Identifying evidence informed psychological interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: Rapid review of the literature.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fredericks S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7641538 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Identifying evidence informed psychological interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: Rapid review of the literature.
Fredericks Suzanne S Miranda Joyal J Sidani Souraya S Abdul-Ali Farooqui Muhammad M
Brain, behavior, & immunity - health 20201104
•Less than a quarter of psychological interventions are developed based on evidence.•Evaluation of the effectiveness of existing online mental health resources is required.•Front-line healthcare providers experienced severe mental distress during COVID-19. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers and informal caregivers were at an increased risk of adverse mental health effects. This systematic review provides a summary of the available evidence on the content and efficacy of the psychological support interventions in increasing mental health among healthcare providers and informal caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic. PubMed, Google Scholar, PsychINFO, and Scopus databases were systematically searched for relevant articles, and the methodological quality of selected articles was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. A search of electronic databases identified five reports based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. All psychological support interventions for caregivers were delivered digitally. Despite the large heterogeneity of the selected studies, the findings support the efficacy of mental health interventions in reducing distress and burnout, while promoting self-efficacy and well-being in both healthcare providers and informal caregivers. Since mental health problems are expected to increase during, and as a result of, the COVID-19 pandemic, and digital tools might offer a range of mental health treatments to meet the unique and immediate needs of people, further research is needed to test the cost-effectiveness of digital psychological interventions.
| S-EPMC8297206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) is a common strategy for helping health providers to implement evidence into practice. Despite being extensively studied, health care A&F interventions remain variably effective, with overall effect sizes that have not improved since 2003. Contributing to this stagnation is the fact that most health care A&F interventions have largely been designed without being informed by theoretical understanding from the behavioral and social sciences. To determine if the trend can be improved, the objective of this study was to develop a list of testable, theory-informed hypotheses about how to design more effective A&F interventions.MethodsUsing purposive sampling, semi-structured 60-90-min telephone interviews were conducted with experts in theories related to A&F from a range of fields (e.g., cognitive, health and organizational psychology, medical decision-making, economics). Guided by detailed descriptions of A&F interventions from the health care literature, interviewees described how they would approach the problem of designing improved A&F interventions. Specific, theory-informed hypotheses about the conditions for effective design and delivery of A&F interventions were elicited from the interviews. The resulting hypotheses were assigned by three coders working independently into themes, and categories of themes, in an iterative process.ResultsWe conducted 28 interviews and identified 313 theory-informed hypotheses, which were placed into 30 themes. The 30 themes included hypotheses related to the following five categories: A&F recipient (seven themes), content of the A&F (ten themes), process of delivery of the A&F (six themes), behavior that was the focus of the A&F (three themes), and other (four themes).ConclusionsWe have identified a set of testable, theory-informed hypotheses from a broad range of behavioral and social science that suggest conditions for more effective A&F interventions. This work demonstrates the breadth of perspectives about A&F from non-healthcare-specific disciplines in a way that yields testable hypotheses for healthcare A&F interventions. These results will serve as the foundation for further work seeking to set research priorities among the A&F research community.
| S-EPMC5622490 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid shift toward remote delivery of psychological interventions and transition to voice-only and video communication platforms. However, agreement is lacking on key competencies that are aligned with equitable approaches for standardized training and supervision of remote psychological intervention delivery. A rapid review was conducted to identify and describe competencies that could inform best practices of remote services delivery during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsScopus, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched for literature published in English (2015-2021) on competencies for synchronous, remote psychological interventions that can be measured through observation.ResultsOf 135 articles identified, 12 met inclusion criteria. Studies targeted populations in high-income countries (11 in the United States and Canada, one in Saudi Arabia) and focused on specialist practitioners, professionals, or trainees in professional or prelicensure programs working with adult populations. Ten skill categories were identified: emergency and safety protocols for remote services, facilitating communication over remote platforms, remote consent procedures, technological literacy, practitioner-client identification for remote services, confidentiality during remote services, communication skills during remote services, engagement and interpersonal skills for remote services, establishing professional boundaries during remote services, and encouraging continuity of care during remote services.ConclusionsThese 10 skills domains can offer a foundation for refinement of discrete, individual-level competencies that can be aligned with global initiatives promoting use of observational competency assessment during training and supervision programs for psychological interventions. More research is needed on identification of and agreement on remote competencies and on their evaluation.
