = 476 (24.2% aged 17–20 years, 67% aged 21–24 years, 8.8% aged >24 years, 32,8% female)) | The prevalence of depression and anxiety of university students in Bangladesh | Being a university student | During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, a large percentage of Bangladeshi university students have been suffering from depression and anxiety symptoms with 82.4% of the students reported to have mild to severe depressive symptoms and 87.7% reported to have mild to severe anxiety symptoms. | |
French university students | April 17 2020, - unknown | Cross-sectional, = 69,054 (median age 20 years (IQR 18–22 years), 72,8% female) | The prevalence of self-reported suicidal thoughts and symptoms of distress, stress, depression, and anxiety in university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. | Being a university student | Prevalence rates were 11.4%, for suicidal thoughts, 22.4%, for severe distress, 24.7%, for high levels of perceived stress, 16.1% for severe depression, and 27.5% for high levels of anxiety. Factors associated with all mental health issues were having a low level of physical activity, not living with family, having a weak sense of integration, having a low quality of social relations, and receiving low-quality information. | |
US undergraduate students | One month after the stay-at-home order in April 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 195 (mean age = 20.7 years (± 1.7), 56,9% female) | The impact of the pandemic on the mental health of college students (general stress, depressive and suicidal thoughts) | Being a undergraduate student | 71% of the students reported that their stress and anxiety had increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 91% indicated that the pandemic increased the level of fear and worry about their own health and the health of their loved ones, 86% reported disruptions to their sleep patterns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, 44% mentioned having experiencing some depressive thoughts during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 8% stated that the pandemic has led to some suicidal thoughts. | |
Chinese college students | During the COVID-19 outbreak (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 7143 (69.65% female) | The impact of the pandemic on the mental health of college students | Being a college student | 24.9% of college students experienced COVID-19 related anxiety. Living in urban areas (OR= 0.810, 95% CI = 0.709 - 0.925), stability of students’ family income (OR= 0.726, 95% CI = 0.645 - 0.817), and living with parents (OR= 0.752, 95% CI = 0.596 - 0.950) were protective factor against anxiety. | |
Dutch students | March 16 – 29 2020 (ecological momentary assessment 4 times every day) | Longitudinal, = 78 (mean age 20.4 years (± 3.7), 76% female) | Mood homeostasis | Being a student | Mood homeostasis was significantly higher before than during lockdown with mood homeostasis decreasing significantly more among people with vs without a history of mental illness. | |
Italian students | March –April 2020 (precise period unknown but during the peak of COVID-19 in Italy) | Cross-sectional, = 934 (mean age 23.6 years (± 4.9), 79,6% female) | Risk and protective factors associated with PTSD during the peak of COVID-19 in Italy | Being a university student | Students’ COVID-19 related concerns increased by 30% the likelihood of having PTSD. However, when the interaction of health engagement with risk and protective factors was taken into account, the association between concerns and PTSD decreased by roughly 20%. | |
US college students) | Two waves; T0 (beginning of the Spring semester 2020), T1 (end of the Spring semester 2020) and daily surveys across the school year | Longitudinal, = 675 (91.4% aged 18 years, 7.6% aged 19 years, 0.6% aged 20 years, 0.3% aged 21 years, 74,1% female) | The impact of the pandemic on the mental health of college students | Being a full-time, first-year UVM undergraduate student, being aged 18 to 25 years old, having an iPhone 5 or newer (for app compatibility) | Students reported how disruptive COVID had been to them personally. The mean level of disruptiveness (total score ranging from 0 to 10) was 7.8 (SD=2.1),with 87.3% reporting a score of 6 or greater. After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, externalizing problems and attention problems increased after the onset of COVID, while internalizing symptoms did not increase. | |
US youth | March 20 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 950 (mean age 18.9 years (±2.8), 52.1% female), 67.7% White, 14.5% Black, 5.4% Asian, 12.4% other race) | The needs, emotions, and coping behaviours of US youth during COVID-19 | Being part of the MyVoice cohort | 32.6% of the respondents felt resources they needed, or could need, were readily available, while 35.2% of participants felt resources were difficult to access or unavailable. Respondents described both emotional responses (27.4%) and coping strategies (69.8%) to handle the impact of COVID-19. | |
Swiss young adults | Two waves; T0 (before COVID when participants were 20 years old, precise period unknown) and T1 (April 11 – 18 2020, during week 4 of the Swiss national lockdown) | Longitudinal, = 768 (48.1% female) | The influence of previous distress and stressors in emotional distress (PSS) during the COVID-19 pandemic and to investigate how COVID-19-related stressors and coping strategies are associated with emotional distress when pre-pandemic distress was accounted for | Being a participant of the ‘age 20 assessment’ (wave 8) of the Zurich Project on the Social Development from Childhood to Adulthood (z-proso) | Perceived stress ( = 2.91, SD=0.92) and anger ( = 2.59, SD=0.95) during the pandemic was higher compared to perceived stress ( = 2.79, SD=0.95) and anger ( = 2.37, SD=0.75) in the pre-pandemic period (wave 8 z-proso), although no increase in internalizing symptoms was observed. The largest risk factor for emotional distress during COVID-19 was previous emotional distress. |
Elderly people have been more directly affected by the pandemic than younger age groups as the physical impact of COVID-19 is substantially higher in this population. In addition, even though elderly people have higher levels of comorbidities that need to be taken care of, the availability of physician appointments and medical care has also been negatively impacted by the lockdown periods ( Spalletta et al., 2020 ). In general, elderly people have lower access to technology and social media, which can make it more difficult to compensate for lockdown-related changes and have adequate access to food, news, and social interaction ( Martins Van Jaarsveld, 2020 ). They are more isolated from their families and social connections, leading to an increased risk of developing psychiatric symptoms and therefore impairing their cognitive performance and daily functioning ( Yang et al., 2020b ). Elderly people also have been subject to change in health behaviors. A Cross-sectional study on the psychological, social and health-related challenges in Spanish older adults during the first COVID-19 wave (March 2020, N = 528) showed that while a quarter of the elderly people could increase their intellectual activity during the first lockdown, more than 60% of them reported decreased physical activity ( Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al., 2020 ). In Greece, 80% of the elderly reported moderate to severe anxiety and depression levels three weeks after a national lockdown (March 2020, N = 103) ( Parlapani et al., 2020 ), and these effects were also apparent in elderly with dementia in Argentina after the first 8 weeks of quarantine ( N = 119) ( Cohen et al., 2020 ). A German study (March – May 2020, N = 15,308) showed that while generalized anxiety significantly decreased with age, COVID-19 related fear significantly increased in elderly participants ( Schweda et al., 2021 ), even though this was not found in other studies.
In contrast, despite all the challenges that the elderly population faces, lower rates of psychiatric symptoms in this population compared to younger age groups were reported. During the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, older individuals showed higher life satisfaction and quality of life and lower levels of trait anxiety compared to younger age groups (March – April 2020, N = 494) ( Bidzan-Bluma et al., 2020 ). A cross-sectional study in the US (March – April 2020, N = 833) showed that subjects of 60–70 years of age reported higher stress levels compared to older people (>71 years) ( Emerson, 2020 ). Another US survey study with elderly (March 2020, N = 825) revealed that less than 15% of the participants reported pandemic-related stress from confinement/restrictions, isolation, loneliness and concern for others and the unknown future. In particular, stress from concern for others and the unknown future was associated with poorer psychological well-being ( Whitehead and Torossian, 2021 ). In Spain (March - April 2020, N = 1639) ( Garcia-Fernandez et al., 2020 ) and the UK (April - May 2020, N = 15,530) ( Li and Wang, 2020 ), elderly people reported less psychopathology compared to younger people. Also, when compared to younger age groups, lower COVID-19 Peritraumatic Distress Index (CPDI) scores (Brazil, March 2020, N = 638) ( Zhang et al., 2021 ), lower rates of suicidal ideation (Greece, April - May 2020, N = 5116) ( Papadopoulou et al., 2021 ), and lower rates of depression, anxiety and stress (Northern Spain, March - April 2020, N = 1933), were reported in the elderly ( Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020 ). These findings might indicate that at least a sub-population of the elderly is remarkable resilient, potentially due to their complex experiences during their previous lives. The discrepancy of the findings in elderly people might heavily depend on the geographical location, timing of the measurements, and the nature of the assessed sample.
Elderly with cognitive symptoms may be more prone to the mental effects of the pandemic. In Italy (April – May 2020, N = 126), daily physical activity and adherence to a healthy diet were found to be decreased in this population. However, less than 20% of the participants reported depression and anxiety, which was related to living alone, having less social interaction and reduction in leisure activities ( Di Santo et al., 2020 ). Based on a review on patients with a dementia diagnosis (summarizing 20 studies from March 2020 and June 2020), anxiety, apathy, and agitation were the most reported neuropsychiatric symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, probably due to decreased social interaction ( Simonetti et al., 2020 ).
Conclusion: Recent evidence points out that even though elderly people are more vulnerable to the physical effects of COVID-19, they also report lower psychopathology during the pandemic period compared to younger age groups. In the elderly population, patients with cognitive decline may be more vulnerable to the mental health effects of the pandemic. However, there is quite some heterogeneity within groups, and a significant proportion of the elderly people may still be at risk for worse mental health outcomes. Table 4 presents findings from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on the impact of COVID-19 on stress resilience and mental health in elderly people.
The impact of COVID-19 on stress resilience and mental health in elderly people.
Italian patients with mild and major neurocognitive disorders (NCD) | January - April 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 251 canceled scheduled appointments | Number of canceled appointments for patients with NCD due to COVID-19 compared to these numbers in January – April 2019 | Having recorded the number of appointments that were canceled at the Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS due to the government-enforced reduction of non-urgent healthcare services in Italy during the lockdown | 251 scheduled appointments were canceled (follow-up appointments = 211; first-time appointments = 40). There was a significant difference in the proportion of canceled follow-up and first-time appointments in March and April 2020 compared to the same periods in 2019. | |
Spanish adults | March 2020, during the lockdown of the COVID-19 first wave (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 528 (mean age 69.25 years (±6.75), 64.6% female) | Psychological and social implications and health-related behaviours involved in the lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic | Being 60 years or older, living in Galicia (North-West region of Spain, Europe) during the lockdown declared in March 2020 by the Spanish government due to the COVID-19 pandemic | 76.5% of sample belonged to active aging organizations before lockdown, but only 33.7% continued to be active during lockdown; 65.7% performed less physical activity than before the lockdown; 25.6% of the sample reported an increase in intellectual activity; 66.3% feel that their physical health will not worsen; 67.6% believe that this situation will not have a positive effect. | |
Greek adults | The survey was online for a period of three days, three weeks after a national lockdown had been imposed in Greece (March 23 2020,) | Cross-sectional, = 103 (mean age 69.85 years (±5.26), 61.2% female) | Psychological response of older adults during the acute phase of the pandemic in Greece | Being older than 60 years, having online access to the survey via social media | 81.6% reported moderate to severe depressive symptoms; 84.5% reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms; 37.9% reported disrupted sleep. Females disproportionately reported significantly higher levels of COVID-19–related fear, depression, sleep disturbances, and an intolerance of uncertainty. | |
Cohen, G. et al., 2020 | Argentinian family members of patients of the Aging and Memory Center of FLENI with Alzheimer´s dementia (AD) and related disorders | After the first 8 weeks of quarantine (starting medio March 2020, precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 119 caregivers of persons with AD or related dementia living at home (mean age of patients 81.16 years (±7.03), 64.7% female) | To study the extent mandatory quarantine due to COVID-19 affected behavioural symptoms in subjects with dementia after the first 8 weeks of quarantine | Being a family member of patients of the Aging and Memory Center of FLENI in Argentina, with AD and related disorders | Family members reported 60.5% new onset or exacerbation of pre-existing behavioural symptoms; 33% anxiety, 12.8% depression, and 14.7% sleep disorders were reported; 40% reported increasing gait difficulties; 20% increased use of antipsychotics, 15% benzodiazepines, 6% hypnotics, and 10% antidepressants. 76% discontinued physical therapy, 91% occupational therapy, and 77% cognitive rehabilitation. |
German general population | March 1 - May 4 2020, (period in which people lived under the curtailment of their individual freedoms and partly unprecedented governmental restrictions) | Cross-sectional, = 15,308 (13.9% aged 18–24 years, 24.8% aged 25–34 years, 23.0% aged 35–44 years, 19.0% aged 45–54 years, 14.2% aged 55–64 years, 4.4% aged 65–74 years, 0.8% aged >75 years, 70.7% female) | Psychological reactions in response to real or perceived COVID-19 infection threats | Being involved in social media groups, living under the curtailment of individual freedom between March 10 - May 4 2020, | COVID-19 related fear correlated with generalized anxiety (ρ = 0.377, < 0.001, 95%-CI = [0.363: 0.391]). COVID-19 related fear increased with age; generalized anxiety decreased with age. | |
German and Polish adults | March 27 - end of April 2020 (during the period of COVID-19 restrictions) | Cross-sectional, = 494 (mean age 42.97 years (±9.77), 72% female, 80.6% German, 19.4% Polish) | Predictors of quality of life, well-being, sleep, and life satisfaction, including factors such as risk behavior, trait anxiety, feeling of threat, sleep quality, and optimism, during the pandemic in older people from Germany and Poland | Being 18 years or older, having access to the internet in order to fill out the study survey | Older people rated quality of life, life satisfaction, and well-being higher than young people and scored less than young people on anxiety (mean difference= −9.19, SE = 1.90, < 0.01) and greater than young people on risk tolerance (mean difference = 1.38, SE = 0.33, < 0.01 difference=0.91, SE = 0.31, < 0.05). | |
US adults aged 60 years and older | March 30 - April 12 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 833 (age range 60–80 years, 62.8% aged 60–70 years, 80.5% female, 96.0% White, 1.9% Black or African American, 0.2% American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.6% Asian, 2.1% other) | The impact of sheltering in place and social distancing among adults aged 60 and older | Being 60 years or older, living in the US and practicing social distancing between March 30 and April 12, 2020 | 36% reported being stressed and 42.5% reported being lonely. Loneliness increased with time of social distancing. | |
US adults aged 60 and older | March 22–23 2020 (period in which stay-at-home orders were beginning to be issued) | Cross-sectional, = 825 (63.8% aged 60–69 years, 30.7% aged 70–79 years, 5.5% aged ≥80 year, 79,3% female) | Older adults’ reports of what was stressful about the pandemic, and what was joyful and comforting amidst the stress | Being 60 years or older, having access to the online survey | 13.2% reported restrictions and resulting confinement as a source of stress and 31.6% mentioned family or friends as the most frequently reported source of joy or comfort. Stress over concern for others, the unknown future, and contracting the virus was significantly associated with poorer psychological well-being; whereas faith, exercise/self-care, and nature were associated with more positive psychological well-being. | |
Spanish adults | March 29 - April 5 2020,, covering the peak of the COVID-19 infection in Spain | Cross-sectional, = 1639 ( = 150 ≥ 60 years old, 58.7% female, = 1489 <60 years old, 69.2% female) | COVID-19 outbreak-related emotional symptoms, gender differences, and the relationship between the emotional state and environmental features in the elderly | Not being a healthcare worker, not having a current or past mental illness | The ≥60 age group showed lower depression scores and lower acute distress scores than the <60 age group. There were no gender differences in any of the clinical measures. | |
