how covid 19 affected mental health essay

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Published: 03 October 2022

How COVID-19 shaped mental health: from infection to pandemic effects

• Brenda W. J. H. Penninx   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7779-9672 1 , 2 ,
• Michael E. Benros   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4939-9465 3 , 4 ,
• Robyn S. Klein 5 &
• Christiaan H. Vinkers   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3698-0744 1 , 2  

Nature Medicine volume  28 ,  pages 2027–2037 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

42k Accesses

157 Citations

492 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Epidemiology
• Infectious diseases
• Neurological manifestations
• Psychiatric disorders

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has threatened global mental health, both indirectly via disruptive societal changes and directly via neuropsychiatric sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Despite a small increase in self-reported mental health problems, this has (so far) not translated into objectively measurable increased rates of mental disorders, self-harm or suicide rates at the population level. This could suggest effective resilience and adaptation, but there is substantial heterogeneity among subgroups, and time-lag effects may also exist. With regard to COVID-19 itself, both acute and post-acute neuropsychiatric sequelae have become apparent, with high prevalence of fatigue, cognitive impairments and anxiety and depressive symptoms, even months after infection. To understand how COVID-19 continues to shape mental health in the longer term, fine-grained, well-controlled longitudinal data at the (neuro)biological, individual and societal levels remain essential. For future pandemics, policymakers and clinicians should prioritize mental health from the outset to identify and protect those at risk and promote long-term resilience.

Similar content being viewed by others

A longitudinal analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of middle-aged and older adults from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

Global prevalence of mental health issues among the general population during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia and carer mental health: an international multicentre study

In 2019, the COVID-19 outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), with 590 million confirmed cases and 6.4 million deaths worldwide as of August 2022 (ref. 1 ). To contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) across the globe, many national and local governments implemented often drastic restrictions as preventive health measures. Consequently, the pandemic has not only led to potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure, infection and disease but also to a wide range of policies consisting of mask requirements, quarantines, lockdowns, physical distancing and closure of non-essential services, with unprecedented societal and economic consequences.

As the world is slowly gaining control over COVID-19, it is timely and essential to ask how the pandemic has affected global mental health. Indirect effects include stress-evoking and disruptive societal changes, which may detrimentally affect mental health in the general population. Direct effects include SARS-CoV-2-mediated acute and long-lasting neuropsychiatric sequelae in affected individuals that occur during primary infection or as part of post-acute COVID syndrome (PACS) 2 —defined as symptoms lasting beyond 3–4 weeks that can involve multiple organs, including the brain. Several terminologies exist for characterizing the effects of COVID-19. PACS also includes late sequalae that constitute a clinical diagnosis of ‘long COVID’ where persistent symptoms are still present 12 weeks after initial infection and cannot be attributed to other conditions 3 .

Here we review both the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 on mental health. First, we summarize empirical findings on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted population mental health, through mental health symptom reports, mental disorder prevalence and suicide rates. Second, we describe mental health sequalae of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and COVID-19 disease (for example, cognitive impairment, fatigue and affective symptoms). For this, we use the term PACS for neuropsychiatric consequences beyond the acute period, and will also describe the underlying neurobiological impact on brain structure and function. We conclude with a discussion of the lessons learned and knowledge gaps that need to be further addressed.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population mental health

Independent of the pandemic, mental disorders are known to be prevalent globally and cause a very high disease burden 4 , 5 , 6 . For most common mental disorders (including major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders and alcohol use disorder), environmental stressors play a major etiological role. Disruptive and unpredictable pandemic circumstances may increase distress levels in many individuals, at least temporarily. However, it should be noted that the pandemic not only resulted in negative stressors but also in positive and potentially buffering changes for some, including a better work–life balance, improved family dynamics and enhanced feelings of closeness 7 .

Awareness of the potential mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is reflected in the more than 35,000 papers published on this topic. However, this rapid research output comes with a cost: conclusions from many papers are limited due to small sample sizes, convenience sampling with unclear generalizability implications and lack of a pre-COVID-19 comparison. More reliable estimates of the pandemic mental health impact come from studies with longitudinal or time-series designs that include a pre-pandemic comparison. In our description of the evidence, we, therefore, explicitly focused on findings from meta-analyses that include longitudinal studies with data before the pandemic, as recently identified through a systematic literature search by the WHO 8 .

Self-reported mental health problems

Most studies examining the pandemic impact on mental health used online data collection methods to measure self-reported common indicators, such as mood, anxiety or general psychological distress. Pooled prevalence estimates of clinically relevant high levels of depression and anxiety symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic range widely—between 20% and 35% 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 —but are difficult to interpret due to large methodological and sample heterogeneity. It also is important to note that high levels of self-reported mental health problems identify increased vulnerability and signal an increased risk for mental disorders, but they do not equal clinical caseness levels, which are generally much lower.

Three meta-analyses, pooling data from between 11 and 61 studies and involving ~50,000 individuals or more 13 , 14 , 15 , compared levels of self-reported mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic with those before the pandemic. Meta-analyses report on pooled effect sizes—that is, weighted averages of study-level effect sizes; these are generally considered small when they are ~0.2, moderate when ~0.5 and large when ~0.8. As shown in Table 1 , meta-analyses on mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic reach consistent conclusions and indicate that there has been a heterogeneous, statistically significant but small increase in self-reported mental health problems, with pooled effect sizes ranging from 0.07 to 0.27. The largest symptom increase was found when using specific mental health outcome measures assessing depression or anxiety symptoms. In addition, loneliness—a strong correlate of depression and anxiety—showed a small but significant increase during the pandemic (Table 1 ; effect size = 0.27) 16 . In contrast, self-reported general mental health and well-being indicators did not show significant change, and psychotic symptoms seemed to have decreased slightly 13 . In Europe, alcohol purchase decreased, but high-level drinking patterns solidified among those with pre-pandemic high drinking levels 17 . When compared to pre-COVID levels, no change in self-reported alcohol use (effect size = −0.01) was observed in a recent meta-analysis summarizing 128 studies from 58 (predominantly European and North American) countries 18 .

What is the time trajectory of self-reported mental health problems during the pandemic? Although findings are not uniform, various large-scale studies confirmed that the increase in mental health problems was highest during the first peak months of the pandemic and smaller—but not fully gone—in subsequent months when infection rates declined and social restrictions eased 13 , 19 , 20 . Psychological distress reports in the United Kingdom increased again during the second lockdown period 15 . Direct associations between anxiety and depression symptom levels and the average number of daily COVID-19 cases were confirmed in the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data 21 . Studies that examined longer-term trajectories of symptoms during the first or even second year of the COVID-19 pandemic are more sparse but revealed stability of symptoms without clear evidence of recovery 15 , 22 . The exception appears to be for loneliness, as some studies confirmed further increasing trends throughout the first COVID-19 pandemic year 22 , 23 . As most published population-based studies were conducted in the early time period in which absolute numbers of SARS-CoV2-infected individuals were still low, the mental health impacts described in such studies are most likely due to indirect rather than direct effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it is possible that, in longer-term or later studies, these direct and indirect effects may be more intertwined.

The extent to which governmental policies and communication have impacted on population mental health is a relevant question. In cross-country comparisons, the extent of social restrictions showed a dose–response relationship with mental health problems 24 , 25 . In a review of 33 studies worldwide, it was concluded that governments that enacted stringent measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 benefitted not only the physical but also the mental health of their population during the pandemic 26 , even though more stringent policies may lead to more short-term mental distress 25 . It has been suggested that effective communication of risks, choices and policy measures may reduce polarization and conspiracy theories and mitigate the mental health impact of such measures 25 , 27 , 28 .

In sum, the general pattern of results is that of an increase in mental health symptoms in the population, especially during the first pandemic months, that remained elevated throughout 2020 and early 2021. It should be emphasized that this increase has a small effect size. However, even a small upward shift in mental health problems warrants attention as it has not yet shown to be returned to pre-pandemic levels, and it may have meaningful cumulative consequences at the population level. In addition, even a small effect size may mask a substantial heterogeneity in mental health impact, which may have affected vulnerable groups disproportionally (see below).

Mental disorders, self-harm and suicide

Whether the observed increase in mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic has translated into more mental disorders or even suicide mortality is not easy to answer. Mental disorders, characterized by more severe, disabling and persistent symptoms than self-reported mental health problems, are usually diagnosed by a clinician based on the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) criteria or with validated semi-structured clinical interviews. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, research systematically examining the population prevalence of mental disorders has been sparse. Unfortunately, we can also not strongly rely on healthcare use studies as the pandemic impacted on healthcare provision more broadly, thereby making figures of patient admissions difficult to interpret.

On a global scale and based on imputations and modeling from survey data of self-reported mental health problems, the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 29 estimated that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a 28% (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 25–30) increase in major depressive disorders and a 26% (95% UI: 23–28) increase in anxiety disorders. It should be noted that these estimations come with high uncertainty as the assumption that transient pandemic-related increases in mental symptoms extrapolate into incident mental disorders remains disputable. So far, only four longitudinal population-based studies have measured and compared current mental (that is, depressive and anxiety) disorder prevalence—defined using psychiatric diagnostic criteria—before and during the pandemic. Of these, two found no change 30 , 31 , one found a decrease 32 and one found an increase in prevalence of these disorders 33 . These studies were local, limited to high-income countries, often small-scale and used different modes of assessment (for example, online versus in-person) before and during the pandemic. This renders these observational results uncertain as well, but their contrast to the GBD calculations 29 is striking.

Time-series analysis of monthly suicide trends in 21 middle-income to high-income countries across the globe yielded no evidence for an increase in suicide rates in the first 4 months of the pandemic, and there was evidence of a fall in rates in 12 countries 34 . Also in the United States, there was a significant decrease in suicide mortality in the first pandemic months but a slight increase in mortality due to drug overdose and homicide 35 . A living systematic review 36 also concluded that, throughout 2020, there was no observed increase in suicide rates in 20 studies conducted in North America, Europe and Asia. Analyses of electronic health record data in the primary care setting showed reduced rates of self-harm during the first COVID-19 pandemic year 37 . In contrast, emergency department visits for self-harm behavior were unchanged 38 or increased 39 . Such inconsistent findings across healthcare settings may reflect a reluctance in healthcare-seeking behavior for mental healthcare issues. In the living systematic review, eight of 11 studies that examined service use data found a significant decrease in reported self-harm/suicide attempts after COVID lockdown, which returned to pre-lockdown levels in some studies with longer follow-up (5 months) 36 .

In sum, although calculations based on survey data predict a global increase of mental disorder prevalence, objective and consistent evidence for an increased mental disorder, self-harm or suicide prevalence or incidence during the first pandemic year remains absent. This observation, coupled with the only small increase in mental health symptom levels in the overall population, may suggest that most of the general population has demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptation. However, alternative interpretations are possible. First, there is a large degree of heterogeneity in the mental health impact of COVID-19, and increased mental health in one group (for example, due to better work–family balance and work flexibility) may have masked mental health problems in others. Various societal responses seen in many countries, such as community support activities and bolstering mental health and crisis services, may have had mitigating effects on the mental health burden. Also, the relationship between mental health symptom increases during stressful periods and its subsequent effects on the incidence of mental disorders may be non-linear or could be less visible due to resulting alternative outcomes, such as drug overdose or homicide. Finally, we cannot rule out a lag-time effect, where disorders may take more time to develop or be picked up, especially because some of the personal financial or social consequences of the COVID pandemic may only become apparent later. It should be noted that data from low-income countries and longer-term studies beyond the first pandemic year are largely absent.

Which individuals are most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic?

There is substantial heterogeneity across studies that evaluated how the COVID pandemic impacted on mental health 13 , 14 , 15 . Although our society as a whole may have the ability to adequately bounce back from pandemic effects, there are vulnerable people who have been affected more than others.

First, women have consistently reported larger increases in mental health problems in response to the COVID-19 pandemic than men 13 , 15 , 29 , 40 , with meta-analytic effect sizes being 44% 15 to 75% 13 higher. This could reflect both higher stress vulnerability or larger daily life disruptions due to, for example, increased childcare responsibilities, exposure to home violence or greater economic impact due to employment disruptions that all disproportionately fell to women 41 , thereby exacerbating the already existing pre-pandemic gender inequalities in depression and anxiety levels. In addition, adolescents and young adults have been disproportionately affected compared to younger children and older adults 12 , 15 , 29 , 40 . This may be the result of unfavorable behavioral and social changes (for example, school closure periods 42 ) during a crucial development phase where social interactions outside the family context are pivotal. Alarmingly, even though suicide rates did not seem to increase at the population level, studies in China 43 and Japan 44 indicated significant increases in suicide rates in children and adolescents.

Existing socio-cultural disparities in mental health may have further widened during the COVID pandemic. Whether the impact is larger for individuals with low socio-economic status remains unclear, with contrasting meta-analyses pointing toward this group being protected 15 or at increased risk 40 . Earlier meta-analyses did not find that the mental health impact of COVID-19 differed across Europe, North America, Asia and Oceania 13 , 14 , but data are lacking from Africa and South America. Nevertheless, a large-scale within-country comparison in the United States found that the mental health of Black, Hispanic and Asian respondents worsened relatively more during the pandemic compared to White respondents. Moreover, White respondents were more likely to receive professional mental healthcare during the pandemic, and, conversely, Black, Hispanic, and Asian respondents demonstrated higher levels of unmet mental healthcare needs during this time 45 .

People with pre-existing somatic conditions represent another vulnerable group in which the pandemic had a greater impact (pooled effect size of 0.25) 13 . This includes people with conditions such as epilepsy, multiple sclerosis or cardiometabolic disease as well as those with multiple comorbidities. The disproportionate impact may reflect this groupʼs elevated COVID-19 risk and, consequently, more perceived stress and fear of infection, but it could also reflect disruptions of regular healthcare services.

Healthcare workers faced increased workload, rapidly changing and challenging work environments and exposure to infections and death, accompanied by fear of infecting themselves and their families. High prevalences of (subthreshold) depression (13% 46 ), depressive symptoms (31% 47 ), (subthreshold) anxiety (16% 46 ), anxiety symptoms (23% 47 ) and post-traumatic stress disorder (~22% 46 , 47 ) have been reported in healthcare workers. However, a meta-analysis did not find a larger mental health impact of the pandemic as compared to the general population 40 , and another meta-analysis (of 206 studies) found that the mental health status of healthcare workers was similar to or even better than that of the general population during the first COVID year 48 . However, it is important to note that these meta-analyses could not differentiate between frontline and non-frontline healthcare workers.

Finally, individuals with pre-existing mental disorders may be at increased risk for exacerbation of mental ill-health during the pandemic, possibly due to disease history—illustrating a higher genetic and/or environmental vulnerability—but also due to discontinuity of mental healthcare. Already before the pandemic, mental health systems were under-resourced and disorganized in most countries 6 , 49 , but a third of all WHO member states reported disruptions to mental and substance use services during the first 18 months of the pandemic 50 , with reduced, shortened or postponed appointments and limited capacity for acute inpatient admissions 51 , 52 . Despite this, there is no clear evidence that individuals with pre-existing mental disorders are disproportionately affected by pandemic-related societal disruptions; the effect size for pandemic impact on self-reported mental health problems was similar in psychiatric patients and the general population 13 . In the United States, emergency visits for ten different mental disorders were generally stable during the pandemic compared to earlier periods 53 . In a large Dutch study 22 , 54 with multiple pre-pandemic and during-pandemic assessments, there was no difference in symptom increase among patients relative to controls (see Fig. 1 for illustration). In absolute terms, however, it is important to note that psychiatric patients show much higher symptom levels of depression, anxiety, loneliness and COVID-fear than healthy controls. Again, variation in mental health changes during the pandemic is large: next to psychiatric patients who showed symptom decrease due to, for example, experiencing relief from social pressures, there certainly have been many patients with symptom increases and relapses during the pandemic.

Trajectories of mean depressive symptoms (QIDS score), anxiety symptoms (BAI score), loneliness (De Jong questionnaire score) and Fear of COVID-19 score before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in healthy controls (blue line, n  = 378) and in patients with depressive and/or anxiety disorders (red line, n  = 908). The x -axis indicates time with one pre-COVID assessment (averaged over up to five earlier assessments conducted between 2006 and 2019) and 11 online assessments during April 2020 through February 2021. Symbols indicate the mean score during the assessment with 95% CIs. As compared to pre-COVID assessment scores, the figure shows a statistically significant increase of depression and loneliness symptoms during the first pandemic peak (April 2020) in healthy controls but not in patients (for more details, see refs. 22 , 54 ). Asterisks indicate where subsequent wave scores differ from the prior wave scores ( P  < 0.05). The figure also illustrates the stability of depressive and anxiety symptoms during the first COVID year, a significant increase in loneliness during this period and fluctuations of Fear of COVID-19 score that positively correlate with infection rates in the Netherlands. Raw data are from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA), which were re-analyzed for the current plots to illustrate differences between two groups (healthy controls versus patients). BAI, Beck Anxiety Inventory; QIDS, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms.

Impact of COVID-19 infection and disease on mental health and the brain

Not only the pandemic but also COVID-19 itself can have severe impact on the mental health of affected individuals and, thus, of the population at large. Below we describe acute and post-acute neuropsychiatric sequelae seen in patients with COVID-19 and link these to neurobiological mechanisms.

Neuropsychiatric sequelae in individuals with COVID-19

Common symptoms associated with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection include headache, anosmia (loss of sense of smell) and dysgeusia (loss of sense of taste). The broader neuropsychiatric impact is dependent on infection severity and is very heterogeneous (Table 2 ). It ranges from no neuropsychiatric symptoms among the large group of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases to milder transient neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as fatigue, sleep disturbance and cognitive impairment, predominantly occurring among symptomatic patients with COVID-19 (ref. 55 ). Cognitive impairment consists of sustained memory impairments and executive dysfunction, including short-term memory loss, concentration problems, word-finding problems and impaired daily problem-solving, colloquially termed ‘brain fog’ by patients and clinicians. A small number of infected individuals become severely ill and require hospitalization. During hospital admission, the predominant neuropsychiatric outcome is delirium 56 . Delirium occurs among one-third of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and among over half of patients with COVID-19 who require intensive care unit (ICU) treatment. These delirium rates seem similar to those observed among individuals with severe illness hospitalized for other general medical conditions 57 . Delirium is associated with neuropsychiatric sequalae after hospitalization, as part of post-intensive care syndrome 58 , in which sepsis and inflammation are associated with cognitive dysfunction and an increased risk of a broad range of psychiatric symptoms, from anxiety to depression and psychotic symptoms with hallucinations 59 , 60 .

A subset of patients with COVID-19 develop PACS 61 , which can include neuropsychiatric symptoms. A large meta-analysis summarizes 51 studies involving 18,917 patients with a mean follow-up of 77 days (range, 14–182 days) 62 . The most prevalent neuropsychiatric symptom associated with COVID-19 was sleep disturbance, with a pooled prevalence of 27.4%, followed by fatigue (24.4%), cognitive impairment (20.2%), anxiety symptoms (19.1%), post-traumatic stress symptoms (15.7%) and depression symptoms (12.9%) (Table 2 ). Another meta-analysis that assessed patients 12 weeks or more after confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis found that 32% experienced fatigue, and 22% experienced cognitive impairment 63 . To what extent neuropsychiatric symptoms are truly unique for patients with COVID remains unclear from these meta-analyses, as hardly any study included well-matched controls with other types of respiratory infections or inflammatory conditions.

Studies based on electronic health records have examined whether higher levels of neuropsychiatric symptoms truly translate into a higher incidence of clinically overt mental disorders 64 , 65 . In a 1-year follow-up using the US Veterans Affairs database, 153,848 survivors of SARS-CoV-2 infection exhibited an increased incidence of any mental disorder with a relative risk of 1.46 and, specifically, 1.35 for anxiety disorders, 1.39 for depressive disorders and 1.38 for stress and adjustment disorders, compared to a contemporary group and a historical control group ( n  = 5,859,251) 65 . In absolute numbers, the incident risk difference attributable to SARS-CoV-2 for mental disorders was 64 per 1,000 individuals. Taquet et al. 64 analyzed electronic health records from the US-based TriNetX network with over 81 million patients and 236,379 COVID-19 survivors followed for 6 months. In absolute numbers, 6-month incidence of hospital contacts related to diagnoses of anxiety, affective disorder or psychotic disorder was 7.0%, 4.5% and 0.4%, respectively. Risks of incident neurological or psychiatric diagnoses were directly correlated with COVID-19 severity and increased by 78% when compared to influenza and by 32% when compared to other respiratory tract infections. In contrast, a medical record study involving 8.3 million adults confirmed that neuropsychiatric disorders were significantly elevated among COVID-19 hospitalized individuals but to a similar extent as in hospitalized patients with other severe respiratory disease 66 . In line with this, a study using language processing of clinical notes in electronic health records did not find an increase in fatigue, mood and anxiety symptoms among COVID-19 hospitalized individuals when compared to hospitalized patients for other indications and adjusted for sociodemographic features and hospital course 67 . It is important to note that research based only on hospital records might be influenced by increased health-seeking behavior that could be differential across care settings or by increased follow-up by hospitals of patients with COVID-19 (compared to patients with other conditions).

Consequently, whether PACS symptoms form a unique pattern due to specific infection with SARS-CoV-2 remains debatable. Prospective case–control studies that do not rely on hospital records but measure the incidence of neuropsychiatric symptoms and diagnoses after COVID-19 are still scarce, but they are critical for distinguishing causation and confounding when characterizing PACS and the uniqueness of neuropsychiatric sequalae after COVID-19 (ref. 68 ). Recent studies with well-matched control groups illustrate that long-term consequences may not be so unique, as they were similar to those observed in patients with other diseases of similar severity, such as after acute myocardial infarction or in ICU patients 56 , 66 . A first prospective follow-up study of COVID-19 survivors and control patients matched on disease severity, age, sex and ICU admission found similar neuropsychiatric outcomes, regarding both new-onset psychiatric diagnosis (19% versus 20%) and neuropsychiatric symptoms (81% versus 93%). However, moderate but significantly worse cognitive outcomes 6 months after symptom onset were found among survivors of COVID-19 (ref. 69 ). In line with this, a longitudinal study of 785 participants from the UK Biobank showed small but significant cognitive impairment among individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared to matched controls 70 .

Numerous psychosocial mechanisms can lead to neuropsychiatric sequalae of COVID-19, including functional impairment; psychological impact due to, for example, fear of dying; stress of being infected with a novel pandemic disease; isolation as part of quarantine and lack of social support; fear/guilt of spreading COVID-19 to family or community; and socioeconomic distress by lost wages 71 . However, there is also ample evidence that neurobiological mechanisms play an important role, which is discussed below.

Neurobiological mechanisms underlying neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19

Acute neuropsychiatric symptoms among patients with severe COVID-19 have been found to correlate with the level of serum inflammatory markers 72 and coincide with neuroimaging findings of immune activation, including leukoencephalopathy, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, cytotoxic lesions of the corpus callosum or cranial nerve enhancement 73 . Rare presentations, including meningitis, encephalitis, inflammatory demyelination, cerebral infarction and acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy, have also been reported 74 . Hospitalized patients with frank encephalopathies display impaired blood-brain barrier (BBB) integrity with leptomeningeal enhancement on brain magnetic resonance images 75 . Studies of postmortem specimens from patients who succumbed to acute COVID-19 reveal significant neuropathology with signs of hypoxic damage and neuroinflammation. These include evidence of BBB permeability with extravasation of fibrinogen, microglial activation, astrogliosis, leukocyte infiltration and microhemorrhages 76 , 77 . However, it is still unclear to what extent these findings differ from patients with similar illness severity due to acute non-COVID illness, as these brain effects might not be virus-specific effects but rather due to cytokine-mediated neuroinflammation and critical illness.

Post-acute neuroimaging studies in SARS-CoV-2-recovered patients, as compared to control patients without COVID-19, reveal numerous alterations in brain structure on a group level, although effect sizes are generally small. These include minor reduction in gray matter thickness in the various regions of the cortex and within the corpus collosum, diffuse edema, increases in markers of tissue damage in regions functionally connected to the olfactory cortex and reductions in overall brain size 70 , 78 . Neuroimaging studies of post-acute COVID-19 patients also report abnormalities consistent with micro-structural and functional alterations, specifically within the hippocampus 79 , 80 , a brain region critical for memory formation and regulating anxiety, mood and stress responses, but also within gray matter areas involving the olfactory system and cingulate cortex 80 . Overall, these findings are in line with ongoing anosmia, tremors, affect problems and cognitive impairment.

Interestingly, despite findings mentioned above, there is little evidence of SARS-CoV-2 neuroinvasion with productive replication, and viral material is rarely found in the central nervous system (CNS) of patients with COVID-19 (refs. 76 , 77 , 81 ). Thus, neurobiological mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2-mediated neuropsychiatric sequelae remain unclear, especially in patients who initially present with milder forms of COVID-19. Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with hypoxia, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and dysregulated innate and adaptive immune responses (reviewed in ref. 82 ). All these effects could contribute to neuroinflammation and endothelial cell activation (Fig. 2 ). Examination of cerebrospinal fluid in patients with neuroimaging findings revealed elevated levels of pro-inflammatory, BBB-destabilizing cytokines, including interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-1, IL-8 and mononuclear cell chemoattractants 83 , 84 . Whether these cytokines arise from the periphery, due to COVID-19-mediated CRS, or from within the CNS, is unclear. As studies generally lack control patients with other severe illnesses, the specificity of such findings to SARS-CoV-2 also remains unclear. Systemic inflammatory processes, including cytokine release, have been linked to glial activation with expression of chemoattractants that recruit immune cells, leading to neuroinflammation and injury 85 . Cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of neurofilament light, a biomarker of neuronal damage, were reportedly elevated in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 regardless of whether they exhibited neurologic diseases 86 . Acute thromboembolic events leading to ischemic infarcts are also common in patients with COVID-19 due to a potentially increased pro-coagulant process secondary to CRS 87 .

(1) Elevation of BBB-destabilizing cytokines (IL-1β and TNF) within the serum due to CRS or local interactions of mononuclear and endothelial cells. (2) Virus-induced endotheliitis increases susceptibility to microthrombus formation due to platelet activation, elevation of vWF and fibrin deposition. (3) Cytokine, mononuclear and endothelial cell interactions promote disruption of the BBB, which may allow entry of leukocytes expressing IFNg into the CNS (4), leading to microglial activation (5). (6) Activated microglia may eliminate synapses and/or express cytokines that promote neuronal injury. (7) Injured neurons express IL-6 which, together with IL-1β, promote a ‘gliogenic switch’ in NSCs (8), decreasing adult neurogenesis. (9) The combination of microglial (and possibly astrocyte) activation, neuronal injury and synapse loss may lead to dysregulation of NTs and neuronal circuitry. IFNg, interferon-g; NSC, neural stem cell; NT, neurotransmitter; TJ, tight junction; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; vWF, von Willebrand factor.

It is also unclear whether hospitalized patients with COVID-19 may develop brain abnormalities due to hypoxia or CRS rather than as a direct effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hypoxia may cause neuronal dysfunction, cerebral edema, increased BBB permeability, cytokine expression and onset of neurodegenerative diseases 88 , 89 . CRS, with life-threatening levels of serum TNF-α and IL-1 (ref. 90 ) could also impact BBB function, as these cytokines destabilize microvasculature endothelial cell junctional proteins critical for BBB integrity 91 . In mild SARS-CoV-2 infection, circulating immune factors combined with mild hypoxia might impact BBB function and lead to neuroinflammation 92 , as observed during infection with other non-neuroinvasive respiratory pathogens 93 . However, multiple studies suggest that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein itself may also induce venous and arterial endothelial cell activation and endotheliitis, disrupt BBB integrity or cross the BBB via adoptive transcytosis 94 , 95 , 96 .

Reducing neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19

The increased risk of COVID-19-related neuropsychiatric sequalae was most pronounced during the first pandemic peak but reduced over the subsequent 2 years 64 , 97 . This may be due to reduced impact of newer SARS-CoV-2 strains (that is, Omicron) but also protective effects of vaccination, which limit SARS-CoV-2 spread and may, thus, prevent neuropsychiatric sequalae. Fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections exhibit a 50% reduction in PACS 98 , even though vaccination does not improve PACS-related neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with a prior history of COVID-19 (ref. 99 ). As patients with pre-existing mental disorders are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, they deserve to be among the prioritization groups for vaccination efforts 100 .