| S-EPMC9988705 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo explore the public's preference for psychological interventions through a discrete choice experiment and to provide references for formulating psychological intervention policies and establishing psychological intervention procedures in response to public health emergencies.MethodsThis study is a discrete choice experiment. Attributes and levels were identified through literature reviews, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and expert consultations. Experimental design principles were applied to generate choice sets containing different attribute levels and develop a survey instrument. Convenience sampling was conducted nationwide, and 1,045 participants were investigated. A mixed logit model was used to evaluate the public's preferences.ResultsAll attributes in our study were found to have a significant influence on the public's preferences for psychological interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The public's preferences for providers and duration were influenced by the public's levels of education and classifications. Furthermore, the most ideal scenario was found to be a one-on-one psychological intervention provided by family and friends through social network platforms, for which the frequency is twice per week, and the duration of each intervention is 0.5-1 h.ConclusionsThe public's preferences for psychological interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic are affected by the method, form, frequency, provider, and duration of interventions. Our findings provide references for the formulation of psychological intervention policies and the establishment of psychological intervention procedures in response to public health emergencies.
| S-EPMC9091726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic prompted the scientific community to share timely evidence, also in the form of pre-printed papers, not peer reviewed yet.PurposeTo develop an artificial intelligence system for the analysis of the scientific literature by leveraging on recent developments in the field of Argument Mining.MethodologyScientific quality criteria were borrowed from two selected Cochrane systematic reviews. Four independent reviewers gave a blind evaluation on a 1-5 scale to 40 papers for each review. These scores were matched with the automatic analysis performed by an AM system named MARGOT, which detected claims and supporting evidence for the cited papers. Outcomes were evaluated with inter-rater indices (Cohen's Kappa, Krippendorff's Alpha, s* statistics).ResultsMARGOT performs differently on the two selected Cochrane reviews: the inter-rater indices show a fair-to-moderate agreement of the most relevant MARGOT metrics both with Cochrane and the skilled interval scores, with larger values for one of the two reviews.Discussion and conclusionsThe noted discrepancy could rely on a limitation of the MARGOT system that can be improved; yet, the level of agreement between human reviewers also suggests a different complexity between the two reviews in debating controversial arguments. These preliminary results encourage to expand and deepen the investigation to other topics and a larger number of highly specialized reviewers, to reduce uncertainty in the evaluation process, thus supporting the retraining of AM systems.
| S-EPMC9339778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis review assesses interventions and their effectiveness in mitigating psychological consequences from pandemic.MethodPublished English literatures were searched from four databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO) from January 2020 and September 2021. A total of 27 papers with 29 studies (one paper reported three studies) met inclusion criteria. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool is applied to assess the quality of all randomised controlled trials (RCT).ResultsAll studies were recently conducted in 2020. Publications were from high-income (13, 44.8%), upper middle-income (12, 41.4%) and lower middle-income countries (3, 10.3%) and global (1, 3.5%). Half of the studies conducted for general population (51.7%). One-third of studies (8, 27.6%) provided interventions to patients with COVID-19 and 20.7% to healthcare workers. Of the 29 studies, 14 (48.3%) were RCT. All RCTs were assessed for risk of biases; five studies (15, 35.7%) had low risk as measured against all six dimensions reflecting high-quality study.Of these 29 studies, 26 diagnostic or screening measures were applied; 8 (30.9%) for anxiety, 7 (26.9%) for depression, 5 (19.2%) for stress, 5 (19.2%) for insomnia and 1 (3.8%) for suicide. Measures used to assess the baseline and outcomes of interventions were standardised and widely applied by other studies with high level of reliability and validity. Of 11 RCT studies, 10 (90.9%) showed that anxiety interventions significantly lowered anxiety in intervention groups. Five of the six RCT studies (83.3%) had significantly reduced the level of depression. Most interventions for anxiety and stress were mindfulness and meditation based.ConclusionsResults from RCT studies (11%, 78.6%) were effective in mitigating psychological consequences from COVID-19 pandemic when applied to healthcare workers, patients with COVID-19 and general population. These effective interventions can be applied and scaled up in other country settings through adaptation of modes of delivery suitable to country resources, pandemic and health system context.