UK adults aged from 18 to over 65 years old | April 24 – 30 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 15,530 | The prevalence and predictors of general psychiatric disorders and loneliness after the first diagnosis of COVID-19 | Having participated in the first wave of Understanding Society COVID-19 Study | This study showed high prevalence rates of general psychiatric disorders (29.2%) and loneliness (35.86%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. People with current or past COVID-19-related symptoms or various disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds were at significantly higher risks of general psychiatric disorders and loneliness. | |
Brazilian adults | March 25 –28 2020 (one month after the first COVID-19 case in Brazil | Cross-sectional, = 638 (18.5% aged 18–25 years, 32.3% aged 26–35 years, 24.4% aged 36–45 years, 13.5% aged 46–55 years, 8.8% aged 56–65 years, 2.5% aged >65 years, 57.7% female) | Mental distress and its associated predictors among adults one month into the COVID-19 crisis in Brazil | Unknown | 52% of the sampled adults experienced mild or moderate distress, and 18.8% suffered severe distress. Adults who were female, younger, more educated, and exercised less reported higher levels of distress. | |
Greek adults | April 7 - May 3 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 5116 (28.15% aged 35–44 years, 23.60% aged 45–54 years, 73.64% female) | Prevalence of suicidal ideation in the community as well as the risk and protective factors of suicidal ideation during restriction measures in Greece | Unknown | 5.20% reported suicidal thoughts, 14.17% were potential clinical cases of anxiety, and 26.51% of depression. Participants presented significantly higher suicidal ideation rates during the last two weeks of the lockdown compared to its previous two weeks. | |
Spanish adults | March 11- 18 2020 (55.8% of participants) and April 2–12 2020. (44.2% of participants) | Cross-sectional, = 1933 (mean age 33.80 years (± 16.65), 79.5% female) | Psychological state of the general population during the COBID-19 lockdown | Unknown | More than a quarter of the participants reported symptoms of depression (27.5%), anxiety (26.9%) and stress (26.5%) and as the time spent in lockdown has progressed, psychological symptoms have risen. | |
Italian adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or subjective cognitive decline (SCD) | April 21 - May 7 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 126 ( = 70 MCI and = 56 SCD patients, mean age 74.29 years (6.51±), 81.0% female) | The effects of COVID-19 and quarantine measures on lifestyles and mental health of elderly at increased risk of dementia | Being 60 years or older, having undergone the last study visit in the preceding 18 months, not having a significant functional impairment in the last study visit, having a diagnosis of MCI according to the International Working Group criteria, and having a cognitive impairment, operationalized as a MMSE score ≥ 20 and ≤ 26 (or ≤ 28 for participants with 16 or more years of education) or as a score under the normative cut-off in at least one domain-specific cognitive test from an extensive neuropsychological battery | Over 1/3 of the sample reduced their physical activity and nearly 70% reported an increase in idle time. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet decreased in almost 1/3 of respondents and over 35% reported weight gain. Social activities were abolished and 1/6 of participants also decreased productive and mental-stimulating activities. 19.8% were depressed, 9.5% anxious, and 9.5% apathetic. |
During the first days of the pandemic, it was not clear whether a COVID-19 infection would affect pregnant women and whether the virus would be transmitted to the fetus. Many pregnant women therefore avoided visiting hospitals, and obstetricians in India reported that a great majority of their pregnant patients experienced anxiety about their hospital visits during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (April - May 5, 2020, N = 118) ( Nanjundaswamy et al., 2020 ). These worries in pregnant women were related to COVID-19-related concerns about being present in public places, perceived infection risk, visiting hospitals, health of the fetus, delivery concerns, a family member being infected, or transmission of COVID-19 to the baby during delivery ( Akgor et al., 2021 ; Taubman-Ben-Ari et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2020 ). A nationwide cross-sectional study from Mexico (May – June 2020, N = 503) found that 33.2% of pregnant women reported being stressed based on the Perceived Stress Scale, with perceived stress being significantly correlated with later gestational age ( Medina-Jimenez et al., 2020 ). In China (February – March 2020, N = 560), over half of pregnant women reported feeling horrified, apprehensive, or helpless during the pandemic ( Zhang and Ma, 2020 ). A Turkish study reported that half of the 172 enrolled pregnant women in the third trimester reported feeling vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic (April 2020) ( Yassa et al., 2020a ). In a Pakistani (August 2020, N = 552) and Chinese study (February 2020, N = 1947), more than 80% of the pregnant women reported that they themselves and their fetuses were more vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic compared to the general population ( Liu et al., 2020b ; Shahid et al., 2020 ), but moderate to severe anxiety was reported in only 3% ( Liu et al., 2020b ). A systematic review, that included 15 studies examining depression and anxiety symptoms in pregnant or delivered women during the COVID-19 pandemic, reported a pooled overall prevalence of 30% for depression and of 34% for anxiety ( Sun et al., 2020 ). In addition, the prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms was around two times higher compared to non-pregnant women ( Sun et al., 2020 ). Another systematic review and meta-analysis that included 19 studies about the mental health status of pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic reported a prevalence between 5 and 38% for depression and anxiety symptoms (overall prevalence of 25%) and a pooled overall prevalence of anxiety of 42% ( Fan et al., 2020 ). A rare longitudinal study in Argentina confirmed significant increases in depressive, anxiety and negative affect in 102 pregnant women at 2, 14, and 47 days after the start of the lockdown compared to 102 non-pregnant women ( Lopez-Morales et al., 2021 ). During the pandemic, 1754 pregnant women in Canada reported significantly higher levels of depressive, anxiety, dissociative and post-traumatic stress symptoms compared to a pre-COVID-19 cohort of pregnant women ( Berthelot et al., 2020 ). However, again, conflicting results are reported. A Turkish study (April 2020) found lower state anxiety in 203 pregnant women compared to 101 non-pregnant women ( Yassa et al., 2020b ). In China (February - March 2020, N = 859;), pregnancy was associated with a lower risk for depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD ( Zhou et al., 2020b ). Another Israelian study (March – May 2020, N = 369) also reported lower rates of depression in pregnant women hospitalized during the pandemic, compared to pregnant women that were hospitalized before the pandemic ( Sade et al., 2020 ). Pre-existing psychiatric disorders appear to increase the experience of depressive, anxiety and dissociative symptoms in pregnant women during the pandemic ( Berthelot et al., 2020 ; Liu et al., 2021 ; Ravaldi et al., 2020 ), and previous anxiety disorders increases health-related and society-related anxiety levels ( Berthelot et al., 2020 ; Ravaldi et al., 2020 ).
There are several factors that may impact on the level of stress resilience specifically in pregnant women. Maternal social support in China and Ethiopia significantly decreased anxiety levels in pregnant women ( Yue et al., 2020 ), and also increased health-related quality of life ( Dule et al., 2021 ). Social support in Canada was also negatively correlated with depression and insomnia, whereas negative cognitive appraisal positively correlated with these symptoms ( Khoury et al., 2021 ). Risk of COVID-19 infection ( Bo et al., 2020 ), social isolation ( Durankus and Aksu, 2020 ), financial and relationship difficulties ( Bo et al., 2020 ; Khoury et al., 2021 ; Lebel et al., 2020 ; Matsushima and Horiguchi, 2020 ; Mortazavi et al., 2021 ), marital life satisfaction ( Effati-Daryani et al., 2020 ), intimate partner violence ( Almeida et al., 2020 ), sleep difficulties ( Lin et al., 2021 ), were reported factors that relate to psychopathology in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, having a relative with COVID-19 infection, a history of abortion, and an age below 30 increased pregnant women's worries ( Mortazavi et al., 2021 ). In the US (April – May 2020, N = 787), compared to white women, black women reported significantly higher rates of depression, more pregnancy-related worries, more worries about the financial burden of the pandemic and having a job that is negatively affected by the pandemic ( Gur et al., 2020 ). Finally, a report from Iran (March – April 2020, N = 580) showed that fear of COVID-19 was associated with suicidal ideation, quality of life and depression in 290 pregnant women ( Ahorsu et al., 2020 ).
Conclusion: Although several cross-sectional studies, mostly surveys, report that pregnant women experienced higher levels of stress, depression and anxiety during the pandemic period compared to non-pregnant women, several other studies found comparable or even better mental health outcomes. It remains quite challenging to assess the prevalence of anxiety and depression in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period. Regarding risk factors, lack of social support and fear about pandemic-related issues reduced the stress resilience of pregnant women. An important aspect for future studies will be to assess the impact of the pandemic-related stress exposure during pregnancy on the children of these mothers. For an overview of findings from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on the impact of COVID-19 on stress resilience and mental health in pregnant women, see Table 5 .
The impact of COVID-19 on stress resilience and mental health in pregnant women.
Indian obstetricians | April 5 - May 5 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 118 (89.83% female) | COVID-19 related concerns expressed to obstetricians by pregnant and postpartum women | Unknown | 40,86% of the participants reported anxieties related to social media. The most common anxieties and distress reported were related to worrying social media messages, fear about contracting the infection, social isolation, family members not following infection control and missing out on childbirth-related rituals. | |
Israeli Jewish and Arab pregnant women | March 18–28 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 336 ( = 225 Jewish women, mean age 31.00 years (±5.18) and = 111 Arab women, mean age 28.43 years (±3.89) | COVID-19 related distress and anxiety | Being pregnant and being able to complete questionnaires in Hebrew | Participating pregnant women reported high COVID-19- related anxiety, with leaving the home (taking public transportation or being in public places) being the greatest cause for concern. Specifically, the use of public transportation (87.5%) was reported as the cause of the highest anxiety, followed by the potential infection of other family members (71.7%), being in public places (70%), concern for the fetus (70%), going for pregnancy check-ups (68.7%), being infected themselves (59.2%), and the delivery (55.4%). Arab women were more distressed and anxious compared to Jewish women. | |
Chinese pregnant women | February 13–16 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 1901 (mean age 28.9 years (±4.7) | Presence of prenatal depression (PND) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during the COVID-19 pandemic | Being in the second or third trimester of pregnancy | During the early stage of the COVID‐19 outbreak, high anxiety levels, a high prevalence of probable PND (34%) and a high prevalence of suspected PTSD (40%) was observed among pregnant women. | |
Pregnant women without psychiatric history attending an university clinic in Ankara, Turkey | May 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 297 (mean age 27.64 years (±5.27)) | The psychological impact and perceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic in pregnant women | Not having a psychiatric history | The majority of pregnant women in this study reported COVID-19 related concerns about their pregnancy and delivery (i.e. concerns about infecting their baby during delivery, not being able to reach their doctors and pregnancy complications because of canceled/postponed check-ups). | |
Mexican pregnant women | May 5 - June 12 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 503 (mean age 28.1 years (±6.25)) | The impact of the COVID−19 pandemic on the levels of stress (Perceived Stress Scale; PSS) and depression (Edinburgh's Postnatal Depression Scale; EPDS) of pregnant women in Mexico | Attending prenatal care from public and private hospitals | 33.2% of the participants was highly stressed (having a score of 27 or higher on the PSS) and a significant increase in PSS scores was observed in the third trimester of pregnancy. 17.5% of the participating pregnant women were considered as being depressed (having a score of 14 or higher on de EPDS). | |
Chinese pregnant women residing in Liaoning Province | February - March 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 560 (mean age 25.8 years (±2.7)) | The attitude towards COVID-19, psychological and stress impact among pregnant women amid the COVID-19 pandemic's immediate wake | Having a Chinese nationality, being 18 years or older | During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese pregnant women reported moderate-to-severe stressful and psychological impact of the pandemic. | |
Yassa, M. et al., 2020 | Turkish pregnant woman at a single tertiary “Coronavirus Pandemic Hospital” referral center | April 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 172 (mean age 27.5 years (±5.3)) | The attitude, concerns, and knowledge of non-infected pregnant women towards the COVID-19 outbreak | Not being infected with COVID-19, not having a psychiatric history, having a confirmed pregnancy over the 30th gestational week | Women had a positive attitude and compliance towards the COVID-19 outbreak and the healthcare staff. However, the majority of the women also felt vulnerable and approximately one third of the pregnant women reported concerns about getting infected during or following the delivery or their new-born baby getting infected. |
Pakistani pregnant women at an out-patient clinic in Pakistan | August 6 −20, 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 552 (mean age 32.0 years (±7.3)) | Levels of depression, anxiety and impact of the COVID-19 outbreak | Not having a psychiatric history or other comorbidities | 61% of pregnant women neither felt depressed nor anxious and were likely to be well. 39% of pregnant women stated that the COVID‐19 pandemic had caused them depression and anxiety, while 33% were found to have possible depression, with EPDS scores of 10 or greater. Pregnancy was a determinant factor for negative perceptions of the COVID‐19 pandemic (e.g. being exposed, more vulnerable, and fearing vertical transmission or harm to the pregnant woman). | |
Liu, X. et al., 2020 | Chinese pregnant women registered for prenatal care in Wuhan and Chongqing | February 3–9 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 1947 ( = 932 women form Wuhan, 90.45% aged <35 years, = 1015 women from Chongqing, 87.78% aged <35 years) | The mental status (Self-Rating Anxiety Scale; SAS) of pregnant women and their obstetric decisions during the COVID-19 outbreak | Being registered for prenatal care in hospitals in Wuhan and Chiongqing | More women in Wuhan felt anxious (24.5% versus 10.4% of non-Wuhan women). Factors that influenced anxiety included household income, subjective symptom and attitudes. Overall, obstetric decisions also revealed city-based difference. |
Argentinian women | Three waves; T0 (March 22 - 25 2020), T1 (April 3–9 2020), T2 (May 6–10 2020) 2, 14, and 47 days after the start of the lockdown respectively | Prospective longitudinal case-control (3 waves), = 204 (mean age 32.56 years (±4.71)) | Psychopathological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in pregnant women, compared to non-pregnant women | Being older than 18 years, living in Argentina, not having serious physical/psychological diseases and absence of risk factors for COVID-19, for pregnant mothers: only having a single pregnancy (in any week of gestation) | In a time range of 50 days of quarantine, pregnant women showed a higher increase in depression, anxiety and negative affect and a higher decrease in positive affect compared to non-pregnant women. | |
Two cohorts of Canadian women (one pre and one post-COVID-19) | April 2–13 2020 (COVID-19 cohort) | Cross-sectional, = 1754 (mean age 29.27 years (±4.23)) | The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic may aggravate the prenatal distress and psychiatric symptomatology of pregnant women | Being 18 years or older, having sufficient reading skills to complete self-report instruments | Pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic reported higher levels of depressive, anxiety, dissociative and PTSD symptoms, negative affectivity and less positive affectivity compared to a pre-COVID-19 cohort of pregnant women. | |
Yassa, M. et al., 2020 | Turkish pregnant and non-pregnant woman at a single tertiary “Coronavirus Pandemic Hospital” referral center | April 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 404 (mean age 27.4 years (±5.3)) | State/trait anxiety and obsessive-compulsive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic of pregnant women compared to non-pregnant women | Not having a COVID-19 and psychiatric history | Pregnant women showed increased OCD symptoms and less severe anxiety levels compared with non-pregnant women. |
Zhou, Y. et al., 2020 | Chinese pregnant and non-pregnant women in several Maternal and Child Health Hospitals in Beijing during the epidemic of COVID-19 | February 28 - March 12 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 859 ( = 544 pregnant women, mean age 31.1 years (±3.9) and = 315 non-pregnant women, mean age 35.4 years (±5.7)) | The prevalence of depression, anxiety, physical discomfort, insomnia and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during the COVID-19 pandemic | Having a childbearing age | During the COVID/19 pandemic, pregnant women had lower scores of symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD (all p < 0.05) compared to non-pregnant women. |
