scholarly journals The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-harm and suicidal behaviour: update of living systematic review

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 1097
Author(s):  
Ann John ◽  
Emily Eyles ◽  
Roger T. Webb ◽  
Chukwudi Okolie ◽  
Lena Schmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Suicidal Behaviour ◽  
Suicide Risk ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Suicidal Thoughts ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies ◽  
The Impact

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused considerable morbidity, mortality and disruption to people’s lives around the world. There are concerns that rates of suicide and suicidal behaviour may rise during and in its aftermath. Our living systematic review synthesises findings from emerging literature on incidence and prevalence of suicidal behaviour as well as suicide prevention efforts in relation to COVID-19, with this iteration synthesising relevant evidence up to 19th October 2020. Method:  Automated daily searches feed into a web-based database with screening and data extraction functionalities. Eligibility criteria include incidence/prevalence of suicidal behaviour, exposure-outcome relationships and effects of interventions in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcomes of interest are suicide, self-harm or attempted suicide and suicidal thoughts. No restrictions are placed on language or study type, except for single-person case reports. We exclude one-off cross-sectional studies without either pre-pandemic measures or comparisons of COVID-19 positive vs. unaffected individuals. Results: Searches identified 6,226 articles. Seventy-eight articles met our inclusion criteria. We identified a further 64 relevant cross-sectional studies that did not meet our revised inclusion criteria. Thirty-four articles were not peer-reviewed (e.g. research letters, pre-prints). All articles were based on observational studies. There was no consistent evidence of a rise in suicide but many studies noted adverse economic effects were evolving. There was evidence of a rise in community distress, fall in hospital presentation for suicidal behaviour and early evidence of an increased frequency of suicidal thoughts in those who had become infected with COVID-19. Conclusions:  Research evidence of the impact of COVID-19 on suicidal behaviour is accumulating rapidly. This living review provides a regular synthesis of the most up-to-date research evidence to guide public health and clinical policy to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on suicide risk as the longer term impacts of the pandemic on suicide risk are researched.

scholarly journals The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-harm and suicidal behaviour: protocol for a living systematic review

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann John ◽  
Emily Eyles ◽  
Luke A. McGuinness ◽  
Chukwudi Okolie ◽  
Babatunde K. Olorisade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Suicidal Behaviour ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
The Impact

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread morbidity and mortality as well as disruption to people’s lives and livelihoods around the world; this has occurred as a result of both infection with the virus itself and the health protection measures taken to curb its spread. There are concerns that rates of suicide, suicidal behaviours and self-harm may rise during and in the aftermath of the pandemic. Given the likely rapidly expanding research evidence base on the pandemic’s impact on rates of suicide, suicidal behaviours and self-harm and emerging evidence about how best to mitigate such effects, it is important that the best available knowledge is made readily available to policymakers, public health specialists and clinicians as soon as is possible. To facilitate this, we plan to undertake a living systematic review focusing on suicide prevention in relation to COVID-19. Method: Regular automated searches will feed into a web-based screening system which will also host the data extraction form for included articles. Our eligibility criteria are wide and include aspects of incidence and prevalence of suicidal behaviour, effects of exposures and effects of interventions in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, with minimal restrictions on the types of study design to be included. The outcomes assessed will be death by suicide; self-harm or attempted suicide (including hospital attendance and/or admission for these reasons); and suicidal thoughts/ideation. There will be no restriction on study type, except for single case reports. There will be no restriction on language of publication. The review will be updated at three-monthly intervals if a sufficient volume of new evidence justifies doing so. Conclusions: Our living review will provide a regular synthesis of the most up-to-date research evidence to guide public health and clinical policy to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on suicide. Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42020183326 01/05/2020

scholarly journals The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-harm and suicidal behaviour: a living systematic review

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 1097 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann John ◽  
Chukwudi Okolie ◽  
Emily Eyles ◽  
Roger T. Webb ◽  
Lena Schmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Suicidal Behaviour ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Economic Effects ◽  
Service Utilisation ◽  
Suicidal Thoughts ◽  
Low Middle Income Countries ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
The Impact