| S-EPMC9329730 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST1055 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Given the worldwide spread of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), there is an urgent need to identify risk and protective factors and expose areas of insufficient understanding. Emerging tools, such as the Rapid Evidence Map (rEM), are being developed to systematically characterize large collections of scientific literature. We sought to generate an rEM of risk and protective factors to comprehensively inform areas that impact COVID-19 outcomes for different sub-populations in order to better protect the public. Methods: We developed a protocol that includes a study goal, study questions, a PECO statement, and a process for screening literature by combining semi-automated machine learning with the expertise of our review team. We applied this protocol to reports within the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19) that were published in early 2020. SWIFT-Active Screener was used to prioritize records according to pre-defined inclusion criteria. Relevant studies were categorized by risk and protective status; susceptibility category (Behavioral, Physiological, Demographic, and Environmental); and affected sub-populations. Using tagged studies, we created an rEM for COVID-19 susceptibility that reveals: (1) current lines of evidence; (2) knowledge gaps; and (3) areas that may benefit from systematic review. Results: We imported 4,330 titles and abstracts from CORD-19. After screening 3,521 of these to achieve 99% estimated recall, 217 relevant studies were identified. Most included studies concerned the impact of underlying comorbidities (Physiological); age and gender (Demographic); and social factors (Environmental) on COVID-19 outcomes. Among the relevant studies, older males with comorbidities were commonly reported to have the poorest outcomes. We noted a paucity of COVID-19 studies among children and susceptible sub-groups, including pregnant women, racial minorities, refugees/migrants, and healthcare workers, with few studies examining protective factors. Conclusion: Using rEM analysis, we synthesized the recent body of evidence related to COVID-19 risk and protective factors. The results provide a comprehensive tool for rapidly elucidating COVID-19 susceptibility patterns and identifying resource-rich/resource-poor areas of research that may benefit from future investigation as the pandemic evolves.
| S-EPMC7732416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccumulating evidence suggests the COVID-19 pandemic has negative effects on public mental health. Digital interventions that have been developed and evaluated in recent years may be used to mitigate the negative consequences of the pandemic. However, evidence-based recommendations on the use of existing telemedicine and internet-based (eHealth) and app-based mobile health (mHealth) interventions are lacking.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the theoretical and empirical base, user perspective, safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of digital interventions related to public mental health provision (ie, mental health promotion, prevention, and treatment of mental disorders) that may help to reduce the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA rapid meta-review was conducted. The MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL databases were searched on May 11, 2020. Study inclusion criteria were broad and considered systematic reviews and meta-analyses that investigated digital tools for health promotion, prevention, or treatment of mental health conditions and determinants likely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsOverall, 815 peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified, of which 83 met the inclusion criteria. Our findings suggest that there is good evidence on the usability, safety, acceptance/satisfaction, and effectiveness of eHealth interventions. Evidence on mHealth apps is promising, especially if social components (eg, blended care) and strategies to promote adherence are incorporated. Although most digital interventions focus on the prevention or treatment of mental disorders, there is some evidence on mental health promotion. However, evidence on process quality, cost-effectiveness, and long-term effects is very limited.ConclusionsThere is evidence that digital interventions are particularly suited to mitigating psychosocial consequences at the population level. In times of physical distancing, quarantine, and restrictions on social contacts, decision makers should develop digital strategies for continued mental health care and invest time and efforts in the development and implementation of mental health promotion and prevention programs.
| S-EPMC7951054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe global spread of COVID-19 has raised concerns about its possible impact on mental health. People living with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) are considered potentially vulnerable to the mental health effects of the pandemic, as they may be subject to increased social isolation.AimTo systematically review the current evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health outcomes among PwMS.MethodWe searched four major databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo and Scopus) and the WHO Global Health COVID-19 research database. We included peer-reviewed primary research studies using validated health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and psychometric screening tools to evaluate mental health outcomes among PwMS during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies reporting data on the prevalence of mental health disorders, severity of psychological symptoms and contributing demographic and clinical factors for PwMS during the COVID-19 pandemic were included.ResultsOur initial search yielded 268 records; 19 studies (13 cross-sectional, 6 longitudinal) were included. Most were conducted during a peak in the pandemic in the host country via an online platform. The main mental health outcomes were depression, anxiety, stress, sleep quality and HRQOL. The included studies used a variety of outcome assessment tools and study designs. The prevalence of mental health issues such as depression, anxiety and stress were high among PwMS during the pandemic. In addition, compared to control populations, PwMS experienced more severe symptoms of depression and stress during the COVID-19 outbreak. However, results from longitudinal studies demonstrate that the severity of mental health symptoms among PwMS during the pandemic were not significantly different compared with the pre-pandemic period.ConclusionAlthough mental health issues such as anxiety and depression were common among PwMS during the pandemic, current evidence suggests that mental health among PwMS has not been significantly affected by pandemic-related restrictive measures. Instead, the observed differences may be the result of pre-pandemic differences in prevalence and severity. Where possible, future studies should seek to address the methodological issues identified in the included studies to ensure that data collected during the pandemic can be synthesized into recommendations for policy and practice.
| S-EPMC8786442 | biostudies-literature