Israeli women hospitalized in the high-risk pregnancy units of a University Medical Center in Israel | March 19 - May 26 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 369 ( = 84 women hospitalized during COVID-19 (2.4% aged <20 years, 79.8% aged 20–35 years, 17.9% aged >35 years), and = 270 women hospitalized before COVID-19 (4.3% aged <20 years, 82.4% aged 20–35 years, 13.3% aged >35 years)) | The incidence of depression among women hospitalized in the high-risk units during the COVID-19 strict isolation period | Having a high-risk pregnancy | Results showed that women hospitalized in the high-risk pregnancy units during the COVID-19 pandemic had comparable risk for depression compared to the comparison group of high-risk pregnant women not hospitalized during the pandemic. | |
Italian pregnant women | March 18–31 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 737 (median age 34.4 years (range 18.4–47.4)) | The association of concern, anxiety and PTSD symptoms with age, gestational weeks, parity, days of COVID-19 lockdown, assisted reproductive technology use, psychopathological history, and previous perinatal losses during the first period of lock-down | Being currently pregnant and being older than 18 years | Pregnant women were very concerned about COVID-19 and showed a high prevalence of anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder symptom. Women with self-reported history of anxiety and/or depression were significantly more concerned about COVID-19 and were at a higher risk of developing symptoms of anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder. | |
Liu, C. H. et al., 2021 | US perinatal women | May 21 - August 17 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 1123 (mean age 33.10 years (± 3.77)) | COVID-19-related health, worries and grief, and depression, generalized anxiety and PTSD symptoms | Being older than 18 years, starting from the second trimester of pregnancy or having given birth in the past six months | Pre-existing mental health diagnoses as well as COVID-19-related health worries and grief experiences may increase the likelihood of mental health symptoms in perinatal women. |
Yue, C. et al., | Chinese pregnant women | February 16–21 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 308 (mean age 31.02 years (±3.9)) | The relationship between social support, risk perception and anxiety among third-trimester pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic | Having a current pregnancy (third trimester) | The third trimester pregnant women had a high level of social support, a medium level of risk perception to COVID-19 and were susceptible to anxiety. Risk perception played a mediating role between social support and anxiety. |
Dule, A. et al., | Ethiopian pregnant mothers | August 1 −15, 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 384 (mean age 31.3 years (± 7.7)) | The quality of life among pregnant mothers during COVID-19 and its association with social support and fear of the pandemic | Not having a high-risk pregnancy | Perceived social support was positively linked to quality of life and COVID-19-related fear impaired quality of life. |
Canadian pregnant women | June 3 - July 31 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 303 (mean age 32.13 years (±4.22)) | The prevalence of mental health difficulties in pregnant individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic | Living in Ontario, Canada, being able to read and write in English, being 18 years or older, ≤ 36 weeks gestation | During the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women experienced significantly elevated symptoms of depression and anxiety and comparable rates of insomnia compared to a pre-COVID-19 sample of pregnant women. | |
Chinese women | February 22 - March 10 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 1309 (mean age 29.99 years (±4.53)) | The prevalence of depression (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire - PHQ-9) during the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated factors in women in the perinatal stages | Being a woman in the third semester of pregnancy, or post-partum period (from the beginning of pregnancy to one week after childbirth), being 18 years or older, not having a pre-existing psychiatric disorder | A high prevalence of depression in women across the perinatal stages was observed. Worries about infection and interrupted routine medical check-ups were associated with an increased risk of depression. | |
Turkish pregnant women | Not reported | Cross-sectional, = 260 (mean age 29.56 years (±3.83))) | The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on depression and anxiety in pregnant women, using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) | Not having a history of a psychiatric disorder | 35.4% of the participating pregnant women scored higher than 13 on the EPDS and were thus being considered as being at risk of developing depression. COVID-19 pandemic effects regarding psychology and social isolation, anxiety symptoms and depressive symptoms contributed to increased depression in pregnant women. | |
Canadian pregnant women | April 5–20 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 1987 (mean age 32.4 years (±4.2)) | The prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic and potential resilience factors associated with lower symptoms | Having a confirmed pregnancy (<35 weeks gestation) | Elevated symptoms of anxiety and depression were found among pregnant individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic; potential protective factors included increased social support and physical exercise. | |
Japanese women | May 31 - June 6 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 1777 (5.35% aged <25 years, 29.21% aged 25–30 years, 37.20% aged 30–34 years, 28.25% aged ≥35 years) | Depressive symptoms in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic, using the Japanese version of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) | Being pregnant or recently gave birth (postpartum) | 17% of pregnant women suffered from depressive symptoms. Depression scores were positively correlated with cancelation of planned informal support, higher perceived risk for infection, difficulties in household finances, lack of social support; being younger, being less wealthy, being unemployed, and not having a partner. | |
Iranian pregnant women | May 5 - August 5 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 484 (mean age 28.3 years (±5.8)) | Well-being (WHO-5 Well-Being Index) of pregnant women and the effect of concerns and fears (Cambridge Worry Scale) on maternal well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic | Having a single healthy fetus and no significant psychological disorder | The percentage of women experiencing a low well-being state was relatively high. Predictors of experiencing low well-being were worry about own health, health of others and the fetus, having at least one infected person with COVID-19 among relatives. | |
Iranian pregnant women | March - April 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 205 (mean age 39.3 years (±5.5)) | Depression, stress, and anxiety levels, and their predictive factors in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic | Having a file in the health centers of Tabriz, having a mobile phone and a healthy pregnancy, not having a history of mental illness, medical problems during pregnancy, and high-risk pregnancies | Higher depression, stress and anxiety levels were correlated with education level, spouse's support and job, marital life satisfaction, number of pregnancies, household income sufficiency. | |
Chinese pregnant women | February 17 - March 16 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 751 (mean age 30.51 years (±4.28)) | Mental manifestations of the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of sleep conditions on mental health status | Not having a severe physical or mental disorder | A notable proportion of pregnant women exhibited mild anxiety and depression symptoms during the epidemic of COVID-19 mediated by sleep conditions. | |
US pregnant women | April 17 - May 1 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 787 (mean age 32.45 years (±4.83), 27.4% Black, 72.6% White-Non Latina/Hispanic) | Race-related differences in COVID-19-related burden on mental health and resilience factors | Being pregnant | Significant racial disparities were observed regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the experience of healthcare on the well-being of pregnant women. Self-reliance and emotion regulation was higher in Black women, although not related to a reduced risk for depression. | |
Iranian pregnant women | March 7 - April 21 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 580 ( = 290 pregnant women, mean age 29.54 years (± 5.84) and = 290 husbands, mean age 33.62 years (±6.36)) | The interdependencies between fear of COVID-19, mental health, and preventive COVID-19 behaviours | Being pregnant, being 18 years or older, being enrolled in the Integrated Health System (IHS), having a husband who agrees to participate | Significant dyadic relationships were observed between husbands and their pregnant wives' fear of COVID-19, mental health, and preventive behaviours. |
7.1. adults with a psychiatric disorder.
Whilst facing the COVID-19 pandemic has important negative consequences in terms of mental health and increases the vulnerability for psychological problems, severe mental illness in turn has been shown to represent a vulnerability factor for COVID-19 infection. Several studies have shown that patients affected by severe mental illness have an increased risk to become infected compared to the general population (odds ratios ranging from 5.7 to 7.6) ( Lee et al., 2020 ; Li et al., 2020 ; Wang et al., 2020b ), which is linked to poorer environmental conditions, such as socioeconomic deprivation. Furthermore, they might have more difficulties with being compliant to the rules and obligations established to fight the pandemic and tend to be generally exempt by wearing personal protective equipment such as masks ( Ayuso-Mateos et al., 2020 ). Indeed, in their analysis of anonymized electronic health records of 62,354 US patients affected by COVID-19 (January – August 2020), Taquet et al. clearly showed that the presence of a pre-existing psychiatric illness was significantly associated with a higher risk of a COVID-19 diagnosis (RR=1.65, 95% CI: 1.59–1.71, p < 0.0001), independent of known physical health or economic and housing risk factors ( Taquet et al., 2021 ). This finding was confirmed by a recent analysis of de-identified population-level electronic health records data ( N = 61,783,950) from US hospitals, which showed that individuals with a recent diagnosis of a mental disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, with an effect strongest for depression (OR=7.6) and schizophrenia (OR=7.34) ( Wang et al., 2020b ). Of interest, this increased risk was further exacerbated among African Americans and women. It is plausible that these patterns of associations might be also related to the effect that COVID-19 has exerted on the levels of clinical care in psychiatry which showed a substantial decrease since the start of the pandemic ( Carpiniello et al., 2020 ; Yao et al., 2020 ).
In this context, stress resilience appears among one of the many plausible moderators of the identified increased risk of infection in patients affected by severe mental illness ( Ameis et al., 2020 ; Jacob et al., 2020 ). This is of relevance given that building resilience in the general population and at-risk patient populations will be a key instrument to decrease the impact of the COVID-19 related socioeconomic shock ( Jacob et al., 2020 ). Indeed, there is evidence that specific factors such as having a higher academic level, being autonomous, having self-efficacy, and the presence of optimism have been shown to be significant predictors of resilience in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Robles-Bello et al., 2020 ), protecting individuals from the development of mental disorders. This points to the importance of building resilience in at risk population such as those affected by severe mental disorders. Indeed, the work from Burrai et al. has shown that Italian psychiatric patients in residential community (April – May 2020, N = 82) scored lower than healthy individuals in levels of stress although, as expected, they showed higher levels of anxiety, perceived risk of getting infected with COVID-19 and worry about the emergency situation ( Burrai et al., 2020 ). This finding is probably justified by the perceived and experienced support that residential patients receive from mental health workers and peers.
At the same time, there is evidence that COVID-19 has exerted a role as a precipitating factor for an exacerbation of existing psychiatric disorders, particularly in those disorders where stress is a key trigger, such as PTSD, mood disorders, and schizophrenia ( Ettman et al., 2020 ; Horn et al., 2020 ; Jolly et al., 2020 ; Ma et al., 2020 ; Pinkham et al., 2020 ; Rutherford et al., 2021 ). For instance, in China (January – April 2020), 30 patients with schizophrenia who were socially isolated after having close contact with a COVID-19 case showed a higher severity of symptoms, including higher levels of perceived stress and anxiety and lower quality of sleep, as well as a higher inflammatory load compared to 30 patients with schizophrenia not subjected to quarantine measures ( Ma et al., 2020 ). Of interest, there is anecdotal evidence of two cases in the US where symptoms of PTSD might have been exacerbated by public masking ( Jolly et al., 2020 ). However, Pinkham et al. showed in 148 US individuals with severe mental illness (92 with schizophrenia spectrum illnesses and 56 with affective disorders) that affective symptoms and sleep were stable after five months from the start of the pandemic ( Pinkham et al., 2020 ). Convincing evidence stems from three longitudinal Dutch case-control cohorts (NESDA: N = 2329 cases and N = 652 controls; NESDO: N = 378 cases and N = 132 controls; NOCDA: N = 419 cases), showing that patients with depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders are not experiencing a large detrimental impact on their mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before, even though symptom severity remained substantially high – and many more times higher than healthy controls, indicating the burden and severity of psychiatric disorders compared to general population symptom levels ( Pan et al., 2021 ). With regard to suicidality, a series of studies have shown that the suicide risk increased significantly during the pandemic ( Iob et al., 2020b ; John et al., 2020 ; Nomura et al., 2021 ; Sáiz et al., 2020 ; Singh, 2020 ; Tanaka and Okamoto, 2021 ). While the grim forecast from predictive models showed increased rates of suicide during the pandemic ( John et al., 2020 ), data emerging from epidemiological observations in countries as the Netherlands and Japan found that monthly suicide rates declined during the first months of the pandemic, even though levels in Japan increased by 16% during the second wave ( Tanaka and Okamoto, 2021 ). Other studies showed increased rates of various suicidal behavior components in the general population including passive suicidal ideation ( Sáiz et al., 2020 ) and self-harm ( Iob et al., 2020b ).
Children and adolescents with an eating disorder diagnosis represent a vulnerable group. Reactivation of eating disorder symptoms occurred in 42% of 365 young patients followed up in an eating disorder clinic in Spain during the first 8 weeks of COVID-19, particularly in adolescents (March – May 2020, N = 365). In half of the cases, the clinical worsening was associated with eating restriction and excessive exercising due to reactivation of weight phobia. Social isolation and increase in family conflicts were reported as relevant factors ( Graell et al., 2020 ). Obsessive compulsive disorder symptoms were also reported to increase in the first months of the pandemic in most children and adolescents diagnosed with OCD, in addition to increased anxiety and depressive symptoms (Denmark, April-May 2020, N = 67) ( Nissen et al., 2020 ). In a Turkish study, 61 participants aged 6–18 years who had been diagnosed with OCD were assessed in April 2020. 54% reported worsening of their symptoms and 36% reported more than a 30% increase in CY-BOCS scores. On the other hand, 11.4% of the patients reported decreased symptoms. More than half of the patients who were in remission also reported increased symptoms that reached a clinically significant threshold. Among the factors that predicted worsening of OCD symptoms during the pandemic were daily preoccupation with COVID-19, searching on social media about COVID-19, duration of OCD diagnosis and a diagnosis of COVID-19 in someone familiar ( Tanir et al., 2020 ).
Children with neurodevelopmental disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism have shown to be at risk during the COVID-19 outbreak. A survey completed by 241 Chinese parents of children aged 6–15 years old who were diagnosed with ADHD, showed that ADHD symptoms significantly worsened during the lockdown ( Zhang et al., 2020a ). In a survey study in Italy (April 2020, N = 527), parents reported that respectively 36% and 42% of children diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) experienced more intense and more frequent behavioral problems compared to the period before the pandemic ( Colizzi et al., 2020 ). Further, Turkish children diagnosed with ASD reported more sleep problems during the home confinement period which mediated autism symptom severity (May 2020, N = 46)) ( Turkoglu et al., 2020 ). In another Turkish study that included 87 ASD patients (aged 3 to 29 years old), it was found that parents’ anxiety levels were significantly correlated with the child's total score on the ABC (Aberrant Behavior Checklist). Half of the parents reported that their children became more aggressive, around one third of the parents reported sleep and appetite changes in their children and a quarter of the parents reported that their child's tics increased, or new tics emerged ( Mutluer et al., 2020 ).