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused morbidity and mortality, as well as, widespread disruption to people’s lives and livelihoods around the world. Given the health and economic threats posed by the pandemic to the global community, there are concerns that rates of suicide and suicidal behaviour may rise during and in its aftermath. Our living systematic review (LSR) focuses on suicide prevention in relation to COVID-19, with this iteration synthesising relevant evidence up to June 7th 2020. Method:  Automated daily searches feed into a web-based database with screening and data extraction functionalities. Eligibility criteria include incidence/prevalence of suicidal behaviour, exposure-outcome relationships and effects of interventions in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcomes of interest are suicide, self-harm or attempted suicide and suicidal thoughts. No restrictions are placed on language or study type, except for single-person case reports. Results: Searches identified 2070 articles, 29 (28 studies) met our inclusion criteria, of which 14 articles were research letters or pre-prints awaiting peer review. All articles reported observational data: 12 cross-sectional; eight case series; five modelling; and three service utilisation studies. No studies reported on changes in rates of suicidal behaviour. Case series were largely drawn from news reporting in low/middle income countries and factors associated with suicide included fear of infection, social isolation and economic concerns.   Conclusions:  A marked improvement in the quality of design, methods, and reporting in future studies is needed. There is thus far no clear evidence of an increase in suicide, self-harm, suicidal behaviour, or suicidal thoughts associated with the pandemic. However, suicide data are challenging to collect in real time and economic effects are evolving. Our LSR will provide a regular synthesis of the most up-to-date research evidence to guide public health and clinical policy to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on suicide. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020183326 01/05/2020

scholarly journals School absenteeism as a risk factor for self-harm and suicidal ideation in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 1175-1194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Epstein ◽  
Emmert Roberts ◽  
Rosemary Sedgwick ◽  
Catherine Polling ◽  
Katie Finning ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Suicidal Ideation ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
School Absenteeism ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Completed Suicide ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies

Abstract Self-harm and suicidal ideation in children and adolescents are common and are risk factors for completed suicide. Social exclusion, which can take many forms, increases the risk of self-harm and suicidal ideation. One important marker of social exclusion in young people is school absenteeism. Whether school absenteeism is associated with these adverse outcomes, and if so to what extent, remains unclear. To determine the association between school absenteeism and both self-harm (including completed suicide) and suicidal ideation in children and adolescents, we conducted a systematic review of observational studies. We conducted meta-analysis and report a narrative synthesis where this was not possible. Meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies showed that school absenteeism was associated with an increased risk of self-harm [pooled adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.20–1.57, P = 0.01] and of suicidal ideation (pooled aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02–1.42, P = 0.03). A small number of studies showed that school absenteeism had a longitudinal association with both adverse outcomes. Heterogeneity in the exposure and outcome variables, study design and reporting was prominent and limited the extent to which it was appropriate to pool results. School absenteeism was associated with both self-harm and suicidal ideation in young people, but this evidence was derived from a small number of cross-sectional studies. Further research into the mechanisms of this association could help to inform self-harm and suicide prevention strategies at clinical, school and population levels.

scholarly journals The Impact of COVID-19 and the Pandemic on Tinnitus: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (13) ◽  
pp. 2763
Author(s):  
Eldre Beukes ◽  
Alyssa Jade Ulep ◽  
Taylor Eubank ◽  
Vinaya Manchaiah
Keyword(s):  
Case Series ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Design Studies ◽  
Impact Studies ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Disease Impact ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

This review aimed to systematically review what has been published regarding tinnitus during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic up to March 2021 by performing both narrative and quantitative meta-analyses. Of the 181 records identified, 33 met the inclusion criteria, which generally had a fair risk of overall bias. In the included, 28 studies focused on the impact of the COVID-19 virus on tinnitus and 5 studies focused on the impact of the pandemic on tinnitus. From the studies identifying the impact of COVID-19 on tinnitus, there were 17 cross-sectional studies (n = 8913) and 11 case series or case report studies (n = 35). There were 2 cross-sectional studies (n = 3232) and 3 pre-post-test design studies (n = 326) focusing on the impact of the pandemic on tinnitus. No consistent patterns were found regarding the presentation of the tinnitus or additional factors that could have tinnitus developing in the disease impact studies. For the pandemic impact studies, the associated stress and anxiety of the pandemic were consistently suggested to contribute to tinnitus experiences. The pooled estimated prevalence of tinnitus post COVID-19 was 8% (CI: 5 to 13%). Medical professionals should be aware that tinnitus might be more problematic following the pandemic or after having COVID-19.

scholarly journals Smartphone Addiction and Associated Health Outcomes in Adult Populations: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (22) ◽  
pp. 12257
Author(s):  
Zubair Ahmed Ratan ◽  
Anne-Maree Parrish ◽  
Sojib Bin Zaman ◽  
Mohammad Saud Alotaibi ◽  
Hassan Hosseinzadeh
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Mental Health Outcomes ◽  
Smartphone Addiction ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Impact