Adequate treatment strategies for neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 are needed. As no specific evidence-based intervention yet exists, the best current treatment approach is that for neuropsychiatric sequelae arising after other severe medical conditions 101 . Stepped care—a staged approach of mental health services comprising a hierarchy of interventions, from least to most intensive, matched to the individual’s need—is efficacious with monitoring of mental health and cognitive problems. Milder symptoms likely benefit from counseling and holistic care, including physiotherapy, psychotherapy and rehabilitation. Individuals with moderate to severe symptoms fulfilling psychiatric diagnoses should receive guideline-concordant care for these disorders 61 . Patients with pre-existing mental disorders also deserve special attention when affected by COVID-19, as they have shown to have an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization, complications and death 102 . This may involve interventions to address their general health, any unfavorable socioenvironmental factors, substance abuse or treatment adherence issues.

Lessons learned, knowledge gaps and future challenges

Ultimately, it is not only the millions of people who have died from COVID-19 worldwide that we remember but also the distress experienced during an unpredictable period with overstretched healthcare systems, lockdowns, school closures and changing work environments. In a world that is more and more globalized, connectivity puts us at risk for future pandemics. What can be learned from the last 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic about how to handle future and longstanding challenges related to mental health?

Give mental health equal priority to physical health

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that our population seems quite resilient and adaptive. Nevertheless, even if society as a whole may bounce back, there is a large group of people whose mental health has been and will be disproportionately affected by this and future crises. Although various groups, such as the WHO 8 , the National Health Commission of China 103 , the Asia Pacific Disaster Mental Health Network 104 and a National Taskforce in India 105 , developed mental health policies early on, many countries were late in realizing that a mental health agenda deserves immediate attention in a rapidly evolving pandemic. Implementation of comprehensive and integrated mental health policies was generally inconsistent and suboptimal 106 and often in the shadow of policies directed at containing and reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Leadership is needed to convey the message that mental health is as important as physical health and that we should focus specific attention and early interventions on those at the highest risk. This includes those vulnerable due to factors such as low socioeconomic status, specific developmental life phase (adolescents and young adults), pre-existing risk (poor physical or somatic health and early life trauma) or high exposure to pandemic-related (work) changes—for example, women and healthcare personnel. This means that not only should investment in youth and reducing health inequalities remain at the top of any policy agenda but also that mental health should be explicitly addressed from the start in any future global health crisis situation.

Communication and trust is crucial for mental health

Uncertainty and uncontrollability during the pandemic have challenged rational thinking. Negative news travels fast. Communication that is vague, one-sided and dishonest can negatively impact on mental health and amplify existing distress and anxiety 107 . Media reporting should not overemphasize negative mental health impact—for example, putative suicide rate increases or individual negative experiences—which could make situations worse than they actually are. Instead, communication during crises requires concrete and actionable advice that avoids polarization and strengthens vigilance, to foster resilience and help prevent escalation to severe mental health problems 108 , 109 .

Rapid research should be collaborative and high-quality

Within the scientific community, the topic of mental health during the pandemic led to a multitude of rapid studies that generally had limited methodological quality—for example, cross-sectional designs, small or selective sampling or study designs lacking valid comparison groups. These contributed rather little to our understanding of the mental health impact of the emerging crisis. In future events that have global mental health impact, where possible, collaborative and interdisciplinary efforts with well-powered and well-controlled prospective studies using standardized instruments will be crucial. Only with fine-grained determinants and outcomes can data reliably inform mental health policies and identify who is most at risk.

Do not neglect long-term mental health effects

So far, research has mainly focused on the acute and short-term effects of the pandemic on mental health, usually spanning pandemic effects over several months to 1 year. However, longer follow-up of how a pandemic impacts population mental health is essential. Can societal and economic disruptions after the pandemic increase risk of mental disorders at a later stage when the acute pandemic effects have subsided? Do increased self-reported mental health problems return to pre-pandemic levels, and which groups of individuals remain most affected in the long-term? We need to realize that certain pandemic consequences, particularly those affecting income and school/work careers, may become visible only over the course of several years. Consequently, we should maintain focus and continue to monitor and quantify the effects of the pandemic in the years to come—for example, by monitoring mental healthcare use and suicide. This should include specific at-risk populations (for example, adolescents) and understudied populations in low-income and middle-income countries.

Pay attention to mental health consequences of infectious diseases

Even though our knowledge on PACS is rapidly expanding, there are still many unanswered questions related to who is at risk, the long-term course trajectories and the best ways to intervene early. Consequently, we need to be aware of the neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 and, for that matter, of any infectious disease. Clinical attention and research should be directed toward alleviating potential neuropsychiatric ramifications of COVID-19. Next to clinical studies, studies using human tissues and appropriate animal models are pivotal to determine the CNS region-specific and neural-cell-specific effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the induced immune activation. Indeed, absence of SARS-CoV-2 neuroinvasion is an opportunity to learn and discover how peripheral neuroimmune mechanisms can contribute to neuropsychiatric sequelae in susceptible individuals. This emphasizes the importance of an interdisciplinary approach where somatic and mental health efforts are combined but also the need to integrate clinical parameters after infection with biological parameters (for example, serum, cerebrospinal fluid and/or neuroimaging) to predict who is at risk for PACS and deliver more targeted treatments.

Prepare mental healthcare infrastructure for pandemic times

If we take mental health seriously, we should not only monitor it but also develop the resources and infrastructure necessary for rapid early intervention, particularly for specific vulnerable groups. For adequate mental healthcare to be ready for pandemic times, primary care, community mental health and public mental health should be prepared. In many countries, health services were not able to meet the population’s mental health needs before the pandemic, which substantially worsened during the pandemic. We should ensure rapid access to mental health services but also address the underlying drivers of poor mental health, such as mitigating risks of unemployment, sexual violence and poverty. Collaboration in early stages across disciplines and expertise is essential. Anticipating disruption to face-to-face services, mental healthcare providers should be more prepared for consultations, therapy and follow-up by telephone, video-conferencing platforms and web applications 51 , 52 . The pandemic has shown that an inadequate infrastructure, pre-existing inequalities and low levels of technological literacy hindered the use and uptake of e-health, both in healthcare providers and in patients across different care settings. The necessary investments can ensure rapid upscaling of mental health services during future pandemics for those individuals with a high mental health need due to societal changes, government measures, fear of infection or infection itself.

Even though much attention has been paid to the physical health consequences of COVID-19, mental health has unjustly received less attention. There is an urgent need to prepare our research and healthcare infrastructures not only for adequate monitoring of the long-term mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic but also for future crises that will shape mental health. This will require collaboration to ensure interdisciplinary and sound research and to provide attention and care at an early stage for those individuals who are most vulnerable—giving mental health equal priority to physical health from the very start.

WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard (WHO, 2022; https://covid19.who.int/

Rando, H. M. et al. Challenges in defining long COVID: striking differences across literature, electronic health records, and patient-reported information. Preprint at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.20.21253896v1 (2021).

Nalbandian, A. et al. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Nat. Med. 27 , 601–615 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Abbafati, C. et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 396 , 1204–1222 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Penninx, B. W., Pine, D. S., Holmes, E. A. & Reif, A. Anxiety disorders. Lancet 397 , 914–927 (2021).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Herrman, H. et al. Time for united action on depression: a Lancet –World Psychiatric Association Commission. Lancet 399 , 957–1022 (2022).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Radka, K., Wyeth, E. H. & Derrett, S. A qualitative study of living through the first New Zealand COVID-19 lockdown: affordances, positive outcomes, and reflections. Prev. Med. Rep. 26 , 101725 (2022).

Mental Health and COVID-19: Early Evidence of the Pandemic’s Impact (WHO, 2022).

Dragioti, E. et al. A large-scale meta-analytic atlas of mental health problems prevalence during the COVID-19 early pandemic. J. Med. Virol. 94 , 1935–1949 (2022).

Zhang, S. X. et al. Mental disorder symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 31 , e23 (2022).

Zhang, S. X. et al. Meta-analytic evidence of depression and anxiety in Eastern Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol . 13 , 2000132 (2022).

Racine, N. et al. Global prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents during COVID-19: a meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 175 , 1142–1150 (2021).

Robinson, E., Sutin, A. R., Daly, M. & Jones, A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies comparing mental health before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. J. Affect. Disord. 296 , 567–576 (2022).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Prati, G. & Mancini, A. D. The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns: a review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments. Psychol. Med. 51 , 201–211 (2021).

Patel, K. et al. Psychological distress before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among adults in the United Kingdom based on coordinated analyses of 11 longitudinal studies. JAMA Netw. Open 5 , e227629 (2022).

Ernst, M. et al. Loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am. Psychol . 77 , 660–677 (2022).

Kilian, C. et al. Changes in alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Drug Alcohol Rev . 41 , 918–931 (2022).

Acuff, S. F., Strickland, J. C., Tucker, J. A. & Murphy, J. G. Changes in alcohol use during COVID-19 and associations with contextual and individual difference variables: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 36 , 1–19 (2022).

Varga, T. V. et al. Loneliness, worries, anxiety, and precautionary behaviours in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis of 200,000 Western and Northern Europeans. Lancet Reg. Health Eur . 2 , 100020 (2021).

Fancourt, D., Steptoe, A. & Bu, F. Trajectories of anxiety and depressive symptoms during enforced isolation due to COVID-19 in England: a longitudinal observational study. Lancet Psychiatry 8 , 141–149 (2021).

Jia, H. et al. National and state trends in anxiety and depression severity scores among adults during the COVID-19 pandemic—United States, 2020–2021. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 70 , 1427–1432 (2021).

Kok, A. A. L. et al. Mental health and perceived impact during the first Covid-19 pandemic year: a longitudinal study in Dutch case–control cohorts of persons with and without depressive, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorders. J. Affect. Disord. 305 , 85–93 (2022).

Su, Y. et al. Prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. Psychogeriatr. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610222000199 (2022).

Knox, L., Karantzas, G. C., Romano, D., Feeney, J. A. & Simpson, J. A. One year on: what we have learned about the psychological effects of COVID-19 social restrictions: a meta-analysis. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 46 , 101315 (2022).

Aknin, L. B. et al. Policy stringency and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis of data from 15 countries. Lancet Public Health 7 , e417–e426 (2022).

Lee, Y. et al. Government response moderates the mental health impact of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of depression outcomes across countries. J. Affect. Disord. 290 , 364–377 (2021).

Wu, J. T. et al. Nowcasting epidemics of novel pathogens: lessons from COVID-19. Nat. Med. 27 , 388–395 (2021).

Brooks, S. K. et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 395 , 912–920 (2020).

Santomauro, D. F. et al. Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 398 , 1700–1712 (2021).

Knudsen, A. K. S. et al. Prevalence of mental disorders, suicidal ideation and suicides in the general population before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway: a population-based repeated cross-sectional analysis. Lancet Reg. Health Eur . 4 , 100071 (2021).

Ayuso-Mateos, J. L. et al. Changes in depression and suicidal ideation under severe lockdown restrictions during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: a longitudinal study in the general population. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci . 30 , e49 (2021).

Vloo, A. et al. Gender differences in the mental health impact of the COVID-19 lockdown: longitudinal evidence from the Netherlands. SSM Popul. Health 15 , 100878 (2021).

Winkler, P. et al. Prevalence of current mental disorders before and during the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of repeated nationwide cross-sectional surveys. J. Psychiatr. Res. 139 , 167–171 (2021).

Pirkis, J. et al. Suicide trends in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time-series analysis of preliminary data from 21 countries. Lancet Psychiatry 8 , 579–588 (2021).

Faust, J. S. et al. Mortality from drug overdoses, homicides, unintentional injuries, motor vehicle crashes, and suicides during the pandemic, March–August 2020. JAMA 326 , 84–86 (2021).

John, A. et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-harm and suicidal behaviour: update of living systematic review. F1000Res. 9 , 1097 (2020).

Steeg, S. et al. Temporal trends in primary care-recorded self-harm during and beyond the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: time series analysis of electronic healthcare records for 2.8 million patients in the Greater Manchester Care Record. EClinicalMedicine 41 , 101175 (2021).

Rømer, T. B. et al. Psychiatric admissions, referrals, and suicidal behavior before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark: a time-trend study. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 144 , 553–562 (2021).

Holland, K. M. et al. Trends in US emergency department visits for mental health, overdose, and violence outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Psychiatry 78 , 372–379 (2021).

Kunzler, A. M. et al. Mental burden and its risk and protective factors during the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: systematic review and meta-analyses. Global Health 17 , 34 (2021).

Flor, L. S. et al. Quantifying the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender equality on health, social, and economic indicators: a comprehensive review of data from March, 2020, to September, 2021. Lancet 399 , 2381–2397 (2022).

Viner, R. et al. School closures during social lockdown and mental health, health behaviors, and well-being among children and adolescents during the first COVID-19 wave: a systematic review. JAMA Pediatr. 176 , 400–409 (2022).

Zheng, X. Y. et al. Trends of injury mortality during the COVID-19 period in Guangdong, China: a population-based retrospective analysis. BMJ Open 11 , e045317 (2021).

Tanaka, T. & Okamoto, S. Increase in suicide following an initial decline during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5 , 229–238 (2021).

Thomeer, M. B., Moody, M. D. & Yahirun, J. Racial and ethnic disparities in mental health and mental health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Racial Ethn. Health Disparities https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-021-01006-7 (2022).

Hill, J. E. et al. The prevalence of mental health conditions in healthcare workers during and after a pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 78 , 1551–1573 (2022).

Marvaldi, M., Mallet, J., Dubertret, C., Moro, M. R. & Guessoum, S. B. Anxiety, depression, trauma-related, and sleep disorders among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 126 , 252–264 (2021).

Phiri, P. et al. An evaluation of the mental health impact of SARS-CoV-2 on patients, general public and healthcare professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 34 , 100806 (2021).

Jorm, A. F., Patten, S. B., Brugha, T. S. & Mojtabai, R. Has increased provision of treatment reduced the prevalence of common mental disorders? Review of the evidence from four countries. World Psychiatry 16 , 90–99 (2017).

Third Round of the Global Pulse Survey on Continuity of Essential Health Services during the COVID-19 Pandemic (WHO, 2021).

Baumgart, J. G. et al. The early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health facilities and psychiatric professionals. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 , 8034 (2021).

Raphael, J., Winter, R. & Berry, K. Adapting practice in mental healthcare settings during the COVID-19 pandemic and other contagions: systematic review. BJPsych Open 7 , e62 (2021).

Anderson, K. N. et al. Changes and inequities in adult mental health-related emergency department visits during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. JAMA Psychiatry 79 , 475–485 (2022).

Pan, K. Y. et al. The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with and without depressive, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorders: a longitudinal study of three Dutch case–control cohorts. Lancet Psychiatry 8 , 121–129 (2021).

Dantzer, R., O’Connor, J. C., Freund, G. G., Johnson, R. W. & Kelley, K. W. From inflammation to sickness and depression: when the immune system subjugates the brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9 , 46–56 (2008).

Nersesjan, V. et al. Central and peripheral nervous system complications of COVID-19: a prospective tertiary center cohort with 3-month follow-up. J. Neurol. 268 , 3086–3104 (2021).

Wilson, J. E. et al. Delirium. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim . 6 , 90 (2020).

Rawal, G., Yadav, S. & Kumar, R. Post-intensive care syndrome: an overview. J. Transl. Intern. Med. 5 , 90–92 (2017).

Pandharipande, P. P. et al. Long-term cognitive impairment after critical illness. N. Engl. J. Med. 369 , 1306–1316 (2013).

Girard, T. D. et al. Long-term cognitive impairment after hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia: a prospective cohort study. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 33 , 929–935 (2018).

Crook, H., Raza, S., Nowell, J., Young, M. & Edison, P. Long covid—mechanisms, risk factors, and management. BMJ 374 , n1648 (2021).

Badenoch, J. B. et al. Persistent neuropsychiatric symptoms after COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Commun . 4 , fcab297 (2021).

Ceban, F. et al. Fatigue and cognitive impairment in post-COVID-19 syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav. Immun. 101 , 93–135 (2022).

Taquet, M., Geddes, J. R., Husain, M., Luciano, S. & Harrison, P. J. 6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records. Lancet Psychiatry 8 , 416–427 (2021).

Xie, Y., Xu, E. & Al-Aly, Z. Risks of mental health outcomes in people with covid-19: cohort study. BMJ 376 , e068993 (2022).

Kieran Clift, A. et al. Neuropsychiatric ramifications of severe COVID-19 and other severe acute respiratory infections. JAMA Psychiatry 79 , 690–698 (2022).

Castro, V. M., Rosand, J., Giacino, J. T., McCoy, T. H. & Perlis, R. H. Case–control study of neuropsychiatric symptoms following COVID-19 hospitalization in 2 academic health systems. Mol. Psych. (in the press).

Amin-Chowdhury, Z. & Ladhani, S. N. Causation or confounding: why controls are critical for characterizing long COVID. Nat. Med. 27 , 1129–1130 (2021).

Nersesjan, V. et al. Neuropsychiatric and cognitive outcomes in patients 6 months after COVID-19 requiring hospitalization compared with matched control patients hospitalized for non-COVID-19 illness. JAMA Psychiatry 79 , 486–497 (2022).

Douaud, G. et al. SARS-CoV-2 is associated with changes in brain structure in UK Biobank. Nature 604 , 697–707 (2022).

Zhang, H. et al. Psychological experience of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. Am. J. Infect. Control 50 , 809–819 (2022).

Mazza, M. G. et al. Anxiety and depression in COVID-19 survivors: role of inflammatory and clinical predictors. Brain Behav. Immun. 89 , 594–600 (2020).

Moonis, G. et al. The spectrum of neuroimaging findings on CT and MRI in adults With COVID-19. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 217 , 959–974 (2021).

Asadi-Pooya, A. A. & Simani, L. Central nervous system manifestations of COVID-19: a systematic review. J. Neurol. Sci . 413 , 116832 (2020).

Lersy, F. et al. Cerebrospinal fluid features in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 and neurological manifestations: correlation with brain magnetic resonance imaging findings in 58 patients. J. Infect. Dis. 223 , 600–609 (2021).

Thakur, K. T. et al. COVID-19 neuropathology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York Presbyterian Hospital. Brain 144 , 2696–2708 (2021).

Cosentino, G. et al. Neuropathological findings from COVID-19 patients with neurological symptoms argue against a direct brain invasion of SARS-CoV-2: a critical systematic review. Eur. J. Neurol. 28 , 3856–3865 (2021).

Tian, T. et al. Long-term follow-up of dynamic brain changes in patients recovered from COVID-19 without neurological manifestations. JCI Insight 7 , e155827 (2022).

Lu, Y. et al. Cerebral micro-structural changes in COVID-19 patients—an MRI-based 3-month follow-up study. EClinicalMedicine 25 , 100484 (2020).

Qin, Y. et al . Long-term microstructure and cerebral blood flow changes in patients recovered from COVID-19 without neurological manifestations. J. Clin. Invest . 131 , e147329 (2021).

Matschke, J. et al. Neuropathology of patients with COVID-19 in Germany: a post-mortem case series. Lancet Neurol. 19 , 919–929 (2020).

Shivshankar, P. et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection: host response, immunity, and therapeutic targets. Inflammation 45 , 1430–1449 (2022).

Manganotti, P. et al. Cerebrospinal fluid and serum interleukins 6 and 8 during the acute and recovery phase in COVID-19 neuropathy patients. J. Med. Virol. 93 , 5432–5437 (2021).

Farhadian, S. et al. Acute encephalopathy with elevated CSF inflammatory markers as the initial presentation of COVID-19. BMC Neurol . 20 , 248 (2020).

Francistiová, L. et al. Cellular and molecular effects of SARS-CoV-2 linking lung infection to the brain. Front. Immunol . 12 , 730088 (2021).

Paterson, R. W. et al. Serum and cerebrospinal fluid biomarker profiles in acute SARS-CoV-2-associated neurological syndromes. Brain Commun . 3 , fcab099 (2021).

Cryer, M. J. et al. Prothrombotic milieu, thrombotic events and prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 positive patients: a review. Clin. Appl. Thromb. Hemost . 28 , 10760296221074353 (2022).

Nalivaeva, N. N. & Rybnikova, E. A. Editorial: Brain hypoxia and ischemia: new insights into neurodegeneration and neuroprotection. Front. Neurosci . 13 , 770 (2019).

Brownlee, N. N. M., Wilson, F. C., Curran, D. B., Lyttle, N. & McCann, J. P. Neurocognitive outcomes in adults following cerebral hypoxia: a systematic literature review. NeuroRehabilitation 47 , 83–97 (2020).

Del Valle, D. M. et al. An inflammatory cytokine signature predicts COVID-19 severity and survival. Nat. Med. 26 , 1636–1643 (2020).

Daniels, B. P. et al. Viral pathogen-associated molecular patterns regulate blood–brain barrier integrity via competing innate cytokine signals. mBio 5 , e01476-14 (2014).

Reynolds, J. L. & Mahajan, S. D. SARS-COV2 alters blood brain barrier integrity contributing to neuro-inflammation. J. Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 16 , 4–6 (2021).

Bohmwald, K., Gálvez, N. M. S., Ríos, M. & Kalergis, A. M. Neurologic alterations due to respiratory virus infections. Front. Cell. Neurosci . 12 , 386 (2018).

Khaddaj-Mallat, R. et al. SARS-CoV-2 deregulates the vascular and immune functions of brain pericytes via spike protein. Neurobiol. Dis . 161 , 105561 (2021).

Qian, Y. et al. Direct activation of endothelial cells by SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein is blocked by simvastatin. J Virol. 95 , e0139621 (2021).

Rhea, E. M. et al. The S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood–brain barrier in mice. Nat. Neurosci. 24 , 368–378 (2021).

Magnúsdóttir, I. et al. Acute COVID-19 severity and mental health morbidity trajectories in patient populations of six nations: an observational study. Lancet Public Health 7 , e406–e416 (2022).

Antonelli, M. et al. Risk factors and disease profile of post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection in UK users of the COVID Symptom Study app: a prospective, community-based, nested, case–control study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 22 , 43–55 (2022).

Wisnivesky, J. P. et al. Association of vaccination with the persistence of post-COVID symptoms. J. Gen. Intern. Med . 37 , 1748–1753 (2022).

De Picker, L. J. et al. Severe mental illness and European COVID-19 vaccination strategies. Lancet Psychiatry 8 , 356–359 (2021).

Cohen, G. H. et al. Comparison of simulated treatment and cost-effectiveness of a stepped care case-finding intervention vs usual care for posttraumatic stress disorder after a natural disaster. JAMA Psychiatry 74 , 1251–1258 (2017).

Vai, B. et al. Mental disorders and risk of COVID-19-related mortality, hospitalisation, and intensive care unit admission: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 8 , 797–812 (2021).

Xiang, Y. T. et al. Timely mental health care for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is urgently needed. Lancet Psychiatry 7 , 228 (2020).

Newnham, E. A. et al. The Asia Pacific Disaster Mental Health Network: setting a mental health agenda for the region. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17 , 6144 (2020).

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dandona, R. & Sagar, R. COVID-19 offers an opportunity to reform mental health in India. Lancet Psychiatry 8 , 9–11 (2021).

Qiu, D. et al. Policies to improve the mental health of people influenced by COVID-19 in China: a scoping review. Front. Psychiatry 11 , 588137 (2020).

Su, Z. et al. Mental health consequences of COVID-19 media coverage: the need for effective crisis communication practices. Global Health 17 , 4 (2021).

Petersen, M. B. COVID lesson: trust the public with hard truths. Nature 598 , 237 (2021).

van der Bles, A. M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A. L. J. & Spiegelhalter, D. J. The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 7672–7683 (2020).

Titze-de-Almeida, R. et al. Persistent, new-onset symptoms and mental health complaints in Long COVID in a Brazilian cohort of non-hospitalized patients. BMC Infect. Dis. 22 , 133 (2022).

Carfì, A., Bernabei, R. & Landi, F. Persistent symptoms in patients after acute COVID-19. JAMA 324 , 603–605 (2020).

Bliddal, S. et al. Acute and persistent symptoms in non-hospitalized PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. Sci. Rep. 11 , 13153 (2021).

Kim, Y. et al. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome in patients after 12 months from COVID-19 infection in Korea. BMC Infect. Dis . 22 , 93 (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank E. Giltay for assistance on data analyses and production of Fig. 1 . B.W.J.H.P. discloses support for research and publication of this work from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme-funded RESPOND project (grant no. 101016127).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Brenda W. J. H. Penninx & Christiaan H. Vinkers

Amsterdam Public Health, Mental Health Program and Amsterdam Neuroscience, Mood, Anxiety, Psychosis, Sleep & Stress Program, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Biological and Precision Psychiatry, Copenhagen Research Center for Mental Health, Mental Health Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

Michael E. Benros

Department of Immunology and Microbiology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Departments of Medicine, Pathology & Immunology and Neuroscience, Center for Neuroimmunology & Neuroinfectious Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

Robyn S. Klein

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brenda W. J. H. Penninx .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Medicine thanks Jane Pirkis and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary handling editor: Karen O’Leary, in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Penninx, B.W.J.H., Benros, M.E., Klein, R.S. et al. How COVID-19 shaped mental health: from infection to pandemic effects. Nat Med 28 , 2027–2037 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-02028-2

Download citation

Received : 06 June 2022

Accepted : 26 August 2022

Published : 03 October 2022

Issue Date : October 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-02028-2

Share this article

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

This article is cited by

Mental health disturbance in preclinical medical students and its association with screen time, sleep quality, and depression during the covid-19 pandemic.

• Tjhin Wiguna
• Valerie Josephine Dirjayanto
• Erik Kinzie

BMC Psychiatry (2024)

A repeated cross-sectional pilot study of the relationship between perceived a community with shared future for doctor-patient and benefit finding: the mediating role of health self-consciousness and moderating role of anxiety

• Fenwick Feng Jing

BMC Psychology (2024)

Protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent sustainable return to work IGLOo intervention

• Oliver Davis
• Jeremy Dawson
• Fehmidah Munir

Pilot and Feasibility Studies (2024)

Impact of COVID-19 first wave on the mental health of healthcare workers in a Front-Line Spanish Tertiary Hospital: lessons learned

• Juan D. Molina
• Franco Amigo
• Gabriel Rubio

Scientific Reports (2024)

Depressive symptoms and sex differences in the risk of post-COVID-19 persistent symptoms: a prospective population-based cohort study

• Joane Matta
• Baptiste Pignon
• Cédric Lemogne

Nature Mental Health (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

How did COVID-19 affect Americans’ well-being and mental health?

Subscribe to global connection, emily dobson , emily dobson ph.d. student - university of maryland carol graham , carol graham senior fellow - economic studies tim hua , and tim hua student - middlebury college, former intern - global economy and development sergio pinto sergio pinto doctoral student, university of maryland.

April 8, 2022

COVID-19 has justifiably raised widespread public concern about mental health worldwide. In the U.S., the pandemic was an unprecedented shock to society at a time when the nation was already coping with a crisis of despair and related deaths from suicides, overdoses, and alcohol poisoning. Meanwhile, COVID-19’s impact was inequitable: Deaths were concentrated among the elderly and minorities working in essential jobs, groups who up to the pandemic had been reporting better mental health. We still do not fully understand how the shock has affected society’s well-being and mental health.

In a recent paper in which we compared trends in 2019-2020 using several nationally representative datasets, we found a variety of contrasting stories. While data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the 2020 Household Pulse Survey (HPS) containing the same mental health screening questions for depression and anxiety show that both increased significantly, especially among young and low-income Americans in 2020, we found no such changes when analyzing alternative depression questions that are also asked in a consistent manner in the 2019-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the 2019-2020 NHIS. Despite the differences in trends, the basic determinants of mental health were similar in three data sets in the same two years.

Our findings raise questions about the robustness of the many studies claiming unprecedented increases in depression and anxiety among the young compared to older cohorts. Many of them, due to the urgency created by COVID-19 and a paucity of good, consistent data, matched datasets and used different questions therein in their attempt to identify changes in the trends between the two years. The inconsistency in the outcome changes over time across datasets points to the need for caution in drawing conclusions, as well as in relying too heavily on a single study; results generated from different data may differ considerably.

Given the paucity of comparable data and the usual one-year lag in the release of the final mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we also tried to get a handle on changes in patterns in mental health by examining emergency medical services (EMS) data calls related to behavior, overdoses, suicide attempts, and gun violence. The EMS data has the advantage of using the same methods and samples over the two-year period. We found an increase in gun violence and opioid overdose calls in 2020 after lockdowns, but surprisingly, a sharp decrease in behavioral health calls and no change in suicide-related EMS activations. The latter trend is a puzzle, but possible explanations include opioid overdose deaths increasing markedly and possibly substituting for suicide deaths. Alternatively, many older men—who are the demographic groups with the most suicide deaths—died of COVID-19 in that same period; another tragic “substitution” effect.