Conclusion: Overall, people with existing psychiatric disorders are experiencing a detrimental impact on their mental health from the COVID-19 pandemic, for example in OCD and PTSD, which requires close monitoring in clinical practice. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, does not seem to have further increased symptom severity in adult patients with depressive and anxiety disorders compared to their pre-pandemic levels ( Pinkham et al., 2020 );( Pan et al., 2021 ). Longitudinal observations with adequate time of follow-up suggest an increased risk for suicidality associated with the pandemic, even though there are conflicting reports. Regarding children and adolescents diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, studies have generally reported a worsening of symptoms in young patients with eating disorders, obsessive compulsive disorders, and neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD and ASD. Severe mental illness in turn has been shown to represent an important vulnerability factor for COVID-19 infection. Basing on the increased vulnerability to COVID-19 in psychiatric patients, several European countries have prioritized them for vaccination. Many other countries are currently evaluating this option ( De Picker et al., 2021 ). See Table 6 . for an overview of findings from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on the impact of COVID-19 on stress resilience and mental health in patients with a psychiatric disorder.
The impact of COVID-19 on stress resilience and mental health in patients with a psychiatric disorder.
Lee, S. W. et al., | South Korean adult patients with non-affective or affective disorders with psychotic features | Jan 1 - May 15 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 164,540 individuals without a mental illness (mean age 46.2 years (±18.3) and = 51,878 with a mental illness (mean age 61.6 years (±19.2) | The associations between mental illness and the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test result and the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 | Being older than 20 years, presence of a SARS-CoV-2 test during the study period | 1391 (3.0%) people without a mental illness and 1383 (2.9%) of those with a mental illness tested positive for COVID-19. People with a previous diagnosis of a mental illness had the same risk for testing positive for COVID-19 as people with no history of mental illness in a nationwide cohort from South Korea. |
Li, L. et al., | US adults, hospitalized COVID-19 positive patients | Two waves; T1: February 15 - April 25 2020,, and T2: May 27 2020, | Cohort, = 1685 | The association between having any prior psychiatric diagnosis and COVID-19 related mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 | Being hospitalized for COVID-19 | Patients with a prior psychiatric diagnosis while hospitalized for COVID-19 had a higher mortality rate compared those without a psychiatric disorder (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1–1.9; = 0.003). |
Wang, Q. et al., 2020 | US adult patients | Up to July 2020 | Case-control, = 61,783,950 | The impact of a recent (within past year) diagnosis of a mental disorder – including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, depression and schizophrenia – on the risk for COVID-19 infection and related mortality and hospitalization rates | Having an electronic health record | Patients with a recent (within past year) diagnosis of a mental disorder had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 infection as compared to patients without mental disorders, and also present a worse out- come as evidenced by higher rates of hospitalization and death. |
Taquet, M. et al., | US adult patients (anonymised data from electronic health records in 54 health-care organisations in the US) | January 20 - August 1 2020, | Cohort, = 69.8 million ( = 62,354 with COVID-19, mean age 49.3 years (±19.7), 55.4% female) | Bidirectional associations between COVID-19 and psychiatric disorders | Having an electronic health record | Survivors of COVID-19 appear to be at increased risk of psychiatric sequelae, and a psychiatric diagnosis might be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. |
Italian Community Mental Health Centres (CMHC) and General Hospital Psychiatric Wards (GHPW) | April 1–11 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 71 (52.9%) of the 134 (MHDs) and = 107 (32.6%) of the 318 GHPWs | The impact of the current emergency on the activities of the Italian Mental Health Departments | Being included in the list of Mental Health Departments, updated annually by the Italian Society of Psychiatry | The pandemic has led to a drastic reduction in levels of care, which may produce a severe impact on the mental health of the population. | |
Spanish adults in a sample affected by the COVID-19 pandemic | April 15–26 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 1345 (15.57% aged 18–28 years, 17.03% aged 29–39 years, 18.01% aged 40–49 years, 16.95% aged 50–59 years, 17.36% aged 60–69 years, 15.08% aged ≥70 years, 63.35% female) | The level of resilience of the general Spanish population exposed to a traumatic situation by the COVID-19 pandemic | Being 18 years or older, having a Spanish nationality, being a resident in Spain, having read the information sheet and accepted the informed consent, having completed the questionnaire. | The Spanish population exposed to confinement presented high levels of resilience, but no relevant post-traumatic growth took place. Having a higher academic level, being autonomous), along with self-efficacy) and to a lesser extent optimism predicted a resilient outcome. | |
Italian adult patients in Residential Rehabilitation Communities and healthy controls | April - May 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 77 psychiatric patients (mean age 46.61 years (±12.81), 33.8% female) and = 100 healthy controls (mean age 46.40 (±11.52), 50% female) | The psychological and emotional impact of isolation on patients in these psychiatric communities, compared to healthy controls | Being 18 years or older and having a diagnosis of at least one psychotic disorder | Statistically significant differences were observed between psychiatric patients and controls on Anxiety, Stress, Worry, and Risk Perception variables. | |
French adult patients infected by COVID-19 | March 17 - May 11, 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 180 (mean age 53.0 (±16.0)) | The prevalence of PTSD in patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 | Having a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, being 18 years or older and being willing to participate | Results showed that 6.5% of the patients presented with probable PTSD. Psychotropic medication, hospitalization, and distress during the acute phase of COVID-19 were significantly associated with the severity of the PTSD symptoms. | |
US adult patients affected by PTSD | April 1 - May 8 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 76 ( = 46 with PTSD (mean age 62.5 years (±9.0)) and = 30 trauma-exposed comparison subjects; TE (mean age 67.4 (±9.4)) | PTSD symptoms, social isolation and loneliness among older adults with PTSD compared to TEs | Being 50 years or older, being currently diagnosed with PTSD, having a PTSD duration of at least 6 months, having a Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5) score ≥33, having a score of ≥25 on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) | PTSD symptoms significantly declined among PTSD participants relative to TEs. Sources of resilience may exist based on experience with prior traumas as well as increasing age promoting more adaptive coping styles. | |
Pinkham, A. et al., 2020 | US adult patients affected by severe mental illness | April 3, - June 4 2020, | Longitudinal, = 148 ( = 92 with schizophrenia spectrum illnesses and = 56 with affective disorders) | To compare the severity of pre-pandemic symptoms and affective experiences to current symptoms | Having a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder (I or II) with or without psychotic features or major depression with psychotic features | There were no significant changes in mood experiences or psychotic symptoms over time, and sleep duration was also unaffected. |
Chinese adult schizophrenic patients medically isolated from 10 January 2020 to 30 April 2020, due to having close contact with COVID-19 patients at Wuhan Mental Health Center (aged between 20 and 70 years old) | January 10 - April 30 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 30 patients with schizophrenia were recruited from Wuhan Mental Health Center (isolation group) = 30 patients matched with the isolation group recruited from another branch of Wuhan Mental Health Center as controls | To explore the impact of social isolation due to COVID on common inflammatory indicators and psychological characteristics | Having been in close contact with COVID-19 patients, not having a COVID-19 infection after isolation and screening, having been medically isolation for ≥ 14 days, being diagnosed with schizophrenia in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Diagnostic criteria (DSM-VI), being hospitalizatized for ≥2 years before isolation, being between 20 and 70 years old | Social isolation led to worse anxiety and sleep quality. No effect on inflammatory parameters. | |
Dutch adults with and without depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders (three cohorts:1) the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA), 2) the Netherlands Study of Depression in Older Persons (NESDO), and 3) the Netherlands Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Association Study (NOCDA) | April 1 - May 13 2020, | Longitudinal, NESDA: = 2329 individuals with a depression or anxiety disorder, = 652 controls NESDO: = 378 individuals with a depressive disorder, = 132 controls NOCDA: = 419 individuals with a lifetime diagnosis of obsessive-compulsive disorder | The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in people with pre-existing mental health disorders | NESDA: being aged 18=65 years; NESDO: being 60 years or older; NOCDA: being 18 years or older | Although people with depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders scored higher on all four symptom scales than did individuals without these mental health disorders, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, they did not report a greater increase in symptoms during the pandemic | |
Japanese general population | February - June 2020 (first wave of pandemic) and July - October 2020 (second wave of pandemic) | Cross-sectional, = 126 million (data derived from suicide statistics published by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare) | Suicide mortality during the pandemic in the Japanese population | Unknown | The suicide rate declined substantially during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (February to June 2020), but increased rapidly during the second outbreak (July to October 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic affected almost every community and citizen concurrently. | |
Japanese general population | December 2010-September 2020 (precise period unknown, montly mortality data was obtained from the National Police Agency) | Cross-sectional, N: Unknown | Suicide mortality during the pandemic in the Japanese population | Unknown | For women, excess deaths of 110.00–160.75 (percent excess 22.08–32.26) were observed in July 2020, 96.00–163.56 (19.34–32.95) in August 2020, and 95.00–161.00 (19.83–33.61) in September 2020. No excess deaths from suicide were observed before 2020. For men, no excess deaths were found during the same period. | |
General Spanish population aged 18 and older | March 19 −26 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 21,207 (mean age 39.7 years (±14.0), 69.6% female) | The prevalence of passive suicidal ideation in a sample of the general Spanish population early in the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown factors associated with suicidal thoughts | Being 18 years or older | Being of female sex, married or living as married, and working were protective factors against passive suicidal ideation while risk factors were very low income, having elderly dependents, and having a personal history of past/current mental disorder. | |
Iob, E. et al., 2020 (144) | UK general population (COVID-19 Social Study) | March 21- April 20 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 44,775 (17.5% aged 18–29 years, 23.2% aged 30–44, 26.9% aged 45–49, 32.4% aged >60 years, 51.0% female) | Patterns of abuse, self-harm and thoughts of suicide/self-harm in the UK during the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic | Presence of data on abuse, self-harm and thoughts of suicide or self-harm on at least one occasion | The reported frequency of abuse, self-harm and thoughts of suicide/self-harm was higher among women, Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, unemployment, disability, chronic physical illnesses, mental disorders and COVID-19 diagnosis. |
Patients undergoing treatment in the outpatient clinic, day hospital, and the inpatient program of the Child and Adolescent Eating Disorders Unit (CAEDU) of the Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús in Madrid. | March 16 - May 10, 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 365 (1818 outpatient consultations; 73.10% remotely and 26.9% face‐to‐face) | The efficacy of a combined teletherapy program aimed at allowing continuity of care for children and adolescents with an eating disorder | Undergoing treatment in the Eating Disorders unit at the time of state-decreed confinement and during the 8-week lockdown period | Almost half of the children and adolescents studied experienced reactivation of eating disorder symptoms despite treatment, and severe patients (25%) presented self‐harm and suicide risk, | |
Danish children and adolescents, newly diagnosed with OCD (clinical group) and Danish children and adolescents who were diagnosed years ago and completed their primary treatment (survey group) | April–May 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 65 (first sample, clinical group, mean age 14.9 (±2.66)); = 37 (second sample, survey group, mean age 14.14 years (±2.79)) | The immediate effect of COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) | Having been diagnosed with OCD | In both samples, but with an effect more pronounced in the survey group, participants experienced a worsening of their OCD, anxiety, and depressive symptoms | |
Turkish children and adolescents who had been diagnosed with OCD | September 2019 to April 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 61 (mean age 13.62 years (±2.72), 44.3% female) | The effects of COVID-19 pandemic and related confinement on symptom profile, symptom severity and exacerbation of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) | Being diagnosed with OCD and having a Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) score from before the pandemic period | Young subjects with OCD developed additional symptoms and worsen already existing symptoms of OCD during COVID-19 pandemic. There was a significant relationship between the change in CY-BOCS scores with talking/searching in the social environment about COVID-19, daily preoccupation about COVID-19, duration of OCD diagnosis and diagnosis of COVID-19 in someone familiar. | |
Zhang, J. et al., 2020 | Chinese children with ADHD diagnosis | Not specified | Cross-sectional, = 241 (mean age 9.43 years (±2.39), 19.5% female) | Mental health related conditions of children with ADHD during the COVID-19 outbreak | Being diagnosed with ADHD | During the COVID-19 outbreak, children's ADHD symptoms worsened significantly compared to normal state. Data were reported by parents, and medication status was not known. |
Italian children with ASD | April 6–20 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 527 (mean age 13.0 years (± 8.1)) | The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) individuals | Being diagnosed with ASD by healthcare professionals affiliated with the Veneto Autism Spectrum Disorder Regional center at the Integrated University Hospital of Verona | The COVID-19 outbreak increased difficulties among autism spectrum disorder individuals. | |
Turkish drug-naive children diagnosed with ASD | May 7–14 2020 (during the fifth week following commencement of home confinement) | Cross-sectional, = 46 (mean age 7.89 years ()range 4–17 years), 17.39% female) | The relationship between chronotype preference/sleep problems and symptom severity of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) during the confinement and social isolation of the COVID-19 outbreak | Being diagnosed with ASD and having been regularly monitored and received conventional assessment forms during the 2 months before the commencement of home confinement | ASD exhibited significantly greater sleep problems and chronotype score (eveningness) during the home confinement period compared to non-home confinement. Children with ASD forced into home confinement due to the COVID-19 pandemic showed also increased ASD symptoms. | |
Turkish individuals with ASD (aged 3–29 years old) | Not specified | Cross-sectional, = 87 (mean age 13.96 years (±6.1), 17% female) | Response of individuals with ASD to COVID-19 in terms of comprehension and adherence to implemented measure and changes in their behavioural problems | Having been diagnosed with ASD according to DSM-5 criteria by child psychiatrists with over 10 years of experience in ASD | ASD-related behaviours, sleep quality, and hypersensitivity changed significantly from before the pandemic to during the pandemic. COVID-19 inflicted important challenges to individuals with ASD and their caregivers. |
Previous SARS and MERS pandemics have shown that infection with the virus itself can be associated with increased symptoms as well as new diagnoses/symptoms of anxiety, depression, impaired memory, fatigue and insomnia in the acute as well as post-illness phase, and there is burgeoning evidence for substantial psychiatric symptoms related to COVID-infection ( Rogers et al., 2020 ; Taquet et al., 2021 ). An electronic health record network cohort study using data from 69 million individuals showed that in the three months following testing positive for COVID-19, 1 in 5 survivors was recorded as having a first time diagnosis of anxiety, depression or insomnia. This was about twice as likely as for other groups of patients in the same period ( Taquet et al., 2021 ). Furthermore, Horn et al. found that the prevalence of PTSD in patients with COVID-19 was around 6.5%, and a similar rate was also reported in COVID-19 patients discharged from hospitals in Wuhan ( Horn et al., 2020 ). In an Italian cross-sectional study (April - October 2020) that included 381 patients who had recovered from COVID-19 within 30 to 120 days, a PTSD prevalence of 30.2% was reported after acute COVID-19 infection ( Janiri et al., 2021 ). It is crucial to determine protective factors increasing resilience against mental health impairment following infection with COVID-19. This is illustrated by findings in a sample of 296 Chinese patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19, where higher resilience measured with the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale was correlated with lower anxiety ( r = −0.391, p < 0.001) and depression ( r = −0.472, p < 0.001) scores. Patients with high resilience (upper 27%) were much less likely to display symptoms of anxiety (OR = 0.362, p < 0.001) or depression (OR = 0.301, p < 0.001) ( Zhang et al., 2020b ). Education about disease-related facts, emotional support and confidence of rehabilitation may enhance resilience in COVID-19 affected patients ( Zhang et al., 2020b ). Following up on these first data, longitudinal studies correcting for potential confounders such as pre-existing mental disorders, concomitant somatic disorders, severity of infection, degree of physiological compromise, immunological response, extent of medical interventions and socioeconomic situation, are warranted to further elucidate the role of resilience and its determining factors in promoting mental health in COVID-19 patients in order to develop targeted preventive interventions strengthening coping skills, self-efficacy, will power, daily routines and opportunities to share the emotional burden ( Richards and Scowcroft 2020 ).
