Cited by 115COVID-19 and Mental HealthMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumMental Health Treatment and Access

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health of young people and adults: a systematic review protocol of observational studies

Open access
Silva Junior, Fernando Jose Guedes da, Sales, Jaqueline Carvalho e Silva, Monteiro, Claudete Ferreira de Souza, Costa, Ana Paula Cardoso, Campos, Luana Ruth Braga, Miranda, Priscilla Ingrid Gomes, Monteiro, Thiago Alberto de Souza, Lima, Regina Aparecida Garcia +1 more·2020·BMJ Open

Abstract

Introduction: Since the WHO declared COVID-19 as a pandemic, the spread of the new coronavirus has been the focus of attention of scientists, governments and populations. One of the main concerns is the impact of this pandemic on health outcomes, mainly on mental health. Even though there are a few empirical studies on COVID-19 and mental health, so far, there is no systematic review about the impact of COVID-19 on mental health of young people and adults yet. We aim to critically synthesise the scientific evidence about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of young people and adults. Methods and analysis: A systematic review will be performed through eight databases: MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), ISI-of-Knowledge, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), SCOPUS, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), PsycINFO (Psychology Information) and CNKI (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure), from inception until 30 June 2020. No restriction regarding the publication date, setting or languages will be considered. Preliminary search strategies were carried out on 29 March 2020 and will be updated in June 2020. The primary outcomes will be the prevalence and the severity of psychological symptoms in young people and adults (>18 years old) resulting from the impact of COVID-19 pandemic. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Pooled standardised mean differences and 95% CIs will be calculated. The risk of bias of the observational studies will be assessed through the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS). Additionally, if sufficient data are available, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Heterogeneity between the studies will be determined by the I 2 statistics. Subgroup analyses will also be performed. Publication bias will be checked with funnel plots and Egger’s test. Heterogeneity will be explored by random-effects analysis. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical assessment was not required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and will be presented at conferences related to this field. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020177366.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039426

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The review answers a more expansive question than other similar reviews.

    “Some strengths of our review are it answers a more expansive question (as opposed to other similar reviews [62–65]), it is focused on COVID-19, and covers a large date range, which makes our review one of the first systematic reviews to have these qualities.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Silva Junior, F. J. G. D., Sales, J. C. E. S., Monteiro, C. F. D. S., Costa, A. P. C., Campos, L. R. B., Miranda, P. I. G., Monteiro, T. A. D. S., Lima, R. A. G., & Lopes-Junior, L. C.
Affiliations
  • Nursing Department, Universidade Federal do Piaui, Teresina, Piauí, Brazil
  • Universidade Federal do Piauí (BR)
  • Centro Universitário UNINOVAFAPI (BR)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • Health Sciences Center, Nursing Department, Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo, Vitoria, Espírito Santo, Brazil
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-07
Volume
10
Issue
7
Pages
e039426
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3038163343
Cited by
115
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 9
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, mental health, psychological symptoms, youth, adults, symptom severity, psychological impact of pandemic
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, Systematic Reviews as Topic, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adolescent, Adult, Behavioral Symptoms, Humans, Mental Health, Pneumonia, Viral, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Research Design, Coronavirus Infections, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review