Finally, we looked at whether over the long run there is a relationship between poor mental health and later deaths of despair in micropolitan and metropolitan statistical areas (MMSAs). We found modest support for that possibility. Based on mental health reports in the BRFSS and CDC mortality data, we find that two-to-three-year-lagged bad mental health days (at the individual level) are associated with higher rates of deaths of despair (at the MMSA level), and that the two-to-four-year-lagged rates of deaths of despair are associated with a higher number of bad mental health days in later years. We cannot establish a direction of causality, but it is possible that there are vicious circles at play with individual trends in mental health contributing to broader community distress, and communities with more despair-related deaths likely to have more mental health problems later as a result.

Our analysis, based on many different datasets and indicators of despair, does not contradict other studies in that despair is an ongoing problem in the U.S., as reflected by both mental health reports and trends in EMS activations. However, we do find that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are mixed, and that while some trends, such as opioid overdose deaths, worsened in 2020 compared to 2019, others, such as in some mental health reports and in suicide rates, improved slightly. Our work does not speak to the longer-term mental health consequences of the pandemic, but it does suggest that there were deep pockets of both despair and resilience throughout it. It also suggests that caution is necessary in drawing policy implications from any one study.

Related Content

Emily Dobson, Carol Graham, Tim Hua, Sergio Pinto

April 4, 2022

Carol Graham, Fred Dews

January 28, 2022

Related Books

Carol Graham

March 28, 2017

August 8, 2012

Global Economy and Development

Isabel V. Sawhill, Kai Smith

July 30, 2024

May 29, 2024

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 76, Issue 2
• COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on social relationships and health
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1512-4471 Emily Long 1 ,
• Susan Patterson 1 ,
• Karen Maxwell 1 ,
• Carolyn Blake 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7342-4566 Raquel Bosó Pérez 1 ,
• Ruth Lewis 1 ,
• Mark McCann 1 ,
• Julie Riddell 1 ,
• Kathryn Skivington 1 ,
• Rachel Wilson-Lowe 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4409-6601 Kirstin R Mitchell 2
• 1 MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit , University of Glasgow , Glasgow , UK
• 2 MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health & Wellbeing , University of Glasgow , Glasgow , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Emily Long, MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G3 7HR, UK; emily.long{at}glasgow.ac.uk

This essay examines key aspects of social relationships that were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses explicitly on relational mechanisms of health and brings together theory and emerging evidence on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic to make recommendations for future public health policy and recovery. We first provide an overview of the pandemic in the UK context, outlining the nature of the public health response. We then introduce four distinct domains of social relationships: social networks, social support, social interaction and intimacy, highlighting the mechanisms through which the pandemic and associated public health response drastically altered social interactions in each domain. Throughout the essay, the lens of health inequalities, and perspective of relationships as interconnecting elements in a broader system, is used to explore the varying impact of these disruptions. The essay concludes by providing recommendations for longer term recovery ensuring that the social relational cost of COVID-19 is adequately considered in efforts to rebuild.

• inequalities

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study. Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated or analysed for this essay.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2021-216690

Statistics from Altmetric.com

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.

Introduction

Infectious disease pandemics, including SARS and COVID-19, demand intrapersonal behaviour change and present highly complex challenges for public health. 1 A pandemic of an airborne infection, spread easily through social contact, assails human relationships by drastically altering the ways through which humans interact. In this essay, we draw on theories of social relationships to examine specific ways in which relational mechanisms key to health and well-being were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Relational mechanisms refer to the processes between people that lead to change in health outcomes.

At the time of writing, the future surrounding COVID-19 was uncertain. Vaccine programmes were being rolled out in countries that could afford them, but new and more contagious variants of the virus were also being discovered. The recovery journey looked long, with continued disruption to social relationships. The social cost of COVID-19 was only just beginning to emerge, but the mental health impact was already considerable, 2 3 and the inequality of the health burden stark. 4 Knowledge of the epidemiology of COVID-19 accrued rapidly, but evidence of the most effective policy responses remained uncertain.

The initial response to COVID-19 in the UK was reactive and aimed at reducing mortality, with little time to consider the social implications, including for interpersonal and community relationships. The terminology of ‘social distancing’ quickly became entrenched both in public and policy discourse. This equation of physical distance with social distance was regrettable, since only physical proximity causes viral transmission, whereas many forms of social proximity (eg, conversations while walking outdoors) are minimal risk, and are crucial to maintaining relationships supportive of health and well-being.

The aim of this essay is to explore four key relational mechanisms that were impacted by the pandemic and associated restrictions: social networks, social support, social interaction and intimacy. We use relational theories and emerging research on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic response to make three key recommendations: one regarding public health responses; and two regarding social recovery. Our understanding of these mechanisms stems from a ‘systems’ perspective which casts social relationships as interdependent elements within a connected whole. 5

Social networks

Social networks characterise the individuals and social connections that compose a system (such as a workplace, community or society). Social relationships range from spouses and partners, to coworkers, friends and acquaintances. They vary across many dimensions, including, for example, frequency of contact and emotional closeness. Social networks can be understood both in terms of the individuals and relationships that compose the network, as well as the overall network structure (eg, how many of your friends know each other).

Social networks show a tendency towards homophily, or a phenomenon of associating with individuals who are similar to self. 6 This is particularly true for ‘core’ network ties (eg, close friends), while more distant, sometimes called ‘weak’ ties tend to show more diversity. During the height of COVID-19 restrictions, face-to-face interactions were often reduced to core network members, such as partners, family members or, potentially, live-in roommates; some ‘weak’ ties were lost, and interactions became more limited to those closest. Given that peripheral, weaker social ties provide a diversity of resources, opinions and support, 7 COVID-19 likely resulted in networks that were smaller and more homogenous.

Such changes were not inevitable nor necessarily enduring, since social networks are also adaptive and responsive to change, in that a disruption to usual ways of interacting can be replaced by new ways of engaging (eg, Zoom). Yet, important inequalities exist, wherein networks and individual relationships within networks are not equally able to adapt to such changes. For example, individuals with a large number of newly established relationships (eg, university students) may have struggled to transfer these relationships online, resulting in lost contacts and a heightened risk of social isolation. This is consistent with research suggesting that young adults were the most likely to report a worsening of relationships during COVID-19, whereas older adults were the least likely to report a change. 8

Lastly, social connections give rise to emergent properties of social systems, 9 where a community-level phenomenon develops that cannot be attributed to any one member or portion of the network. For example, local area-based networks emerged due to geographic restrictions (eg, stay-at-home orders), resulting in increases in neighbourly support and local volunteering. 10 In fact, research suggests that relationships with neighbours displayed the largest net gain in ratings of relationship quality compared with a range of relationship types (eg, partner, colleague, friend). 8 Much of this was built from spontaneous individual interactions within local communities, which together contributed to the ‘community spirit’ that many experienced. 11 COVID-19 restrictions thus impacted the personal social networks and the structure of the larger networks within the society.

Social support

Social support, referring to the psychological and material resources provided through social interaction, is a critical mechanism through which social relationships benefit health. In fact, social support has been shown to be one of the most important resilience factors in the aftermath of stressful events. 12 In the context of COVID-19, the usual ways in which individuals interact and obtain social support have been severely disrupted.

One such disruption has been to opportunities for spontaneous social interactions. For example, conversations with colleagues in a break room offer an opportunity for socialising beyond one’s core social network, and these peripheral conversations can provide a form of social support. 13 14 A chance conversation may lead to advice helpful to coping with situations or seeking formal help. Thus, the absence of these spontaneous interactions may mean the reduction of indirect support-seeking opportunities. While direct support-seeking behaviour is more effective at eliciting support, it also requires significantly more effort and may be perceived as forceful and burdensome. 15 The shift to homeworking and closure of community venues reduced the number of opportunities for these spontaneous interactions to occur, and has, second, focused them locally. Consequently, individuals whose core networks are located elsewhere, or who live in communities where spontaneous interaction is less likely, have less opportunity to benefit from spontaneous in-person supportive interactions.

However, alongside this disruption, new opportunities to interact and obtain social support have arisen. The surge in community social support during the initial lockdown mirrored that often seen in response to adverse events (eg, natural disasters 16 ). COVID-19 restrictions that confined individuals to their local area also compelled them to focus their in-person efforts locally. Commentators on the initial lockdown in the UK remarked on extraordinary acts of generosity between individuals who belonged to the same community but were unknown to each other. However, research on adverse events also tells us that such community support is not necessarily maintained in the longer term. 16

Meanwhile, online forms of social support are not bound by geography, thus enabling interactions and social support to be received from a wider network of people. Formal online social support spaces (eg, support groups) existed well before COVID-19, but have vastly increased since. While online interactions can increase perceived social support, it is unclear whether remote communication technologies provide an effective substitute from in-person interaction during periods of social distancing. 17 18 It makes intuitive sense that the usefulness of online social support will vary by the type of support offered, degree of social interaction and ‘online communication skills’ of those taking part. Youth workers, for instance, have struggled to keep vulnerable youth engaged in online youth clubs, 19 despite others finding a positive association between amount of digital technology used by individuals during lockdown and perceived social support. 20 Other research has found that more frequent face-to-face contact and phone/video contact both related to lower levels of depression during the time period of March to August 2020, but the negative effect of a lack of contact was greater for those with higher levels of usual sociability. 21 Relatedly, important inequalities in social support exist, such that individuals who occupy more socially disadvantaged positions in society (eg, low socioeconomic status, older people) tend to have less access to social support, 22 potentially exacerbated by COVID-19.

Social and interactional norms

Interactional norms are key relational mechanisms which build trust, belonging and identity within and across groups in a system. Individuals in groups and societies apply meaning by ‘approving, arranging and redefining’ symbols of interaction. 23 A handshake, for instance, is a powerful symbol of trust and equality. Depending on context, not shaking hands may symbolise a failure to extend friendship, or a failure to reach agreement. The norms governing these symbols represent shared values and identity; and mutual understanding of these symbols enables individuals to achieve orderly interactions, establish supportive relationship accountability and connect socially. 24 25

Physical distancing measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 radically altered these norms of interaction, particularly those used to convey trust, affinity, empathy and respect (eg, hugging, physical comforting). 26 As epidemic waves rose and fell, the work to negotiate these norms required intense cognitive effort; previously taken-for-granted interactions were re-examined, factoring in current restriction levels, own and (assumed) others’ vulnerability and tolerance of risk. This created awkwardness, and uncertainty, for example, around how to bring closure to an in-person interaction or convey warmth. The instability in scripted ways of interacting created particular strain for individuals who already struggled to encode and decode interactions with others (eg, those who are deaf or have autism spectrum disorder); difficulties often intensified by mask wearing. 27

Large social gatherings—for example, weddings, school assemblies, sporting events—also present key opportunities for affirming and assimilating interactional norms, building cohesion and shared identity and facilitating cooperation across social groups. 28 Online ‘equivalents’ do not easily support ‘social-bonding’ activities such as singing and dancing, and rarely enable chance/spontaneous one-on-one conversations with peripheral/weaker network ties (see the Social networks section) which can help strengthen bonds across a larger network. The loss of large gatherings to celebrate rites of passage (eg, bar mitzvah, weddings) has additional relational costs since these events are performed by and for communities to reinforce belonging, and to assist in transitioning to new phases of life. 29 The loss of interaction with diverse others via community and large group gatherings also reduces intergroup contact, which may then tend towards more prejudiced outgroup attitudes. While online interaction can go some way to mimicking these interaction norms, there are key differences. A sense of anonymity, and lack of in-person emotional cues, tends to support norms of polarisation and aggression in expressing differences of opinion online. And while online platforms have potential to provide intergroup contact, the tendency of much social media to form homogeneous ‘echo chambers’ can serve to further reduce intergroup contact. 30 31

Intimacy relates to the feeling of emotional connection and closeness with other human beings. Emotional connection, through romantic, friendship or familial relationships, fulfils a basic human need 32 and strongly benefits health, including reduced stress levels, improved mental health, lowered blood pressure and reduced risk of heart disease. 32 33 Intimacy can be fostered through familiarity, feeling understood and feeling accepted by close others. 34

Intimacy via companionship and closeness is fundamental to mental well-being. Positively, the COVID-19 pandemic has offered opportunities for individuals to (re)connect and (re)strengthen close relationships within their household via quality time together, following closure of many usual external social activities. Research suggests that the first full UK lockdown period led to a net gain in the quality of steady relationships at a population level, 35 but amplified existing inequalities in relationship quality. 35 36 For some in single-person households, the absence of a companion became more conspicuous, leading to feelings of loneliness and lower mental well-being. 37 38 Additional pandemic-related relational strain 39 40 resulted, for some, in the initiation or intensification of domestic abuse. 41 42

Physical touch is another key aspect of intimacy, a fundamental human need crucial in maintaining and developing intimacy within close relationships. 34 Restrictions on social interactions severely restricted the number and range of people with whom physical affection was possible. The reduction in opportunity to give and receive affectionate physical touch was not experienced equally. Many of those living alone found themselves completely without physical contact for extended periods. The deprivation of physical touch is evidenced to take a heavy emotional toll. 43 Even in future, once physical expressions of affection can resume, new levels of anxiety over germs may introduce hesitancy into previously fluent blending of physical and verbal intimate social connections. 44

The pandemic also led to shifts in practices and norms around sexual relationship building and maintenance, as individuals adapted and sought alternative ways of enacting sexual intimacy. This too is important, given that intimate sexual activity has known benefits for health. 45 46 Given that social restrictions hinged on reducing household mixing, possibilities for partnered sexual activity were primarily guided by living arrangements. While those in cohabiting relationships could potentially continue as before, those who were single or in non-cohabiting relationships generally had restricted opportunities to maintain their sexual relationships. Pornography consumption and digital partners were reported to increase since lockdown. 47 However, online interactions are qualitatively different from in-person interactions and do not provide the same opportunities for physical intimacy.

Recommendations and conclusions

In the sections above we have outlined the ways in which COVID-19 has impacted social relationships, showing how relational mechanisms key to health have been undermined. While some of the damage might well self-repair after the pandemic, there are opportunities inherent in deliberative efforts to build back in ways that facilitate greater resilience in social and community relationships. We conclude by making three recommendations: one regarding public health responses to the pandemic; and two regarding social recovery.

Recommendation 1: explicitly count the relational cost of public health policies to control the pandemic

Effective handling of a pandemic recognises that social, economic and health concerns are intricately interwoven. It is clear that future research and policy attention must focus on the social consequences. As described above, policies which restrict physical mixing across households carry heavy and unequal relational costs. These include for individuals (eg, loss of intimate touch), dyads (eg, loss of warmth, comfort), networks (eg, restricted access to support) and communities (eg, loss of cohesion and identity). Such costs—and their unequal impact—should not be ignored in short-term efforts to control an epidemic. Some public health responses—restrictions on international holiday travel and highly efficient test and trace systems—have relatively small relational costs and should be prioritised. At a national level, an earlier move to proportionate restrictions, and investment in effective test and trace systems, may help prevent escalation of spread to the point where a national lockdown or tight restrictions became an inevitability. Where policies with relational costs are unavoidable, close attention should be paid to the unequal relational impact for those whose personal circumstances differ from normative assumptions of two adult families. This includes consideration of whether expectations are fair (eg, for those who live alone), whether restrictions on social events are equitable across age group, religious/ethnic groupings and social class, and also to ensure that the language promoted by such policies (eg, households; families) is not exclusionary. 48 49 Forethought to unequal impacts on social relationships should thus be integral to the work of epidemic preparedness teams.

Recommendation 2: intelligently balance online and offline ways of relating

A key ingredient for well-being is ‘getting together’ in a physical sense. This is fundamental to a human need for intimate touch, physical comfort, reinforcing interactional norms and providing practical support. Emerging evidence suggests that online ways of relating cannot simply replace physical interactions. But online interaction has many benefits and for some it offers connections that did not exist previously. In particular, online platforms provide new forms of support for those unable to access offline services because of mobility issues (eg, older people) or because they are geographically isolated from their support community (eg, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) youth). Ultimately, multiple forms of online and offline social interactions are required to meet the needs of varying groups of people (eg, LGBTQ, older people). Future research and practice should aim to establish ways of using offline and online support in complementary and even synergistic ways, rather than veering between them as social restrictions expand and contract. Intelligent balancing of online and offline ways of relating also pertains to future policies on home and flexible working. A decision to switch to wholesale or obligatory homeworking should consider the risk to relational ‘group properties’ of the workplace community and their impact on employees’ well-being, focusing in particular on unequal impacts (eg, new vs established employees). Intelligent blending of online and in-person working is required to achieve flexibility while also nurturing supportive networks at work. Intelligent balance also implies strategies to build digital literacy and minimise digital exclusion, as well as coproducing solutions with intended beneficiaries.

Recommendation 3: build stronger and sustainable localised communities

In balancing offline and online ways of interacting, there is opportunity to capitalise on the potential for more localised, coherent communities due to scaled-down travel, homeworking and local focus that will ideally continue after restrictions end. There are potential economic benefits after the pandemic, such as increased trade as home workers use local resources (eg, coffee shops), but also relational benefits from stronger relationships around the orbit of the home and neighbourhood. Experience from previous crises shows that community volunteer efforts generated early on will wane over time in the absence of deliberate work to maintain them. Adequately funded partnerships between local government, third sector and community groups are required to sustain community assets that began as a direct response to the pandemic. Such partnerships could work to secure green spaces and indoor (non-commercial) meeting spaces that promote community interaction. Green spaces in particular provide a triple benefit in encouraging physical activity and mental health, as well as facilitating social bonding. 50 In building local communities, small community networks—that allow for diversity and break down ingroup/outgroup views—may be more helpful than the concept of ‘support bubbles’, which are exclusionary and less sustainable in the longer term. Rigorously designed intervention and evaluation—taking a systems approach—will be crucial in ensuring scale-up and sustainability.

The dramatic change to social interaction necessitated by efforts to control the spread of COVID-19 created stark challenges but also opportunities. Our essay highlights opportunities for learning, both to ensure the equity and humanity of physical restrictions, and to sustain the salutogenic effects of social relationships going forward. The starting point for capitalising on this learning is recognition of the disruption to relational mechanisms as a key part of the socioeconomic and health impact of the pandemic. In recovery planning, a general rule is that what is good for decreasing health inequalities (such as expanding social protection and public services and pursuing green inclusive growth strategies) 4 will also benefit relationships and safeguard relational mechanisms for future generations. Putting this into action will require political will.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not required.

• Office for National Statistics (ONS)
• Ford T , et al
• Riordan R ,
• Ford J , et al
• Glonti K , et al
• McPherson JM ,
• Smith-Lovin L
• Granovetter MS
• Fancourt D et al
• Stadtfeld C
• Office for Civil Society
• Cook J et al
• Rodriguez-Llanes JM ,
• Guha-Sapir D
• Patulny R et al
• Granovetter M
• Winkeler M ,
• Filipp S-H ,
• Kaniasty K ,
• de Terte I ,
• Guilaran J , et al
• Wright KB ,
• Martin J et al
• Gabbiadini A ,
• Baldissarri C ,
• Durante F , et al
• Sommerlad A ,
• Marston L ,
• Huntley J , et al
• Turner RJ ,
• Bicchieri C
• Brennan G et al
• Watson-Jones RE ,
• Amichai-Hamburger Y ,
• McKenna KYA
• Page-Gould E ,
• Aron A , et al
• Pietromonaco PR ,
• Timmerman GM
• Bradbury-Jones C ,
• Mikocka-Walus A ,
• Klas A , et al
• Marshall L ,
• Steptoe A ,
• Stanley SM ,
• Campbell AM
• ↵ (ONS), O.f.N.S., Domestic abuse during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, England and Wales . Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseduringthecoronaviruscovid19pandemicenglandandwales/november2020
• Rosenberg M ,
• Hensel D , et al
• Banerjee D ,
• Bruner DW , et al
• Bavel JJV ,
• Baicker K ,
• Boggio PS , et al
• van Barneveld K ,
• Quinlan M ,
• Kriesler P , et al
• Mitchell R ,
• de Vries S , et al

Twitter @karenmaxSPHSU, @Mark_McCann, @Rwilsonlowe, @KMitchinGlasgow

Contributors EL and KM led on the manuscript conceptualisation, review and editing. SP, KM, CB, RBP, RL, MM, JR, KS and RW-L contributed to drafting and revising the article. All authors assisted in revising the final draft.

Funding The research reported in this publication was supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/1, MC_UU_00022/3) and the Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU11, SPHSU14). EL is also supported by MRC Skills Development Fellowship Award (MR/S015078/1). KS and MM are also supported by a Medical Research Council Strategic Award (MC_PC_13027).

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Open access
• Published: 11 April 2023

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, anxiety, and depression

• Ida Kupcova 1 ,
• Lubos Danisovic 1 ,
• Martin Klein 2 &
• Stefan Harsanyi 1  

BMC Psychology volume  11 , Article number:  108 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

27 Citations

46 Altmetric

Metrics details

The COVID-19 pandemic affected everyone around the globe. Depending on the country, there have been different restrictive epidemiologic measures and also different long-term repercussions. Morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 affected the mental state of every human being. However, social separation and isolation due to the restrictive measures considerably increased this impact. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), anxiety and depression prevalence increased by 25% globally. In this study, we aimed to examine the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the general population.

A cross-sectional study using an anonymous online-based 45-question online survey was conducted at Comenius University in Bratislava. The questionnaire comprised five general questions and two assessment tools the Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS). The results of the Self-Rating Scales were statistically examined in association with sex, age, and level of education.

A total of 205 anonymous subjects participated in this study, and no responses were excluded. In the study group, 78 (38.05%) participants were male, and 127 (61.69%) were female. A higher tendency to anxiety was exhibited by female participants (p = 0.012) and the age group under 30 years of age (p = 0.042). The level of education has been identified as a significant factor for changes in mental state, as participants with higher levels of education tended to be in a worse mental state (p = 0.006).

Conclusions

Summarizing two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, the mental state of people with higher levels of education tended to feel worse, while females and younger adults felt more anxiety.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The first mention of the novel coronavirus came in 2019, when this variant was discovered in the city of Wuhan, China, and became the first ever documented coronavirus pandemic [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. At this time there was only a sliver of fear rising all over the globe. However, in March 2020, after the declaration of a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), the situation changed dramatically [ 4 ]. Answering this, yet an unknown threat thrust many countries into a psycho-socio-economic whirlwind [ 5 , 6 ]. Various measures taken by governments to control the spread of the virus presented the worldwide population with a series of new challenges to which it had to adjust [ 7 , 8 ]. Lockdowns, closed schools, losing employment or businesses, and rising deaths not only in nursing homes came to be a new reality [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Lack of scientific information on the novel coronavirus and its effects on the human body, its fast spread, the absence of effective causal treatment, and the restrictions which harmed people´s social life, financial situation and other areas of everyday life lead to long-term living conditions with increased stress levels and low predictability over which people had little control [ 12 ].

Risks of changes in the mental state of the population came mainly from external risk factors, including prolonged lockdowns, social isolation, inadequate or misinterpreted information, loss of income, and acute relationship with the rising death toll. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, anxiety and depression prevalence increased by 25% globally [ 13 ]. Unemployment specifically has been proven to be also a predictor of suicidal behavior [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. These risk factors then interact with individual psychological factors leading to psychopathologies such as threat appraisal, attentional bias to threat stimuli over neutral stimuli, avoidance, fear learning, impaired safety learning, impaired fear extinction due to habituation, intolerance of uncertainty, and psychological inflexibility. The threat responses are mediated by the limbic system and insula and mitigated by the pre-frontal cortex, which has also been reported in neuroimaging studies, with reduced insula thickness corresponding to more severe anxiety and amygdala volume correlated to anhedonia as a symptom of depression [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Speaking in psychological terms, the pandemic disturbed our core belief, that we are safe in our communities, cities, countries, or even the world. The lost sense of agency and confidence regarding our future diminished the sense of worth, identity, and meaningfulness of our lives and eroded security-enhancing relationships [ 24 ].

Slovakia introduced harsh public health measures in the first wave of the pandemic, but relaxed these measures during the summer, accompanied by a failure to develop effective find, test, trace, isolate and support systems. Due to this, the country experienced a steep growth in new COVID-19 cases in September 2020, which lead to the erosion of public´s trust in the government´s management of the situation [ 25 ]. As a means to control the second wave of the pandemic, the Slovak government decided to perform nationwide antigen testing over two weekends in November 2020, which was internationally perceived as a very controversial step, moreover, it failed to prevent further lockdowns [ 26 ]. In addition, there was a sharp rise in the unemployment rate since 2020, which continued until July 2020, when it gradually eased [ 27 ]. Pre-pandemic, every 9th citizen of Slovakia suffered from a mental health disorder, according to National Statistics Office in 2017, the majority being affective and anxiety disorders. A group of authors created a web questionnaire aimed at psychiatrists, psychologists, and their patients after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Slovakia. The results showed that 86.6% of respondents perceived the pathological effect of the pandemic on their mental status, 54.1% of whom were already treated for affective or anxiety disorders [ 28 ].

In this study, we aimed to examine the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the general population. This study aimed to assess the symptoms of anxiety and depression in the general public of Slovakia. After the end of epidemiologic restrictive measures (from March to May 2022), we introduced an anonymous online questionnaire using adapted versions of Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) [ 29 , 30 ]. We focused on the general public because only a portion of people who experience psychological distress seek professional help. We sought to establish, whether during the pandemic the population showed a tendency to adapt to the situation or whether the anxiety and depression symptoms tended to be present even after months of better epidemiologic situation, vaccine availability, and studies putting its effects under review [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ].

Materials and Methods

This study utilized a voluntary and anonymous online self-administered questionnaire, where the collected data cannot be linked to a specific respondent. This study did not process any personal data. The questionnaire consisted of 45 questions. The first three were open-ended questions about participants’ sex, age (date of birth was not recorded), and education. Followed by 2 questions aimed at mental health and changes in the will to live. Further 20 and 20 questions consisted of the Zung SAS and Zung SDS, respectively. Every question in SAS and SDS is scored from 1 to 4 points on a Likert-style scale. The scoring system is introduced in Fig.  1 . Questions were presented in the Slovak language, with emphasis on maintaining test integrity, so, if possible, literal translations were made from English to Slovak. The questionnaire was created and designed in Google Forms®. Data collection was carried out from March 2022 to May 2022. The study was aimed at the general population of Slovakia in times of difficult epidemiologic and social situations due to the high prevalence and incidence of COVID-19 cases during lockdowns and social distancing measures. Because of the character of this web-based study, the optimal distribution of respondents could not be achieved.

Categories of Zung SAS and SDS scores with clinical interpretation

During the course of this study, 205 respondents answered the anonymous questionnaire in full and were included in the study. All respondents were over 18 years of age. The data was later exported from Google Forms® as an Excel spreadsheet. Coding and analysis were carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0, Armonk, NY, USA). Subject groups were created based on sex, age, and education level. First, sex due to differences in emotional expression. Second, age was a risk factor due to perceived stress and fear of the disease. Last, education due to different approaches to information. In these groups four factors were studied: (1) changes in mental state; (2) affected will to live, or frequent thoughts about death; (3) result of SAS; (4) result of SDS. For SAS, no subject in the study group scored anxiety levels of “severe” or “extreme”. Similarly for SDS, no subject depression levels reached “moderate” or “severe”. Pearson’s chi-squared test(χ2) was used to analyze the association between the subject groups and studied factors. The results were considered significant if the p-value was less than 0.05.

Ethical permission was obtained from the local ethics committee (Reference number: ULBGaKG-02/2022). This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All methods were carried out following the institutional guidelines. Due to the anonymous design of the study and by the institutional requirements, written informed consent for participation was not required for this study.

In the study, out of 205 subjects in the study group, 127 (62%) were female and 78 (38%) were male. The average age in the study group was 35.78 years of age (range 19–71 years), with a median of 34 years. In the age group under 30 years of age were 34 (16.6%) subjects, while 162 (79%) were in the range from 31 to 49 and 9 (0.4%) were over 50 years old. 48 (23.4%) participants achieved an education level of lower or higher secondary and 157 (76.6%) finished university or higher. All answers of study participants were included in the study, nothing was excluded.

In Tables  1 and 2 , we can see the distribution of changes in mental state and will to live as stated in the questionnaire. In Table  1 we can see a disproportion in education level and mental state, where participants with higher education tended to feel worse much more than those with lower levels of education. Changes based on sex and age did not show any statistically significant results.

In Table  2 . we can see, that decreased will to live and frequent thoughts about death were only marginally present in the study group, which suggests that coping mechanisms play a huge role in adaptation to such events (e.g. the global pandemic). There is also a possibility that living in times of better epidemiologic situations makes people more likely to forget about the bad past.

Anxiety and depression levels as seen in Tables  3 and 4 were different, where female participants and the age group under 30 years of age tended to feel more anxiety than other groups. No significant changes in depression levels based on sex, age, and education were found.