Background: Smartphones play a critical role in increasing human–machine interactions, with many advantages. However, the growing popularity of smartphone use has led to smartphone overuse and addiction. This review aims to systematically investigate the impact of smartphone addiction on health outcomes. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to carry out the systematic review. Five electronic databases including Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus were searched to identify eligible studies. Eligible studies were screened against predetermined inclusion criteria and data were extracted according to the review questions. This review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020181404). The quality of the articles was assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: A total of 27 of 2550 articles met the inclusion criteria. All of the studies were cross-sectional and focused on physical, mental, and neurological health outcomes. The majority of the studies focused on mental health outcomes and consistent associations were observed between smartphone addiction and several mental health outcomes. Anxiety and depression were commonly found to mediate mental health problems. A wide range of physical health sequelae was also associated with smartphone addiction. Furthermore, there was an association between smartphone addiction and neurological disorders. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that there are consistent associations between smartphone addiction and physical and mental health, especially mental health. Social awareness campaigns about smartphone addiction and its impact on physical and mental health are needed. Further studies, especially randomized controlled trials, are warranted to validate the impacts of smartphone addiction.

scholarly journals O-195 The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on psychological distress due to the cancellation of ART. A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Z Donarelli ◽  
G Lo Coco ◽  
S Gullo ◽  
V Oieni ◽  
A Volpes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Infertile Couples ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Infertile Patients

Abstract Study question Is there evidence that infertile patients have been more likely to experience distress during the COVID-19 outbreak with the consequent interruption of treatment plans? Summary answer High levels of psychological distress among infertile patients have been found during the COVID-19 pandemic, greater than that reported in the general population. What is known already Preliminary research on the negative consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on mental health evidenced heightened levels of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress in some clinical populations as well as in community samples. However, little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on psychological distress of infertile patients who have been forced to suspend infertility treatment and postpone parenthood goals during the pandemic. The aim of this meta-analytic review is to summarize extant literature on the prevalence of psychological distress symptoms in infertile patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study design, size, duration A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA guidelines on PsycInfo, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, MedRxiv from March 2020 to mid-December 2020. Study inclusion criteria were specified according to the PICOS guideline. All naturalistic or RCT studies published in 2020 that examined infertility as the primary diagnosis and had a quantitative measurement of distress, were eligible. The primary outcomes were symptoms of psychological distress and secondary outcomes were indicators of psychological health. Participants/materials, setting, methods The database search identified 144 papers. Two reviewers independently screened potential studies by title and abstracts based on the inclusion criteria. The full texts were then screened for eligibility. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to judge the methodological quality of the studies. In order to estimate the pooled prevalence of distress, Odds Ratios with 95% Confidence Interval were calculated as the effect size by using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was tested using I2 statistics. Main results and the role of chance Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were summarized for the systematic review (N = 6473). Only six studies did not include males although, in the surveys, females made up 92% of the total sample. Ten studies adopted a cross-sectional study design. 100% gathered data through an online survey. Nine studies showed a high risk of bias, and five had a moderate risk. Review results showed that 56,4% of patients wished to resume treatment; participants were mostly worried about the delay in treatment because of their age (>35 years) or diminished ovarian reserve, or money constraints and low education level. Only five studies examined the role of protective factors such as social support, coping, optimism trait and intolerance of uncertainty. Nine studies were included for meta-analysis. The prevalence of psychological distress was 0.58 (95% CI 0.32÷0.84). The pooled point estimates of prevalence for anxiety (N = 6) were 0.56 (95% CI 0.24÷0.88), whereas the prevalence for depression (N = 5) was 0.46 (95% CI 0.15÷0.77). There was significant heterogeneity among studies to estimate the prevalence (I² ranging from 99% to 100%). Limitations, reasons for caution Results are preliminary, given the small number of studies and their cross-sectional data. The risk of bias was high or moderate across studies. Wider implications of the findings Infertile couples reported high levels of distress due to cancellation of their diagnostic procedures or treatment; they would benefit from information, appropriate support and advice from healthcare professionals, with an important role in maintaining the wishes of infertile couples to continue their parenthood goals. Trial registration number not applicable

Unemployment among young people and mental health: A systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 544-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicky H. M. Bartelink ◽  
Kyaw Zay Ya ◽  
Karin Guldbrandsson ◽  
Sven Bremberg
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Young People ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Natural Experiments ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Confounding Variables ◽  
Text Reading ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies

Aim: The aim of this systematic review is to obtain a better understanding of the association between unemployment among young people and mental health. Methods: After screening the title and abstract of 794 articles drawn from four electronic databases, 52 articles remained for full-text reading. Of these, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed on methodological quality. All steps were performed independently by two reviewers. Finally, a total of 17 articles were included in the systematic review. Results: Analysis of cross-sectional studies ( N = 5) showed an association between unemployment among young people and mental health. An effect of unemployment on mental health was found when considering cohort studies ( N = 12) that did not control for confounders (7/7). When controlling for confounders except mental health at baseline, this effect decreased in most studies leading to mixed results, although the majority (6/8) still found an effect. However, when taking mental health at baseline into account as one of the confounders, only a minority of studies (3/8) found a significant effect of unemployment on mental health. Conclusions: This systematic review showed an association between unemployment among young people and mental health. However, whether there is a causal relationship is less clear. More evidence from, for example, natural experiments and longitudinal studies that control for confounding variables, especially mental health at baseline, is required to better understand the association and potential causation between unemployment among young people and mental health.