Conclusion: In sum, given the high risk of psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 infection, preventive measures promoting mental health as well as intensified screening for symptoms of mental disorders should be routinely implemented in the standard care of COVID-19 patients to increase resilience towards mental disorders particularly in this patient group. Table 7 presents findings from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on the impact of COVID-19 on stress resilience and mental health in COVID-19 patients.
The impact of COVID-19 on stress resilience and mental health in COVID-19 patients.
Italian patients who presented to the emergency department with COVID-19 and recovered from COVID-19 infection | April 21 - October 15 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 381 (mean age 55.26 years (± 14.86), 43.6% female) | PTSD prevalence after severe COVID-19 infection | Having to meet PTSD criteria, in addition to traumatic event exposure (criterion A), having at least 1 DSM-5 criterion B and C symptom and at least 2 criterion D and E symptoms | A PTSD prevalence of 30.2% was observed after acute COVID-19 infection. Associated characteristics were female sex, history of psychiatric disorders, and delirium or agitation during acute illness. In the PTSD group, more persistent medical symptoms, were often reported by patients after recovery from severe COVID-19. | |
Zhang, J. et al., 2020 | Chinese adult patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19 | March 3 –5 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 296 (2.7% aged 18–20 years, 53.0% aged 21–40 years, 40.5% aged 41–60 years, 3.7% aged ≥ 61 years, 41.6% female) | Resilience, anxiety and depression among patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19 | Being diagnosed with COVID-19, having stayed in FangCang Hospital and received relevant treatment (e.g., oxygen therapy and antiviral therapy), being 18 years or older, not having a history of mental illness, a severe cognitive impairment and/or audiovisua impairment, poor physical condition, or having participated in other relevant studies | A small number of the patients in this study had above threshold anxiety and depression. The mean total resilience score of the participants was slightly below the normal level of ordinary Chinese adults. Resilience was inversely associated with and was a protective factor for both anxiety and depression. |
From the previous sections it is apparent that the effects of the pandemic, either related to COVID-19 itself or the associated measures, are surprisingly heterogeneous across populations. Trajectories of mental distress varied markedly by resilience level during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic ( Riehm et al., 2021 ). It is thus of paramount importance to understand which individuals are resilient or vulnerable to apply a personalized medicine approach ( Willis and Lord, 2015 ). This approach harnesses the individual's genetic, genomic, proteomic, clinical, socioeconomic and lifestyle information to identify the factors causing the differential resilience/vulnerability to the virus. Such information allows to define resilient/vulnerable subpopulations, to refine targeted therapeutic strategies and to develop an effective public health approach. A meta-analysis examining 68 studies comprising 288,830 participants from 19 countries on factors associated with psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic (December 2019 - July 2020), showed that being female, being younger than 35 years old, living in rural areas, lower socioeconomic status, higher COVID-19 infection risk, longer social media exposure and having pre-existing physical or mental conditions were associated with higher anxiety and depression odds ( Wang et al., 2020c ). Higher social/family support, physical activity and positive coping strategies were associated with lower odds of anxiety and depression and thus a reduced risk of psychological distress ( Wang et al., 2020c ).
With regard to mental health, psychological attitudes towards how to manage the risk of infection, as well as towards specific medical, socioeconomic, personality and lifestyle factors, have been suggested to be key for the individual's resilience to distress and psychiatric disorders during a pandemic ( Chen and Bonanno, 2020 ; WHO, 2020 ; Zager Kocjan et al., 2021 ). Individual trait resilience and well-being scores, measured respectively with the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and the Recovery from War Scale, have been found to predict effective coping with the COVID-19 threat ( Kimhi et al., 2020 ; Ran et al., 2020 ). In addition, strategies aimed at reducing psychological distress such as paying attention to a healthy lifestyle, social support, good quality of sleep, acceptance of negative emotions, and avoidance of suppression and substance abuse, have been suggested to increase psychological resilience and may be key in coping with the COVID-19 related distress ( Bozdag and Ergun, 2020 ; Petzold et al., 2020 ). By contrast, loneliness, or negative psychological reactions, including panic response, hysteria, hopelessness and desperation, have been associated with negative outcomes, including suicidal ideation ( Killgore et al., 2020a ; Lee, 2020 ; Serafini et al., 2020 ; Thakur and Jain, 2020 ). Although the impact of the pandemic is still under investigation and initial large scale data analysis show that suicide numbers have remained largely unchanged or declined in the early months of the pandemic compared with the expected levels based on the pre-pandemic period in high-income and upper-middle-income countries it is plausible that more accurate figures will be detected in the long-term even after the pandemic will decrease its burden globally. Mental distress can be exacerbated by being quarantined ( Xin et al., 2020 ). It is worth noting that young people have reported to experience greater psychological distress than adults ( McGinty et al., 2020 ; Pierce et al., 2020 ; Varma et al., 2020 ). Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, no data on potential genetic, epigenetic, or brain function markers of resilience to mental illness in the face of the pandemic have been published yet. However, it can be hypothesized that neurobiological factors usually involved in the stress response, emotion-regulation, and the ability to adapt to new life conditions, such as immune system activation, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity and neural plasticity processes, might be involved ( Branchi and Giuliani, 2020 ; Zorn et al., 2017 ).
The three-dimensional vulnerability-stress-coping model may help understanding risk and resilience for mental disorders in relation to stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. This gene x environment x coping (G x E x C) model has been proposed to include the three factors a) genetic vulnerability, b) risk-increasing external stressors and c) resilience-increasing coping mechanisms, such as self-efficacy buffering the impact of a high genetic vulnerability and/or adverse environment. Exemplary studies have demonstrated this complex, three-fold interaction regarding risk or resilience towards anxiety phenotypes ( Schiele et al., 2020 , 2016 ). Finally, epigenetic mechanisms at the interface between biology and biography and impacting on stress-response and emotion-regulating capacities might add another level to confer individual risk as well as resilience towards mental disorders under adverse and advantageous environmental conditions ( Vinkers et al., 2015 ). Therefore, an extended (Epi) G x E x C model might prove useful in informing future personalized preventive interventions increasing resilience towards mental disorders. At the same time, existing hypotheses as the stress inoculation or match/mismatch hypothesis for psychiatric disorders may help to understand why selected population groups show increased resilience levels, for instance due to previous life experiences that now enable them to deal appropriately with the current challenges ( Nederhof and Schmidt, 2012 ; Schmidt, 2011 ).
Conclusion: 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 are heavily dependent on an individual's unique context. Intensified research into (epi)genetic, proteomic, immunological, clinical, neuropsychological, socioeconomic and lifestyle factors conveying mental disorder risk or resilience in the context of the present pandemic is urgently warranted to provide individually tailored and thus most efficient resilience-increasing preventive measures. Findings from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on interindividual differences in stress resilience are presented in Table 8 .
Interindividual differences in stress resilience: implications for the pandemic.
US adults | Ten waves; baseline: March 10–31 2020 and nine follow-up waves conducted between April 1 - August 4 2020, | Longitudinal, = 6008 (12.3% aged 18–29 years, 39.5% aged 30–49 years, 27.2% aged 50–64 years, 20.9% aged ≥65 years, 51.0% female, 64.1% White 11.6% Black, 15.5% Hispanic/Latino, 8.8% other) | The association between resilience and trajectories of mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic | Being a participant of the Understanding America Study (UAS) | 16.6% of the participants reported low resilience, 66.2% reported normal resilience, and 17.2% reported high resilience. Trajectories of mental distress varied markedly by resilience level during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, with adults reporting low or normal levels of resilience experiencing approximately a twofold increase in the odds of mental distress, whereas adults reporting high resilience reported no change in mental distress. | |
Slovene adults | March 2020 (precise period unknown) | Cross-sectional, = 2722 (mean age 36.40 years (±13.10), 74.90% female) | Resilience, personality traits and psychological functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic | Unknown | Resilience fully or partially mediated the relationship of all the Big Five personality traits (except extraversion) with psychological functioning. | |
Jewish Israelis | Unknown | Cross-sectional, = 1346 (mean age 42.00 years (±16.35), 62.0% female) | To investigate the extent to which individual resilience, well-being and demographic characteristics may predict two indicators of Coronavirus pandemic: distress symptoms and perceived danger | Unknown | Significant negative correlations were found between individual/community resilience and sense of danger (−0.220 and −0.255 respectively; p < .001) and distress symptoms (- 0.398 and −0.544 respectively; p < .001). Individual resilience and well-being showed to be the first and foremost predictors of COVID-19 anxiety. | |
Chinese citizens | February 23 - March 2 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 1770 (mean age 28.70 years (±10.64), 666.9% female | The relationship between psychological resilience and mental health (depression, anxiety, somatization symptoms) among the general population in China | Being a citizen of the different provinces of China affected by COVID-19 from February 23 2020, to March 2 2020,, not being diagnosed with emotional or mental disorders, not being a newly diagnosed or suspected COVID-10 patient, not having had, not being a medical (COVID-19) staff member, not having a family member affected by COVID-19 | The prevalence of depression, anxiety, somatization symptoms was found to be 47.1%, 31.9%, 45.9%, respectively. Psychological resilience was negatively correlated with depression (standardized β = −0.490, < 0.001), anxiety (standardized β = −0.443, < 0.001), and somatization symptom scores (standardized β = −0.358, < 0.001), while controlling for confounding factors.. | |
German general population | March 27 – April 6 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 6509 (mean age 36.2 years (±11.65), 70.1% female) | The negative impact on mental health in the current COVID‐19 pandemic | Being of 18 years or older, being a resident in Germany, being able to complete the questionnaire in German | Over 50% expressed suffering from anxiety and psychological distress regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. | |
Bozdag, F. & Ergun, N., 2020 | Turkish healthcare workers | April 6 – 10 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 214 (mean age 33.29 years (6.82±), 56.1% female) | Psychological resilience of healthcare workers | Unknown | Differences between psychological resilience of women and men were statistically significant. Having children and being a doctor negatively predicted psychological resilience. Occupation, worry about becoming infected by the virus and quality of sleep significantly predicted the psychological resilience of healthcare professionals. |
Killgore, W. D. S. et al., 2020 | US adults aged 18–35 years old | April 9–10 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 1013 (age range 15–35 years, 55.97% female) | Loneliness in the US Population, related to COVID-19 | Unknown | Loneliness was elevated, with 43% of respondents scoring above published cut-offs, and was strongly associated with greater depression and suicidal ideation. |
Chinese students (26 universities in 16 Chinese cities) | February 1–10 2020 | Cross-sectional, = 24,378 (mean age 19.9 years (±1.6), 67.7% female) | The associations between mandatory quarantine status and negative cognitions and mental health | Being a full-time students of one of the selected universities, and being able to read and write Chinese | Mandatory quarantined status was significantly and positively associated with perceived discrimination (Cohen's = 0.62), perceived high/very high risk of infection (OR = 1.61), emotional distress (Cohen's = 0.46), probable depression (OR = 2.54), and self-harm/suicidal ideation (OR = 4.98). | |
Adults from 63 countries | April 9 - May 25 2020, | Cross-sectional, = 1653 (mean age 42.90 years (± 13.63), 67.7% female, 61.2% Caucasian of Caucasian mixed, 20.2% Asian or Asian Indian, 3.6% Hispanic or Latino, 1.7% African or African American, 2.0% self-described) | The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychological distress | Unknown | Over 70% of the respondents had greater than moderate levels of stress, with 59% meeting the criteria for clinically significant anxiety and 39% reporting moderate depressive symptoms. |
We believe resilience research is in a unique position to make a significant contribution to understand the psychological and psychiatric impact of this pandemic and inform future clinical and research directions. This is not limited to the current COVID-19 pandemic but also applies to other local or global challenges. From the current literature, a surprising level of resilience is apparent across populations, even though there are individuals and groups that are at increased risk for the stressful effects of the COVID-19 pandemic ( Fig. 1 ). Nevertheless, firm conclusions cannot be drawn as most of the current literature has major methodological limitations. Most studies on stress resilience and mental health outcomes during the pandemic are observational, cross-sectional, using convenience samples with often rather small sample sizes and rather limited assessment of contextual and personal characteristics that are essential to understand stress vulnerability and resilience. Interpretation of observational studies from non-representative samples is likely to suffer from bias, particularly regarding collider bias ( Griffith et al., 2020 ). There is a stark contrast between the very limited number of extensive longitudinal studies with pre-pandemic assessments and a broad array of outcomes, and the vast number of cross-sectional studies with one or two outcomes. Where newer cohorts lack baseline data from before the pandemic, large established cohorts move relatively slowly and mostly sample infrequently. This makes more fine-grained assessments of resilience and mental health more challenging. Finally, there is lack of observational data on how the general public and patients with psychiatric disorders actually deal with self‐care, nutrition, physical activity or restorative sleep during confinement ( Balanza-Martinez et al., 2020 ). Thus, public policies will need to be informed by data gathered in observational studies of lifestyle behaviors during the compulsory isolation ( Balanza-Martinez et al., 2020 ). This research gap has been partly filled by very recent data confirming that psychiatric patients, particularly those affected by depression and anxiety tended to have higher levels of psychopathological distress ( Sole et al., 2021 ), and that the presence of depressive symptoms was a predictor of poorer resilience ( Verdolini et al., 2021 ).
Resilience and mental health related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nevertheless, studies during the pandemic consistently show that children and young people are the most vulnerable group with increased psychological distress, probably because their needs for social interactions are stronger. Moreover, young women appear to be more vulnerable than young men, and parents with young children appear to be at particularly high risk for mental health problems. However, these are rather broad conclusions which cannot be used at the individual level. There is still an urgent need to identify individuals and populations with higher risk of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic to offer targeted mental health care and to improve social support, physical activity, and coping strategies in these individuals. These approaches are needed to boost resilience factors protecting the individual against psychological distress. For example, social support from and connectedness with family, friends, and a special caring loved one were each independently associated with greater resilience ( Killgore et al., 2020b ; Nitschke et al., 2020 ) ( South et al., 2020 ) ( Prime et al., 2020 ). Moreover, there seems to be a role for media with regard to resilience and mental health during the pandemic. Nuanced and balanced news coverage around the COVID-19 pandemic is essential in order that nocebo effects as a result of negative and alarming news coverage occur ( Bendau et al., 2020a ). Next, employers are taken up on their promise to assist their employees by building up resilience strategies at the organizational level. It remains to be seen how stress resilience will be shaped because of longer-term effects of the pandemic, or when society will need to find a new balance after the lockdown and pandemic. This is particularly pressing considering possible economic sequelae that will emerge while at the same time individuals will be forced to change from a lockdown situation to a more proactive attitude when all societal processes will start to function again.