Compared to the estimated global prevalence of depression in 2017 (3.44%), in 2021 it was approximately 7 times higher (25%) [ 14 ]. Our study did not prove an increase in depression, while anxiety levels and changes in the mental state did prove elevated. No significant changes in depression levels go in hand with the unaffected will to live and infrequent thoughts about death, which were important findings, that did not supplement our primary hypothesis that the fear of death caused by COVID-19 or accompanying infections would enhance personal distress and depression, leading to decreases in studied factors. These results are drawn from our limited sample size and uneven demographic distribution. Suicide ideations rose from 5% pre-pandemic to 10.81% during the pandemic [ 35 ]. In our study, 9.3% of participants experienced thoughts about death and since we did not specifically ask if they thought about suicide, our results only partially correlate with suicidal ideations. However, as these subjects exhibited only moderate levels of anxiety and mild levels of depression, the rise of suicide ideations seems unlikely. The rise in suicidal ideations seemed to be especially true for the general population with no pre-existing psychiatric conditions in the first months of the pandemic [ 36 ]. The policies implemented by countries to contain the pandemic also took a toll on the population´s mental health, as it was reported, that more stringent policies, mainly the social distancing and perceived government´s handling of the pandemic, were related to worse psychological outcomes [ 37 ]. The effects of lockdowns are far-fetched and the increases in mental health challenges, well-being, and quality of life will require a long time to be understood, as Onyeaka et al. conclude [ 10 ]. These effects are not unforeseen, as the global population suffered from life-altering changes in the structure and accessibility of education or healthcare, fluctuations in prices and food insecurity, as well as the inevitable depression of the global economy [ 38 ].

The loneliness associated with enforced social distancing leads to an increase in depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress in children in adolescents, with possible long-term sequelae [ 39 ]. The increase in adolescent self-injury was 27.6% during the pandemic [ 40 ]. Similar findings were described in the middle-aged and elderly population, in which both depression and anxiety prevalence rose at the beginning of the pandemic, during the pandemic, with depression persisting later in the pandemic, while the anxiety-related disorders tended to subside [ 41 ]. Medical professionals represented another specific at-risk group, with reported anxiety and depression rates of 24.94% and 24.83% respectively [ 42 ]. The dynamic of psychopathology related to the COVID-19 pandemic is not clear, with studies reporting a return to normal later in 2020, while others describe increased distress later in the pandemic [ 20 , 43 ].

Concerning the general population, authors from Spain reported that lockdowns and COVID-19 were associated with depression and anxiety [ 44 ]. In January 2022 Zhao et al., reported an elevation in hoarding behavior due to fear of COVID-19, while this process was moderated by education and income levels, however, less in the general population if compared to students [ 45 ]. Higher education levels and better access to information could improve persons’ fear of the unknown, however, this fact was not consistent with our expectations in this study, as participants with university education tended to feel worse than participants with lower education. A study on adolescents and their perceived stress in the Czech Republic concluded that girls are more affected by lockdowns. The strongest predictor was loneliness, while having someone to talk to, scored the lowest [ 46 ]. Garbóczy et al. reported elevated perceived stress levels and health anxiety in 1289 Hungarian and international students, also affected by disengagement from home and inadequate coping strategies [ 47 ]. Wathelet et al. conducted a study on French University students confined during the pandemic with alarming results of a high prevalence of mental health issues in the study group [ 48 ]. Our study indicated similar results, as participants in the age group under 30 years of age tended to feel more anxious than others.

In conclusion, we can say that this pandemic changed the lives of many. Many of us, our family members, friends, and colleagues, experienced life-altering events and complicated situations unseen for decades. Our decisions and actions fueled the progress in medicine, while they also continue to impact society on all levels. The long-term effects on adolescents are yet to be seen, while effects of pain, fear, and isolation on the general population are already presenting themselves.

The limitations of this study were numerous and as this was a web-based study, the optimal distribution of respondents could not be achieved, due to the snowball sampling strategy. The main limitation was the small sample size and uneven demographic distribution of respondents, which could impact the representativeness of the studied population and increase the margin of error. Similarly, the limited number of older participants could significantly impact the reported results, as age was an important risk factor and thus an important stressor. The questionnaire omitted the presence of COVID-19-unrelated life-changing events or stressors, and also did not account for any preexisting condition or risk factor that may have affected the outcome of the used assessment scales.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to compliance with institutional guidelines but they are available from the corresponding author (SH) on a reasonable request.

Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395:497–506.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zhu N, Zhang D, Wang W, Li X, Yang B, Song J, et al. A novel coronavirus from patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:727–33.

Liu Y-C, Kuo R-L, Shih S-R. COVID-19: the first documented coronavirus pandemic in history. Biomed J. 2020;43:328–33.

Advice for the public on COVID-19 – World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public . Accessed 13 Nov 2022.

Osterrieder A, Cuman G, Pan-Ngum W, Cheah PK, Cheah P-K, Peerawaranun P, et al. Economic and social impacts of COVID-19 and public health measures: results from an anonymous online survey in Thailand, Malaysia, the UK, Italy and Slovenia. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e046863.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mofijur M, Fattah IMR, Alam MA, Islam ABMS, Ong HC, Rahman SMA, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on the social, economic, environmental and energy domains: Lessons learnt from a global pandemic. Sustainable Prod Consum. 2021;26:343–59.

Article   Google Scholar  

Vlachos J, Hertegård E, Svaleryd B. The effects of school closures on SARS-CoV-2 among parents and teachers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118:e2020834118.

Ludvigsson JF, Engerström L, Nordenhäll C, Larsson E, Open Schools. Covid-19, and child and teacher morbidity in Sweden. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:669–71.

Miralles O, Sanchez-Rodriguez D, Marco E, Annweiler C, Baztan A, Betancor É, et al. Unmet needs, health policies, and actions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a report from six european countries. Eur Geriatr Med. 2021;12:193–204.

Onyeaka H, Anumudu CK, Al-Sharify ZT, Egele-Godswill E, Mbaegbu P. COVID-19 pandemic: a review of the global lockdown and its far-reaching effects. Sci Prog. 2021;104:368504211019854.

The Lancet null. India under COVID-19 lockdown. Lancet. 2020;395:1315.

Lo Coco G, Gentile A, Bosnar K, Milovanović I, Bianco A, Drid P, et al. A cross-country examination on the fear of COVID-19 and the sense of loneliness during the First Wave of COVID-19 outbreak. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:2586.

COVID-19 pandemic. triggers 25% increase in prevalence of anxiety and depression worldwide. https://www.who.int/news/item/02-03-2022-covid-19-pandemic-triggers-25-increase-in-prevalence-of-anxiety-and-depression-worldwide . Accessed 14 Nov 2022.

Bueno-Notivol J, Gracia-García P, Olaya B, Lasheras I, López-Antón R, Santabárbara J. Prevalence of depression during the COVID-19 outbreak: a meta-analysis of community-based studies. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2021;21:100196.

Hajek A, Sabat I, Neumann-Böhme S, Schreyögg J, Barros PP, Stargardt T, et al. Prevalence and determinants of probable depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in seven countries: longitudinal evidence from the european COvid Survey (ECOS). J Affect Disord. 2022;299:517–24.

Piumatti G, Levati S, Amati R, Crivelli L, Albanese E. Trajectories of depression, anxiety and stress among adults during the COVID-19 pandemic in Southern Switzerland: the Corona Immunitas Ticino cohort study. Public Health. 2022;206:63–9.

Korkmaz H, Güloğlu B. The role of uncertainty tolerance and meaning in life on depression and anxiety throughout Covid-19 pandemic. Pers Indiv Differ. 2021;179:110952.

McIntyre RS, Lee Y. Projected increases in suicide in Canada as a consequence of COVID-19. Psychiatry Res. 2020;290:113104.

Funkhouser CJ, Klemballa DM, Shankman SA. Using what we know about threat reactivity models to understand mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Behav Res Ther. 2022;153:104082.

Landi G, Pakenham KI, Crocetti E, Tossani E, Grandi S. The trajectories of anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic and the protective role of psychological flexibility: a four-wave longitudinal study. J Affect Disord. 2022;307:69–78.

Holt-Gosselin B, Tozzi L, Ramirez CA, Gotlib IH, Williams LM. Coping strategies, neural structure, and depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal study in a naturalistic sample spanning clinical diagnoses and subclinical symptoms. Biol Psychiatry Global Open Sci. 2021;1:261–71.

McCracken LM, Badinlou F, Buhrman M, Brocki KC. The role of psychological flexibility in the context of COVID-19: Associations with depression, anxiety, and insomnia. J Context Behav Sci. 2021;19:28–35.

Talkovsky AM, Norton PJ. Negative affect and intolerance of uncertainty as potential mediators of change in comorbid depression in transdiagnostic CBT for anxiety. J Affect Disord. 2018;236:259–65.

Milman E, Lee SA, Neimeyer RA, Mathis AA, Jobe MC. Modeling pandemic depression and anxiety: the mediational role of core beliefs and meaning making. J Affect Disorders Rep. 2020;2:100023.

Sagan A, Bryndova L, Kowalska-Bobko I, Smatana M, Spranger A, Szerencses V, et al. A reversal of fortune: comparison of health system responses to COVID-19 in the Visegrad group during the early phases of the pandemic. Health Policy. 2022;126:446–55.

Holt E. COVID-19 testing in Slovakia. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21:32.

Stalmachova K, Strenitzerova M. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on employment in transport and telecommunications sectors. Transp Res Procedia. 2021;55:87–94.

Izakova L, Breznoscakova D, Jandova K, Valkucakova V, Bezakova G, Suvada J. What mental health experts in Slovakia are learning from COVID-19 pandemic? Indian J Psychiatry. 2020;62(Suppl 3):459–66.

Rabinčák M, Tkáčová Ľ, VYUŽÍVANIE PSYCHOMETRICKÝCH KONŠTRUKTOV PRE, HODNOTENIE PORÚCH NÁLADY V OŠETROVATEĽSKEJ PRAXI. Zdravotnícke Listy. 2019;7:7.

Google Scholar  

Sekot M, Gürlich R, Maruna P, Páv M, Uhlíková P. Hodnocení úzkosti a deprese u pacientů se zhoubnými nádory trávicího traktu. Čes a slov Psychiat. 2005;101:252–7.

Lipsitch M, Krammer F, Regev-Yochay G, Lustig Y, Balicer RD. SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals: measurement, causes and impact. Nat Rev Immunol. 2022;22:57–65.

Accorsi EK, Britton A, Fleming-Dutra KE, Smith ZR, Shang N, Derado G, et al. Association between 3 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and symptomatic infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta Variants. JAMA. 2022;327:639–51.

Barda N, Dagan N, Cohen C, Hernán MA, Lipsitch M, Kohane IS, et al. Effectiveness of a third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for preventing severe outcomes in Israel: an observational study. Lancet. 2021;398:2093–100.

Magen O, Waxman JG, Makov-Assif M, Vered R, Dicker D, Hernán MA, et al. Fourth dose of BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine in a nationwide setting. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:1603–14.

Dubé JP, Smith MM, Sherry SB, Hewitt PL, Stewart SH. Suicide behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a meta-analysis of 54 studies. Psychiatry Res. 2021;301:113998.

Kok AAL, Pan K-Y, Rius-Ottenheim N, Jörg F, Eikelenboom M, Horsfall M, et al. Mental health and perceived impact during the first Covid-19 pandemic year: a longitudinal study in dutch case-control cohorts of persons with and without depressive, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorders. J Affect Disord. 2022;305:85–93.

Aknin LB, Andretti B, Goldszmidt R, Helliwell JF, Petherick A, De Neve J-E, et al. Policy stringency and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis of data from 15 countries. The Lancet Public Health. 2022;7:e417–26.

Prochazka J, Scheel T, Pirozek P, Kratochvil T, Civilotti C, Bollo M, et al. Data on work-related consequences of COVID-19 pandemic for employees across Europe. Data Brief. 2020;32:106174.

Loades ME, Chatburn E, Higson-Sweeney N, Reynolds S, Shafran R, Brigden A, et al. Rapid systematic review: the impact of social isolation and loneliness on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in the Context of COVID-19. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59:1218–1239e3.

Zetterqvist M, Jonsson LS, Landberg Ã, Svedin CG. A potential increase in adolescent nonsuicidal self-injury during covid-19: a comparison of data from three different time points during 2011–2021. Psychiatry Res. 2021;305:114208.

Mooldijk SS, Dommershuijsen LJ, de Feijter M, Luik AI. Trajectories of depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in a population-based sample of middle-aged and older adults. J Psychiatr Res. 2022;149:274–80.

Sahebi A, Nejati-Zarnaqi B, Moayedi S, Yousefi K, Torres M, Golitaleb M. The prevalence of anxiety and depression among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2021;107:110247.

Stephenson E, O’Neill B, Kalia S, Ji C, Crampton N, Butt DA, et al. Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety and depression in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. J Affect Disord. 2022;303:216–22.

Goldberg X, Castaño-Vinyals G, Espinosa A, Carreras A, Liutsko L, Sicuri E et al. Mental health and COVID-19 in a general population cohort in Spain (COVICAT study).Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2022;:1–12.

Zhao Y, Yu Y, Zhao R, Cai Y, Gao S, Liu Y, et al. Association between fear of COVID-19 and hoarding behavior during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic: the mediating role of mental health status. Front Psychol. 2022;13:996486.

Furstova J, Kascakova N, Sigmundova D, Zidkova R, Tavel P, Badura P. Perceived stress of adolescents during the COVID-19 lockdown: bayesian multilevel modeling of the Czech HBSC lockdown survey. Front Psychol. 2022;13:964313.

Garbóczy S, Szemán-Nagy A, Ahmad MS, Harsányi S, Ocsenás D, Rekenyi V, et al. Health anxiety, perceived stress, and coping styles in the shadow of the COVID-19. BMC Psychol. 2021;9:53.

Wathelet M, Duhem S, Vaiva G, Baubet T, Habran E, Veerapa E, et al. Factors Associated with Mental Health Disorders among University students in France Confined during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e2025591.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to provide our appreciation and thanks to all the respondents in this study.

This research project received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Medical Biology, Genetics and Clinical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava, Sasinkova 4, Bratislava, 811 08, Slovakia

Ida Kupcova, Lubos Danisovic & Stefan Harsanyi

Institute of Histology and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava, Sasinkova 4, Bratislava, 811 08, Slovakia

Martin Klein

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

IK and SH have produced the study design. All authors contributed to the manuscript writing, revising, and editing. LD and MK have done data management and extraction, SH did the data analysis. Drafting and interpretation of the manuscript were made by all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Harsanyi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical permission was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Medical Biology, Genetics and Clinical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava (Reference number: ULBGaKG-02/2022). The need for informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Medical Biology, Genetics and Clinical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava due to the anonymous design of the study. This study did not process any personal data and the dataset does not contain any direct or indirect identifiers of participants. This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All methods were carried out following the institutional guidelines.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

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

About this article

Cite this article.

Kupcova, I., Danisovic, L., Klein, M. et al. Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, anxiety, and depression. BMC Psychol 11 , 108 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01130-5

Download citation

Received : 14 November 2022

Accepted : 20 March 2023

Published : 11 April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01130-5

Share this article

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

• Mental health

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Mental health after...

Mental health after covid-19

Linked research.

Risks of mental health outcomes in people with covid-19

• Related content
• Peer review
• Scott Weich , professor of mental health
• Mental Health Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK
• s.weich{at}sheffield.ac.uk

The risks are clear, it’s now time to learn and respond

A clear picture has emerged of the mental health impacts of the early waves of the covid-19 pandemic in England—when hospital admissions and mortality were common and lockdowns particularly restrictive. 1 Longitudinal population based studies show that symptoms of anxiety and depression were marked but often transient, increasing during lockdowns and subsiding afterwards to pre-pandemic levels. 2 3 4 5 Nevertheless, around 10% of the population experienced persistent distress, 4 6 with women, 18-30 years olds, people with pre-existing mental or physical health problems, those living in deprived areas, and ethnic minority communities most affected. 1

The psychiatric sequelae of infection with early SARS-CoV-2 variants are most clearly shown in three large studies based on two US healthcare databases. In their linked paper, Xie and colleagues (doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068993 ) 7 considered outcomes over 12 months in a large cohort of adults who survived the acute phase of covid-19—longer than the 90 day and six month follow-up periods in two previous studies by Taquet and colleagues. 8 9

Xie and colleagues analysed healthcare data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs on 153 848 patients who survived at least 30 days after a positive polymerase chain reaction test result (start of follow-up) between March 2020 and January 2021. Outcomes were compared with two control groups without covid-19, matched on start of follow-up and survival 30 days after that date: 5 637 840 contemporary controls and 5 859 251 historical controls who had not experienced the pandemic (data from 2018). Additional comparisons were made with people who had seasonal influenza and with those admitted to hospital for influenza and other reasons. Study outcomes included non-psychotic psychiatric disorders and prescriptions of antidepressants and anxiolytics, and survival analyses adjusted for confounders selected algorithmically from hundreds of candidate variables.

Estimated hazards ratios for anxiety and depressive disorders among people with covid-19 (compared with contemporary controls) were 1.35 (95% confidence interval 1.30 to 1.39) and 1.39 (1.34 to 1.43), respectively, corresponding to risk differences per 1000 individuals at one year of 11.06 (9.64 to 12.53) and 15.12 (13.38 to 16.91). Hazard ratios were increased for antidepressant (1.55, 1.50 to 1.60) and benzodiazepine prescribing (1.65, 1.58 to 1.72). All associations were smaller compared with historical controls. When people with covid-19 were compared with patients who had influenza before the pandemic, hazard ratios for anxiety and depressive disorders were slightly smaller (1.44 (1.22 to 1.71) and 1.32 (1.12 to 1.56), respectively) than those previously reported by Taquet and colleagues over six months. 9

What do these studies tell us? Both report significant and consistent but modest associations between SARS-CoV-2 infection and increased rates of psychiatric disorders. Although between group differences persist for at least 12 months, 7 the absolute risk of experiencing a psychiatric disorder decreases sharply after the first month. 9 Both studies were susceptible to residual confounding and potential misclassification of recurrent versus first onset infections, limiting causal inference and interpretation. Importantly, mental healthcare might have been more accessible to those known to have had covid-19 than contemporaries without this condition or among historical cohorts, further biasing estimates away from the null. 10

What have we learnt? Time, money, and scarce research expertise have been devoted to showing, again and on a societal scale, that threat makes people anxious but diminishes for most people when the danger passes. 1 Further confirmation has shown that those who are most disadvantaged experience the worst (mental) health outcomes, particularly after the harms caused by a decade of austerity in the UK and many other countries. 11 12 Health inequalities have widened, particularly for people with serious mental illness who have experienced even more exclusion and premature mortality during the pandemic. 12 13

The worst of the pandemic might be behind us in terms of mortality and social restrictions. Taking stock, it could be argued that much of the research concerned with the mental health impacts of covid-19 represents more hindsight than insight. Looking back at what happened is arguably less important than reflecting on what we have learnt, what we need to do next, and what we still do not know. Our attachment to syndromal phenotypes 14 means that we have learnt remarkably little about the causes of mental ill health—in this case psychopathology associated with a viral pandemic. We continue to generate more heat than light as we reflect on the usual biopsychosocial suspects 10 without cutting through to conclusive insights or effective interventions.

We do not yet know the true incidence and consequences of long covid, 15 and we are still witnessing the unfolding toll of the pandemic on healthcare staff. 16 Also, we do not have an effective response to the devastating disruption to health, social care, and voluntary sector services on the lives of people with serious mental illness. 17 And while epidemiological research has flourished—at least in terms of scientific publications—we are guilty of failing to prioritise evaluations of mental healthcare interventions, including clinical trials, just when these are most needed. 18

Competing interests: The BMJ has judged that there are no disqualifying financial ties to commercial companies.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

This article is made freely available for personal 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 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.

• ↵ Network NMHI. COVID-19 mental health and wellbeing surveillance: report London: Office for Health Improvement and Disparities; 2021 [updated 18/11/21]. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-mental-health-and-wellbeing-surveillance-report .
• Chandola T ,
• Booker CL ,
• McManus S ,
• Fancourt D ,
• Steptoe A ,
• Niedzwiedz CL ,
• Benzeval M ,
• Leyland AH ,
• Katikireddi SV
• Luciano S ,
• Geddes JR ,
• Harrison PJ
• Rogers JP ,
• Goldblatt P ,
• Etchecopar-Etchart D ,
• Johnstone M ,
• Greenberg N ,
• ↵ Farmer P. Investing in Community Services Manchester: National Health Executive; 2022. https://mag.nationalhealthexecutive.com/publication/?i=729893&ver=html5&p=44 .
• Gilbody S ,
• Littlewood E ,
• Gascoyne S ,

• Fact sheets
• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• Endometriosis
• Excessive heat
• Mental disorders
• Polycystic ovary syndrome
• All countries
• Eastern Mediterranean
• South-East Asia
• Western Pacific
• Data by country
• Country presence 
• Country strengthening 
• Country cooperation strategies 
• News releases
• Feature stories
• Press conferences
• Commentaries
• Photo library
• Afghanistan
• Cholera 
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Greater Horn of Africa
• Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
• Disease Outbreak News
• Situation reports
• Weekly Epidemiological Record
• Surveillance
• Health emergency appeal
• International Health Regulations
• Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
• Classifications
• Data collections
• Global Health Estimates
• Mortality Database
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Health Inequality Monitor
• Global Progress
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment in WHO
• WHO Foundation
• External audit
• Financial statements
• Internal audit and investigations 
• Programme Budget
• Results reports
• Governing bodies
• World Health Assembly
• Executive Board
• Member States Portal
• Feature stories /

The impact of COVID-19 on mental health cannot be made light of

One of the biggest global crises in generations, the COVID-19 pandemic has had severe and far-reaching repercussions for health systems, economies and societies. Countless people have died, or lost their livelihoods. Families and communities have been strained and separated. Children and young people have missed out on learning and socializing. Businesses have gone bankrupt. Millions people have fallen below the poverty line. 

As people grapple with these health, social and economic impacts, mental health has been widely affected. Plenty of us became more anxious; but for some COVID-19 has sparked or amplified much more serious mental health problems. A great number of people have reported psychological distress and symptoms of depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress. And there have been worrying signs of more widespread suicidal thoughts and behaviours, including among health care workers.  

Some groups of people have been affected much more than others. Faced with extended school and university closures young people have been left vulnerable to social isolation and disconnectedness which can fuel feelings of anxiety, uncertainty and loneliness and lead to affective and behavioural problems. For some children and adolescents being made to stay at home may have increased the risk of family stress or abuse, which are risk factors for mental health problems. Women have similarly faced greater stress in homes, with one rapid assessment reporting that 45% of women had experienced some form of violence, either directly or indirectly during the first year of the pandemic. 

While mental health needs have risen, mental health services have been severely disrupted. This was especially true early on in the pandemic when staff and infrastructure were often redeployed to COVID-19 relief. Social measures also prevented people from accessing care at that time. And in many cases, poor knowledge and misinformation about the virus fuelled fears and worries that stopped people from seeking help.  

Fear factor  

Esenam Abra Drah lives with bipolar disorder in Ghana, where fear of the virus has been an unprecedented stressor to the mental health of many individuals. “I have many friends who had relapses in their mental health because of the increased levels of fear and panic,” says Esenam. “It was almost as if fear was contagious.” 

Esenam explains that most people are afraid to seek help because they think that if they visit the hospital, they might end up getting infected with COVID-19. “I myself did not go to the clinic for therapy for an entire year partly because of this fear,” she says.  

At that time Esenam, like so many others, was unemployed and did not have the funds for treatment. Even before the pandemic, cost of care was known to be a major barrier to people with mental health conditions seeking help.  

“I have been privileged to have a good system of support,” says Esenam. “My pensioner parents managed to make sure my medications were always refilled.” 

“But it is not the same for others,” she adds. “Some people could not afford treatment. It was and still is a very difficult time for a lot of people.”  

Recommendations for response  

Since the start of the pandemic, mental health service providers have tried to mitigate service disruptions, for example by delivering care via alternative routes when public health and social measures were in place. Community-based initiatives were often faster to adapt, finding innovative ways to provide psychosocial support, including through digital technologies and informal supports. And international organizations have also provided guidance, tools and resources to help responders, public health planners and the general public.  

WHO recommends integrating Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) within all aspects of preparedness and response for all public health emergencies. To minimize the mental health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO also recommends that countries: 

• Apply a whole of society approach to promote, protect and care for mental health, including through social and financial protection to safeguard people from domestic violence or impoverishment, and by communicating widely about COVID-19 to counter misinformation and promote mental health.
• Ensure widespread availability of mental health and psychosocial support, including by scaling up access to self-help and supporting community initiatives.
• Support recovery from COVID-19 by building mental health services for the future.

The COVID-19 pandemic, like other ongoing crises, has made strengthening mental health systems more urgent all over the world. “The impact of COVID-19 on mental health cannot be underestimated. It cannot be made light of,” says Esenam. Change is possible.

• News and Features
• Conferences
• Clinical Tools
• Special Collections

Position Paper: The Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Health

In a position paper published in The Lancet Psychiatry , a group of mental health experts and other individuals from around the world came together to discuss the influence coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses to mental health care. The study authors noted that the pandemic reveals both system failings and opportunities for improving mental health delivery.

Potential Consequences of COVID-19

The COVID-19 public health crisis has led to a spike in known risk factors for mental health conditions, including everything from social isolation to unemployment to overall feelings of insecurity and instability. In light of these risk factors, as well as potential long-term mental health impacts, the researchers advocate for both short-term and ongoing responses.

Most general public surveys link COVID-19 to increased symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. Panic buying, binge-watching TV, and other unhealthy behaviors have been reported. Increased social media use, which is also reported, ups the odds of anxiety (odds ratio 1.72 [95% CI, 1.31–2.26]) and combined depression with anxiety (1.91 [1.52–2.41]). Quarantine can contribute to stress and anger and may also prompt behaviors such as online gambling.  

People with COVID-19 face post-traumatic symptoms, psychological instability, depression, and anxiety. “The possibility that SARS-CoV-2 is neurotropic emphasizes the need for evaluation of potential short-term and long-term effects on the nervous system,” the study authors stated

People with pre-existing mental health conditions generally have an increased risk of infections, including SARS-CoV-2. Not only are older adults at a higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness, they also face a heightened risk of mental health issues due to possible cognitive decline. People with pre-existing mental health conditions and disorders are also especially sensitive to quarantine, physical distancing, food availability, and general disruption of their routine.

Mental Health Service Responses

The authors of the study suggest rethinking conventional mental health approaches in order to improve the cost and scale of treatment. The public health response to COVID-19 should include clear, up-to-date information about infection rates and distancing measures (to reduce uncertainty), as well as information on education, self-care, family support, and collaboration across agencies. Study authors also identified and supported steps already being taken to control infection and to promote wellness among special populations, such as healthcare workers.

Mental Health Care Adaptations

The study authors recommend an ethics- and rights-driven approach to care. They acknowledge potential discrimination “in adjudicating access to insufficiently available health interventions and applying and weighing the added risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure in decisions about involuntary institutionalization.” Potential future service cuts, disproportionate additional illness burden, reduced service access, inadequate financial support, exacerbation of inequalities in access to health care, and the need for greater family and caregiver support are also valid concerns.

With access to care often limited, and in-person contact either limited or unavailable, patients and caregivers need to feel empowered to take ownership of their care to ensure the best outcomes, the study authors stated. Relative risks and benefits of treatment changes should be considered, especially with patients receiving clozapine, injectable medications, or electroconvulsive therapy.

“Treatment plans might need to be rapidly renegotiated, and should be based on best practices,” the researchers stated. “There is thus a need to enhance and create robust resources to support shared decision making.”

The benefit of person-centered care is noted and should not be ignored when there’s a need for rapid decision-making. Care design and delivery can be strengthened by “increased peer worker involvement in the co-design of adapted services and by increasing the number of peer workers, especially in countries with limited resources,” researchers stated.

Long-Term Needs

Moving forward, the study authors suggest community monitoring and mental health screening to mitigate the potential long-term mental health effects of COVID-19. Digital health and digital phenotyping are 2 possibilities. With local needs clarified, community stakeholder groups can design interventions.

