scholarly journals Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among refugees and migrants in immigration detention: systematic review with meta-analysis

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Verhülsdonk ◽  
Mona Shahab ◽  
Marc Molendijk
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prevalence Rates ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress ◽  
Immigration Detention ◽  
Alternative Measures ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Estimate Prevalence

Background The number of forced migrants is increasing worldwide. Some governments detain refugees and migrants in immigration detention centres, which is associated with adverse mental health outcomes. Aims To estimate prevalence rates of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in child and adult refugees and migrants in immigration detention. Method Pre-registered systematic review with meta-analysis (Prospero ID: CRD42020196078). Results Systematic searches in Medline, Embase and Web of Science (final search date 1 October 2020) yielded nine eligible studies on the mental health of detained refugees and migrants (total n = 630 refugees and migrants, 522 of them in detention, among which 26 were children). For adults, prevalence rates for depression were 68% (95% CI 0.53–0.83%), for anxiety 54% (95% CI 0.36–0.72%) and for PTSD 42% (95% CI 0.22–0.63%). Theoretical comparisons with data from other meta-analyses revealed that prevalence rates and symptom severity were higher in detained, relative to non-detained samples. Conclusions Our data show a huge burden of mental health problems in detained refugees and migrants of all ages, also relative to non-detained samples. This suggests that immigration detention independently and adversely affects the mental health of refugees and migrants. This insight should encourage countries to minimise the use of immigration detention and implement alternative measures instead.

scholarly journals Is music listening an effective intervention for reducing anxiety? A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies

2022 ◽  
pp. 102986492110469
Author(s):  
Cristina Harney ◽  
Judith Johnson ◽  
Freya Bailes ◽  
Jelena Havelka
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mental Health Disorder ◽  
Anxiety Reduction ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Music Listening ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Meta Analyses

Anxiety is the most commonly diagnosed mental health disorder in the EU and 18% of the US population experiences an anxiety disorder at any one time. However, only 20% of individuals experiencing anxiety receive a formally administered intervention, highlighting a need for evidence-based interventions that can be self-administered. Music listening can be flexibly self-administered and may be useful for anxiety reduction, but further evidence is needed. The current paper addressed this by conducting the first systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies testing music listening interventions for naturally occurring state anxiety. A protocol was registered on PROSPERO ID: CRD42018104308. Searches were carried out of the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL databases, yielding 6208 records. After screening for eligibility, 24 controlled studies were included in the review and 21 were included in the meta-analysis. Results of the meta-analyses showed that music listening had an overall significant large effect on alleviating anxiety ( d = −0.77 [95% CI = −1.26, −0.28], k = 21). It was concluded that music listening is effective for reducing anxiety in a range of groups. Further research should focus on clinical groups with diagnosed mental health problems.

scholarly journals One Year of Evidence on Mental Health in the COVID-19 Crisis - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xi Chen ◽  
Jiyao Chen ◽  
Meimei Zhang ◽  
Richard Z. Chen ◽  
Rebecca Kechen Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prevalence Rates ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
One Year ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Frontline Healthcare Workers ◽  
Anxiety Depression