About the methodological quality of the resilience literature during the COVID-19 pandemic, several lessons can be learned for future research to provide a more detailed and fine-grained picture, with possibilities for targeted prevention and intervention. First, the use of longitudinal data and large samples is important to identify potentially causal relationships, and changes over time ( Kalisch et al., 2017 ). How we respond to stress is a surprisingly dynamic process. Stress initiates a cascade of behavioral, (neuro)biological, and physiological changes. To this end, we need prospective data of adequate duration and of sufficient temporal resolution to observe (dis)continuous changes in resilience. Second, concerning outcomes and context, biological, psychological, and environmental data should be combined and integrated to understand the impact of (pandemic-related) stress at different levels with understanding of the individual's unique context. Third, we would encourage interdisciplinary collaborations, for example between physicians treating COVID-19 patients, psychiatrists, sociologists, advanced data experts, and neurobiologists. Fourth, we need not only to identify how stress resilience is shaped during a (prolonged) pandemic, but also develop efficient mental health interventions at a governmental, institutional, and individual level to minimize its long-term consequences. In conclusion, it is apparent that we have shown a remarkable level of resilience during the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic, but that large interindividual differences exist. Above all, it provides an opportunity but also an imperative for scientists and clinicians to work together to help understanding and addressing the pandemic.
CV wrote the first draft. All authors provided critical input and revisions.
There are no conflicts of interest
No acknowledgements.
Emerging themes from population-based studies on stress during the pandemic..
Posted November 25, 2020 | Reviewed by Devon Frye
Prior to the global pandemic, America had already been dealing with a host of pervasive stressors such as health care access, mass shootings , climate change , rising suicide rates, and an opioid epidemic. Fast forward to the present day, as our country continues to struggle with our new reality amidst the global pandemic, select groups of our country are facing greater stress and poorer outcomes. It’s important to consider the many factors that create stress and related mental health issues so we can find new solutions in an increasingly complex time.
There are two recent studies that help shed light on the trends creating increased challenges for many people:
Two months ago, the CDC published a study by Czeisler et al. that identified potential epidemiological trends in mental health amongst adults in the U.S. throughout a several-month period of the COVID-19 pandemic. This month, the American Psychological Association (APA), through its Stress in America initiative conducted by the Harris Poll on behalf of the APA, published their findings based on surveys of people across the United States focusing on how stress has been impacting their lives.
There are inherent limitations to both studies, including measurement bias due to self-reporting of symptoms without a clinician-based assessment and sampling bias. This limits the degree of generalizations we can make to the larger U.S. population.
However, we can identify themes based on these two studies and then examine how these have expressed themselves through individual patient narratives. These include:
Uncertainty of the Future
One of the greatest human fears is that of uncertainty, or loss of our sense of control. The pandemic has introduced a significant amount of stress due to uncertainty for Gen Z adults (ages 18-23) who are unable to attend college on campus or are encountering limited open jobs and career opportunities upon graduating. Gen Z adults report that the future of our nation is a significant source of stress with the majority also citing the U.S. presidential election as a stressful source of uncertainty.
Moral Injury as a Result of Human Injustice
Moral injury is defined as an inner mental conflict that results when one’s actions or obligations are in direct opposition to a person's values and beliefs. Largely due to the pandemic and sociopolitical climate, 2020 has brought increased awareness of systemic racism in our nation. Nearly 2 in 3 adults—regardless of race—report police violence towards minorities as a significant source of stress, up from 1 in 3 adults who responded with the same answer in 2016. Furthermore, minorities, in particular Black Americans, are most likely to report discrimination as a stressor.
Disruption of Customs and Traditions
Traditions offer us a way to celebrate, reflect, grieve, and commemorate milestones in our lives. Young individuals in particular are sacrificing their graduations, college experiences, and social celebrations, making them feel lost and without a sense of belonging. For some young adults, the pandemic has disrupted wedding celebrations which represent a major milestone being postponed or reduced in scope. Across all walks of life, funeral services for loved ones have been greatly limited in attendance, often being performed virtually. These impacts on religious ceremonies and holidays have created a great deal of grief and separation where there was once celebration and togetherness.
Caretaking Overload and Burnout
For many, the mandated sheltering-at-home orders have magnified the duties and responsibility of caregivers. If the caregiver has previously relied on a combination of school and professional care, the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced a larger source of stress of balancing work and family. This has led to fatigue, stress, and—in some cases— depression .
Grief and Loss
The pandemic has brought loss into the forefront. For many Americans, the pandemic has resulted in a loss of jobs leading to financial instability. The drastic reduction in social interactions has led to increasing loneliness . And the loss of loved ones—in some cases without having a chance to sit at a bedside or say goodbye—has led to an overwhelming sense of dread, pessimism , and a lack of closure. For all of us, the pandemic has changed the way that we live our lives and we have had to grapple with and grieve the loss of our “normal” lives.
Trauma Due to COVID-19 Exposure
Studies of frontline health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that rates of trauma-related symptoms, depression, and anxiety have increased during the pandemic. These have been related to experienced helplessness related to treating severely ill patients in a stressed and overwhelmed health system that has not yet identified effective and consistent treatments. In addition, the experience of continually exposing themselves (and family) to a virus that can lead to a life-threatening illness creates elevated stress levels in front-line workers.
With all of these factors in play, it can feel overwhelming to support ourselves and others through this challenging time. It’s important to remember that we are resilient as humans and that there are solutions we can turn to.
Czeisler MÉ , Lane RI, Petrosky E, et al. Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, June 24–30, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1049–1057.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/report-october
Marc Lener, MD, is a psychiatrist in private practice in New York City and Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Singula Institute, a 501(c)(3) organization, whose vision is to transform mental health diagnostics and treatment for individuals at risk for anxiety and depression.
Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.
For medical schools, the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated examination and curricular restructuring as well as significant changes to clinical attachments. With the available evidence suggesting that medical students’ mental health status is already poorer than that of the general population, with academic stress being a chief predictor, such changes are likely to have a significant effect on these students. This online, cross-sectional study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on perceived stress levels of medical students, investigate possible contributing and alleviating factors, and produce recommendations for medical schools to implement during future healthcare emergencies. The majority (54.5%) of respondents reported levels of stress ranging from moderate to extreme. Higher levels of stress were significantly associated with female gender (p=0.039) and international status (p=0.031). A significant association was also noted between reported stress and the transition to online learning (p<0.0001) and online assessment formatting (p<0.0001), concerns for personal health (p<0.0001) and for the health of family members (p<0.0001). Students who reported higher stress levels were less confident in their government’s management of the crisis (p=0.041). Additionally, students who reported lower stress agreed highly that their medical school had an appropriate response to the crisis (p<0.0001), had provided sufficient information regarding the crisis (p=0.015), that they trust their school in handling the continuing of their education (p=0.020) and that their school had appropriate plans in place to support the continuing of education (p=0.017)
Data are available upon request.
This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107155
Request permissions.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors Conception or design of the work—LO’B, FMcN and BG. Acquisition of data for the work—LO’B, FMcN, BG and YXL. Analysis of data for the work—LO’B, YXL and DA. Interpretation of data for the work—LO’B and DA. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content—LO’B, FMcN, BG, YXL and DA. Final approval of the version to be published—LO’B, FMcN, BG, YXL and DA. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved—LO’B, FMcN, BG, YXL and DA.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Other content recommended for you.
BMC Psychology volume 12 , Article number: 179 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
1018 Accesses
2 Citations
Metrics details
A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 26 June 2024
This article has been updated
Medical students face challenges to their mental wellbeing and have a high prevalence of mental health problems. During training, they are expected to develop strategies for dealing with stress. This study investigated factors medical students perceived as draining and replenishing during COVID-19, using the ‘coping reservoir’ model of wellbeing.
In synchronous interactive pre-recorded webinars, 78 fourth-year medical students in the UK responded to reflective prompts. Participants wrote open-text comments on a Padlet site. Responses were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Analysis identified five themes. COVID-19 exacerbated academic pressures, while reducing the strategies available to cope with stress. Relational connections with family and friends were affected by the pandemic, leading to isolation and reliance on housemates for informal support. Relationships with patients were adversely affected by masks and telephone consultations, however attending placement was protective for some students’ wellbeing. Experiences of formal support were generally positive, but some students experienced attitudinal and practical barriers.
This study used a novel methodology to elicit medical students’ reflections on their mental wellbeing during COVID-19. Our findings reinforce and extend the ‘coping reservoir’ model, increasing our understanding of factors that contribute to resilience or burnout. Many stressors that medical students typically face were exacerbated during COVID-19, and their access to coping strategies and support were restricted. The changes to relationships with family, friends, patients, and staff resulted in reduced support and isolation. Recognising the importance of relational connections upon medical students’ mental wellbeing can inform future support.
Peer Review reports
Medical students are known to experience high levels of stress, anxiety, depression and burnout due to the nature, intensity and length of their course [ 1 ]. Medical students are apprehensive about seeking support for their mental wellbeing due to perceived stigma and concerns about facing fitness to practise proceedings [ 2 ], increasing their vulnerability to poor mental health.
Research has identified that the stressors medical students experience include a demanding workload, maintaining work–life balance, relationships, personal life events, pressure to succeed, finances, administrative issues, career uncertainty, pressure around assessments, ethical concerns, and exposure to patient death [ 3 , 4 ]. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional stressors into medical students’ lives. These included sudden alterations to clinical placements, the delivery of online teaching, uncertainty around exams and progression, ambiguity regarding adequate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), fear of infection, and increased exposure to death and dying [ 5 , 6 ]. Systematic reviews have reported elevated levels of anxiety, depression and stress among medical students during COVID-19 [ 7 ] and that the prevalence of depression and anxiety during COVID-19 was higher among medical students than in the general population or healthcare workers [ 8 ].
While training, medical students are expected to develop awareness of personal mental wellbeing and learn healthy coping strategies for dealing with stress [ 9 ]. Developing adaptive methods of self-care and stress reduction is beneficial both while studying medicine, and in a doctor’s future career. Protecting and promoting psychological wellbeing has the potential to improve medical students’ academic attainment, as well as their physical and mental wellbeing [ 10 ], and it is therefore important for medical educators to consider how mental wellbeing is fostered. Feeling emotionally supported while at medical school reduces the risk of psychological distress and burnout, and is related to whether students contemplate dropping out of medical training [ 11 ]. In their systematic narrative review of support systems for medical students during COVID-19, Ardekani et al. [ 12 ] propose a framework incorporating four levels: policies that promote a supportive culture and environment, active support for students at higher risk of mental health problems, screening for support needs, and provision for students wishing to access support. This emphasis on preventative strategies aligns with discussions of trauma-informed approaches to medical education, which aim to support student learning and prevent harm to mental wellbeing [ 13 ]. Dunn et al. [ 14 ] proposed a ‘coping reservoir’ model to conceptualise the factors that deplete and restore medical students’ mental wellbeing (Fig. 1 ). This reservoir is drained and filled repeatedly, as a student faces demands for their time, energy, and cognitive and emotional resources. This dynamic process leads to positive or negative outcomes such as resilience or burnout.
Coping reservoir model– adapted from Dunn et al. [ 14 ], with permission from the authors and Springer Nature
At present we have limited evidence to indicate why medical students’ mental wellbeing was so profoundly affected by COVID-19 and whether students developed coping strategies that enhanced their resilience, as suggested by Kelly et al. [ 15 ]. This study therefore sought to conceptualise the challenges medical students experienced during COVID-19, the coping strategies they developed in response to these stressors, and the supportive measures they valued. The ‘coping reservoir’ model [ 14 ] was chosen as the conceptual framework for this study because it includes both restorative and depleting influences. Understanding the factors that mediate medical students’ mental wellbeing will enable the development of interventions and support that are effective during crises such as the pandemic and more generally.
This research study is based on a critical realist paradigm, recognising that our experience of reality is socially located [ 16 ]. Participant responses were understood to represent a shared understanding of that reality, acknowledging the social constructivist position that subjective meanings are formed through social norms and interactions with others, including while participating in this study. It also draws on hermeneutic phenomenology in aiming to interpret everyday experienced meanings for medical students during COVID-19 [ 17 ]. The use of an e-learning environment demonstrates an application of connectivism [ 18 ], a learning theory in which students participate in technological enabled networks. We recognise that meaning is co-constructed by the webinar content, prompts, ‘coping reservoir’ framework and through the process of analysis.
The multidisciplinary research team included a psychologist working in medical education, two medical students, and two Foundation level doctors. The team’s direct experience of the phenomenon studied was an important resource throughout the research process, and the researchers regularly reflected on how their subjective experiences and beliefs informed their interpretation of the data. Reflexive thematic analysis was chosen because it provides access to a socially contextualised reality, encompasses both deductive and inductive orientations so that analysis could be informed by the ‘coping reservoir’ while also generating unanticipated insights, and enables actionable outcomes to be produced [ 19 ].
Approval was granted by the University of Liverpool Institute of Population Health Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 8365).
Fourth-year medical students at the University of Liverpool were invited to participate in the study during an online webinar in their Palliative Medicine placement. During six webinars between November 2020 and June 2021, 78 out of 113 eligible students participated, giving a response rate of 69%. This was a convenience sample of medical students who had a timetabled session on mental wellbeing. At the time, these medical students were attending clinical placements, however COVID-19 measures in the United Kingdom meant that academic teaching and support was conducted online, travel was limited, and contact with family and friends was restricted.
Students were informed about the study prior to the synchronous interactive pre-recorded webinar and had an opportunity to ask questions. Those who consented to participate accessed a Padlet ( www.padlet.com ) site during the webinar that provided teaching on mental wellbeing, self-care and resilience in the context of palliative medicine. Padlet is a collaborative online platform that hosts customisable virtual bulletin boards. During this recording, participants were asked to write anonymous open-text responses to reflective prompts developed from reviewing the literature (Appendix 1 ), and post these on Padlet. The Padlet board contained an Introduction to the webinar, sections for each prompt, links to references, and signposting to relevant support services. Data files were downloaded to Excel and stored securely, in line with the University of Liverpool Research Data Management Policy.
The research team used the six steps of reflexive thematic analysis to analyse the dataset. This process is described in Table 1 , and the four criteria for trustworthiness in qualitative research proposed by Lincoln and Guba [ 20 ] are outlined in Table 2 . We have used the purposeful approach to reporting thematic analysis recommended by Nowell et al. [ 21 ] and SRQR reporting standards [ 22 ] (Appendix 2 ).
Five themes were identified from the analysis:
COVID-19 exacerbated academic pressures.
COVID-19 affected students’ lifestyles and reduced their ability to cope with stress.
COVID-19 changed relationships with family and friends, which affected mental wellbeing.
COVID-19 changed interactions with patients, with positive and negative effects.
Formal support was valued but seeking it was perceived as more difficult during COVID-19.
‘Every day feels the same, it’s hard to find motivation to do anything.’
Many participants reported feeling under chronic academic pressure due to studying medicine. Specific stressors reported were exams, revision, deadlines, workload, specific course requirements, timetables, online learning, placement, and communication from University. Some participants also reported negative effects on their mental wellbeing from feelings of comparison and competition, feeling unproductive, and overthinking.