Community support services can help people experiencing acute distress, as well as those who don’t trust mainstream mental health care. Healthcare systems should thereby anticipate an increase in “unmet mental health needs” among vulnerable groups and prepare for them. Telemedicine is one way to fill gaps in care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Provision of Mental Health Care

The authors of the study list the following indicators that should be assessed regularly during and after the pandemic, and compared with pre-pandemic data, to determine changes in delivery:

• The proportion of all mental health services provided in inpatient, emergency, institutional (eg, prisons), outpatient, community, and home-based settings
• Rates of face-to-face, video, and telephone contact with different types of mental health providers
• Rates of prescription and use of psychiatric medication
• Access to, and use of, different mental health services both by people with pre-existing mental health disorders and those with new incident cases of mental illness, and the sociodemographic characteristics of these users
• Quality of care of different mental health services (including acceptability and satisfaction with healthcare providers), with a focus on user expectations and satisfaction and on functional, vocational, and clinical outcomes (including the views of families or caregivers)
• Disparities in mental health care, with socioeconomic, race, and ethnicity data linked to quality measures
• Integration of mental health services with general health services, social welfare, and other institutions (eg, schools, prisons), and community associations
• Governmental and non-governmental financial support for mental health and social care services, and healthcare leaders should regularly monitor the use and effectiveness of mental health care. Certain indicators should be assessed regularly during and after the pandemic, and then compared with pre-pandemic data to determine changes in delivery.

“There is an opportunity to replace the old way of managing the gap between the supply of and demand for mental health care (ie, rationing) with a system that prioritizes high-quality and equitable care rather than focusing only on how much work is done,” the study authors concluded.  

Several study authors declared affiliations with the pharmaceutical industry. Please see the original reference for a full list of authors’ disclosures.

Moreno C, Wykes T, Galderisi S, et al. How mental health care should change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic . Lancet Psychiatry . 2020;7(9):813-824.

Picked For You

Latest News

Spotlight Course

Want to read more.

Please login or register first to view this content.

Login Register

Transforming the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses.

Información en español

Celebrating 75 Years! Learn More >>

• Health Topics
• Brochures and Fact Sheets
• Help for Mental Illnesses
• Clinical Trials

COVID-19 and Mental Health

What is covid-19.

COVID-19 is a disease caused by a virus named SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 most often affects the lungs and respiratory system, but it can also affect other parts of the body. Some people develop post-COVID conditions, also called  Long COVID  . These symptoms can include neurological symptoms such as difficulty thinking or concentrating, sleep problems, and depression or anxiety.

Why is NIMH studying COVID-19 and mental health?

Both SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic have significantly affected the mental health of adults and children. Many people experienced symptoms of  anxiety ,  depression , and substance use disorder during the pandemic. Data also suggest that people are more likely to develop mental illnesses or disorders in the months following COVID-19 infection. People with Long COVID may experience many symptoms related to brain function and mental health  .

While the COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread mental health impacts, some people are more likely to be affected than others. This includes people from racial and ethnic minority groups, mothers and pregnant people, people with financial and housing insecurity, children, people with disabilities, people with preexisting mental illnesses or substance use problems, and health care workers. 

How is NIMH research addressing this critical topic?

NIMH is supporting research to understand and address the impacts of the pandemic on mental health. This includes research to understand how COVID-19 affects people with existing mental illnesses across their entire lifespan. NIMH also supports research to help meet people’s mental health needs during the pandemic and beyond. This includes research focused on making mental health services more accessible through telehealth, digital tools, and community-based interventions.

NIMH is also working to understand the unique impacts of the pandemic on specific groups of people, including people in underserved communities and children. For example, NIMH supports research investigating how pandemic-related factors, such as school disruptions, may influence children’s brain, cognitive, social, and emotional development.

Where can I learn more about COVID-19 and mental health?

• NIMH video: Mental Illnesses and COVID-19 Risks
• NIMH Director’s Messages about COVID-19
• NIMH events about COVID-19
• NIMH news about COVID-19

Where can I learn more about Long COVID and COVID-19?

• NIH page on Long COVID 
• NIH RECOVER Initiative  
• CDC COVID-19 resources 

How can I find help for mental health concerns?

If you have concerns about your mental health, talk to a primary care provider. They can refer you to a qualified mental health professional, such as a psychologist, psychiatrist, or clinical social worker, who can help you figure out the next steps. Find tips for talking with a health care provider about your mental health.

You can learn more about getting help on the NIMH website. You can also learn about finding support  and locating mental health services  in your area on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) website.

Last Reviewed:  May 2024

Unless otherwise specified, the information on our website and in our publications is in the public domain and may be reused or copied without permission. However, you may not reuse or copy images. Please cite the National Institute of Mental Health as the source. Read our copyright policy to learn more about our guidelines for reusing NIMH content.

• Introduction
• Conclusions
• Article Information

Contributing studies for clinically elevated depression symptoms are presented in order of largest to smallest prevalence rate. Square data markers represent prevalence rates, with lines around the marker indicating 95% CIs. The diamond data marker represents the overall effect size based on included studies.

Contributing studies for clinically elevated anxiety symptoms are presented in order of largest to smallest prevalence rate. Square data markers represent prevalence rates, with lines around the marker indicating 95% CIs. The diamond data marker represents the overall effect size based on included studies.

eTable 1. Example Search Strategy from Medline

eTable 2. Study Quality Evaluation Criteria

eTable 3. Quality Assessment of Studies Included

eTable 4. Sensitivity analysis excluding low quality studies (score=2) for moderators of the prevalence of clinically elevated depressive symptoms in children and adolescence during COVID-19

eTable 5. Sensitivity analysis excluding low quality studies (score=2) for moderators of the prevalence of clinically elevated anxiety symptoms in children and adolescence during COVID-19

eFigure 1. PRISMA diagram of review search strategy

eFigure 2. Funnel plot for studies included in the clinically elevated depressive symptoms

eFigure 3. Funnel plot for studies included in the clinically elevated anxiety symptoms

• Pediatric Depression and Anxiety Doubled During the Pandemic JAMA News From the JAMA Network October 5, 2021 Anita Slomski
• Guidelines Synopsis: Screening for Anxiety in Adolescent and Adult Women JAMA JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis March 8, 2022 This JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis summarizes the 2020 Women’s Preventive Services Initiative recommendation on screening for anxiety in adolescent and adult women. Tiffany I. Leung, MD, MPH; Adam S. Cifu, MD; Wei Wei Lee, MD, MPH
• Addressing the Global Crisis of Child and Adolescent Mental Health JAMA Pediatrics Editorial November 1, 2021 Tami D. Benton, MD; Rhonda C. Boyd, PhD; Wanjikũ F.M. Njoroge, MD
• Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on Adolescents With Eating Disorders JAMA Pediatrics Comment & Response February 1, 2022 Thonmoy Dey, BSc; Zachariah John Mansell, BSc; Jasmin Ranu, BSc

See More About

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Others Also Liked

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn
• CME & MOC

Racine N , McArthur BA , Cooke JE , Eirich R , Zhu J , Madigan S. Global Prevalence of Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in Children and Adolescents During COVID-19 : A Meta-analysis . JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175(11):1142–1150. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2482

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Global Prevalence of Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in Children and Adolescents During COVID-19 : A Meta-analysis

• 1 Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
• 2 Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
• Editorial Addressing the Global Crisis of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Tami D. Benton, MD; Rhonda C. Boyd, PhD; Wanjikũ F.M. Njoroge, MD JAMA Pediatrics
• News From the JAMA Network Pediatric Depression and Anxiety Doubled During the Pandemic Anita Slomski JAMA
• JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis Guidelines Synopsis: Screening for Anxiety in Adolescent and Adult Women Tiffany I. Leung, MD, MPH; Adam S. Cifu, MD; Wei Wei Lee, MD, MPH JAMA
• Comment & Response Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on Adolescents With Eating Disorders Thonmoy Dey, BSc; Zachariah John Mansell, BSc; Jasmin Ranu, BSc JAMA Pediatrics

Question   What is the global prevalence of clinically elevated child and adolescent anxiety and depression symptoms during COVID-19?

Findings   In this meta-analysis of 29 studies including 80 879 youth globally, the pooled prevalence estimates of clinically elevated child and adolescent depression and anxiety were 25.2% and 20.5%, respectively. The prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms during COVID-19 have doubled, compared with prepandemic estimates, and moderator analyses revealed that prevalence rates were higher when collected later in the pandemic, in older adolescents, and in girls.

Meaning   The global estimates of child and adolescent mental illness observed in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in this study indicate that the prevalence has significantly increased, remains high, and therefore warrants attention for mental health recovery planning.

Importance   Emerging research suggests that the global prevalence of child and adolescent mental illness has increased considerably during COVID-19. However, substantial variability in prevalence rates have been reported across the literature.

Objective   To ascertain more precise estimates of the global prevalence of child and adolescent clinically elevated depression and anxiety symptoms during COVID-19; to compare these rates with prepandemic estimates; and to examine whether demographic (eg, age, sex), geographical (ie, global region), or methodological (eg, pandemic data collection time point, informant of mental illness, study quality) factors explained variation in prevalence rates across studies.

Data Sources   Four databases were searched (PsycInfo, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from January 1, 2020, to February 16, 2021, and unpublished studies were searched in PsycArXiv on March 8, 2021, for studies reporting on child/adolescent depression and anxiety symptoms. The search strategy combined search terms from 3 themes: (1) mental illness (including depression and anxiety), (2) COVID-19, and (3) children and adolescents (age ≤18 years). For PsycArXiv , the key terms COVID-19 , mental health , and child/adolescent were used.

Study Selection   Studies were included if they were published in English, had quantitative data, and reported prevalence of clinically elevated depression or anxiety in youth (age ≤18 years).

Data Extraction and Synthesis   A total of 3094 nonduplicate titles/abstracts were retrieved, and 136 full-text articles were reviewed. Data were analyzed from March 8 to 22, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures   Prevalence rates of clinically elevated depression and anxiety symptoms in youth.

Results   Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted. Twenty-nine studies including 80 879 participants met full inclusion criteria. Pooled prevalence estimates of clinically elevated depression and anxiety symptoms were 25.2% (95% CI, 21.2%-29.7%) and 20.5% (95% CI, 17.2%-24.4%), respectively. Moderator analyses revealed that the prevalence of clinically elevated depression and anxiety symptoms were higher in studies collected later in the pandemic and in girls. Depression symptoms were higher in older children.

Conclusions and Relevance   Pooled estimates obtained in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that 1 in 4 youth globally are experiencing clinically elevated depression symptoms, while 1 in 5 youth are experiencing clinically elevated anxiety symptoms. These pooled estimates, which increased over time, are double of prepandemic estimates. An influx of mental health care utilization is expected, and allocation of resources to address child and adolescent mental health concerns are essential.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of clinically significant generalized anxiety and depressive symptoms in large youth cohorts were approximately 11.6% 1 and 12.9%, 2 respectively. Since COVID-19 was declared an international public health emergency, youth around the world have experienced dramatic disruptions to their everyday lives. 3 Youth are enduring pervasive social isolation and missed milestones, along with school closures, quarantine orders, increased family stress, and decreased peer interactions, all potential precipitants of psychological distress and mental health difficulties in youth. 4 - 7 Indeed, in both cross-sectional 8 , 9 and longitudinal studies 10 , 11 amassed to date, the prevalence of youth mental illness appears to have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. 3 However, data collected vary considerably. Specifically, ranges from 2.2% 12 to 63.8% 13 and 1.8% 12 to 49.5% 13 for clinically elevated depression and anxiety symptoms, respectively. As governments and policy makers deploy and implement recovery plans, ascertaining precise estimates of the burden of mental illness for youth are urgently needed to inform service deployment and resource allocation.

Depression and generalized anxiety are 2 of the most common mental health concerns in youth. 14 Depressive symptoms, which include feelings of sadness, loss of interest and pleasure in activities, as well as disruption to regulatory functions such as sleep and appetite, 15 could be elevated during the pandemic as a result of social isolation due to school closures and physical distancing requirements. 6 Generalized anxiety symptoms in youth manifest as uncontrollable worry, fear, and hyperarousal. 15 Uncertainty, disruptions in daily routines, and concerns for the health and well-being of family and loved ones during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely associated with increases in generalized anxiety in youth. 16

When heterogeneity is observed across studies, as is the case with youth mental illness during COVID-19, it often points to the need to examine demographic, geographical, and methodological moderators. Moderator analyses can determine for whom and under what circumstances prevalence is higher vs lower. With regard to demographic factors, prevalence rates of mental illness both prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic are differentially reported across child age and sex, with girls 17 , 18 and older children 17 , 19 being at greater risk for internalizing disorders. Studies have also shown that youth living in regions that experienced greater disease burden 2 and urban areas 20 had greater mental illness severity. Methodological characteristics of studies also have the potential to influence the estimated prevalence rates. For example, studies of poorer methodological quality may be more likely to overestimate prevalence rates. 21 The symptom reporter (ie, child vs parent) may also contribute to variability in the prevalence of mental illness across studies. Indeed, previous research prior to the pandemic has demonstrated that child and parent reports of internalizing symptoms vary, 22 with children/adolescents reporting more internalizing symptoms than parents. 23 Lastly, it is important to consider the role of data collection timing on potential prevalence rates. While feelings of stress and overwhelm may have been greater in the early months of the pandemic compared with later, 24 extended social isolation and school closures may have exerted mental health concerns.

Although a narrative systematic review of 6 studies early in the pandemic was conducted, 8 to our knowledge, no meta-analysis of prevalence rates of child and adolescent mental illness during the pandemic has been undertaken. In the current study, we conducted a meta-analysis of the global prevalence of clinically elevated symptoms of depression and anxiety (ie, exceeding a clinical cutoff score on a validated measure or falling in the moderate to severe symptom range of anxiety and depression) in youth during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. While research has documented a worsening of symptoms for children and youth with a wide range of anxiety disorders, 25 including social anxiety, 26 clinically elevated symptoms of generalized anxiety are the focus of the current meta-analysis. In addition to deriving pooled prevalence estimates, we examined demographic, geographical, and methodological factors that may explain between-study differences. Given that there have been several precipitants of psychological distress for youth during COVID-19, we hypothesized that pooled prevalence rates would be higher compared with prepandemic estimates. We also hypothesized that child mental illness would be higher among studies with older children, a higher percentage of female individuals, studies conducted later in the pandemic, and that higher-quality studies would have lower prevalence rates.

This systematic review was registered as a protocol with PROSPERO (CRD42020184903) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses ( PRISMA ) reporting guideline was followed. 27 Ethics review was not required for the study. Electronic searches were conducted in collaboration with a health sciences librarian in PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and MEDLINE from inception to February 16, 2021. The search strategy (eTable 1 in the Supplement ) combined search terms from 3 themes: (1) mental illness (including depression and anxiety), (2) COVID-19, and (3) children and adolescents (age ≤18 years). Both database and subject headings were used to search keywords. As a result of the rapidly evolving nature of research during the COVID-19 pandemic, we also searched a repository of unpublished preprints, PsycArXiv . The key terms COVID-19 , mental health , and child/adolescent were used on March 8, 2021, and yielded 38 studies of which 1 met inclusion criteria.

The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) sample was drawn from a general population; (2) proportion of individuals meeting clinical cutoff scores or falling in the moderate to severe symptom range of anxiety or depression as predetermined by validated self-report measures were provided; (3) data were collected during COVID-19; (4) participants were 18 years or younger; (5) study was empirical; and (6) studies were written in English. Samples of participants who may be affected differently from a mental health perspective during COVID-19 were excluded (eg, children with preexisting psychiatric diagnoses, children with chronic illnesses, children diagnosed or suspected of having COVID-19). We also excluded case studies and qualitative analyses.

Five (N.R., B.A.M., J.E.C., R.E. and J.Z.) authors used Covidence software (Covidence Inc) to review all abstracts and to determine if the study met criteria for inclusion. Twenty percent of abstracts reviewed for inclusion were double-coded, and the mean random agreement probability was 0.89; disagreements were resolved via consensus with the first author (N.R.). Two authors (N.R. and B.A.M.) reviewed full-text articles to determine if they met all inclusion criteria and the percent agreement was 0.80; discrepancies were resolved via consensus.

When studies met inclusion criteria, prevalence rates for anxiety and depression were extracted, as well as potential moderators. When more than 1 wave of data was provided, the wave with the largest sample size was selected. For 1 study in which both parent and youth reports were provided, 26 the youth report was selected, given research that they are the reliable informants of their own behavior. 28 The following moderators were extracted: (1) study quality (see the next subsection); (2) participant age (continuously as a mean); (3) sex (% female in a sample); (4) geographical region (eg, East Asia, Europe, North America), (5) informant (child, parent), (6) month in 2020 when data were collected (range, 1-12). Data from all studies were extracted by 1 coder and the first author (N.R.). Discrepancies were resolved via consensus.

Adapted from the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observation Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies, a short 5-item questionnaire was used (eTable 2 in the Supplement ). 29 Studies were given a score of 0 (no) or 1 (yes) for each of the 5 criteria (validated measure; peer-reviewed, response rate ≥50%, objective assessment, sufficient exposure time) and summed to give a total score of 5. When information was unclear or not provided by the study authors, it was marked as 0 (no).

All included studies are from independent samples. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3.0 (Biostat) software was used for data analysis. Pooled prevalence estimates with associated 95% confidence intervals around the estimate were computed. We weighted pooled prevalence estimates by the weight of the inverse of their variance, which gives greater weight to large sample sizes.

We used random-effects models to reflect the variations observed across studies and assessed between-study heterogeneity using the Q and I 2 statistics. Pooled prevalence is reported as an event rate (ie, 0.30) but interpreted as prevalence (ie, 30.0%). Significant Q statistics and I 2 values more than 75% suggest moderator analyses should be explored. 30 As recommended by Bornstein et al, 30 we examined categorical moderators when k of 10 or higher and a minimum cell size of k more than 3 were available. A P value of .05 was considered statistically significant. For continuous moderators, random-effect meta-regression analyses were conducted. Publication bias was examined using the Egger test 31 and by inspecting funnel plots for symmetry.

Our electronic search yielded 3094 nonduplicate records (eFigure 1 in the Supplement ). Based on the abstract review, a total of 136 full-text articles were retrieved to examine against inclusion criteria, and 29 nonoverlapping studies 10 , 12 , 13 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 26 , 32 - 53 met full inclusion criteria.

A total of 29 studies were included in the meta-analyses, of which 26 had youth symptom reports and 3 studies 39 , 42 , 48 had parent reports of child symptoms. As outlined in Table 1 , across all 29 studies, 80 879 participants were included, of which the mean (SD) perecentage of female individuals was 52.7% (12.3%), and the mean age was 13.0 years (range, 4.1-17.6 years). All studies provided binary reports of sex or gender. Sixteen studies (55.2%) were from East Asia, 4 were from Europe (13.8%), 6 were from North America (20.7%), 2 were from Central America and South America (6.9%), and 1 study was from the Middle East (3.4%). Eight studies (27.6%) reported having racial or ethnic minority participants with the mean across studies being 36.9%. Examining study quality, the mean score was 3.10 (range, 2-4; eTable 3 in the Supplement ).

The pooled prevalence from a random-effects meta-analysis of 26 studies revealed a pooled prevalence rate of 0.25 (95% CI, 0.21-0.30; Figure 1 ) or 25.2%. The funnel plot was symmetrical (eFigure 2 in the Supplement ); however, the Egger test was statistically significant (intercept, −9.5; 95% CI, −18.4 to −0.48; P  = .02). The between-study heterogeneity statistic was significant ( Q  = 4675.91; P  < .001; I 2  = 99.47). Significant moderators are reported below, and all moderator analyses are presented in Table 2 .

As the number of months in the year increased, so too did the prevalence of depressive symptoms ( b  = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.06-0.46). Prevalence rates were higher as child age increased ( b  = 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.15), and as the percentage of female individuals ( b  = 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.05) in samples increased. Sensitivity analyses removing low-quality studies were conducted (ie, scores of 2) 32 , 43 (eTable 4 in the Supplement ). Moderators remained significant, except for age, which became nonsignificant ( b  = 0.06; 95% CI, −0.02 to 0.13; P  = .14).

The overall pooled prevalence rate across 25 studies for elevated anxiety was 0.21 (95% CI, 0.17-0.24; Figure 2 ) or 20.5%. The funnel plot was symmetrical (eFigure 3 in the Supplement ) and the Egger test was nonsignificant (intercept, −6.24; 95% CI, −14.10 to 1.62; P  = .06). The heterogeneity statistic was significant ( Q  = 3300.17; P  < .001; I 2  = 99.27). Significant moderators are reported below, and all moderator analyses are presented in Table 3 .

As the number of months in the year increased, so too did the prevalence of anxiety symptoms ( b  = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.44). Prevalence rates of clinically elevated anxiety was higher as the percentage of female individuals in the sample increased ( b  = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01-0.07) and also higher in European countries ( k  = 4; rate = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23-0.46; P  = .01) compared with East Asian countries ( k  = 14; rate = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.13-0.21; P  < .001). Lastly, the prevalence of clinically elevated anxiety was higher in studies deemed to have poorer quality ( k  = 21; rate = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.18-0.27; P  < .001) compared with studies with better study quality scores ( k  = 4; rate = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.07-0.20; P  < .001). Sensitivity analyses removing low quality studies (ie, scores of 2) 32 , 43 yielded the same pattern of results (eTable 5 in the Supplement ).

The current meta-analysis provides a timely estimate of clinically elevated depression and generalized anxiety symptoms globally among youth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Across 29 samples and 80 879 youth, the pooled prevalence of clinically elevated depression and anxiety symptoms was 25.2% and 20.5%, respectively. Thus, 1 in 4 youth globally are experiencing clinically elevated depression symptoms, while 1 in 5 youth are experiencing clinically elevated anxiety symptoms. A comparison of these findings to prepandemic estimates (12.9% for depression 2 and 11.6% for anxiety 1 ) suggests that youth mental health difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic has likely doubled.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and its associated restrictions and consequences, appear to have taken a considerable toll on youth and their psychological well-being. Loss of peer interactions, social isolation, and reduced contact with buffering supports (eg, teachers, coaches) may have precipitated these increases. 3 In addition, schools are often a primary location for receiving psychological services, with 80% of children relying on school-based services to address their mental health needs. 54 For many children, these services were rendered unavailable owing to school closures.

As the month of data collection increased, rates of depression and anxiety increased correspondingly. One possibility is that ongoing social isolation, 6 family financial difficulties, 55 missed milestones, and school disruptions 3 are compounding over time for youth and having a cumulative association. However, longitudinal research supporting this possibility is currently scarce and urgently needed. A second possibility is that studies conducted in the earlier months of the pandemic (February to March 2020) 12 , 51 were more likely to be conducted in East Asia where self-reported prevalence of mental health symptoms tends to be lower. 56 Longitudinal trajectory research on youth well-being as the pandemic progresses and in pandemic recovery phases will be needed to confirm the long-term mental health implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on youth mental illness.

Prevalence rates for anxiety varied according to study quality, with lower-quality studies yielding higher prevalence rates. It is important to note that in sensitivity analyses removing lower-quality studies, other significant moderators (ie, child sex and data collection time point) remained significant. There has been a rapid proliferation of youth mental health research during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the rapid execution of these studies has been criticized owing to the potential for some studies to sacrifice methodological quality for methodological rigor. 21 , 57 Additionally, several studies estimating prevalence rates of mental illness during the pandemic have used nonprobability or convenience samples, which increases the likelihood of bias in reporting. 21 Studies with representative samples and/or longitudinal follow-up studies that have the potential to demonstrate changes in mental health symptoms from before to after the pandemic should be prioritized in future research.

In line with previous research on mental illness in childhood and adolescence, 58 female sex was associated with both increased depressive and anxiety symptoms. Biological susceptibility, lower baseline self-esteem, a higher likelihood of having experienced interpersonal violence, and exposure to stress associated with gender inequity may all be contributing factors. 59 Higher rates of depression in older children were observed and may be due to puberty and hormonal changes 60 in addition to the added effects of social isolation and physical distancing on older children who particularly rely on socialization with peers. 6 , 61 However, age was not a significant moderator for prevalence rates of anxiety. Although older children may be more acutely aware of the stress of their parents and the implications of the current global pandemic, younger children may be able to recognize changes to their routine, both of which may contribute to similar rates of anxiety with different underlying mechanisms.

In terms of practice implications, a routine touch point for many youth is the family physician or pediatrician’s office. Within this context, it is critical to inquire about or screen for youth mental health difficulties. Emerging research 42 suggests that in families using more routines during COVID-19, lower child depression and conduct problems are observed. Thus, a tangible solution to help mitigate the adverse effects of COVID-19 on youth is working with children and families to implement consistent and predictable routines around schoolwork, sleep, screen use, and physical activity. Additional resources should be made available, and clinical referrals should be placed when children experience clinically elevated mental distress. At a policy level, research suggests that social isolation may contribute to and confer risk for mental health concerns. 4 , 5 As such, the closure of schools and recreational activities should be considered a last resort. 62 In addition, methods of delivering mental health resources widely to youth, such as group and individual telemental health services, need to be adapted to increase scalability, while also prioritizing equitable access across diverse populations. 63

There are some limitations to the current study. First, although the current meta-analysis includes global estimates of child and adolescent mental illness, it will be important to reexamine cross-regional differences once additional data from underrepresented countries are available. Second, most study designs were cross-sectional in nature, which precluded an examination of the long-term association of COVID-19 with child mental health over time. To determine whether clinically elevated symptoms are sustained, exacerbated, or mitigated, longitudinal studies with baseline estimates of anxiety and depression are needed. Third, few studies included racial or ethnic minority participants (27.6%), and no studies included gender-minority youth. Given that racial and ethnic minority 64 and gender-diverse youth 65 , 66 may be at increased risk for mental health difficulties during the pandemic, future work should include and focus on these groups. Finally, all studies used self- or parent-reported questionnaires to examine the prevalence of clinically elevated (ie, moderate to high) symptoms. Thus, studies using criterion standard assessments of child depression and anxiety disorders via diagnostic interviews or multimethod approaches may supplement current findings and provide further details on changes beyond generalized anxiety symptoms, such symptoms of social anxiety, separation anxiety, and panic.

Overall, this meta-analysis shows increased rates of clinically elevated anxiety and depression symptoms for youth during the COVID-19 pandemic. While this meta-analysis supports an urgent need for intervention and recovery efforts aimed at improving child and adolescent well-being, it also highlights that individual differences need to be considered when determining targets for intervention (eg, age, sex, exposure to COVID-19 stressors). Research on the long-term effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, including studies with pre– to post–COVID-19 measurement, is needed to augment understanding of the implications of this crisis on the mental health trajectories of today’s children and youth.

Corresponding Author: Sheri Madigan, PhD, RPsych, Department of Psychology University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada ( [email protected] ).

Accepted for Publication: May 19, 2021.

Published Online: August 9, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2482

Author Contributions: Drs Racine and Madigan had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Racine, Madigan.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Racine, McArthur, Eirich, Zhu, Madigan.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Racine, Cooke, Eirich, Madigan.

Statistical analysis: Racine, McArthur.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Madigan.

Supervision: Racine, Madigan.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Racine reported fellowship support from Alberta Innovates. Dr McArthur reported a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Ms Cooke reported graduate scholarship support from Vanier Canada and Alberta Innovates Health Solutions outside the submitted work. Ms Eirich reported graduate scholarship support from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. No other disclosures were reported.

Additional Contributions: We acknowledge Nicole Dunnewold, MLIS (Research and Learning Librarian, Health Sciences Library, University of Calgary), for her assistance with the search strategy, for which they were not compensated outside of their salary. We also acknowledge the contribution of members of the Determinants of Child Development Laboratory at the University of Calgary, in particular, Julianna Watt, BA, and Katarina Padilla, BSc, for their contribution to data extraction, for which they were paid as research assistants.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

COVID-19: Long-term effects

Some people continue to experience health problems long after having COVID-19. Understand the possible symptoms and risk factors for post-COVID-19 syndrome.

Most people who get coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) recover within a few weeks. But some people — even those who had mild versions of the disease — might have symptoms that last a long time afterward. These ongoing health problems are sometimes called post- COVID-19 syndrome, post- COVID conditions, long COVID-19 , long-haul COVID-19 , and post acute sequelae of SARS COV-2 infection (PASC).

What is post-COVID-19 syndrome and how common is it?

Post- COVID-19 syndrome involves a variety of new, returning or ongoing symptoms that people experience more than four weeks after getting COVID-19 . In some people, post- COVID-19 syndrome lasts months or years or causes disability.

Research suggests that between one month and one year after having COVID-19 , 1 in 5 people ages 18 to 64 has at least one medical condition that might be due to COVID-19 . Among people age 65 and older, 1 in 4 has at least one medical condition that might be due to COVID-19 .

What are the symptoms of post-COVID-19 syndrome?

