CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 741COVID-19 and Mental HealthMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumMigration, Health and Trauma

Mental health outcomes of quarantine and isolation for infection prevention: A systematic umbrella review of the global evidence

Open access
Hossain, Md Mahbub, Sultana, Abida, Purohit, Neetu·2020·Epidemiology and Health
DOI 10.31234/osf.io/dz5v2PMC PMC7644933

Preprint — published as 10.4178/epih.e2020038

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Transmission of infectious diseases is often prevented by quarantine and isolation of the populations at risk. These approaches restrict the mobility, social interactions, and daily activities of the affected individuals. In recent novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, quarantine and isolation are being adopted in many contexts, which necessitates an evaluation of global evidence on how such measures impact the mental health outcomes among populations. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize the available evidence on mental health outcomes of quarantine and isolation for preventing infectious diseases.Materials and methods: We searched nine major databases and additional sources and included articles if they were systematically conducted reviews, published as peer-reviewed journal articles, and reported mental health outcomes of quarantine or isolation in any population.Results: Among 1364 citations, only eight reviews met our criteria. Most of the primary studies in those reviews were conducted in high-income nations and in hospital settings. These articles reported a high burden of mental health problems among patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare providers who experienced quarantine or isolation. Prevalent mental health problems among the affected individuals include depression, anxiety, mood disorders, psychological distress, posttraumatic stress disorder, insomnia, fear, stigmatization, low self-esteem, lack of self-control, and other adverse mental health outcomes.Conclusion: This umbrella review found severe mental health problems among individuals and populations who have undergone quarantine and isolation in different contexts. This evidence necessitates multipronged interventions including policy measures for strengthening mental health services globally and promoting psychosocial wellbeing among high-risk populations.

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 · 10.31234/osf.io/dz5v2

Cites

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?

  • In a systematic review of quarantine and isolation, only 8 of 1364 studies met selection criteria and identified insomnia, depression, anxiety, and other psychological distress in patients, family caregivers, and healthcare providers.

    “Only eight of 1364 studies met selection criteria and identified insomnia, depression, anxiety, and other psychological distress in patients, family caregivers, and healthcare providers [24].”

    From Overview of sleep management during COVID-19. (2022) · cites this paper as [24]