Massive amounts of work load that feels unachievable.
COVID-19 exacerbated these academic stresses, with online learning and monotony identified as particularly draining. However, other students found online learning beneficial, due to reduced travelling.
I miss being able to see people face to face and zoom is becoming exhausting. My mental wellbeing hasn’t been great recently and I think the effects of the pandemic are slowly beginning to affect me.
I also prefer zoom as it is less tiring than travelling to campus/placement.
Clinical placements provided routine and social interaction. However, with few social interactions outside placement, this became monotonous. A reduction in other commitments helped some students to focus on their academic requirements.
‘Most social activity only taking place on placement has made every day feel the same’.
Some students placed high value on continuing to be productive and achieve academically despite the disruption of a pandemic, potentially to the detriment of their mental wellbeing. Time that felt unproductive was frustrating and draining.
‘Having a productive day i.e. going for a run and a good amount of work completed in the day’.
‘Unproductive days of revision or on placement’.
‘Everyone’s mental well-being decreased as things they used for mental health were no longer available’.
Students often found it difficult to sustain motivation for academic work without the respite of their usual restorative activities challenging.
‘Not being able to balance work and social life to the same extent makes you resent work and placement more’.
The competing demands medical students encounter for their time and energy were repeatedly reported by participants.
‘Sometimes having to go to placement + travel + study + look after myself is really tough to juggle!’
However, removing some of the boundaries around academic contact and structure of extracurricular activities heightened the impact of stressors. Many participants focused on organising and managing their time to cope with this. Students were aware that setting time aside for relaxation, enjoyment, creativity, and entertainment would be beneficial for their wellbeing.
‘Taking time off on the weekends to watch movies’.
However, they found it difficult to prioritise these without feeling guilty or believing they needed to ‘earn’ them, and academic commitments were prioritised over mental wellbeing.
‘Try to stop feeling guilty for doing something that isn’t medicine’. ‘Would like to say I’d do more to increase my mental wellbeing but finals are approaching and that will probably have to take priority for the next few months’.
Medical students were generally aware that multiple factors such as physical activity, time with loved ones, spiritual care, nourishment and hobbies had a positive impact on their mental wellbeing. During COVID-19, many of the coping strategies that students had previously found helpful were unavailable.
‘Initially it improved my mental well-being as I found time to care for myself, but with time I think everyone’s mental well-being decreased as things they used for mental health were no longer available e.g. gym, counselling, seeing friends’.
Participants adapted to use coping strategies that remained available during the pandemic. These included walks and time spent outdoors, exercise, journaling, reflection, nutrition, and sleep.
‘Running’. ‘Yoga’. ‘Fresh air and walks’.
A few students also reported that they tried to avoid unhelpful coping strategies, such as social media and alcohol.
‘Not reading the news, not using social media’.
‘Avoiding alcohol as it leads to poor sleep and time wasted’.
Many participants commented on increased loneliness, anxiety, low mood, frustration, and somatic symptoms.
‘Everyone is worn out and demotivated’. ‘Feel that as I am feeling low I don’t want to bring others down’. ‘Feel a lot more anxious than is normal and also easily annoyed and irritable.’
However, not all students reported that COVID-19 had a negative effect on wellbeing. A small minority responded that their wellbeing had improved in some way.
‘I think covid-19 has actually helped me become more self reliant in terms of well-being’.
‘Family are a huge support for me and I miss seeing them and the lack of human contact.’
Feeling emotionally supported by family and friends was important for medical students to maintain good mental wellbeing. However, COVID-19 predominantly had a negative impact on these relationships. Restrictions, such as being unable to socialise or travel during lockdowns, led to isolation and poor mental wellbeing.
‘Not being able to see friends or travel back home to see friends/family there’.
Participants frequently reported that spending too much time with people, feeling socially isolated, being unable to see people, or having negative social experiences had an adverse effect on their mental wellbeing. Relationships with housemates were a key source of support for some students. However, the increased intensity in housemate relationships caused tension in some cases, which had a particularly negative effect.
‘Much more difficult to have relationships with peers and began feeling very isolated’. ‘Talk about some of the experiences I’ve had on placement with my housemates’. ‘Added strain on my housemates to be the only ones to support me’.
Knowing that their peers were experiencing similar stressors helped to normalise common difficulties. The awareness that personal contacts were also struggling sometimes curtailed seeking informal support to avoid being a burden.
‘Actually discussing difficulties with friends has been most helpful, as it can sometimes feel like you’re the only one struggling, when actually most people are finding this year really difficult’. ‘Family and friends, but also don’t want to burden them as I know I can feel overwhelmed if people are always coming to me for negative conversations’.
‘With patients there has been limited contact and I miss speaking to patients.’
Some students reported positive effects on relationships with patients, and feeling a sense of purpose in talking to patients when their families were not allowed to visit. Medical students felt a moral responsibility to protect patients and other vulnerable people from infection, which contributed to a reduction in socialising even when not constrained by lockdown.
‘Talking to patients who can’t get visitors has actually made me feel more useful’. ‘Anxiety over giving COVID-19 to patients or elderly relatives’.
Students occasionally reported that wearing PPE made interactions with patients more challenging. Students’ contact with patients changed on some placements due to COVID-19, for example replacing in-person appointments with telephone consultations, and they found this challenging and disappointing.
‘Masks are an impediment to meaningful connections with new people’. ‘GP block when I saw no patients due to it all being on the telephone’.
‘Feel a burden on academic and clinical staff/in the way/annoying so tend to just keep to myself.’
Many participants emphasised the primary importance of support from family and friends, and their responses indicated that most had not sought formal support. While staff remained available and created opportunities for students to seek support, factors such as online learning and increased clinical workloads meant that some students found it harder to build supportive relationships with academic and placement staff and felt disconnected from them, which was detrimental for wellbeing and engagement.
‘Staff have been really helpful on placement but it was clear that in some cases, staff were overwhelmed with the workload created by COVID’. ‘Even though academic staff are available having to arrange meetings over zoom rather than face to face to discuss any problem is off putting’.
A few students described difficulty knowing what support was available, and identifying when they needed it.
‘It’s difficult to access support when you’re not sure what is available. Also you may feel your problems aren’t as serious as other people’s so hold off on seeking support’.
Formal support provided within the University included meetings with Academic Advisors, the School of Medicine wellbeing team, and University counselling service and mental health advisory team. It was also available from NHS services, such as GPs and psychological therapies. Those who had accessed formal support mostly described positive experiences with services. However, barriers to seeking formal support, such as perceived stigma, practicalities, waiting times for certain services, and concern that it may impact their future career were reported by some participants.
‘It is good that some services offer appointments that are after 5pm- this makes it more accessible to healthcare students’. ‘Had good experience with GPs about mental health personally’. ‘Admitting you need help or asking for help would make you look weak’. ‘Reassurance should be provided to medical students that accessing the wellbeing team is not detrimental to their degree. If anything it should be marketed as a professional and responsible thing to do’.
Some students preferred the convenience of remote access, others found phone or video impersonal and preferred in-person contact.
Students expressed that it was helpful when wellbeing support was integrated with academic systems, for example Academic Advisors or placement supervisors.
‘My CCT [primary-care led small group teaching] makes sure to ask how we are getting on and how our placements are going, so I think small groups of people with more contact with someone are more useful then large groups over zoom’. ‘Someone to speak to on palliative care placement, individual time with supervisor to check how we are doing (wellbeing, mental health) - would be a nice quick checkup’.
Participants typically felt able to share openly in an anonymous forum. Reading peers’ comments helped them to see that other students were having similar experiences and challenged unhealthy comparisons.
‘I definitely shared more than I would have done on a zoom call’. ‘I loved this session as it makes you feel like you’re not alone’. ‘Reassuring to know that there are others going through similar things as you’.
Our findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the stressors medical students experience, and removed some rewarding elements of learning, while reducing access to pre-existing coping strategies. The results support many aspects of the ‘coping reservoir’ framework [ 14 ]. Findings corroborate the restorative effects of psychosocial support and social/healthy activities such as sleep and physical activity, and the depletion of wellbeing due to time and energy demands, stress, and disruptions relating to the pandemic such as online teaching and limited social interaction. Feeling a sense of purpose, from continuing studying or interactions with patients for example, was restorative for wellbeing. Mentorship and intellectual stimulation were present in the responses, but received less attention than psychosocial support and social/healthy activities. Internal conflict is primarily characterised by Dunn et al. [ 14 ] as ambivalence about pursuing a career in medicine, which was not expressed by participants during the study. However, participants identified that their wellbeing was reduced by feeling unproductive and lacking purpose, feeling guilty about taking time for self-care, competing priorities, and comparison with peers, all of which could be described as forms of internal conflict. Different restorative and draining factors appeared to not be equally weighted by the participants responding to the prompts: some appear to be valued more highly, or rely on other needs being met. Possible explanations are that students may be less likely to find intellectual stimulation and mentorship beneficial if they are experiencing reduced social support or having difficulty sleeping, and internal conflict about pursuing a career in medicine might be overshadowed by more immediate concerns, for example about the pandemic. This prioritisation resembles the relationship between physiological and psychological needs being met and academic success [ 23 ], based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [ 24 ]. A revised ‘coping reservoir’ model is shown in Fig. 2 .
Coping reservoir model - the effects of COVID-19 on restorative and depleting factors for medical students, adapted from Dunn et al. [ 14 ], with permission from the authors and Springer Nature
Relational connections with family, friends, patients, and staff were protective factors for mental wellbeing. Feeling emotionally supported by family and friends is considered especially important for medical students to maintain good mental wellbeing [ 11 ]. These relationships usually mitigate the challenges of medical education [ 25 ], however they were fundamentally affected by the pandemic. Restrictions affecting support from family and friends, and changes to contact with patients on placement, had a negative effect on many participants’ mental wellbeing. Wellbeing support changed during the pandemic, with in-person support temporarily replaced by online consultations due to Government guidelines. Barriers to seeking formal support, such as perceived stigma, practicalities, and concern that it may impact their future career were reported by participants, reflecting previous research [ 26 ]. Despite initiatives to increase and publicise formal support, some students perceived that this was less available and accessible during COVID-19, due to online learning and awareness of the increased workload of clinicians, as described by Rich et al. [ 27 ]. These findings provide further support for the job demand-resources theory [ 28 , 29 ] where key relationships and support provide a protective buffer against the negative effects of challenging work.
In line with previous research, many participants reported feeling under chronic academic pressure while studying medicine [ 3 ]. Our findings indicate that medical students often continued to focus on achievement, productivity and competitiveness, despite the additional pressures of the pandemic. Remaining productive in their studies might have protected some students’ mental wellbeing by providing structure and purpose, however students’ responses primarily reflected the adverse effect this mindset had upon their wellbeing. Some students felt guilty taking time away from studying to relax, which contributes to burnout [ 30 ] , and explicitly prioritised academic achievement over their mental wellbeing.
Students were aware of the factors that have a positive impact on their mental wellbeing, such as physical activity, time with loved ones, spiritual care, nourishment and hobbies [ 31 ]. However, COVID-19 restrictions affected many replenishing factors, such as socialising, team sports, and gyms, and intensified draining factors, such as academic stressors. Students found ways to adapt to the removal of most coping strategies, for example doing home workouts instead of going to the gym, showing how they developed coping strategies that enhanced their resilience [ 15 ]. However, they found it more difficult to mitigate the effect of restrictions on relational connections with peers, patients and staff, and this appears to have had a particularly negative impact on mental wellbeing. While clinical placements provided helpful routine, social interaction and a sense of purpose, some students reported that having few social interactions outside placement became monotonous.
Our findings show that medical students often felt disconnected from peers and academic staff, and reported loneliness, isolation and decreased wellbeing during COVID-19. This corresponds with evidence that many medical students felt isolated [ 32 ], and students in general were at higher risk of loneliness than the general population during COVID-19 lockdowns [ 33 ]. Just as ‘belongingness’ mediates subjective wellbeing among University students [ 34 ], feeling connected and supported acts as a protective buffer for medical students’ psychological wellbeing [ 25 ].
Based on the themes identified in this study, specific interventions can be recommended to support medical students’ mental wellbeing, summarised in Table 3 . This study provides evidence to support the development of interventions that increase relational connections between medical students, as a method of promoting mental wellbeing and preventing burnout. Our findings highlight the importance of interpersonal relationships and informal support mechanisms, and indicate that medical student wellbeing could be improved by strengthening these. Possible ways to do this include encouraging collaboration over competition, providing sufficient time off to visit family, having a peer mentor network, events that encourage students to meet each other, and wellbeing sessions that combine socialising with learning relaxation and mindfulness techniques. Students could be supported in their interactions with patients and peers by embedding reflective practice such as placement debrief sessions, Schwartz rounds [ 35 ] or Balint groups [ 36 ], and simulated communication workshops for difficult situations.
Experiencing guilt [ 30 ] and competition [ 4 ] while studying medicine are consistently recognised as contributing to distress and burnout, so interventions targeting these could improve mental wellbeing. Based on the responses from students, curriculum-based measures to protect mental wellbeing include manageable workloads, supportive learning environments, cultivating students’ sense of purpose, and encouraging taking breaks from studying without guilt. Normalising sharing of difficulties and regularly including content within the curriculum on self-care and stress reduction would improve mental wellbeing.
In aiming to reduce psychological distress among medical students, it is important that promotion of individual self-care is accompanied by reducing institutional stressors [ 11 , 29 ]. While the exploration of individual factors is important, such as promoting healthy lifestyle habits, reflection, time management, and mindset changes, this should not detract from addressing factors within the culture, learning and work environment that diminish mental wellbeing [ 37 ]. Heath et al. [ 38 ] propose a pro-active, multi-faceted approach, incorporating preventative strategies, organisational justice, individual strategies and organisational strategies to support resilience in healthcare workers. Similarly, trauma-informed medical education practices [ 13 ] involve individual and institutional strategies to promote student wellbeing.
Students favoured formal support that was responsive, individualised, and accessible. For example, integrating conversations about wellbeing into routine academic systems, and accommodating in-person and remote access to support. There has been increased awareness of the wellbeing needs of medical students in recent years, especially since the start of the pandemic, which has led to improvements in many of these areas, as reported in reviews by Ardekani et al. [ 12 ] and Klein and McCarthy [ 39 ]. Continuing to address stigma around mental health difficulties and embedding discussions around wellbeing in the curriculum are crucial for medical students to be able to seek appropriate support.
By using qualitative open-text responses, rather than enforcing preconceived categories, this study captured students’ lived experience and priorities [ 4 , 31 ]. This increased the salience and depth of responses and generated categories of responses beyond the existing evidence, which is particularly important given the unprecedented experiences of COVID-19. Several strategies were used to establish rigour and trustworthiness, based on the four criteria proposed by Lincoln and Guba [ 20 ] (Table 2 ). These included the active involvement of medical students and recent medical graduates in data analysis and the development of themes, increasing the credibility of the research findings.