The most commonly reported symptoms of post- COVID-19 syndrome include:

• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort
• Lung (respiratory) symptoms, including difficulty breathing or shortness of breath and cough

Other possible symptoms include:

• Neurological symptoms or mental health conditions, including difficulty thinking or concentrating, headache, sleep problems, dizziness when you stand, pins-and-needles feeling, loss of smell or taste, and depression or anxiety
• Joint or muscle pain
• Heart symptoms or conditions, including chest pain and fast or pounding heartbeat
• Digestive symptoms, including diarrhea and stomach pain
• Blood clots and blood vessel (vascular) issues, including a blood clot that travels to the lungs from deep veins in the legs and blocks blood flow to the lungs (pulmonary embolism)
• Other symptoms, such as a rash and changes in the menstrual cycle

Keep in mind that it can be hard to tell if you are having symptoms due to COVID-19 or another cause, such as a preexisting medical condition.

It's also not clear if post- COVID-19 syndrome is new and unique to COVID-19 . Some symptoms are similar to those caused by chronic fatigue syndrome and other chronic illnesses that develop after infections. Chronic fatigue syndrome involves extreme fatigue that worsens with physical or mental activity, but doesn't improve with rest.

Why does COVID-19 cause ongoing health problems?

Organ damage could play a role. People who had severe illness with COVID-19 might experience organ damage affecting the heart, kidneys, skin and brain. Inflammation and problems with the immune system can also happen. It isn't clear how long these effects might last. The effects also could lead to the development of new conditions, such as diabetes or a heart or nervous system condition.

The experience of having severe COVID-19 might be another factor. People with severe symptoms of COVID-19 often need to be treated in a hospital intensive care unit. This can result in extreme weakness and post-traumatic stress disorder, a mental health condition triggered by a terrifying event.

What are the risk factors for post-COVID-19 syndrome?

You might be more likely to have post- COVID-19 syndrome if:

• You had severe illness with COVID-19 , especially if you were hospitalized or needed intensive care.
• You had certain medical conditions before getting the COVID-19 virus.
• You had a condition affecting your organs and tissues (multisystem inflammatory syndrome) while sick with COVID-19 or afterward.

Post- COVID-19 syndrome also appears to be more common in adults than in children and teens. However, anyone who gets COVID-19 can have long-term effects, including people with no symptoms or mild illness with COVID-19 .

What should you do if you have post-COVID-19 syndrome symptoms?

If you're having symptoms of post- COVID-19 syndrome, talk to your health care provider. To prepare for your appointment, write down:

• When your symptoms started
• What makes your symptoms worse
• How often you experience symptoms
• How your symptoms affect your activities

Your health care provider might do lab tests, such as a complete blood count or liver function test. You might have other tests or procedures, such as chest X-rays, based on your symptoms. The information you provide and any test results will help your health care provider come up with a treatment plan.

In addition, you might benefit from connecting with others in a support group and sharing resources.

• Long COVID or post-COVID conditions. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects.html. Accessed May 6, 2022.
• Post-COVID conditions: Overview for healthcare providers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-care/post-covid-conditions.html. Accessed May 6, 2022.
• Mikkelsen ME, et al. COVID-19: Evaluation and management of adults following acute viral illness. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 6, 2022.
• Saeed S, et al. Coronavirus disease 2019 and cardiovascular complications: Focused clinical review. Journal of Hypertension. 2021; doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000002819.
• AskMayoExpert. Post-COVID-19 syndrome. Mayo Clinic; 2022.
• Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/mis/index.html. Accessed May 24, 2022.
• Patient tips: Healthcare provider appointments for post-COVID conditions. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/post-covid-appointment/index.html. Accessed May 24, 2022.
• Bull-Otterson L, et al. Post-COVID conditions among adult COVID-19 survivors aged 18-64 and ≥ 65 years — United States, March 2020 — November 2021. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2022; doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7121e1.

Products and Services

• A Book: Endemic - A Post-Pandemic Playbook
• Begin Exploring Women's Health Solutions at Mayo Clinic Store
• A Book: Future Care
• Antibiotics: Are you misusing them?
• COVID-19 and vitamin D
• Convalescent plasma therapy
• Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• COVID-19: How can I protect myself?
• Herd immunity and respiratory illness
• COVID-19 and pets
• COVID-19 and your mental health
• COVID-19 antibody testing
• COVID-19, cold, allergies and the flu
• COVID-19 tests
• COVID-19 drugs: Are there any that work?
• COVID-19 in babies and children
• Coronavirus infection by race
• COVID-19 travel advice
• COVID-19 vaccine: Should I reschedule my mammogram?
• COVID-19 vaccines for kids: What you need to know
• COVID-19 vaccines
• COVID-19 variant
• COVID-19 vs. flu: Similarities and differences
• COVID-19: Who's at higher risk of serious symptoms?
• Debunking coronavirus myths
• Different COVID-19 vaccines
• Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)
• Fever: First aid
• Fever treatment: Quick guide to treating a fever
• Fight coronavirus (COVID-19) transmission at home
• Honey: An effective cough remedy?
• How do COVID-19 antibody tests differ from diagnostic tests?
• How to measure your respiratory rate
• How to take your pulse
• How to take your temperature
• How well do face masks protect against COVID-19?
• Is hydroxychloroquine a treatment for COVID-19?
• Loss of smell
• Mayo Clinic Minute: You're washing your hands all wrong
• Mayo Clinic Minute: How dirty are common surfaces?
• Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C)
• Nausea and vomiting
• Pregnancy and COVID-19
• Safe outdoor activities during the COVID-19 pandemic
• Safety tips for attending school during COVID-19
• Sex and COVID-19
• Shortness of breath
• Thermometers: Understand the options
• Treating COVID-19 at home
• Unusual symptoms of coronavirus
• Vaccine guidance from Mayo Clinic
• Watery eyes

Related information

• Post-COVID Recovery & COVID-19 Support Group - Related information Post-COVID Recovery & COVID-19 Support Group
• Rehabilitation after COVID-19 - Related information Rehabilitation after COVID-19
• Post-COVID-19 syndrome could be a long haul (podcast) - Related information Post-COVID-19 syndrome could be a long haul (podcast)
• COVID-19 Coronavirus Long-term effects

Help transform healthcare

Your donation can make a difference in the future of healthcare. Give now to support Mayo Clinic's research.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Revisiting the World's Strictest COVID-19 Lockdown: Formidable Mental Health Challenges

Affiliations.

• 1 Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
• 2 Shanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai, China.
• 3 CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology (CEBSIT), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
• 4 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Campus Charité Mitte), Berlin, Germany.
• PMID: 37437578
• DOI: 10.1055/a-2108-2164

Introduction: Many nations have implemented lockdowns to prevent and minimize the spread of infections in healthcare settings. However, the impact of lockdown duration on mental health remains controversial.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study using online questionnaires to assess the mental health status of the general population during the Shanghai lockdown period from March to May 2022. The mental health of the participants was evaluated by the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), in which a cut-off score of 12 or more indicated psychological distress. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the relationship between lockdown duration and mental health.

Results: Among 2139 participants (mean age: 26.12 years, standard deviation: 6.37, 731 females; 1378 unmarried; 1099 Shanghai residents), approximately 47% reported psychological distress (GHQ-12≥12). Participants exposed to lockdown reported significantly higher GHQ-12 scores (11.93±6.81 vs. 8.73±6.35, p <0.001). In our logistic regression model, participants who experienced the longest lockdown (43-61 days) had a significantly higher risk of psychological distress compared with those who did not (odds ratio: 3.10, 95% confidence interval: 2.06-4.70, p <0.001).

Discussion: Lockdown duration significantly affects mental health, with longer lockdown duration being associated with worse mental health status. The relationship between lockdown and mental health should not be neglected in case of lockdown in response to future pandemics.

Thieme. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

• The negative impact of loneliness and perceived stress on mental health during two-month lockdown in Shanghai. Li R, Huang C, Guan B, Du J, Zhao M, Liu S. Li R, et al. J Affect Disord. 2023 Aug 15;335:377-382. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.05.055. Epub 2023 May 20. J Affect Disord. 2023. PMID: 37217100 Free PMC article.
• Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation during the Shanghai 2022 Lockdown: A cross-sectional study. Hall BJ, Li G, Chen W, Shelley D, Tang W. Hall BJ, et al. J Affect Disord. 2023 Jun 1;330:283-290. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.02.121. Epub 2023 Feb 28. J Affect Disord. 2023. PMID: 36863472 Free PMC article.
• COVID-19 lockdowns and working women's mental health: Does motherhood and size of workplace matter? A comparative analysis using understanding society. Wilson J, Demou E, Kromydas T. Wilson J, et al. Soc Sci Med. 2024 Jan;340:116418. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116418. Epub 2023 Nov 16. Soc Sci Med. 2024. PMID: 37992613 Free PMC article.
• The Psychological Impact of 'Mild Lockdown' in Japan during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Nationwide Survey under a Declared State of Emergency. Yamamoto T, Uchiumi C, Suzuki N, Yoshimoto J, Murillo-Rodriguez E. Yamamoto T, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 15;17(24):9382. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17249382. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. PMID: 33333893 Free PMC article.
• The impact of COVID-19 lockdown on child and adolescent mental health: systematic review. Panchal U, Salazar de Pablo G, Franco M, Moreno C, Parellada M, Arango C, Fusar-Poli P. Panchal U, et al. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023 Jul;32(7):1151-1177. doi: 10.1007/s00787-021-01856-w. Epub 2021 Aug 18. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023. PMID: 34406494 Free PMC article. Review.
• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, New York
• MedlinePlus Health Information

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Open access
• Published: 15 August 2024

Impact of campus closure during COVID-19 on lifestyle, educational performance, and anxiety levels of college students in China

• Yang Wang 1 , 4   na1 ,
• Yajing Zhang 2   na1 ,
• Jun Wang 2   na1 ,
• Wenci Ge 3   na1 ,
• Limin Wang 1   na1 ,
• Ning Jia 2   na1 ,
• Shengxuan Li 3   na1 &
• Dongming Li 1 , 4   na1  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  2218 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Higher education students exhibit heightened sensitivity to environmental changes as they navigate the critical transition from adolescence to adulthood. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to universities worldwide, exemplifying a crisis that profoundly affects the learning outcomes and psychological status of college students. Although it is known that campus lockdown has triggered dramatic changes in lifestyles, learning outcomes, and psychological statuses, in-depth knowledge of the causal relationships among these changes remains largely unclear.

Here, we conducted a cross-sectional survey designed to assess the impact of campus closure during COVID-19 on lifestyle, educational performance, and anxiety levels among college students. We surveyed over 3,500 junior college, undergraduate and graduate participants from 94 colleges/universities across 30 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions in China.We employed structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the relationships between changes in lifestyle, educational performance, and levels of anxiety associated with campus open or closure regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our results discovered that sleep duration, physical activity involvement, and social connections were crucial for sustaining students' learning outcomes and mental health. The shift to online learning and campus lockdown exacerbated stressors, contributing to heightened anxiety ( β  = 0.066), disrupted sleep patterns, and enhanced physical activity ( β  = 0.070) and reduced learning effect ( β  = -0.059). Sleep patterns were disrupted by the campus lockdown, an effect mediated by the degradation of relationships among classmates. Nonetheless, the best-fitting SEM uncovered the intricate relationships among lifestyle changes, learning outcomes, and psychological status in response to sudden environmental changes (Fisher’s C = 80.949, P  = 0.328). These results highlight the critical role of adaptable, supportive campus policies tailored to meet the diverse needs and interests of students during and beyond crises (Fisher’s C = 59.568, P  = 0.809).

Conclusions

Our study advocates for a holistic approach that addresses the multifaceted aspects of student life to cultivate a resilient academic community. This approach contributes to a deeper understanding of the effects of sudden environmental changes on students' psychological well-being and academic performance in the post-pandemic era.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed significant disruptions on global education systems, particularly affecting college students transitioning from adolescence to adulthood. This critical period of development is characterized by significant cognitive growth, demanding academic workloads, and heightened sensitivity to environmental changes [ 1 ]. Global health crises are believed to detrimentally impact students' academic performance and overall well-being, leading to a spectrum of physical and psychological challenges [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Psychological distress, manifesting as mood disorders and anxiety, is associated with cognitive and emotional dysfunction, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors including excessive screen time, irregular sleep patterns, and decreased physical activity [ 5 , 6 ]. Despite growing research on the impact of pandemics on this demographic [ 7 , 8 ], there is a lack of explicit causal relationships between students' behavioral patterns and psychological states during such events.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, strategies such as campus quarantines, social distancing protocols, virtual learning environments, and enhanced hygiene practices were implemented, challenging college students to adapt to emergency remote learning and lockdown measures [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. These adaptations have led to considerable health concerns, sociopsychological burdens, and highlighted the necessity to examine the behavioral and psychological adjustments of college students to these rapid environmental transformations [ 13 ].

The global imposition of campus lockdown has led to widespread changes in college students' behavioral and psychological patterns [ 14 , 15 ]. The transition to online learning posed unique challenges, including the infeasibility of experimental and hands-on activities, potentially affecting critical thinking capabilities and academic achievements [ 16 , 17 ]. Moreover, lockdown has adversely affected students' physical well-being and daily routines, exacerbating issues such as decreased motivation, concentration challenges, erratic sleep cycles, and stress management difficulties [ 18 , 19 ]. Notably, significant post-traumatic stress symptoms, such as anxiety, confusion, and anger, have been observed among students [ 7 ]. For example, a substantial proportion of university participants in the U.S. reported fear, worry, diminished concentration, and sleep disruption [ 8 ], with a higher prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms compared to the general community [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]. These findings highlight the heightened psychosocial vulnerability of college students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite the aforementioned challenges, the pandemic has also presented opportunities for promoting healthier lifestyles among students, including increased physical activity involvement, reduced risk behaviors, improved dietary habits [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ], and maintaining social connections [ 27 ]. These factors can positively influence students' future lifestyles and learning outcomes [ 27 , 28 ]. Achieving a healthy balance between academics and these activities could potentially mitigate some of the negative effects of online learning during campus lockdown. Recognizing and addressing these expressed needs enables educational institutions to initiate appropriate interventions and devise strategies to alleviate psychological stress in anticipation of future emergencies.

However, there is still a dearth of in-depth studies on the causal relationship between behavioral styles and psychological states during crises. This study aims to address this gap by conducting an online survey of over 3,500 students across 30 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions in China, assessing changes in sleep patterns, physical activity involvement, social networks, learning performance, and anxiety levels linked to policy implementation (Fig.  1 ). Our research offers a comprehensive investigation into the causality between behavioral styles and psychological conditions among college students during campus lockdown, alongside their demands and expectations. The findings aim to enhance our understanding of how college students respond to a sudden environmental change both behaviorally and psychologically, and to outline effective management and therapeutic approaches for their mental and physical health on campus.

The flowchart of this study outlines the methodology. The online survey was conducted over a specific duration, approximately 10 months after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and included participants from 94 public universities and colleges across 30 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions in mainland China. The new case data were downloaded from the WHO COVID-19 dashboard: https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19 . We focused on the behavioral and psychological responses of university and college students to campus pandemic measures, considering both objective factors—such as sleep, social contact, learning effect, and anxiety levels—and subjective factors, including their opinions, as well as the internal interactions among these factors, based on their demographic information. The aim was to outline effective management and therapeutic approaches for their mental and physical health on campus, based on their opinions

Material and methods

Study design.

This study employed a cross-sectional online survey conducted during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic (the first semester of the 2020–2021 academic year in China, Fig.  1 ), titled "COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on College Students' Campus Life and Psychological Conditions," designed to investigate the effects of comprehensiveness of campus pandemic measures on: (1) demographics, (2) campus life, (3) opinions on campus lockdown and (4) anxiety level to detect the educational performance, social relationship, consumption, physical and mental health (such as: sleep, physical activity involvement, learning effect and anxiety of the college students during the pandemic, along with their opinions on the control measures and suggestions (the content of survey was provided in Appendix 1), via WeChat, which is an immensely popular social media platform in China, with the most large user base (over 1.09 billion) that includes a representative sample of the population. Data collection was carried out from September 1 to December 1, 2020 (Fig.  1 ).

Participants

This study focuses on college/university students. In China, colleges tend to offer associate degrees or vocational training, which usually take 2 to 3 years to complete. They focus on practical skills and applied knowledge. While universities generally offer a broader range of academic programs, including bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees. The education at universities is more research-oriented and theory-based.

Participants were randomly recruited from 94 public universities and colleges across 30 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions in China (Fig.  1 ). A total 3,522 randomly sampled participants completed the survey, they are aged 18–25 years, enrolled in full-time study programs as junior colleage, undergraduate and graduate, representing across different disciplines including gender, major, age, family, geographic site, etc. For practical reasons, as our research institution is based in the north of China, the majority of our participants were from universities and colleges in northern China (Fig.  1 ).

Measurements

The survey comprised 46 questions, covering 4 main sections. (1) Demographics: recording the personal background of the participants related to this study, such as gender, age, education level, major, grade, family type, etc. (2) Campus life: recording educational performance, social relationship, consumption level, physical health of the participants during the pandemic, such as comprehensiveness of campus pandemic measures, sleep pattern, physical excises, learning effect, relationship with their classmates and roommates, etc. (3) Opinions on campus lockdown: recording the perspective and suggestions towards the campus lockdown measures of the participants during the pandemic. (4) Anxiety levels were assessed using the Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, and range from 20 to 80, following the standard procedure of self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) introduced by Zung [ 29 ]. We transformed the categorical responses from the survey into a ranked score range. The binary factors in the survey are coded as 0 for 'no' or 'against,' and 1 for 'yes' or 'for.' The other factors are rated on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents the lowest level and 4 represents the highest.

We checked the homogeneity of variances and the normality of residuals with Levene's test and the Shapiro–Wilk test, respectively. For the data that were not normally distributed or exhibited variance homogeneity, logarithmic or square root transform was applied.

Sample size justification and measurement reliability

The sample size was determined based on detecting effect size ( R 2 ) and a 95% confidence level.The power was calculated with pwr package [ 30 ]. The reliability of the scales was assessed using Cronbach's alpha (alpha = 0.76, G6 = 0.90) with psych package [ 31 ].

Statistical methods

Given the large number of correlated items in this survey (46 questions) that needed to be analyzed, a hybrid model-building approach [ 32 ] was applied. Our focus was on (1) identifying factors influencing sleep duration, physical activity involvement, relationship with the roommates and classmates, learning effect, and anxiety level since they represent crucial aspects of campus life encompassing study, social relationship, physical and mental well-being; (2) examining opinions on the “campus reopen”, “simplifying leave applications”, the diversity and price of products offered on campus, as well as activities and cuisines available, since these reflect the most ordinary needs of the students in their campus lives. For each item, we ranked the akaike information criterion (AIC) values obtained from single-predictor regressions against the remaining factors. We selected the model with only significant predictors and the lowest AIC as the most informative base model. We then iteratively built multiple regression models using this approach, adding predictors that improved the AIC scores while meeting the significance criteria. The process continued until no new models could be included in the top model set, either due to having an AIC < 4 compared the previous base model or containing non-significant predictors [ 33 ].

We followed a six-step process to develop our models: specification, identification, estimation, testing, modification, and validation. Initially, we specified and identified models with the best explanatory predictors for various aspects of students' campus life, encompassing academic performance, social relationships, physical and mental health, and perspectives on campus pandemic measures and suggestions. Subsequently, we constructed a structural equation model (SEM) with key variables—sleep duration, physical activity, and social relationships—as predictors of learning effect and anxiety levels. Utilizing the piecewiseSEM package [ 34 ], we estimated the model through linear regression.

Our strategy for model modification involved systematically exploring significant interconnections by performing piecewise tests of directed separation. We examined each variable in isolation, included significant variables, and removed non-significant ones, ensuring that all important variables were accounted for in the model. The model was rigorously tested by evaluating its goodness of fit (GOF) using Fisher's C statistic (with P  > 0.05 indicating a good fit) and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), favoring models with lower scores [ 35 ]. The best-fit model was determined by the lowest Fisher's C value and the highest P-value among all model combinations. We utilized standardized coefficients to assess the direct, indirect, and total effects, considering the varying scales of predictors.

All analyses were conducted in R v4.0.2 [ 36 ].

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics and Animal Welfare Committee of Hebei Normal University (approval number 2020LLSC003). Participants provided informed consent, and data were anonymized to ensure confidentiality. We collected and analyzed data only from completed questionnaires in this study, as incomplete responses might indicate a lack of full consent to participate.

Determinants of learning effect and anxiety level

Employing piecewise structural equation modeling, we assessed the impact of multiple factors including demographics and campus life of the participants (Fig.  2 ) on learning outcomes and anxiety levels, focusing on those with key contributions (absolute value of significant estimate > 0.1; Tables 1 and 2 ). The best-fitting SEM (Fisher’s C = 80.949, P  = 0.328) identified several key determinants influencing learning outcomes and mental health among college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, Sleep duration, physical activity involvement, and the quality of social relationships (with classmates and roommates) emerged as significant predictors of both learning effects and anxiety levels (Table  1 ; Fig.  3 ). Specifically, enhanced learning outcomes were associated with improved sleep duration, stronger relationships with classmates and roommates, higher educational attainment levels, regular engagement in physical activity involvement activities, as well as enrollment in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) fields. Conversely, elevated mental stress levels correlated strongly with poor sleep duration, diminished learning outcomes, inadequate physical activity involvement participation rates, strained personal relationships, and being female (Table  1 ). Interestingly, all these factors showed a negative correlation with comprehensiveness of campus pandemic measures, suggesting that such measures, including strict campus closures, had a slight negative impact on both learning outcomes and anxiety levels (Table  1 ; Fig.  3 ).

The demographics, campus life, opinions on campus lockdown, and anxiety levels were examined in the study to detect the impact on social relationships, consumption habits, and the physical and mental health of participants in the online survey. STEM is defined as an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The proportions of participants in each group were presented, followed by the total number in parentheses

A structural equation modeling for the relationships among various factors affecting the academic performance and mental well-being of university students during a campus closure caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The pathways show how these factors are interconnected and influence the learning and anxiety level. Values represent standardized coefficients, with the thickness of each line correlating with the absolute value of the standardized coefficient. Blue arrows denote significant positive correlations, while red arrows denote significant negative correlations. For simplicity, factors directly related to COVID-19 pandemic measures or those with an absolute estimate greater than 0.1 are considered primary drivers and are presented. Further details are provided in Table  1 . STEM is defined as an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. A 'negative' field of study indicates that the participants were not majoring in STEM subjects

Relationships among factors affecting learning effect and anxiety level

Among the demographics and campus life of the participants, the best-fitting SEM (Fisher’s C = 59.568, P  = 0.809) showed individuals with higher educational levels exhibited weaker relationships with their classmates. Conversely, stronger bonds with classmates and improved sleep duration were associated with better learning outcomes; additionally, higher educational attainment, particularly among males, shorter individuals, and those majoring in STEM fields, was linked to reduced physical activity involvement. Furthermore, a positive relationship between classmate relationships and sleep duration was observed, with both factors contributing to lower anxiety levels alongside better learning outcomes (Table  1 ; Fig.  3 ). During the pandemic, 79% (2798/ 3522) of students experienced campus closures. These control measures had a slight negative impact on physical activity involvement, classmate relationships, and anxiety levels, yet, paradoxically, they positively influenced learning outcomes. Notably, the perceived effectiveness of comprehensiveness of campus pandemic measures significantly reduced students' anxiety levels (Table  1 ; Fig.  3 ).

Demands and expectations in response to campus control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic

To gain insights into the overall attitudes and expectations of college students towards campus control measures during the pandemic, we analyzed the influence of various factors on these attitudes and expectations. Our results showed that aspects of campus life, such as the diversity and affordability of campus products and cuisine, enhancement of campus activities, simplification of leave applications, and reopening plans for campuses, were associated with learning outcomes and anxiety levels in diverse ways (Table  2 ). Notably, learning outcomes positively correlated with the diversity of campus activities and cuisine, as well as the simplification of leave applications. Anxiety levels were associated with the simplification of leave applications and the prospect of campus reopening (Table  2 ). Among these factors, male students displayed a preference for greater diversity and pricing of campus products, negatively predicting attitudes towards campus reopening. In contrast, taller students expressed a desire for a wider range of campus activities, which positively influenced the diversity of available campus cuisine options. Both the variety in campus activities and cuisine were influenced by the diversity and pricing of campus products (Table  2 , Fig.  4 ). Additionally, the simplification of leave applications and existing campus closure measures were positive predictors of support for campus reopening, indicating that students who favored simplified leave applications while being subject to closure measures showed a stronger inclination towards resuming normal operations on campus (Table  2 , Fig.  4 ).

A structural equation modeling for the relationships among various factors affecting the opinions of university students during a campus closure caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The pathways demonstrate how these factors are interconnected and impact learning and anxiety levels. Values represent standardized coefficients, with the thickness of each line correlating with the absolute value of the standardized coefficient. Blue arrows denote significant positive correlations, while red arrows denote significant negative correlations. For simplicity, factors directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic measures or those with an absolute estimate greater than 0.1 are considered primary drivers and are presented. Further details can be found in Table  2 . STEM is defined as an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. A 'negative' field of study indicates that the participants were not majoring in STEM subjects

Importance of sleep duration, physical activity involvement, and social connection

With a large, diverse-scale survey of college and university students in China during the COVID-19 pandemic, we described how students' demographics affected their campus life behaviorally and psychologically, how campus life changed, and their opinions in response to campus pandemic measures. Our findings highlight three critical factors—high-quality sleep, regular physical activity involvement, and strong social connections—that are essential for maintaining physical and emotional well-being among college students. These factors have also been identified as key contributors to enhancing learning outcomes and mitigating anxiety levels. Consistent with prior research, adequate sleep duration [ 37 , 38 , 39 ] and regular physical activity involvement [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] have been shown to be cornerstones of physical well-being, which serves as the foundation for maintaining learning effect and coping with stressors such as social isolation and academic challenges. Furthermore, our results underscore the positive influence of strong relationships with classmates on both learning outcomes and sleep duration. This finding aligns with social support models, which emphasize the protective role of robust interpersonal ties in mitigating stress and promoting both physical and mental well-being [ 44 ].

The findings highlight the fundamental roles of sleep duration, physical activity involvement, and social connections in not only enhancing learning outcomes but also fostering holistic well-being for students within university settings. Our results further acknowledge individual variations in physical and emotional status based on factors such as grade level, gender, height, and academic major. For instance, female students reported poorer sleep duration and higher anxiety levels, despite dedicating more time to engaging in Physical activity involvement (Table  1 ). Similarly, students majoring in STEM fields tended to allocate less time for physical activity involvement, have weaker connections with their roommates, report lower learning efficiency, and experience higher anxiety levels (Table  1 ). These findings suggest that female students and those in STEM majors may face greater challenges in campus life, necessitating tailored programs and interventions. Additionally, variations were observed among students with different educational levels, grade levels, and even physical attributes (e.g., height), as these factors influenced physical activity involvement, social connections, learning efficiency, and anxiety levels. For example, senior students may prioritize social media engagement or romantic relationships over establishing connections with classmates and roommates [ 45 ].

Our findings are consistent with previous research indicating that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the health and well-being of students [ 8 , 46 , 47 ]. Contrary to expectations, our study found no significant deterioration in sleep duration among Chinese college students during the pandemic, despite challenges such as disrupted sleep patterns and delayed bedtimes due to increased telecommuting and blurred weekday/weekend distinctions [ 8 , 48 , 49 ]. This finding may be attributed to the accompanying support and guidance provided by teaching and administrative staff during the lockdown period in China. However, the enforced containment and extended cohabitation during lockdown could hinder Physical activity involvement and disrupt social ties, potentially increasing anxiety levels [ 50 ].

Notably, students' perceptions of the effectiveness of comprehensiveness of campus pandemic measures played a crucial role in reducing anxiety during the pandemic, underscoring the significance of clear communication, transparency, and involving students in the development and implementation of these measures. Establishing trust and a sense of safety in pandemic response strategies is essential for supporting student mental health during challenging circumstances [ 49 ]. In Chinese traditional culture, a sense of safety often takes precedence over other needs in difficult times, suggesting that the initial closure of campuses might have engendered confidence among students amidst pervasive uncertainty caused by the pandemic. These findings emphasize the need for robust management strategies during crises. Although prolonged campus lockdowns themselves may exacerbate anxiety, aligning with research suggesting that lockdown has a modest anxiety-reducing effect [ 51 , 52 ], the confidence that control measures could protect students from uncertain threats would largely alleviate stress. Above all, the key requirements for addressing student anxiety, especially amid the challenges of extended lockdown, would be creating a supportive environment for (1) improving sleep duration, (2) encouraging physical activity involvement, and (3) cultivating supportive social networks. Such efforts by universities are crucial in bolstering student mental/ physical well-being and resilience during uncertain times.

