Cited by 9COVID-19 and Mental HealthDigital Mental Health InterventionsMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum

Psychological interventions in a pandemic emergency: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 studies

Open access
D’Onofrio, Grazia, Trotta, Nicoletta, Severo, Melania, Iuso, Salvatore, Ciccone, Filomena, Prencipe, Anna Maria, Nabavi, Seyed Mohammad, De Vincentis, Gabriella +1 more·2022·Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract

Background: The study aim was to review the evidence and effectiveness of psychological interventions applied during Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods: A literature search was run from April 2020 to April 2021. The inclusion criteria were: (1) RCTs or observational studies; (2) professional health carers and patients who had contracted coronavirus during the pandemic; (3) adults and elderly people with a viral infection diagnosis; (4) suitable measures to assess intervention effectiveness on clinical status and psychological and behavioral aspects. An internal validity assessment was planned using robvis. Data were synthesized according to PICO criteria. Results: A total of 12 studies were selected. Studies measuring mental health outcomes demonstrated the greatest reduction in symptoms, with eight out of the twelve studies demonstrating a reduction in symptoms that reached statistical significance (p < 0.05) and four of the studies reaching a higher significance level of p < 0.01. The type of psychological intervention was predominantly cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). All studies except one was run online. Conclusion: Psychological interventions have a benefit on mental health outcomes, even if performed online. In particular, CBT seems to be the psychological intervention that is used more and also seems to have a larger effect size on the mitigation of mental health symptoms and increasing resilience.

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 · 10.3390/jcm11113209

Cites

35 of 36 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?

  • Results from systematic reviews indicate that psychological interventions could be effective in the management of EDs in the context of COVID-19 conditions.

    “Results from these systematic reviews indicate that psychological interventions could be effective in the management of EDs in the context of COVID-19 conditions, however, some needs are not properly addressed.”

    From Unified Protocol for the transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders in people with post COVID-19 condition: study protocol for a multiple baseline n-of-1 trial (2023) · cites this paper as D’Onofrio et al., 2022

    The Discussion (section 4; page unavailable) reports that psychological interventions benefited mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper identifies depression, anxiety and perceived stress as outcomes, but does not establish effectiveness for managing EDs (eating disorders). (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Psychological interventions are available in the context of COVID-19 for the general population, students, professionals, informal caregivers, relatives, and COVID-19 patients.

    “Different systematic reviews indicated that psychological interventions are available in the context of COVID-19 for the general population and students (D’Onofrio et al., 2022; Komariah et al., 2022), professionals and informal caregivers (Bertuzzi et al., 2021), relatives (Yue et al., 2020), or even COVID-19 patients (Rahmati and Khalili, 2022).”

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

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
D’Onofrio, G., Trotta, N., Severo, M., Iuso, S., Ciccone, F., Prencipe, A. M., Nabavi, S. M., De Vincentis, G., & Petito, A.
Affiliations
  • Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza (IT)
  • University of Foggia (IT)
  • Advanced Medical Pharma (BIOTEC), 82100 Benevento, Italy
  • Health Department, Fondazione IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo, 71013 Foggia, Italy
Corresponding author
D’Onofrio, Grazia
Venue
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-06-04
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
3209
ISSN
2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4281713719
Cited by
9
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Ministero della Salute
  • I.R.C.C.S. Research Program
  • Ricerca Corrente “Malattie complesse e terapie innovative”
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Keywords
psychological intervention, COVID-19 pandemic, mental health, cognitive behavioral therapy, online therapy, resilience, psychological symptoms, COVID-19 patients, healthcare workers

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