Potential limitations of the study are that participants may have been primed to think about certain aspects of wellbeing due to data being collected during a webinar delivered by medical educators including the lead author at the start of their palliative medicine placement, and the choice of prompts. Data was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore represents fourth year medical students’ views in specific and unusual circumstances. Information on this context is provided to enable the reader to evaluate whether the findings have transferability to their setting. Responses were visible to others in the group, so participants may have influenced each other to give socially acceptable responses. This process of forming subjective meanings through social interactions is recognised as part of the construction of a shared understanding of reality, and we therefore view it as an inherent feature of this methodology rather than a hindrance. Feedback on the webinar indicated that students benefitted from this process of collective meaning-making. Similarly, researcher subjectivity is viewed as a contextual resource for knowledge generation in reflexive thematic analysis, rather than a limitation to be managed [ 19 ]. The study design meant that different demographic groups could not be compared.
Padlet provided a novel and acceptable method of data collection, offering researchers and educators the potential benefits of an anonymous forum in which students can see their peers’ responses. The use of an interactive webinar demonstrated a potential application of connectivist pedagogical principles [ 18 ]. Researchers are increasingly using content from online forums for qualitative research [ 40 ], and Padlet has been extensively used as an educational tool. However, to the authors’ knowledge, Padlet has not previously been used as a data collection platform for qualitative research. Allowing anonymity carried the risk of students posting comments that were inappropriate or unprofessional. However, with appropriate guidance it appeared to engender honesty and reflection, provided a safe and collaborative learning environment, and student feedback was overwhelmingly positive. It would be useful to evaluate the effects of this reflective webinar on medical students’ mental wellbeing, given that it acted as an intervention in addition to a teaching session and research study.
Students were prompted to plan what they would do following the webinar to improve their mental wellbeing. A longitudinal study to determine how students enacted these plans would allow a more detailed investigation of students’ self-care behaviour.
While we hope that the stressors of COVID-19 will not be repeated, this study provides valuable insight into medical students’ mental wellbeing, which can inform support beyond this exceptional time. The lasting impact of the pandemic upon medical education and mental wellbeing remains to be seen. Nevertheless, our findings reinforce and extend the coping reservoir model proposed by Dunn et al. [ 14 ], adding to our understanding of the factors that contribute to resilience or burnout. In particular, it provides evidence for the development of interventions that increase experiences of relational connectedness and belonging, which are likely to act as a buffer against emotional distress among medical students.
The datasets generated and analysed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
26 june 2024.
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01813-7
Rotenstein LS, Ramos MA, Torre M, Segal JB, Peluso MJ, Guille C, et al. Prevalence of depression, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation among medical students. JAMA. 2016;316(21):2214.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Awad F, Awad M, Mattick K, Dieppe P. Mental health in medical students: time to act. Clin Teach. 2019;16(4):312–6.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Shanafelt TD. Medical student distress: causes, consequences, and proposed solutions. Mayo Clin Proc. 2005;80(12):1613–22.
Hill MR, Goicochea S, Merlo LJ. In their own words: stressors facing medical students in the millennial generation. Med Educ Online. 2018;23(1):1530558.
Papapanou M, Routsi E, Tsamakis K, Fotis L, Marinos G, Lidoriki I, et al. Medical education challenges and innovations during COVID-19 pandemic. Postgrad Med J. 2021;0:1–7.
Google Scholar
De Andres Crespo M, Claireaux H, Handa AI. Medical students and COVID-19: lessons learnt from the 2020 pandemic. Postgrad Med J. 2021;97(1146):209–10.
Paz DC, Bains MS, Zueger ML, Bandi VR, Kuo VY, Cook K et al. COVID-19 and mental health: a systematic review of international medical student surveys. Front Psychol. 2022;(November):1–13.
Jia Q, Qu Y, Sun H, Huo H, Yin H, You D. Mental health among medical students during COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2022;13:846789.
General Medical Council. Outcomes for Graduates. London; 2020 https://www.gmc-uk.org/education/standards-guidance-and-curricula/standards-and-outcomes/outcomes-for-graduates [accessed 13 Feb 2024].
Shiralkar MT, Harris TB, Eddins-Folensbee FF, Coverdale JH. A systematic review of stress-management programs for medical students. Acad Psychiatry. 2013;37(3):158–64.
McLuckie A, Matheson KM, Landers AL, Landine J, Novick J, Barrett T, et al. The relationship between psychological distress and perception of emotional support in medical students and residents and implications for educational institutions. Acad Psychiatry. 2018;42(1):41–7.
Ardekani A, Hosseini SA, Tabari P, Rahimian Z, Feili A, Amini M. Student support systems for undergraduate medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic narrative review of the literature. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:352.
Brown T, Berman S, McDaniel K, Radford C, Mehta P, Potter J, et al. Trauma-informed medical education (TIME): advancing curricular content and educational context. Acad Med. 2021;96(5):661–7.
Dunn LB, Iglewicz A, Moutier C. Promoting resilience and preventing burnout. Acad Psychiatry. 2008;32(1):44–53.
Kelly EL, Casola AR, Smith K, Kelly S, Syl M, Cruz D, De. A qualitative analysis of third-year medical students ’ reflection essays regarding the impact of COVID-19 on their education. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(481).
Pilgrim D. Some implications of critical realism for mental health research. Soc Theory Heal. 2014;12:1–21.
Article Google Scholar
Henriksson C, Friesen N. Introduction. In: Friesen N, Henriksson C, Saevi T, editors. Hermeneutic phenomenology in education. Sense; 2012. pp. 1–17.
Goldie JGS, Connectivism. A knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Med Teach. 2016;38(10):1064–9.
Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2021.
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, California: SAGE; 1985.
Book Google Scholar
Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. 2017;16:1–13.
O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51.
PubMed Google Scholar
Freitas FA, Leonard LJ. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and student academic success. Teach Learn Nurs. 2011;6(1):9–13.
Maslow AH. Motivation and personality. 3rd ed. New York: Longman; 1954.
MacArthur KR, Sikorski J. A qualitative analysis of the coping reservoir model of pre-clinical medical student well-being: human connection as making it worth it. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):1–11.
Simpson V, Halpin L, Chalmers K, Joynes V. Exploring well-being: medical students and staff. Clin Teach. 2019;16(4):356–61.
Rich A, Viney R, Silkens M, Griffin A, Medisauskaite A. UK medical students’ mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e070528.
Bakker AAB, Demerouti E. Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(3):273–85.
Riley R, Kokab F, Buszewicz M, Gopfert A, Van Hove M, Taylor AK et al. Protective factors and sources of support in the workplace as experienced by UK foundation and junior doctors: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(6).
Greenmyer JR, Montgomery M, Hosford C, Burd M, Miller V, Storandt MH, et al. Guilt and burnout in medical students. Teach Learn Med. 2021;34(1):69–77.
Ayala EE, Omorodion AM, Nmecha D, Winseman JS, Mason HRC. What do medical students do for self-care? A student-centered approach to well-being. Teach Learn Med. 2017;29(3):237–46.
Wurth S, Sader J, Cerutti B, Broers B, Bajwa MN, Carballo S, et al. Medical students’ perceptions and coping strategies during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: studies, clinical implication, and professional identity. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):620.
Bu F, Steptoe A, Fancourt D. Who is lonely in lockdown? Cross-cohort analyses of predictors of loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health. 2020;186:31–4.
Arslan G, Loneliness C, Belongingness. Subjective vitality, and psychological adjustment during coronavirus pandemic: development of the college belongingness questionnaire. J Posit Sch Psychol. 2021;5(1):17–31.
Maben J, Taylor C, Dawson J, Leamy M, McCarthy I, Reynolds E et al. A realist informed mixed-methods evaluation of Schwartz center rounds in England. Heal Serv Deliv Res. 2018;6(37).
Monk A, Hind D, Crimlisk H. Balint groups in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review. Psychoanal Psychother. 2018;8734:1–26.
Dyrbye L, Shanafelt T. A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Med Educ. 2016;50(1):132–49.
Heath C, Sommerfield A, Von Ungern-Sternberg BS. Resilience strategies to manage psychological distress among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a narrative review. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(10):1364–71.
Klein HJ, McCarthy SM. Student wellness trends and interventions in medical education: a narrative review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022;9(92).
Smedley RM, Coulson NS. A practical guide to analysing online support forums. Qual Res Psychol. 2021;18(1):76–103.
Download references
We would like to thank Dr P Byrne for providing guidance, Mrs A Threlfall and Professor VCT Goddard-Fuller for commenting on drafts, and the medical students who participated in the webinars.
This study was unfunded.
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK
Helen M West
Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Rowan M Davies, Benjamin Shelley & Oscar T Edginton
Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
Rowan M Davies
Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust, West Yorkshire, UK
Benjamin Shelley
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, UK
Oscar T Edginton
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
HMW conceptualised the study and collected the data. HMW, LF, RMD, BS and OTE conducted data analysis. HMW, LF, RMD and OTE wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Correspondence to Helen M West .
Ethical approval and consent to participate.
Approval was granted by the University of Liverpool Institute of Population Health Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 8365). Students were fully informed about the study prior to the workshop and had an opportunity to ask questions. Participants provided informed consent, completing an electronic consent form before responding to prompts. The study was conducted in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations, including the University of Liverpool Research Ethics and Research Data Management Policies, and the Declaration of Helsinki.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
West, H.M., Flain, L., Davies, R.M. et al. Medical student wellbeing during COVID-19: a qualitative study of challenges, coping strategies, and sources of support. BMC Psychol 12 , 179 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01618-8
Download citation
Received : 12 December 2023
Accepted : 22 February 2024
Published : 28 March 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01618-8
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
ISSN: 2050-7283
IMAGES
COMMENTS
As highlighted in previous research on college students' academic stress, preparing exams, courses, and papers should exhibit a negative effect on individual health. During the COVID-19 outbreak, Chinese college students' learning was not suspended, but they attend the various courses offered online follow the regular schedule.
Mental well-being and test anxiety among students preparing for the university admission exam during the pandemic. Eleyza Yatkin, 1 Neriman Aral, 2 Lugen Ceren Gunes, 3 , * , † and Selim Tosun ... Evaluation of anxiety disorder and post-trauma stress disorder related to the covid-19 pandemic in parents of children with primary ...
It is no surprise that undergraduate students are under great distress—or the discomforting, emotional psychological response to a particular stressor (Ridner, 2004)—during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.The pandemic has had far-reaching academic consequences, an early one for undergraduates being the need to rapidly modify their learning contexts away from in-person supports.
Abbott (2021) investigated stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its related consequences and found that there is an increase in prevalence of stress, anxiety, and depression in the U.S. population from 11% to 42% due to this pandemic. The surge in stress among people is also during the rise of new COVID-19 covariant cases.
As highlighted in previous research on college students' academic stress, preparing exams, courses, and papers should exhibit a negative effect on individual health. During the COVID-19 outbreak, Chinese college students' learning was not suspended, but they attend the various courses offered online follow the regular schedule.
Hence, coping strategy plays a significant mediating role between exam anxiety and academic stress (Estimate = 0.133, P = 0.009). Therefore, it can be concluded that from the mediation of the coping strategy the impact of exam anxiety on academic stress is decreased. Hence, H5 is accepted at a 1% significance level. 5.
In this study, around one third of students from Faculties of Medical Sciences reported stress with remote E-exams during the Covid-19 pandemic. The main factors related to students' stress include exam duration, navigation mode and technical problems. Other factors include concern that teaching methods have not properly covered the material ...
Purpose The Covid-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented stress to students and educational institutions across the world. We aimed to estimate the effect of the pandemic on the mental health of college students. Methods We used data on 419 first-year students (ages 18-20) at a large public university in North Carolina both before (October 2019-February 2020) and after (June/July 2020) the ...
Furthermore, the major factors related to study habits and exams that are significantly associated with the level of academic stress were difficulty in remembering all that is studied (66.7%, P=0.006), worrying about the exams (54.1%, P=0.011), exam papers are tough and do not value well (23.8%, P=0.001), and the exams are too difficult ...
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the functioning of universities worldwide. In Poland, the transfer to online teaching was announced without prior warning, which radically changed students' daily functioning. This situation clearly showed the students' helplessness and difficulties with coping with this new, stressful situation, highlighted in many previous studies. A sudden and far ...
As a research focused on student stress patterns during COVID-19, the study aims to address the following research questions (RQs): (a) the most prolific authors and affiliates in publications; (b) trends in keywords and novelty in future research on student stress during COVID-19; (c) potential for post-COVID-19 school curriculum development. 2.
And there are ways to lessen your stress. HOW TO COPE. PRACTICE SELF-CARE. Basic self-care will keep your immune system strong and your emotional reserves full. Get enough sleep. Exercise regularly. Eat well. Try mindfulness apps. Find activities that engage different parts of yourself.
The student or a family member had COVID-19 or suffered other illnesses due to confinement during the pandemic. The student suffered from a lack of internet access and other online learning challenges. Students who dealt with problems registering for or taking standardized tests and AP exams. Jeff Schiffman of the Tulane University admissions ...
March 22, 2021. SHARE: PRINT. High school students are experiencing rising stress levels and lower engagement with learning since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new study by NBC News and Challenge Success, a nonprofit affiliated with Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE). Kids feel that "they are more stressed than ...
Stress reappraisal and mindset interventions have high potential to assist in stress management during the COVID‐19 pandemic based on their demonstrated efficacy in laboratory and selected applied contexts (Crum et al., 2013, 2017; Keech et al., 2019). Research demonstrating that such interventions are highly translatable and have consistent ...
The prevalence of depression, anxiety, physical discomfort, insomnia and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during the COVID-19 pandemic: Having a childbearing age: During the COVID/19 pandemic, pregnant women had lower scores of symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD (all p < 0.05) compared to non-pregnant women. Sade et al., 2020
The first step to lower your stress is to keep a daily schedule. Make or maintain healthy habits and routines. This can help boost your mood and energy levels. Make sleep a priority. Get up at about the same time every day. Go to bed at about the same time every day. Make sure that you are getting enough restful sleep.
Play with puzzles, a board game, do a treasure hunt, tackle a project, reorganize something, or start a new book that is unrelated to coronavirus coverage. Connect with others. "I can't stress ...
Stress management is an effective way to lead a healthy and a stress-free life! Continue Reading to discover strategies to manage stress during exams below. 10 Pointers to Write Exam Stress Management Strategies During COVID-19 Essay in English . Managing exam stress is often a difficult job for school students.
Trauma Due to COVID-19 Exposure. Studies of frontline health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that rates of trauma-related symptoms, depression, and anxiety have increased ...
While social and traditional media discussed work-related stress and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was little empirical research to examine the phenomena except for a few high-level surveys (Brynjolfsson et al., 2020; Center for National Health Statistics, 2020; CVS Health, 2020; Petterson et al., 2020).Although the quickly forced shift to working from home was brought on by ...
For medical schools, the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated examination and curricular restructuring as well as significant changes to clinical attachments. With the available evidence suggesting that medical students' mental health status is already poorer than that of the general population, with academic stress being a chief predictor, such changes are likely to have a significant effect on ...
Background Medical students face challenges to their mental wellbeing and have a high prevalence of mental health problems. During training, they are expected to develop strategies for dealing with stress. This study investigated factors medical students perceived as draining and replenishing during COVID-19, using the 'coping reservoir' model of wellbeing. Methods In synchronous ...