scholarly journals Fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm

2002 ◽  
Vol 181 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Owens ◽  
Judith Horrocks ◽  
Allan House
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Population ◽  
Suicide Risk ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Strong Connection ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
The Uk

BackgroundNon-fatal self-harm frequently leads to non-fatal repetition and sometimes to suicide. We need to quantify these two outcomes of self-harm to help us to develop and test effective interventions.AimsTo estimate rates of fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm.MethodA systematic review of published follow-up data, from observational and experimental studies. Four electronic databases were searched and 90 studies met the inclusion criteria.ResultsEighty per cent of studies found were undertaken in Europe, over one-third in the UK. Median proportions for repetition 1 year later were: 16% non-fatal and 2% fatal; after more than 9 years, around 7% of patients had died by suicide. The UK studies found particularly low rates of subsequent suicide.ConclusionsAfter 1 year, non-fatal repetition rates are around 15%. The strong connection between self-harm and later suicide lies somewhere between 0.5% and 2% after 1 year and above 5% after 9 years. Suicide risk among self-harm patients is hundreds of times higher than in the general population.

scholarly journals Conflict of Interest Policies at Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals: A Systematic Review of Cross-sectional Studies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Fabbri ◽  
Kristine Rasmussen Hone ◽  
Asbjørn Hróbjartsson ◽  
Andreas Lundh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
High Income ◽  
Educational Quality ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Teaching Hospitals ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies ◽  
The Impact

Background: This systematic review aims to estimate the proportion of medical schools and teaching hospitals with conflicts of interest (COI) policies for health research and education, to describe the provisions included in the policies and their impact on research outputs and educational quality or content. Methods: Experimental and observational studies reporting at least one of the above mentioned aims were included irrespective of language, publication type or geographical setting. MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and the Cochrane Methodology Register were searched from inception to March 2020. Methodological study quality was assessed using an amended version of the Joanna Briggs Institute’s checklist for prevalence studies. Results: Twenty-two cross-sectional studies were included; all were conducted in high-income countries. Of these, 20 studies estimated the prevalence of COI policies, which ranged from 5% to 100% (median: 85%). Twenty studies assessed the provisions included in COI policies with different assessment methods. Of these, nine analysed the strength of the content of medical schools’ COI policies using various assessment tools that looked at a range of policy domains. The mean standardised summary score of policy strength ranged from 2% to 73% (median: 30%), with a low score indicating a weak policy. North American institutions more frequently had COI policies and their content was rated as stronger than policies from European institutions. None of the included studies assessed the impact of COI policies on research outputs or educational quality or content. Conclusion: Prevalence of COI policies at medical schools and teaching hospitals varied greatly in high-income countries. No studies estimated the prevalence of policies in low to middle-income countries. The content of COI policies varied widely and while most European institutions ranked poorly, in North America more medical schools had strong policies. No studies were identified on impact of COI policies on research outputs and educational quality or content.

scholarly journals Is There Any Association Between Chronic Periodontitis and Anxiety in Adults? A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walessa Alana Bragança Aragão ◽  
de Deiweson Souza-Monteiro ◽  
Deborah Ribeiro Frazão ◽  
Yago Gecy de Sousa Né ◽  
Railson de Oliveira Ferreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Psychosocial Conditions ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies

Periodontitis is a multifactorial disease triggered by dysbiotic biofilms, involving the host's immune response, systemic and behavioral factors, including psychosocial conditions. This systematic review aimed to investigate the possible association between periodontitis and anxiety in adults. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs, Cochrane, and OpenGrey databases, without language restrictions, considering studies in adults (P-Participants), with (E-Exposure) and without periodontitis (C- Comparison) in an outcome of association with anxiety (O-outcome). Methodological quality assessment was carried out using the Newcastle-Ottawa protocol for case-control and cross-sectional studies, followed by an analysis of the level of evidence using the GRADE tool. Metanalysis was not performed due to several differences in methods applied by authors in primary studies. Eleven observational studies were selected according to the inclusion criteria from the total of 6,380 studies retrieved from databases. Eight studies demonstrated higher anxiety levels in subjects with periodontitis, among which only one study presented a high risk of bias. The GRADE tool revealed a low level of evidence for the anxiety outcome measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), both for case-control and cross-sectional studies. However, since anxiety may affect the quality of life of many subjects, it reinforces the need for further studies that evaluate this association for more extended periods.Clinical Trial Registration:PROSPERO-CRD42020190445.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document