    The 'Characteristics of the included articles' section says the search retrieved 1364 citations and included eight reviews after screening. The mental-health outcomes section reports anxiety, depression, insomnia and psychological distress, and the Discussion identifies patients, informal caregivers and healthcare providers as affected groups. The citing sentence incorrectly calls the 1364 citations 'studies' and the eight included reviews 'studies.' (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. [2]2. Tognotti E. Lessons from the history of quarantine, from plague to influenza A. Vol. 19, Emerging Infectious Diseases. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 2013. p. 254-9.
  2. [4]4. Michael JM. The National Board of Health: 1879-1883. Public Health Rep [Internet]. 2011 Jan [cited 2020 Mar 12];126(1):123-9. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/003335491112600117 · DOI
  3. [6]6. Zu ZY, Jiang M Di, Xu PP, Chen W, Ni QQ, Lu GM, Zhang LJ. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Perspective from China. Radiology [Internet]. 2020 Feb 21 [cited 2020 Mar 12];200490. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32083985
  4. [12]12. Sprang G, Silman M. Posttraumatic stress disorder in parents and youth after healthrelated disasters. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2013 Feb;7(1):105-10.
  5. [13]13. Jeong H, Yim HW, Song YJ, Ki M, Min JA, Cho J, Chae JH. Mental health status of people isolated due to Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. Epidemiol Health. 2016;38:e2016048.
  6. [14]14. Reynolds DL, Garay JR, Deamond SL, Moran MK, Gold W, Styra R. Understanding, compliance and psychological impact of the SARS quarantine experience. Epidemiol Infect. 2008 Jul;136(7):997-1007.
  7. [15]15. Masic I, Miokovic M, Muhamedagic B. Evidence Based Medicine - New Approaches and Challenges. Acta Inform Medica. 2008;16(4):219.
  8. [16]16. Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Green LW. Building Capacity for Evidence-Based Public Health: Reconciling the Pulls of Practice and the Push of Research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018 Apr;39(1):27-53.
  9. [17]17. Biondi-Zoccai G. Umbrella Reviews: Evidence Synthesis with Overviews of Reviews and Meta-Epidemiologic Studies. Umbrella Reviews. Springer International Publishing; 2016. 391 p.
  10. [18]18. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach review of reviews, systematic review, umbrella review, umbrella review methodology. Int J Evid Based Healthc [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2019 Oct 21]; Available from: https://journals.lww.com/ijebh
  11. [19]19. Turrini G, Purgato M, Ballette F, Nosè M, Ostuzzi G, Barbui C. Common mental disorders in asylum seekers and refugees: Umbrella review of prevalence and intervention - studies. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2017;11(1):1-15.
  12. [20]20. Hossain MM, Sultana A, Tasnim S, Fan Q, Ma P, McKyer ELJ, Purohit N. Prevalence of mental disorders among people who are homeless: an umbrella review. PsyArXiv [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 8]; Available from: https://psyarxiv.com/dvjbs/
  13. [21]21. Hossain MM, Sultana A, Ma P, Fan Q, Sharma R, Purohit N, Sharmin DF. Effects of natural environment on mental health: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PsyArXiv [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 8]; Available from: https://psyarxiv.com/4r3mh/
  14. [22]22. Hossain MM, Purohit N, Sultana A, Ma P, McKyer ELJ, Ahmed HU. Prevalence of mental disorders in South Asia: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and metaanalyses. PsyArXiv [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 2]; Available from: https://psyarxiv.com/f96we/
  15. [23]23. Hossain MM, Khan N, Sultana A, Ma P, McKyer ELJ, Ahmed HU, Purohit N. Prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders among people with autism spectrum disorder: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. 2020 Jan 3;
  16. [24]24. Hossain MM. Umbrella review as an emerging approach of evidence synthesis in health sciences: A bibliometric analysis. Available SSRN [Internet]. 2020 Mar 9 [cited 2020 Mar 12]; Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3551055
  17. [25]25. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Bmj. 2009/07/23. 2009;339:b2700.
  18. [29]29. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Vol. 26, Health Information and Libraries Journal. 2009. p. 91-108.
  19. [30]30. Hendren C. RefWorks. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92(1):111-3.
  20. [31]31. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev [Internet]. 2016 Dec 5 [cited 2019 Jul 30];5(1):210. Available from: - http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [32]32. Morgan DJ, Diekema DJ, Sepkowitz K, Perencevich EN. Adverse outcomes associated with contact precautions: A review of the literature. Am J Infect Control [Internet]. 2009;37(2):85-93. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2008.04.257 · DOI
  22. [33]33. Abad C, Fearday A, Safdar N. Adverse effects of isolation in hospitalised patients: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect. 2010 Oct;76(2):97-102.
  23. [34]34. Linda Barratt R, Shaban R, Moyle W. Patient experience of source isolation: Lessons for clinical practice. Contemp Nurse. 2011;39(2):180-93.
  24. [35]35. Gammon J, Hunt J. Source isolation and patient wellbeing in healthcare settings. Br J Nurs. 2018;27(2):88-91.
  25. [36]36. Gammon J, Hunt J, Musselwhite C. The stigmatisation of source isolation: a literature review. J Res Nurs. 2019;24(8):677-93.