Potential strategies for formulating reasonable countermeasures

To address the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, our comprehensive surveys have assessed student attitudes toward campus life, The findings reveal a strong desire for the reopening of universities and a simplification of leave application processes under lockdown measures, consistent with previous research [ 51 , 53 ]. This sentiment underscores the necessity for adaptable regulations that prioritize student well-being while upholding essential safety protocols [ 54 ]. Additionally, it advocates incorporating a supportive campus environment and providing alternative engagements that could redirect student focus or foster a sense of community [ 46 , 55 ], potentially alleviating the stress associated with the lockdown and enriching the collegiate experience during this unprecedented time or future crises [ 56 ].

Our analysis revealed a critical demand for a broader and more diverse range of campus amenities, with significant gender differences emerging, particularly after the implementation of campus lockdown policies [ 57 ]. This finding suggests that customizing campus services to align with the unique interests of students in areas such as recreational activities, culinary options, and product availability while taking into account specific demographic needs, can significantly enhance the campus experience and foster a deeper sense of community inclusion [ 51 ]. The disruption of standard campus operations by lockdown necessitates the provision of a variety of virtual events, health and wellness programs, and accessible remote learning tools, all designed with gender-specific interests and physical needs in mind. Such measures can sustain student engagement and academic motivation [ 55 , 56 ]. Demonstrating the university's active commitment to addressing the health, educational needs, and well-being of all students, even in restricted conditions, may reduce the urgency for campus reopening [ 54 , 58 ]. Through targeted interventions and the cultivation of a supportive campus environment, universities could mitigate the negative effects of the pandemic on student life and foster a more inclusive and resilient academic community. The proposed approach not only effectively tackles immediate challenges but also proactively equips the institution to handle future crises, thereby ensuring the utmost priority is given to the well-being of its students.

Potential effects of other factors and limitations

Our findings primarily address the immediate behavioral and psychological effects of the pandemic on college students in China and highlight the need for universities and colleges in this region to implement supportive measures. These measures include promoting physical activity and ensuring adequate sleep to mitigate the psychological impact of campus closures. Emphasizing the importance of a proactive approach to adversity, we highlight the role of self-care practices—including balanced nutrition, regular physical activity involvement, and consistent sleep patterns—as key strategies for mitigating anxiety [ 57 , 59 ]. Educational institutions are encouraged to adopt supportive strategies to ease students' transition back to campus life and manage stress effectively. These strategies may involve implementing new counseling protocols, developing digital psychological resources, and enhancing mental health services both in-person and online, while also closely monitoring students' online learning engagement and outcomes [ 55 , 60 ]. The significance of family support, including emotional and financial assistance, during this transitional phase cannot be overstated [ 55 ]. This underscores the need for initiatives that foster constructive activities, social engagement, and skill development, especially for senior students.

Our study, though comprehensive, acknowledges certain limitations. Firstly, its cross-sectional design limits the ability to draw causal inferences, even though the SEM was introduced. Secondly, the majority of our participants were from universities and colleges in northern China. This geographical focus may limit the generalizability of our findings to other educational systems and cultural contexts. Future research should delve into the longitudinal ramifications of such global crises on mental health and assess the effectiveness of different intervention strategies. This assessment should consider countries with various cultural contexts, university systems, and socioeconomic conditions, recognizing that student behaviors and responses to the pandemic may vary widely.

In this study, we evaluated the effects of sudden environmental changes, specifically the campus lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in China, on college students' behavioral patterns and psychological well-being. Our findings reveal the causal links between lifestyle adjustments, academic performance, and psychological health in the face of a public health emergency. They emphasize the importance of sufficient sleep, regular exercise, and robust social networks in countering the negative impacts of campus closures on students' learning and mental health.

Furthermore, the study highlights the need to reassess campus policies and services to accommodate the diverse needs of students, advocating for more inclusive and supportive educational settings. As higher education faces ongoing challenges from unpredictable environmental changes in the post-pandemic world, it's clear that building a resilient academic community demands a comprehensive approach to student life.

There's an urgent need for educational stakeholders to formulate policies that address both the immediate and long-term behavioral and psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as any similar future events on students.

Availability of data and materials

All data are available as supplementary material, and the questionnaire for collecting the data is provided as an appendix.

Larsen B, Luna B. Adolescence as a neurobiological critical period for the development of higher-order cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;94:179–95.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Li H, Hafeez H, Zaheer M. COVID-19 and pretentious psychological well-being of students: a threat to educational sustainability. Front Psychol. 2020;11:628003.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yang J, Xiang L, Zheng S, Liang H. Learning stress, involvement, academic concerns, and mental health among university students during a pandemic: Influence of fear and moderation of self-efficacy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:10151.

Realyvásquez-Vargas A, Maldonado-Macías A, Arredondo-Soto K, Baez-López Y, Carrillo-Gutierrez T, Hernández-Escobedo G. The impact of environmental factors on academic performance of university students taking online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico. Sustainability. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219194 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Alonso J, Vilagut G, Mortier P, Auerbach RP, Bruffaerts R, Cuijpers P, et al. The role impairment associated with mental disorder risk profiles in the WHO World Mental Health International College Student Initiative. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2019;28:e1750.

Dhillon S, Videla-Nash G, Foussias G, Segal ZV, Zakzanis KK. On the nature of objective and perceived cognitive impairments in depressive symptoms and real-world functioning in young adults. Psychiatry Res. 2020;287:e112932.

Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet. 2020;395:912–20.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Son C, Hegde S, Smith A, Wang X, Sasangohar F. Effects of covid-19 on college students mental health in the US: interview-survey study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21279.

Grubic N, Badovinac SD, Johri A. Student mental health in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for further research and immediate solutions. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2020;66:517–8.

Torales J, O’Higgins M, Castaldelli-Maia J, Ventriglio A. The outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact on global mental health. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2020;66:317–20.

Ahrens KF, Neumann RJ, Kollmann B, Brokelmann J, von Werthern NM, Malyshau A, et al. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on mental health in Germany: longitudinal observation of different mental health trajectories and protective factors. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11:1–10.

Khan S, Siddique R, Li H, Ali A, Shereen MA, Bashir N, et al. Impact of coronavirus outbreak on psychological health. J Glob Health. 2020;10:010331.

Osman M. Global impact of COVID-19 on education systems: the emergency remote teaching at Sultan Qaboos University. J Educ Teach. 2020;46:463–71.

Syauqi K, Munadi S, Triyono MB. Students' perceptions toward vocational education on online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Eval Res Educ. 2020;9:881–6.

Paul E, Brown G, Ridde V. COVID-19: time for paradigm shift in the nexus between local, national and global health. Br Med J Glob Health. 2020;5:e002622.

Google Scholar  

Lv X, Ma J, Brinthaupt TM, Zhao S, Ren X. Impacts of university lockdown during the coronavirus pandemic on college students’ academic achievement and critical thinking: A longitudinal study. Front Psychol. 2022;13:e995784.

Favale T, Soro F, Trevisan M, Drago I, Mellia M. Campus traffic and e-Learning during COVID-19 pandemic. Comput Netw. 2020;176:e107290.

Ali A, Siddiqui AA, Arshad MS, Iqbal F, Arif TB. Effects of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on lifestyle and mental health of students: A retrospective study from Karachi, Pakistan. Annales Médico-psychologiques revue psychiatrique (Paris). 2022;180:S29–37.

Birmingham WC, Wadsworth LL, Lassetter JH, Graff TC, Lauren E, Hung M. COVID-19 lockdown: Impact on college students’ lives. J Am Coll Health. 2023;71:879–93.

Busetta G, Campolo MG, Fiorillo F, Pagani L, Panarello D, Augello V. Effects of COVID-19 lockdown on university students’ anxiety disorder in Italy. Genus. 2021;77:25.

Odriozola-González P, Planchuelo-Gómez Á, Irurtia MJ, De Luis-García R. Psychological effects of the COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown among students and workers of a Spanish university. Psychiatry Res. 2020;290:e113108.

Wang X, Liu Q. Prevalence of anxiety symptoms among Chinese university students amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2022;8: e10117.

Jalal SM, Beth MRM, Al-Hassan HJM, Alshealah NMJ. Body mass index, practice of physical activity and lifestyle of students during COVID-19 lockdown. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021;14:1901–10.

Nirala SK, Naik BN, Rao R, Pandey S, Singh C, Chaudhary N. Impact of Lockdown due to COVID-19 on lifestyle and diet pattern of college students of Eastern India: A cross-sectional survey. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2022;12:1139–55.

Romero-Blanco C, Rodríguez-Almagro J, Onieva-Zafra MD, Parra-Fernández ML, Prado-Laguna M del C, Hernández-Martínez A. Physical activity and sedentary lifestyle in university students: Changes during confinement due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:e6567.

Larsson K, Onell C, Edlund K, Källberg H, Holm LW, Sundberg T, et al. Lifestyle behaviors in Swedish university students before and during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2022;22:1–11.

Tomás-Miquel J, Expósito-Langa M, Nicolau-Juliá D. The influence of relationship networks on academic performance in higher education: A comparative study between students of a creative and a non-creative discipline. High Educ. 2016;71:307–22.

Gonzalez T, De La Rubia MA, Hincz KP, Comas-Lopez M, Subirats L, Fort S, et al. Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0239490.

Zung WW. A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics. 1971;12:371–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Erlbaum Associates. 1988.

Revelle W. psych: procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. R Package Version 1.0–95. 2013.

Feldman A, Bauer AM, Castro-Herrera F, Chirio L, Das I, Doan TM, et al. The geography of snake reproductive mode: A global analysis of the evolution of snake viviparity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2015;24:1433–42.

Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP. AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011;65:23–35.

Lefcheck JS. PIECEWISESEM: Piecewise structural equation modelling in R for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7:573–9.

Shipley B. The AIC model selection method applied to path analytic models compared using a d-separation test. Ecology Ecology. 2013;94:560–4.

Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2018.

Dawson AF, Brown WW, Anderson J, Datta B, Donald JN, Hong K, et al. Mindfulness-based interventions for university students: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2020;12:384–410.

Hu Y, Xu Y, Barwick F. 0472 Dynamic features of the treatment process predict different outcomes for patients undergoing cognitive behavioral therapy for Insomnia. Sleep. 2022;45:A209

Wong M, Lau E, Wan J, Cheung S, Hui C, Mok D. The interplay between sleep and mood in predicting academic functioning, physical health and psychological health: a longitudinal study. J Psychosom Res. 2013;74(4):271–7.

Herring M, Kline C, O’Connor P. Effects of exercise on sleep among young women with generalized anxiety disorder. Ment Health Phys Act. 2015;9:59–66.

Lei X, Liu C, Jiang H. Mental health of college students and associated factors in Hubei of China. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0254183.

Mei Q, Li C, Yin Y, Wang Q, Wang Q, Deng G. The relationship between the psychological stress of adolescents in school and the prevalence of chronic low back pain: A cross-sectional study in China. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2019;17:13–24.

Nguyen-Michel ST, Unger JB, Hamilton J, Spruijt-Metz D. Associations between physical activity and perceived stress/hassles in college students. Stress Health. 2006;22:179–88.

Jalali R, Khazaei H, Paveh BK, Hayrani Z, Menati L. The effect of sleep quality on students’ academic achievement. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2020;11:497–502.

Al-Maskari A, Al-Riyami T, Kunjumuhammed SK. Students academic and social concerns during COVID-19 pandemic. Educ Inf Technol. 2022;27:1–21.

Elmer T, Mepham K, Stadtfeld C. Students under lockdown: comparisons of students’ social networks and mental health before and during the COVID-19 crisis in Switzerland. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0236337.

Huckins JF, daSilva AW, Wang W, Hedlund E, Rogers C, Nepal SK, et al. Mental health and behavior of college students during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal smartphone and ecological momentary assessment study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e20185.

Blume C, Schmidt MH, Cajochen C. Effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on human sleep and rest-activity rhythms. Curr Biol. 2020;30:R795–7.

Kirkbride JB, Anglin DM, Colman I, Dykxhoorn J, Jones PB, Patalay P, et al. The social determinants of mental health and disorder: evidence, prevention and recommendations. World Psychiatry. 2024;23:58–90.

Qing Y, Li Z, Zhang Y. Changes in mental health among Chinese university students before and during campus lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a three-wave longitudinal study. Front Psych. 2023;14:e1267333.

Cao W, Fang Z, Hou G, Han M, Xu X, Dong J, et al. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Res. 2020;287:e112934.

Sundarasen S, Chinna K, Kamaludin K, Nurunnabi M, Baloch GM, Khoshaim HB, et al. Psychological impact of COVID-19 and lockdown among university students in Malaysia: implications and policy recommendations. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:e6206.

Sahu P. Closure of universities due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): impact on education and mental health of students and academic staff. Cureus. 2020;12:e7541.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Toquero CM. Challenges and opportunities for higher education amid the COVID-19 pandemic: the philippine context. Pedagogical Res. 2020;5:e0063.

Zhai Y, Du X. Addressing collegiate mental health amid COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Res. 2020;288:e113003.

Lederer AM, Hoban MT, Lipson SK, Zhou S, Eisenberg D. More than inconvenienced: The unique needs of U.S. college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Educ Behav. 2021;48:14–9.

Browning MHEM, Larson LR, Sharaievska I, Rigolon A, McAnirlin O, Mullenbach L, et al. Psychological impacts from COVID-19 among university students: Risk factors across seven states in the United States. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0245327.

Aucejo EM, French J, Ugalde Araya MP, Zafar B. The impact of COVID-19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey. J Public Econ. 2020;191:e104271.

Salari N, Hosseinian-Far A, Jalali R, Vaisi-Raygani A, Rasoulpoor S, Mohammadi M, et al. Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Health. 2020;16:57.

Oliveira C, Pereira A, Vagos P, Nóbrega C, Gonçalves J, Afonso B. Effectiveness of mobile app-based psychological interventions for college students: a systematic review of the literature. Front Psychol. 2021;12:e647606.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the participants supporting this survey. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant nos.: 31971413 and 32171490].

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) through grant 31971413 to D.L. and grant 32171490 to Y.W.

Author information

Yang Wang and Yajing Zhang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Hebei Key Laboratory of Animal Physiology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Life Sciences, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang, 050024, China

Yang Wang, Limin Wang & Dongming Li

College of Education, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang, 050024, China

Yajing Zhang, Jun Wang & Ning Jia

School of Languages and Culture, Hebei GEO University, Shijiazhuang, 050031, China

Wenci Ge & Shengxuan Li

Hebei Collaborative Innovation Center for Eco-Environment, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang, 050024, China

Yang Wang & Dongming Li

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

D.L., Y.W., Y.Z., and S.L. conceived the ideas and designed the methodology; Y.W., Y.Z., J.W., S.L., L.W., and D.L. collected the data; Y.W., Y.Z., and D.L. implemented data analyses; Y.W., D.L., and S.L. wrote the first draft; N.J., W.G., L.W., and Y.Z. substantially revised the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Shengxuan Li or Dongming Li .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were conducted in accordance with ethical standards. The study was approved by the Ethics and Animal Welfare Committee of Hebei Normal University (2020LLSC003). Participants were informed that completion of the questionnaire signified their informed consent and commitment to maintaining full confidentiality of the data.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1, supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, J. et al. Impact of campus closure during COVID-19 on lifestyle, educational performance, and anxiety levels of college students in China. BMC Public Health 24 , 2218 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19744-8

Download citation

Received : 29 May 2024

Accepted : 09 August 2024

Published : 15 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19744-8

Share this article

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

• Campus lockdown
• College student
• COVID-19 pandemic
• Psychological status

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Kids’ mental health is in crisis. Here’s what psychologists are doing to help

Research is focused on child and teen mental health, exploring why they are struggling and what can be done to help them

Vol. 54 No. 1 Print version: page 63

• Mental Health

[ This article is part of the 2023 Trends Report ]

The Covid -19 pandemic era ushered in a new set of challenges for youth in the United States, leading to a mental health crisis as declared by the United States surgeon general just over a year ago. But U.S. children and teens have been suffering for far longer.

In the 10 years leading up to the pandemic, feelings of persistent sadness and hopelessness—as well as suicidal thoughts and behaviors—increased by about 40% among young people, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System .

“We’re seeing really high rates of suicide and depression, and this has been going on for a while,” said psychologist Kimberly Hoagwood, PhD, a professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine. “It certainly got worse during the pandemic.”

In addition to the social isolation and academic disruption nearly all children and teens faced, many also lost caregivers to Covid -19, had a parent lose their job, or were victims of physical or emotional abuse at home.

All these difficulties, on top of growing concerns about social media, mass violence, natural disasters, climate change, and political polarization—not to mention the normal ups and downs of childhood and adolescence—can feel insurmountable for those who work with kids.

“The idea of a ‘mental health crisis’ is really broad. For providers and parents, the term can be anxiety-provoking,” said Melissa Brymer, PhD, who directs terrorism and disaster programs at the UCLA–Duke University National Center for Child Traumatic Stress. “Part of our role is to highlight specific areas that are critical in this discussion.”

Across the field, psychologists are doing just that. In addition to studying the biological, social, and structural contributors to the current situation, they are developing and disseminating solutions to families, in schools, and at the state level. They’re exploring ways to improve clinical training and capacity and working to restructure policies to support the most vulnerable children and teens.

Psychologists were also behind new mental health recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a group of volunteer health professionals who evaluate evidence on various preventive health services. The task force now recommends regular anxiety screenings for youth ages 8 to 18 and regular depression screenings for adolescents ages 12 to 18.

“I see these trends in children’s mental health problems as being critical, but there are solutions,” Hoagwood said. “If we refocus our efforts toward those solutions, we could see some of these tides turn.”

Sources of stress

Across the United States, more than 200,000 children lost a parent or primary caregiver to Covid -19 (“ Covid -19 Orphanhood,” Imperial College London, 2022). In the face of those losses, families had to curtail mourning rituals and goodbye traditions because of social distancing requirements and other public health measures, Brymer said. Many children are still grieving, sometimes while facing added challenges such as moving to a different home or transferring to a new school with unfamiliar peers.

The CDC also reports that during the pandemic, 29% of U.S. high school students had a parent or caregiver who lost their job, 55% were emotionally abused by a parent or caregiver, and 11% were physically abused ( Adolescent Behaviors and Experiences Survey—United States, January–June 2021 , CDC ).

“Schools are crucial for keeping kids safe and connecting them with services, but the pandemic completely disrupted those kinds of supports,” Brymer said.

Those extreme disruptions didn’t affect all young people equally. Echoing pre- Covid -19 trends, the CDC also found that girls, LGBTQ+ youth, and those who have experienced racism were more likely to have poor mental health during the pandemic, said social psychologist Kathleen Ethier, PhD, director of the CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health.

Contributing factors likely include stigma, discrimination, and online bullying, Ethier said. Female students also report much higher levels of sexual violence than their male peers, which can further harm mental health.

As much hardship as Covid -19 wrought, it’s far from the only factor contributing to the current crisis. Biology also appears to play a role. The age of puberty has been dropping for decades, especially in girls, likely leading to difficulty processing complex feelings and knowing what to do about them ( Eckert-Lind, C., et al., JAMA Pediatrics , Vol. 174, No. 4, 2020 ). In early puberty, regions of the brain linked to emotions and social behavior are developing more quickly than regions responsible for the cognitive control of behavior, such as the prefrontal cortex, Ethier said.

Those developmental changes drive young people to seek attention and approval from their peers . For some, using social media fulfills that need in a healthy way, providing opportunities for connection and validation to youth who may be isolated from peers, geographically or otherwise.

For others, negative messages—including online bullying and unrealistic standards around physical appearance—appear to have a detrimental effect, but more research is needed to understand who is most at risk.

“There is clearly some aspect of young people’s online life that’s contributing [to the mental health crisis], we just don’t know exactly what that is,” said Ethier.

Finally, structural factors that affect millions of U.S. children, including poverty, food insecurity, homelessness, and lack of access to health care and educational opportunities, can lead to stress-response patterns that are known to underlie mental health challenges.

“Even in very young children, prolonged stress can trigger a cycle of emotion-regulation problems, which can in turn lead to anxiety, depression, and behavioral difficulties,” Hoagwood said. “These things are well established, but we’re not doing enough as a field to address them.”

Building capacity in schools

The biggest challenge facing mental health care providers right now, experts say, is a shortage of providers trained to meet the mounting needs of children and adolescents.

“There’s a growing recognition that mental health is just as important as physical health in young people’s development, but that’s happening just as mental health services are under extreme strain,” said clinical psychologist Robin Gurwitch, PhD, a professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University Medical Center.

Schools, for example, are a key way to reach and help children—but a 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that only about half of U.S. public schools offer mental health assessments and even fewer offer treatment services. Psychologists are now ramping up efforts to better equip schools to support student well-being onsite.

Much of that work involves changing policies at the school or district level to provide more support for all students. For example, school connectedness—the degree to which young people feel that adults and peers at school care about them and are invested in their success—is a key contributor to mental health. Youth who felt connected during middle and high school have fewer problems with substance use, mental health, suicidality, and risky sexual behavior as adults ( Steiner, R. J., et al., Pediatrics , Vol. 144, No. 1, 2019 ).

Through its What Works in Schools program , the CDC funds school districts to make changes that research shows foster school connectedness. Those include improving classroom management, implementing service-learning programs for students in their communities, bringing mentors from the community into schools, and making schools safer and more supportive for LGBTQ+ students.

Psychologists are also building training programs to help teachers and other school staff create supportive classrooms and aid students who are in distress. Classroom Wise (Well-Being Information and Strategies for Educators), developed by the Mental Health Technology Transfer Center Network and the University of Maryland’s National Center for School Mental Health (NCSMH), is a free, flexible online course and resource library that draws on psychological research on social-emotional learning, behavioral regulation, mental health literacy, trauma, and more ( Evidence-Based Components of Classroom Wise (PDF, 205KB), NCSMH, 2021 ).

“We’re using evidence-based practices from child and adolescent mental health but making these strategies readily available for teachers to apply in the classroom,” said clinical psychologist Nancy Lever, PhD, codirector of NCSMH, who helped develop Classroom Wise .

The course incorporates the voices of students and educators and teaches actionable strategies such as how to create rules and routines that make classrooms feel safe and how to model emotional self-regulation. The strategies can be used by anyone who interacts with students, from teachers and administrators to school nurses, coaches, and bus drivers.

“What we need is to build capacity through all of the systems that are part of children’s lives—in families, in schools, in the education of everybody who interacts with children,” said psychologist Ann Masten, PhD, a professor of child development at the University of Minnesota.

Other training efforts focus on the students themselves. Given that preteens and teenagers tend to seek support from their peers before turning to adults, the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) created conversation cards to equip kids with basic skills for talking about suicide. The advice, available in English and Spanish, includes how to ask about suicidal thoughts, how to listen without judgment, and when to seek guidance from an adult ( Talking About Suicide With Friends and Peers, NCTSN, 2021 ).

While training people across the school population to spot and address mental health concerns can help reduce the strain on mental health professionals, there will always be a subset of students who need more specialized support.

Telehealth, nearly ubiquitous these days, is one of the best ways to do that. In South Carolina, psychologist Regan Stewart, PhD, and her colleagues colaunched the Telehealth Outreach Program at the Medical University of South Carolina in 2015. Today, nearly every school in the state has telehealth equipment (Wi-Fi and tablets or laptops that kids can use at school or take home) and access to providers (psychology and social work graduate students and clinicians trained in trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy). Students who need services, which are free thanks to grant funding or covered by Medicaid, meet one-on-one with their clinician during the school day or after hours ( American Psychologist , Vol. 75, No. 8, 2020 ).

“We learned a lot about the use of technology during the pandemic,” Ethier said. “At this point, it’s very much a matter of having sufficient resources so more school districts can access those sources of care.”

Expanding the workforce

Limited resources are leaving families low on options, with some young people making multiple trips to the emergency room for mental health-related concerns or spending more than six months on a waiting list for mental health support. That points to a need for more trained emergency responders and psychiatric beds, psychologists say, but also for better upstream screening and prevention to reduce the need for intensive care.

“Just as we need more capacity for psychiatric emergencies in kids, we also need an infusion of knowledge and ordinary strategies to support mental health on the positive side,” Masten said.

In New York, Hoagwood helped launch the state-funded Evidence Based Treatment Dissemination Center in 2006, which offers free training on evidence-based practices for trauma, behavioral and attention problems, anxiety, depression, and more to all mental health professionals who work with children in state-licensed programs, which include foster care, juvenile justice, and school settings, among others. The center provides training on a core set of tools known as PracticeWise ( Chorpita, B. F., & Daleiden E. L., Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , Vol. 77, No. 3, 2009 ). It also offers tailored training based on requests from community agency leaders and clinicians who provide services to children and their families.

Hoagwood, in collaboration with a consortium of family advocates, state officials, and researchers, also helped build and test a state-approved training model and credentialing program for family and youth peer advocates. The peer advocate programs help expand the mental health workforce while giving families access to peers who have similar lived experience ( Psychiatric Services , Vol. 71, No. 5, 2020).

Youth peer advocates are young adults who have personal experience with systems such as foster care, juvenile justice, or state psychiatric care. They work within care teams to provide basic education and emotional support to other youth, such as giving advice on what questions to ask a new mental health practitioner and explaining the differences between psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers. Youth peer advocates in New York can now receive college credit for their training in peer specialist work.

“Making community health work into a viable career can also increase diversity among mental health workers and help us address structural racism,” Hoagwood said.

Pediatricians are another group that can provide a first line of defense, drawing on their relationships with parents to destigmatize mental health care.

“Pediatricians are in many ways uniquely positioned to help address the mental health crisis in youth,” said Janine A. Rethy, MD, MPH, division chief of community pediatrics at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital and an associate professor of pediatrics at Georgetown University School of Medicine. “We have the privilege of building long-term relationships with children and their families over many years,” with at least 12 well-child checkups in just the first three years of a child’s life, followed by annual visits.

During these visits, they can watch for warning signs of social and behavioral problems and screen for maternal depression and other issues in parents, which is now recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (PDF, 660KB) . Several new resources provide guidance for integrating mental health care into pediatric practices, including the Behavioral Health Integration Compendium (PDF, 4.1MB) and the Healthy Steps program . But most pediatricians need more education on mental health issues in order to effectively respond, Rethy said—yet another area where psychologists may be able to help. Psychologists can provide direct consultations and training to pediatricians through the Pediatric Mental Health Care Access program.

“The more we can weave mental health knowledge, capacity, and checkpoints into places where parents feel comfortable—like the doctor’s office and at school—the better,” Masten said. “All professionals who work with young people really need the knowledge that’s being generated by psychologists.”

11 emerging trends for 2023

Scientists reach a wider audience

Psychologists take aim at misinformation

Psychological research becomes more inclusive

EDI roles expand

Worker well-being is in demand

Efforts to improve childrens’ mental health increase

Partnerships accelerate progress

Suicide prevention gets a new lifeline

Some faculty exit academia

Venture capitalists shift focus

Psychologists rebrand the field

Further reading

Science shows how to protect kids’ mental health, but it’s being ignored Prinstein, M., & Ethier, K. A., Scientific American , 2022

How pediatricians can help mitigate the mental health crisis Rethy, J. A., & Chawla, E. M., Contemporary Pediatrics , 2022

Review: Structural racism, children’s mental health service systems, and recommendations for policy and practice change Alvarez, K., et al., Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 2022

Six Things Psychologists are Talking About

The APA Monitor on Psychology ® sister e-newsletter offers fresh articles on psychology trends, new research, and more.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

Speaking of Psychology

Subscribe to APA’s audio podcast series highlighting some of the most important and relevant psychological research being conducted today.

Subscribe to Speaking of Psychology and download via:

Contact APA

Related topics.

• Mental health

You may also like

• DOI: 10.4102/sajcd.v71i1.1017
• Corpus ID: 271380212

South African caregivers of children with autism during COVID-19: A scoping review

• Jade Berson , S. Adams
• Published in South African Journal of… 18 July 2024
• Medicine, Psychology

Figures and Tables from this paper

60 References

Impact of the covid-19 pandemic on children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder and their families: a mixed-methods study protocol, mental health of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder during covid-19 pandemic: a systematic review, coping with autism during lockdown period of the covid-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey.

• Highly Influential

Brief Report: Impact of COVID-19 on Individuals with ASD and Their Caregivers: A Perspective from the SPARK Cohort

Impact of the covid-19 pandemic on children with asd and their families: an online survey in china, psychosocial and behavioral impact of covid-19 in autism spectrum disorder: an online parent survey, how parents of children with autism spectrum disorder experience the covid-19 pandemic: perspectives and insights on the new normal, the effects of the covid-19 pandemic on the well-being of children with autism spectrum disorder: parents’ perspectives, covid-19 impact on children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability: study in saudi arabia, life under lockdown for children with autism spectrum disorder: insights from families in south africa., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Public Health

Mental Health Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Focuses and Trends

Yaodong liang.