ABSTRACTObjectiveThis paper provides a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence rate of mental health issues of the major population, including general population, general healthcare workers (HCWs), and frontline healthcare workers (HCWs), in China over one year of the COVID-19 crisis.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesarticles in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and medRxiv up to November 16, 2020, one year after the first publicly known confirmed COVID-19 case.Eligibility criteria and data analysisany COVID-19 and mental disorders relevant English studies with frontline/general healthcare workers, general adult population sample, using validated scales. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the prevalence rates of anxiety, depression, distress, general psychological symptoms (GPS), insomnia, and PTSD and ran meta-regression to tease out the heterogeneity.ResultsThe meta-analysis includes 131 studies and 171 independent samples. The overall prevalence of anxiety, depression, distress, GPS, insomnia, and PTSD are 11%, 13%, 20%, 13%, 19%, and 20%, respectively. The meta-regression results uncovered several predictors of the prevalence rates, including severity (e.g., above severe vs. above moderate, p<0.01; above moderate vs. above mild, p<0.01) and type of mental issues (e.g., depression vs. anxiety, p=0.04; insomnia vs. anxiety p=0.04), population (frontline HCWs vs. general HCWs, p<0.01), sampling location (Wuhan vs. non-Wuhan, p=0.04), and study quality (p=0.04).LimitationsFirst, we only focus on China population, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Second, 96.2% studies included in this meta-analysis were cross-sectional. Last, since we only included studies published in English, we expect to have a language bias.ConclusionOur pooled prevalence rates are significantly different from, yet largely between, the findings of previous meta-analyses, suggesting the results of our larger study are consistent with, yet fine-tune, the findings of the smaller, previous meta-analyses. Hence, this meta-analysis not only provides a significant update on the mental health prevalence rates in COVID-19 but also suggests the need to update meta-analyses continuously to provide more accurate estimates of the prevalence of mental illness during this ongoing health crisis. While prior meta-analyses focused on the prevalence rates of mental health disorders based on one level of severity (i.e., above mild), our findings also suggest a need to examine the prevalence rates at varying levels of severity. The one-year cumulative evidence on sampling locations (Wuhan vs. non-Wuhan) corroborates the typhoon eye effect theory. Our finding that the prevalence rates of distress and insomnia and those of frontline healthcare workers are higher suggest future research and interventions should pay more attention to those mental outcomes and populations.

scholarly journals Prevalence and Risk Factors of Mental Health Problems Among Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qinjian Hao ◽  
Dahai Wang ◽  
Min Xie ◽  
Yiguo Tang ◽  
Yikai Dou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Prevalence Of Depression

Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the prevalence and risk factors of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: We applied an optimized search strategy across the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, and four Chinese databases, with hand searching supplemented to identify relevant surveys. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in peer-reviewed literature and used a validated method to assess the prevalence and risk factors of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Heterogeneity was quantified using Q statistics and the I2 statistics. The potential causes of heterogeneity were investigated using subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the robustness of the results.Results: We pooled and analyzed data from 20 studies comprising 10,886 healthcare workers. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, post-traumatic stress symptoms, phobia, obsessive–compulsive symptoms, and somatization symptoms was 24.1, 28.6, 44.1, 25.6, 35.0, 16.2, and 10.7%, respectively. Female and nurses had a high prevalence of depression and anxiety. Frontline healthcare workers had a higher prevalence of anxiety and a lower prevalence of depression than the those in the second-line. Furthermore, the proportion of moderate–severe depression and anxiety is higher in the frontline. Additionally, four studies reported on risk factors of mental health problems.Conclusions: In this systematic review, healthcare workers have a relatively high prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, post-traumatic stress symptoms, phobia, obsessive–compulsive symptoms, and somatization symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, and focus should be on the healthcare workers at high risk of mental problems. Mental health problems in healthcare workers should be taken seriously, and timely screening and appropriate intervention for the high-risk group are highly recommended.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020179189.

scholarly journals Psychological distress and psychiatric disorder after natural disasters: systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 213 (6) ◽  
pp. 716-722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Beaglehole ◽  
Roger T. Mulder ◽  
Chris M. Frampton ◽  
Joseph M. Boden ◽  
Giles Newton-Howes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Psychiatric Disorder ◽  
Natural Disasters ◽  
Psychiatric Disorders ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundNatural disasters are increasing in frequency and severity. They cause widespread hardship and are associated with detrimental effects on mental health.AimsOur aim is to provide the best estimate of the effects of natural disasters on mental health through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the rates of psychological distress and psychiatric disorder after natural disasters.MethodThis systematic review and meta-analysis is limited to studies that met predetermined quality criteria. We required included studies to make comparisons with pre-disaster or non-disaster exposed controls, and sample representative populations. Key studies were identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO from 1980 to 3 March 2017. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for studies that reported key outcomes with appropriate statistics.ResultsForty-one studies were identified by the literature search, of which 27 contributed to the meta-analyses. Continuous measures of psychological distress were increased after natural disasters (combined standardised mean difference 0.63, 95% CI 0.27–0.98, P = 0.005). Psychiatric disorders were also increased (combined odds ratio 1.84, 95% CI 1.43–2.38, P < 0.001). Rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression were significantly increased after disasters. Findings for anxiety and alcohol misuse/dependence were not significant. High rates of heterogeneity suggest that disaster-specific factors and, to a lesser degree, methodological factors contribute to the variance between studies.ConclusionsIncreased rates of psychological distress and psychiatric disorders follow natural disasters. High levels of heterogeneity between studies suggest that disaster variables and post-disaster response have the potential to mitigate adverse effects.Declaration of interestNone.