  26. [37]37. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Neil Greenberg Fm, James Rubin FrcpG, Wessely FMedSci S, Greenberg FRCPsych N, James Rubin G. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. Lancet [Internet]. 2020;6736(20). Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3532534
  27. [38]38. Purssell E, Gould D, Chudleigh J. Impact of isolation on hospitalised patients who are infectious: systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10(2):e030371.
  28. [39]39. Sharma A, Pillai DR, Lu M, Doolan C, Leal J, Kim J, Hollis A. Impact of isolation precautions on quality of life: a meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect [Internet]. 2020 Feb 12 [cited 2020 Mar 12]; Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0195670120300505
  29. [40]40. Hossain MM, Sultana A, Fan Q, Ma P, Purohit N. Prevalence and Determinants of Dating Violence: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. SageSubmissions [Internet]. 2020 Jan 2 [cited 2020 Mar 8]; Available from: https://advance.sagepub.com/articles/Prevalence\_and\_Determinants\_of\_Dating\_Violence \_An\_Umbrella\_Review\_of\_Systematic\_Reviews\_and\_Meta-analyses/11492703/1
  30. [3]3. Adolescents: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res [Internet]. 2017 May;19(5):1. Available from: http://proxy.library.tamu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru e&db=ccm&AN=123525327&site=ehost-live
  31. [42]42. Grist R, Croker A, Denne M, Stallard P. Technology Delivered Interventions for Depression and Anxiety in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. Vol. 22, Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. Springer New York LLC; 2019. p. 147-71.
  32. [43]43. van Hoof J, Kort HSM, Duijnstee MSH, Rutten PGS, Hensen JLM. The indoor environment and the integrated design of homes for older people with dementia. Build Environ [Internet]. 2010 May;45(5):1244-61. Available from: http://10.0.3.248/j.buildenv.2009.11.008
  33. [44]44. Monsalve-Reyes CS, San Luis-Costas C, Gómez-Urquiza JL, Albendín-García L, Aguayo R, Cañadas-De la Fuente GA. Burnout syndrome and its prevalence in primary care nursing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Fam Pract [Internet]. 2018 Dec 10 [cited 2020 Mar 12];19(1):59. Available from: https://bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-018-0748-z · DOI
  34. [45]45. Suleiman-Martos N, Albendín-García L, Gómez-Urquiza JL, Vargas-Román K, RamirezBaena L, Ortega-Campos E, De La Fuente-Solana EI. Prevalence and predictors of burnout in midwives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vol. 17, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. MDPI AG; 2020.
  35. [46]46. Rodrigues H, Cobucci R, Oliveira A, Cabral JV, Medeiros L, Gurgel K, Souza T, Gonçalves AK. Burnout syndrome among medical residents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Nov 1;13(11).
  36. [47]47. Wiederhold BK, Cipresso P, Pizzioli D, Wiederhold M, Riva G. Intervention for physician burnout: A systematic review. Open Med. 2018 Jan 1;13(1):253-63.
  37. [48]48. Chen S, Yang J, Yang W, Wang C, Bärnighausen T. COVID-19 control in China during mass population movements at New Year. Lancet (London, England) [Internet]. 2020 Feb 24 [cited 2020 Mar 12];395(10226):764-6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32105609
  38. [49]49. Hossain MM. Current Status of Global Research on Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID19): A Bibliometric Analysis and Knowledge Mapping. SSRN Electron J [Internet]. 2020 Mar 3 [cited 2020 Mar 8]; Available from: https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3547824
  39. [50]50. Giubilini A, Douglas T, Maslen H, Savulescu J. Quarantine, isolation and the duty of easy rescue in public health. Dev World Bioeth. 2018 Jun 1;18(2):182-9.
  40. [51]51. Coltart CEM, Lindsey B, Ghinai I, Johnson AM, Heymann DL. The Ebola outbreak, 2013-2016: Old lessons for new epidemics. Vol. 372, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Royal Society; 2017.
  41. [52]52. Ehsan A, Klaas HS, Bastianen A, Spini D. Social capital and health: A systematic review of systematic reviews. SSM - Popul Heal. 2019 Aug 1;8.
  42. [53]53. Wainberg ML, Scorza P, Shultz JM, Helpman L, Mootz JJ, Johnson KA, Neria Y, Bradford JME, Oquendo MA, Arbuckle MR. Challenges and Opportunities in Global Mental Health: a Research-to-Practice Perspective. Vol. 19, Current Psychiatry Reports. Current Medicine Group LLC 1; 2017. Appendix 1: Critical appraisal of the included reviews (Abbreviations: CD= could not determine)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hossain, M. M., Sultana, A., & Purohit, N.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • IIHMR University (IN)
Corresponding author
Hossain, Md Mahbub
ORCID
Venue
Epidemiology and Health
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2020-03-13
Volume
42
Pages
e2020038-e2020038
ISSN
1225-3596 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.31234/osf.io/dz5v2
PMC
PMC7644933
OpenAlex
W3014717358
Cited by
741
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 169 · 2022: 161 · 2021: 216 · 2020: 91 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
63.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Epidemiology and Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 › Clinical Psychology › Migration, Health and Trauma
Keywords
quarantine, isolation, mental health outcomes, infectious disease prevention, COVID-19 pandemic, depression, anxiety, psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, insomnia, stigma, informal caregivers, healthcare workers, psychosocial well-being, mental health services
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Mental Disorders, Humans, Pneumonia, Viral, Quarantine, Social Isolation, Global Health, 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