1 Law School, Changsha University, Changsha, China

2 Department of Psychology, University of Toronto St. George, Toronto, ON, Canada

3 Centre for Mental Health and Education, Central South University, Changsha, China

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly influenced the world. In wave after wave, many countries suffered from the pandemic, which caused social instability, hindered global growth, and harmed mental health. Although research has been published on various mental health issues during the pandemic, some profound effects on mental health are difficult to observe and study thoroughly in the short term. The impact of the pandemic on mental health is still at a nascent stage of research. Based on the existing literature, we used bibliometric tools to conduct an overall analysis of mental health research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Researchers from universities, hospitals, communities, and medical institutions around the world used questionnaire surveys, telephone-based surveys, online surveys, cross-sectional surveys, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and systematic umbrella reviews as their research methods. Papers from the three academic databases, Web of Science (WOS), ProQuest Academic Database (ProQuest), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), were included. Their previous research results were systematically collected, sorted, and translated and CiteSpace 5.1 and VOSviewers 1.6.13 were used to conduct a bibliometric analysis of them.

Authors with papers in this field are generally from the USA, the People's Republic of China, the UK, South Korea, Singapore, and Australia. Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University are the top three institutions in terms of the production of research papers on the subject. The University of Toronto, Columbia University, and the University of Melbourne played an important role in the research of mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic. The numbers of related research papers in the USA and China are significantly larger than those in the other countries, while co-occurrence centrality indexes in Germany, Italy, England, and Canada may be higher.

We found that the most mentioned keywords in the study of mental health research during the COVID-19 pandemic can be divided into three categories: keywords that represent specific groups of people, that describe influences and symptoms, and that are related to public health policies. The most-cited issues were about medical staff, isolation, psychological symptoms, telehealth, social media, and loneliness. Protection of the youth and health workers and telemedicine research are expected to gain importance in the future.

Introduction

Although the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic will be recorded in human medical history and in socio-economic history, various psychological consequences regarding mental health among populations cannot be ignored, including stress, anxiety, depression, frustration, insomnia, and so on. Researchers from universities, hospitals, communities, and medical institutions worldwide have been focusing on mental health problems during the pandemic. They have used questionnaire surveys, telephone-based surveys, online surveys, cross-sectional surveys, systematic reviews and meta-analysis, and systematic umbrella reviews to investigate mental health problems during the pandemic. Two years after the outbreak of the COVID-19, the pandemic has gradually subsided in some countries, while others have adopted a strategy of coexisting with the virus. If more deadly mutant strains do not appear in the future, it is very likely that the pandemic will not climax again. It is pertinent to summarize and study mental health research during the pandemic, because many psychological problems have arisen as a result, and there has been significant interest in research on such issues in the previous two years.

As an effective quantitative analysis method, bibliometrics can be used not only to assess the quality and quantity of published papers, but also to explore research focuses and trends, the distribution of authors and institutions, the impact of publications, journals, and different countries regarding research contributions to the theme. Due to the rapid growth in research in this area, there are now over 1,000 academic papers, and accordingly, it would appear necessary to investigate important, valid, and meaningful information from large databases to guide scientific research. The authors used CiteSpace and VOSviewers to determine the focuses and trends in this regard.

Data Analysis and Visualization

The authors searched the Web of Science (WOS), ProQuest Academic Database (ProQuest), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to extract publications related to mental health and COVID-19. Their previous research results were systematically collected, sorted, and translated, and CiteSpace 5.1 and VOSviewers 1.6.13 were used to conduct a bibliometric analysis of them.

Data Source and Search Strategy

Our team selected 1,226 papers from 2019 to 2022 using three combinations of keywords, mental health and COVID-19, mental health and new coronavirus, and mental health and novel coronavirus, from the three academic paper databases, WOS, ProQuest, and CNKI. Two explanations are necessary here, the first is about the keywords and the second is about the databases. (1) The reason we used new or novel coronavirus as keywords was that the name COVID-19 has not been determined about 2 years ago. In order not to miss relevant research results, we also included these synonyms as keywords for the search. (2) Among the three databases, WOS and ProQuest, in which most of the English-language papers were published, are well-known to scholars all around the world. However, the CNKI database is not as popular as WOS or ProQuest given that most of the papers in CNKI were published in Chinese. We chose to use the CNKI data for the following three reasons: first, China was the most affected country during the COVID-19 outbreak and Chinese academic journals published significant research on mental health. Second, CNKI is the largest Chinese academic database. Third, after the outbreak, the Chinese government's virus clearance policy has been implemented and continues to date. Strict control has helped suppress the spread of the virus, but has also likely had mental health implications, given the severe reduction in social interactions. Therefore, we think that the Chinese database is appropriate and useful in this study.

About 50% of the articles were from the WOS, about 10% of the articles from ProQuest, and about 40% from CNKI. Basic information such as title, author, institution, country, abstract, keywords, methods, results, and conclusions of all articles, if not in English, are translated into English and analyzed using SiteSpaceII and VOSviewers. Since the keywords include COVID-19 and mental health, synonyms such as novel coronavirus and psychological distress spontaneously appeared while searching. Words that are closely related to the subject, such as public health, quarantine, and insomnia, were most frequently mentioned.

Most articles were published during the period from February 2020 to July 2022, including those pre-published online from April to July, and only one article that had been published in 2019 was included. Judging from the line chart above, since the volume of COVID-19 and mental health-related articles had already risen two times in June 2020 and June 2021 and then remained low until now, it is high time to conclude a previous study on COVID-19 and mental health, to sort out the foci of those studies, and to analyze and predict future trends ( Figure 1 ).

The volume of COVID-19 and mental health-related articles in 2020–2022.

Scholars from around the world have contributed to the study of mental health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. The top 10 countries with the largest quantum of publications related to mental health during COVID-19 are the USA, People's Republic of China, England, Canada, Australia, India, Italy, Japan, Iran, and Germany. Wide and active participation of several countries has laid a solid foundation for its future development. Universities, hospitals, communities, and medical institutions around the world have conducted sample surveys of patients, students, community residents, medical workers, and other sample populations of considerable sample sizes since the outbreak. Survey and research methods include questionnaire survey, telephone-based survey, online survey, cross-sectional survey, systematic review and meta-analyses, and systematic umbrella review ( Table 1 ).

Top 20 countries.

Most papers are from the USA, the People's Republic of China, England, Australia, Canada, India, Italy, Iran, Japan, and Germany. Judging from the country or region co-occurrence graph, England and Canada are in the center of this graph, with India, Poland, Denmark, Spain, South Korea, Portugal, Italy, and Canada around them. England, Australia, Canada, Japan, Brazil, India, Iran, and Germany have done significant research work in this field. In addition, the number of related research papers in the USA and China is significantly larger than that in all other countries ( Figure 2 ).

Country or region co-occurrence.

In Table 2 , we can see that most names of the top 20 authors are Asian names, and they are mainly from China. Six of them published more than 10 articles by the end of 2021. In the extended ranking, we find that the authors who have published a large number of papers are generally from the USA, China, the UK, South Korea, Singapore, and Australia. The authors Griffiths MD, Cheung T, Xiang Y, Lin C, Wang Y, and Zhang L were very active in this field of study.

Top 20 authors.

In the abovementioned graphs, we can see six groups of related authors. The VOSviewer was used to describe the partnership between them. Though six colors were used to separate these groups, there were still lines connecting the groups to represent the partnership between them. We can take Cheung T and Xiang Y as the center of the largest group. Another group with Griffiths MD and Lin C as its center was also significant ( Figures 3 , ​ ,4 4 ).

Author co-occurrence.

Author co-occurrence groups.

The top five institutions are Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Columbia University, and the University of Toronto. Meanwhile, the top five institutions in centrality are the University of Macau, the University of Melbourne, Columbia University, Wuhan University, and the University of Toronto. It is worth mentioning that Huazhong University of Science and Technology and Wuhan University are located in the city of Wuhan, one of the areas most affected by the virus through the outbreak. The society and economy of the city temporarily stagnated at the time, and its medical system was once paralyzed. Eventually, Wuhan City's medical system was fully recovered. The University of Toronto, Columbia University, and the University of Melbourne have played an important role in the research of mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Table 3 and Figure 5 ).

Top 20 institutions.

Institutions' co-occurrence.

As can be seen in Figure 6 , Huazhong University of Science and Technology has led Chinese universities and research institutions, such as Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Peking University, in conducting research on COVID-19 and mental health. Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Fudan University, and the University of Melbourne acted as bridges, connecting famous universities and research institutions in Europe, America, and other countries in the world, such as Kings College London and Harvard Medical School, to jointly study issues in this field. In particular, they conduct joint research, directly or indirectly, through Hong Kong Polytechnic University, which display the important communication and joint role of Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Keyword clustering.

Judging from Table 4 , the most mentioned keywords, in addition to COVID-19 and mental health, can be roughly divided into three categories: (1) keywords representing specific groups of people, such as adolescents, young adults, doctors, nurses, medical staff, and healthcare workers; (2) keywords describing influences and symptoms, such as isolation, loneliness, anxiety, depression, stress, and insomnia; and (3) keywords related to public health policies, such as lockdown, social distancing, telehealth, telemedicine, and quarantine.

Keyword clustering I.

In Graph 7, we can judge that COVID-19, mental health, pandemic, and coronavirus are represented by larger red dots as their centrality indexes are naturally higher. In this bibliometric network map, other keywords emerged next to them and together formed this visualization bibliometric network. Occupational and sociodemographic characteristics are clustered together, while symptoms of mental health problems are clustered next to them. Specific groups of people and their typical symptoms and causes occupy certain areas on the map. For example, typical symptoms of university students and the possible causes of these symptoms are grouped together on the map. Similarly, quarantine policy and its influence are also classified in certain areas. In addition, research methods and solutions appeared sporadically on this map.

Table 5 shows eight groups of core keywords separated from keyword clustering I. Each of these groups contains three keywords, which proves that these keywords appear at the same time in a considerable part of the research, and are more closely related. Keyword ClusteringII cannot only present the outline of existing mental health research in academia, but also highlights the focus of research. In addition, SiteSpaceII and VOSviewers also gave us some clues about the research trends and further development.

Keyword clustering II.

Research Focuses

Medical staff.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated mental health problems among populations, especially medical staff, patients with COVID-19, chronic disease patients, and isolated people. Doctors, nurses, and other medical staff have significantly higher rates of insomnia than other populations ( 1 ). The researchers obtained the relevant demographic data through the WeChat questionnaire survey. Questions in the questionnaire are related to insomnia, depression, anxiety, and stress-related symptoms during the pandemic. Their research found that, since the outbreak, more than one-third of the medical staff suffered from symptoms of insomnia. Psychological intervention measures were necessary for those people ( 2 ). Research within medical institutions shows that the psychological pressure of medical staff in isolation wards was greater, but had also attracted greater attention from hospital administrators. The concern of hospital managers alleviated the pressure of medical staff to a certain extent. Further, concern for the public also reduced their psychological burden. In terms of anxiety about infection and fatigue factors, the research results showed that the psychological burden of nurses was heavier than that of doctors. Healthcare workers who lived with their own children showed more obvious fatigue and anxiety, which might be due to the fear of their children becoming infected. In terms of workload and work motivation, medical staff who have been working for more than 20 years have a heavier workload, but they can still maintain their enthusiasm to fight against the pandemic ( 3 ). Another survey showed that 73.4% of healthcare workers, mainly physicians, nurses, and auxiliary staff, reported post-traumatic stress symptoms during outbreaks, with symptoms persisting for up to 3 years in 10–40% of the cases. Depressive symptoms were reported in 27.5–50.7%, insomnia symptoms in 34–36.1%, and severe anxiety symptoms in 45% ( 4 ). A subgroup analysis revealed gender and occupational differences, with female health care practitioners and nurses exhibiting higher rates of affective symptoms compared to men and medical staff, respectively ( 5 ).

As a result, depressive symptoms (21%) and anxiety symptoms (19%) are higher during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to previous epidemiological data. About 16% of the subjects suffered from severe clinical insomnia during the lockdown. The pandemic and lockdown seemed to be particularly stressful for younger adults who were under 35 years old, women, people out of work, or those with low incomes ( 6 ). In the fight against the pandemic, China adopted measures to restrict population aggregation, such as the blockade of pandemic areas, individual patient isolation, and restrictions on the movement of people in non-pandemic areas. These measures effectively prevented the spread of the pandemic. At the same time, the use of health codes, grid-like community management, and the operational efficiency of infectious disease information networks have greatly improved. However, quarantine has also brought with it a number of problems, such as increasing psychological pressure on the population, affecting the daily lives of families, and hindering social and economic development ( 7 ). A large sample size study with wide coverage published in 2021 showed that young people quarantined at home in different provinces had different rates of anxiety and depression due to different severity of pandemic situations in different regions. The risk of anxiety and depression was statistically significantly higher in girls than in boys. The rate of anxiety and depression was affected by factors, such as gender, age, and area, as well as the existence of COVID-19 cases in the surrounding area ( 8 ).

Psychological Symptoms

The impact of the aforementioned isolation measures on mental health is only part of the impact of the COVID-19 on mental health. Psychological symptoms brought about by the pandemic have also been systematically sorted out by scholars. These studies show two clues. First, certain people have special psychological symptoms; second, psychological symptoms in different countries of the world are roughly the same. Several factors were associated with a higher risk of psychiatric symptoms or low psychological wellbeing, including female gender and poor self-related health ( 9 ). Relatively, severe symptoms of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological distress, and stress were reported in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic in China, Spain, Italy, Iran, the USA, Turkey, Nepal, and Denmark. Risk factors associated with measures of distress include female gender, younger age group, the presence of chronic or psychiatric illnesses, unemployment, student status, and frequent exposure to social media or news concerning COVID-19. The pandemic is associated with significant levels of psychological distress that, in many cases, will meet the threshold for clinical relevance. Mitigating the hazardous effects of COVID-19 on mental health is an international public health priority ( 1 ). Infectious disease pandemics often cause some people to act irrationally. The results of a survey based on psychological symptoms and irrational behaviors have drawn some conclusions. First, the vast majority of people remain in good physical and mental health, but some exhibit irrational behaviors. Second, women, elderly people, and those with confirmed cases showed more physical and mental symptoms and irrational behaviors. Finally, paradoxically, people with high education levels showed more mental symptoms, but fewer irrational behaviors ( 10 ).

Telemedicine

Just as the pandemic has enabled the rapid development of online education, the prospects of telemedicine are also favored by experts, observers, and investors. However, there are two restrictive aspects, namely, telemedicine equipment and telemedicine human resources. The application of 5G communication technology, telemedicine equipment, remote monitoring equipment, remote physical sign monitoring equipment, and medical artificial intelligence triage equipment all need to be urgently developed and improved. Jiangsu, a province in China, is a model province of the national project called “Internet + Medical and Health.” During the pandemic, the telemedicine by public hospitals in Jiangsu Province helped improve the efficiency of diagnosis and treatment, alleviating the pressure of offline diagnosis and treatment, and reducing the risk of cross-infection. Subsequently, medical staff were fully supportive of telemedicine. However, there was a shortage of medical staff in fever clinics, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and psychiatrists that provided telemedicine services, and they lacked corresponding incentive mechanisms ( 11 ). Effective mitigation strategies to improve mental health were developed by public health management experts. To control the rapid spread of COVID-19 and manage the crisis better, both developed and developing countries have been improving the efficiency of their health system by replacing a proportion of face-to-face clinical encounters with telemedicine solutions ( 12 ).

Social Media

There were rumors in various kinds of media during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although we can regard rumors as a disturbing error for psychological measurement, if they are not strictly controlled, their impact on people's mental health and behavior cannot be ignored. A study focusing on the spread of WeChat rumors has explored the psychological perception mechanism of audiences affected by rumor spreading in emergency situations. The study has significant results in the following terms: the form characteristics of the rumors in COVID-19, the ranking of susceptible age groups, the degree of dependence of the test subject on certain media and its psychological impact, and the follow-up behavior of the test subjects related to psychological variables ( 2 ). In 2021, another interesting study based on the data of TikTok videos released by three mainstream media in China showed that they inevitably caused some psychological trauma to the public. However, from the perspective of overall emotional orientation, short-format videos with positive reporting emotional tendencies had an advantage in attracting likes from TikTok users. Positive government responses to pandemic information were very important, and those responses could be recognized and praised by most social media users. Some of the TikTok videos, such as The Plasma of a Recovered Patient Cured 11 Other ICU Patients, The First COVID-19 Test Kit Passed Inspection, and A Frenchman Named Fred gave up Returning to Home to Join China's Anti-COVID-19 Battle, are extremely popular among social media users. Most social media users have been providing spiritual sustenance for people in the pandemic ( 13 ). When a public health crisis occurs, social media plays an important role in increasing public vigilance, helping the public identify rumors, and boosting public morale.

University Students and Loneliness

A study that assessed the adverse impact on the mental health of university students has drawn some conclusions. First, the severity of the outbreak has an indirect effect on negative emotions by affecting sleep quality. Second, a possible mitigation strategy to improve mental health includes ensuring suitable amounts of daily physical activity and deep sleep. Third, the pandemic has reduced people's aggressiveness, probably by making people realize the fragility and preciousness of life ( 14 ). Another research focused on social networks and mental health compared two cohorts of Swiss undergraduate students who were experiencing the crisis, and made an additional comparison with an earlier cohort who did not experience the pandemic. The researchers found that interaction and co-study networks had become sparser, and more students were studying alone. Stressors shifted from fear of missing out on social life to concern about health, family, friends, and their future ( 15 ). Young adults, women, people with lower education or lower income, the economically inactive, people living alone, and urban residents were at greater risk of being lonely during the pandemic. Being a student emerged as a higher than usual risk factor for loneliness during the lockdown ( 16 ). A study to explore the relationship between loneliness and stress among undergraduates in North America showed that the loneliness and stress among college students increased. On one hand, stress plays a key role in the deterioration of college students' mental health; on the other hand, reducing the loneliness of college students is expected to reduce the negative impact of stress on college students' mental health ( 17 ).

Research Trends

Due to the limited training sample of academic papers at present, it is difficult to predict the outcomes accurately. Though we cannot exactly predict the hot issues in the future, we can sort out some possible research trends in this field by analyzing existing research approaches. Psychological symptoms that affected people's mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic will be discovered further, especially those that probably continued to affect people's mental health even after the pandemic is controlled.

Studies on mild psychological symptoms, such as mild insomnia and anxiety, tend to decrease slowly, and in the case of severe problems caused by the pandemic, or severe psychological symptoms, such as clinical insomnia, depression, bipolar disorder, the corresponding in-depth research will continue. The impact of a global pandemic on the mental health of the global population must be profound and worthy of study. Due to the rapid development of COVID-19, many famous universities and research institutions have not had enough time to collect sufficient data and relevant research materials. The different effects on populations in different countries with different pandemic prevention policies are not yet fully displayed.

Regardless of how research on mental health develops, the COVID-19 pandemic has indeed brought us some new insights. As mentioned in many articles on mental health interventions for adolescents and college students, the mental health of specific populations and the development of telemedicine all deserve continued academic attention. Mental health intervention for adolescents and college students is a means to consider and prepare for the future. To ensure responsible and accountable behavior for future generations, we should all pay attention to the research and application of this method. Caring for specific groups of people, such as doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers, and studying how to protect them in a global pandemic is a topic that global academia must study in the future, or we will lose protection the next time the virus sweeps the world. In addition, telemedicine is the trend in the future, and face-to-face diagnosis and treatment will undoubtedly increase the risk of cross-infection during the pandemic. Therefore, the development of telemedicine is an important way to avoid contact between the patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the research and development of telemedicine.

Limitations

(1) Though we have selected three databases for analysis, there are still some databases that may be related to this field that are not covered in this study. (2) Since COVID-19-related research was started just 2 years ago, the results of the bibliometric analysis may vary after adding new data. (3) The citation frequency of articles is influenced by the time of publication, thus previously published articles should be cited more frequently than new ones. (4) Bibliometric data change over time, and different conclusions may be drawn over time. Therefore, this study should be updated in the future.

Conclusions

The most mentioned keywords, in addition to COVID-19 and mental health, can be roughly divided into three categories: keywords representing specific groups of people, keywords describing influences and symptoms, and keywords related to public health policies. The most mentioned issues were about medical staff, quarantine, psychological symptoms, telemedicine, social media, and loneliness. Mild psychological symptoms, such as insomnia, depression, and anxiety, tend to decrease slowly, while severe ones, such as severe clinical insomnia, depression, and bipolar disorder, are yet to be discovered. The importance of studies on the protection of youth medical staff and telemedicine studies will become even more significant in the future. While physical health is threatened by the pandemic, human mental health also suffers. Judging from the current situation of pandemic prevention and control, if severe prevention and control measures are taken, the impact of COVID-19 on the health of the social population is controllable; if a strategy of coexistence with the virus is adopted, as long as a new deadly mutation of COVID-19 does not emerge, the outcomes can be controllable. However, the impact of the pandemic on human mental health is not easy to predict. In addition to the abovementioned papers on mental health, the author also noted that some papers focused on neuromedicine pointed out that the virus might have some damage to the normal working mechanism of the human nervous system, but these studies are outside the scope of mental health research, at least for now. This study aims to summarize the observations, analysis, and research of scholars on mental health during the pandemic from 2020 to early 2022, with a view to provide more clues for future researchers. We hope that more researchers will build on our research to discover new research areas and new questions to help more countries, groups, and individuals affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Data Availability Statement

Author contributions.

YL was responsible for the concept and design, drafting this article, and bibliometric analysis. YL, LS, and XT were responsible for the revision and data collection. All authors contributed to this article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the study participants for their time and effort.

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

• Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP

Getty Images

CVS Health: How Educators, Parents Factor Into Adolescent Mental Health

Parents and educators can play important roles in adolescents’ mental health journeys, especially as the adolescent mental health crisis escalates..

• Kelsey Waddill, Senior Editor and Multimedia Manager

Adolescents are more likely to approach educators about mental health concerns than they are to approach their parents, but parents are more likely to initiate conversations about mental health than educators, according to a poll conducted by CVS Health and Morning Consult .

From August 12 through August 23, 2022, the researchers polled 500 parents and 340 educators online. The educators taught children between the ages of 13 and 17.

“Young people continue to face a mental health crisis, but they are not facing it alone. Most are turning to the adults in their lives for help—both at home and at school,” said Karen Lynch, CVS Health President and chief executive officer.

“To increase our attention on adolescents’ mental health, we have launched new programs to reach them and their families directly, and resources to help parents and caregivers better understand mental distress and available support. Mental health can, and should, become a part of everyday conversation in the classroom, during lunch hour and at the dinner table.”

More than three-quarters of educators stated that they were concerned about adolescent mental health (76 percent). Also, nearly eight in ten educators said that children had approached them to discuss a mental health concern (78 percent). But less than a quarter of educators said that they had initiated discussions of mental health with a child (22 percent).

According to educators, the four drivers of poor mental health among children are: family dynamics, self-esteem, social dynamics such as bullying, and social media. Educators were more ready than parents to identify gender, race, and sexuality as factors in mental health, with three-quarters of educators noting these factors compared to only a quarter of parents.

In contrast to educators, far fewer parents expressed concerns about children’s mental health (43 percent). Additionally, fewer parents reported that children had ever approached them about mental healthcare needs. Despite these responses, parents were more likely to say that they had initiated conversations about mental health with their children, with nearly half of all parents stating that they had started such conversations (49 percent).

Parents reported that the four drivers of poor mental health among adolescents are: academic pressure, self-esteem, stress due to the coronavirus pandemic, and social dynamics such as bullying.

Despite these disparities between educators and parents, both groups expressed that they knew what to do if an adolescent shared a mental health issue with them. More than nine out of ten educators and parents alike expressed this confidence (94 percent each). They also largely agree that affordable mental healthcare is essential for adolescent mental health.

“The mental health of America’s youth continues to suffer, and our survey reveals the opportunity to create an ecosystem around our children to ensure they get the mental health resources they need,” said Cara McNulty, president of behavioral health and mental well-being at CVS Health.

“Parents and educators create a critical, complementary team that supports adolescents through the impacts of academic and family pressures, self-esteem concerns, COVID-19 and more. By helping adolescents, we can prevent mental health issues and the risk of suicide from arising or becoming worse and set healthy well-being habits in this generation for years to come.”

Recognizing the poor condition of adolescent mental health broadly, CVS Health’s Aetna bolstered its adolescent suicide prevention approach in 2022 .

Some states have responded by using American Rescue Plan Act funding to expand adolescent mental healthcare services, specifically .

In 2021, Centene cited how the pandemic has shaped children’s mental health development. The payer supported partnerships with schools, preventive services for individuals with suicidal thoughts, and informing providers about resources, among other strategies.

• 7 Ways That Payers Help Members Manage Their Mental Health Needs
• Anthem Announces Partnership to Support Maternal Mental Healthcare
• Consumers Say Insurers Are Responsible for Access to Mental Healthcare

Dig Deeper on Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP

A Deep Dive into CA’s mHealth Effort to Support Youth Mental Health

Parental Patient Portal Use Rate in Pediatrics Lower than 50%

Racial Discrimination Shows to Affect Childhood Obesity Rates

Racial Disparities in Adverse Childhood Experiences Tied to Brain Changes

Certain populations bear the brunt of the nation's medical debt burden, even as leaders work to relieve debt and remove it from ...

The Medicare drug price negotiations are slated to save the federal program around $6 billion across 10 selected medications.

The variation in trauma activation charges cannot be fully explained by clinical need, but by trauma center ownership and type.

Healthcare law experts discuss how telehealth providers can stay compliant and vigilant as the Department of Justice accelerates ...

Telehealth use surged among dementia patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, with various social determinants influencing ...

Massachusetts public health officials detail the implementation of a telehealth-based hypertension management program that ...

Women's health in the U.S. trails similarly developed nations in terms of outcomes, care access and healthcare affordability.

VA patients enrolled in the SDOH pilot rideshare program had fewer transportation barriers to care, more access and fewer ...

Most community health centers are bogged down by provider and staff shortages, but they're still able to offer next-day and ...

Key considerations for selecting an EHR vendor include assessing practice needs, conducting a thorough market scan and evaluating...

The proposed rule, which is available for public comment until October 8, 2024, would require HHS contractors to use certified ...

The Traverse Exchange interoperability network supports nationwide health information exchange (HIE) for MEDITECH customers, ...

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Options
• Why Publish with HGS?
• Advance Articles
• About Holocaust and Genocide Studies
• About the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, first wave of terror: the german occupation of rostov, november 1941, the annihilation of rostov's jews, witnesses to the crime, the final stage of the holocaust in rostov, conclusions.

• < Previous

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1476-7937
• Print ISSN 8756-6583
• Copyright © 2024 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Newsletters
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Balance transfer cards
• Cash back cards
• Rewards cards
• Travel cards
• Online checking
• High-yield savings
• Money market
• Home equity loan
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Options pit
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

Large-scale blackouts occur in Rostov-on-Don, Russia, power supply schedule introduced

Electricity disappeared in several areas of Russian Rostov-on-Don on the evening of 13 January.

Source: local publication 161.ru

Details: With reference to readers and social media, the publication reports that residents of the Zapadny, Red Aksai, Nakhichevan, Aleksandrovka, Chkalovsky [microdistricts and residential areas in the city of Rostov-on-Don] and the centre of Rostov were left without power. Also, electricity disappeared in parts of Belaya Kalitva and Bataysk.

The power was turned off at about 21:30. According to the management company Komservice, the streets of Magnitogorsk, Zavodskaya, Zvivistaya and part of Zapadnaya were de-energized. In their Telegram channel, the companies specify that the shutdown would last 2-3 hours.

"Rosseti [Russian Networks – ed.] introduced a schedule of temporary restriction of electricity supply, which is why in particular our consumers were left without power (our substations are powered by Rosseti equipment)," Donenergo commented on the situation.

Sergey Sizikov, Minister of Housing and Public Utilities of Rostov Oblast, reported in his Telegram channel that, according to power engineers, electricity is going to be restored completely by 23:30.

Quote: " Due to technological violations in high-voltage networks, the Regional Dispatch Directorate for Rostov Oblast of the RAO UES [electric power holding company in Russia – ed.] of Russia decided to introduce temporary shutdown schedules in the amount of 270 MW in a number of districts of Rostov Oblast. They plan to restore the normal power supply scheme in the near future," Rosseti Yug (Russian Networks South) commented on the shutdown.

Updated: At 23:58 Moscow time (22:58 Kyiv time), Rosseti South said that electricity was returned to the houses at 23:37.

Support UP or become our patron !