scholarly journals Bibliotherapy as a Non-pharmaceutical Intervention to Enhance Mental Health in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review and Bioethical Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Monroy-Fraustro ◽  
Isaac Maldonado-Castellanos ◽  
Mónica Aboites-Molina ◽  
Susana Rodríguez ◽  
Perla Sueiras ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Road Map ◽  
Road Maps

Background: A non-pharmaceutical treatment offered as psychological support is bibliotherapy, which can be described as the process of reading, reflecting, and discussing literature to further a cognitive shift. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demands a response to prevent a peak in the prevalence of mental health problems and to avoid the collapse of mental health services, which are scarce and inaccessible due to the pandemic. Thus, this study aimed to review articles on the effectiveness of bibliotherapy on different mental health problems.Methods: A systematic review was conducted to examine relevant studies that assess the effectiveness of bibliotherapy in different clinical settings as a treatment capable of enhancing a sense of purpose and its surrounding values. To achieve this, a systematic review, including a bioethical meta-analysis, was performed. A variant of the PICO (Participants, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) model was used for the search strategy, and the systematic review was conducted in three databases: PubMed, Bireme, and OVID. Inclusion criteria were relevant studies that included the keywords, excluding documents with irrelevant topics, studies on subjects 15 years or younger, and in languages besides Spanish or English. Starting with 707 studies, after three rounds of different quality criteria, 13 articles were selected for analysis, including a hermeneutic analysis, which was followed by a fourth and final recovery round assessing bibliotherapy articles concerning healthcare workers.Results: Our findings showed that through bibliotherapy, patients developed several capacities, including the re-signification of their own activities through a new outlook of their moral horizon. There are no research road maps serving as guides to conduct research on the use of bibliotherapy to enhance mental health. Additionally, values such as autonomy and justice were closely linked with positive results in bibliotherapy. This implies that bibliotherapy has the potential to have a positive impact in different settings.Conclusions: Our contribution is to offer a road map that presents state-of-the-art bibliotherapy research, which will assist institutions and healthcare professionals to plan clinical and specific interventions with positive outcomes.

scholarly journals Time Perspective as A Common Transdiagnostic Factor of Mental Problems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Yang ◽  
Siu Ching Wong ◽  
Ingrid Obsuth ◽  
Aja Murray
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Time Perspective ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mental Health Issue ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Mental Health Issues

Abstract BackgroundResearch into the transdiagnostic processes underlying multiple mental health problems is promising for making clinical practice and interventions more effective and resource-efficient. In this protocol, we describe a systematic review and meta-analysis that will explore time perspective, defined as an individual’s relative investment of attention on past, present, and future, as a possible transdiagnostic factor that may contribute to issues across wide-ranging domains of mental health. MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted to quantify the associations between mental health issue and specific dimensions of time perspective (past, present, future), respectively. The review will include quantitatively measured associations between time perspective and psychological problems published in a peer-reviewed journal from 1st January 1990 up until 1st March 2021, in the English language. Electronic searches will be conducted in Google Scholar, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, and EMBASE and supplemented by expert consultation and inspection of the reference lists of included papers. Screening, quality assessment and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently, and potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted using the metafor package in R statistical software, and quality assessment will employ The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies and for Case-Control Studies. The Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) will be used to evaluate risk of bias. A narrative synthesis will additionally be used to summarize and interpret the results. DiscussionThe present review will provide the first systematic synthesis exploring the associations between time perspective defined as a multidimensional construct and a broad range of mental health issues. This will help evaluate the extent to which time perspective can be considered a key transdiagnostic factor in mental health and thus a key intervention target for the prevention and treatment of multiple mental health issues simultaneously. With a clearer view of the relations between time perspective and various mental health issues based on a robust synthesis, more focused, effective, and efficient interventions may be delivered. Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021228869

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document