Objectives: The rapid pace, high volume, and limited quality of mental health evidence being generated during COVID-19 poses a barrier to effective decision-making. The objective of the present report is to compare mental health outcomes assessed during COVID-19 to outcomes prior to COVID-19 in the general population and other population groups. Design: Living systematic review. Data Sources: MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator). The initial search was conducted on April 13, 2020 with ongoing weekly updates. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: For this report, we included studies that compared general mental health, anxiety symptoms, or depression symptoms, assessed January 1, 2020 or later, to the same outcomes collected between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. We required ≥ 90% of participants pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 to be the same or the use of statistical methods to address missing data. For population groups with continuous outcomes for at least three studies in an outcome domain, we conducted restricted maximum-likelihood random-effects meta-analyses. Results: As of March 22, 2021, we had identified 36 unique eligible studies with data from 33 cohorts. All reported COVID-19 outcomes between March and June 2020, and 3 studies also reported outcomes between September and November 2020. Estimates of changes in general mental health were close to zero in the general population (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16, I2 = 94.6%; 4 studies, N = 19,707) and among older adults (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16, I2 = 90.4%; 4 studies, N = 5,520) and university students (SMD = -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.30, I2 = 92.0%; 3 studies, N = 3,372). Changes in anxiety symptoms were close to zero and not statistically significant in university students (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.36, I2 = 95.4%; 5 studies, N = 1,537); women or females (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.39, I2 = 92.3%; 3 studies, N = 2,778); and men or males (SMD = 0.07, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.15; I2 = 0.01%; 3 studies, N = 1,250); anxiety symptoms increased, however, among people with pre-existing medical conditions (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54, I2 = 91.0%; 3 studies, N = 2,053). Changes in depression symptoms were close to zero or small and not statistically significant among university students (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.45, I2 = 91.8%; 5 studies, N = 1,537); people with pre-existing medical conditions (SMD = 0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.17, I2 = 14.9%; 3 studies, N = 2,006); women or females (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.55, I2 = 91.2%; 3 studies, N = 2,843); and men or males (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.22; I2 = 92.3%; 4 studies, N = 3,661). In 3 studies with data from both March to June 2020 and September to November 2020, symptoms were unchanged from pre-COVID-19 at both time points or there were increases at the first assessment that had largely dissipated by the second assessment. Conclusions: Evidence does not suggest a widespread negative effect on mental health symptoms in COVID-19, although it is possible that gaps in data have not allowed identification of changes in some vulnerable groups. Continued updating is needed as evidence accrues.

ObjectiveTo synthesise results of mental health outcomes in cohorts before and during the covid-19 pandemic.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Open Science Framework Preprints.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies comparing general mental health, anxiety symptoms, or depression symptoms assessed from 1 January 2020 or later with outcomes collected from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 in any population, and comprising ≥90% of the same participants before and during the covid-19 pandemic or using statistical methods to account for missing data. Restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analyses (worse covid-19 outcomes representing positive change) were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies.ResultsAs of 11 April 2022, 94 411 unique titles and abstracts including 137 unique studies from 134 cohorts were reviewed. Most of the studies were from high income (n=105, 77%) or upper middle income (n=28, 20%) countries. Among general population studies, no changes were found for general mental health (standardised mean difference (SMD)change0.11, 95% confidence interval −0.00 to 0.22) or anxiety symptoms (0.05, −0.04 to 0.13), but depression symptoms worsened minimally (0.12, 0.01 to 0.24). Among women or female participants, general mental health (0.22, 0.08 to 0.35), anxiety symptoms (0.20, 0.12 to 0.29), and depression symptoms (0.22, 0.05 to 0.40) worsened by minimal to small amounts. In 27 other analyses across outcome domains among subgroups other than women or female participants, five analyses suggested that symptoms worsened by minimal or small amounts, and two suggested minimal or small improvements. No other subgroup experienced changes across all outcome domains. In three studies with data from March to April 2020 and late 2020, symptoms were unchanged from pre-covid-19 levels at both assessments or increased initially then returned to pre-covid-19 levels. Substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias were present across analyses.ConclusionsHigh risk of bias in many studies and substantial heterogeneity suggest caution in interpreting results. Nonetheless, most symptom change estimates for general mental health, anxiety symptoms, and depression symptoms were close to zero and not statistically significant, and significant changes were of minimal to small magnitudes. Small negative changes occurred for women or female participants in all domains. The authors will update the results of this systematic review as more evidence accrues, with study results posted online (https://www.depressd.ca/covid-19-mental-health).Review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179703.

Background Child marriage, defined as marriage before 18 years of age, is a violation of human rights and a marker of gender inequality. Growing attention to this issue on the global development agenda also reflects concerns that it may negatively impact health. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize existing research on the consequences of child marriage on health and to assess the risk of bias in this body of literature. Methods and findings We searched databases focused on biomedicine and global health for studies that estimated the effect of marrying before the age of 18 on any physical or mental health outcome or health behaviour. We identified 58 eligible articles, nearly all of which relied on cross-sectional data sources from sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia. The most studied health outcomes were indicators of fertility and fertility control, maternal health care, and intimate partner violence. All studies were at serious to critical risk of bias. Research consistently found that women who marry before the age of 18 begin having children at earlier ages and give birth to a larger number of children when compared to those who marry at 18 or later, but whether these outcomes were desired was not considered. Across studies, women who married as children were also consistently less likely to give birth in health care facilities or with assistance from skilled providers. Studies also uniformly concluded that child marriage increases the likelihood of experiencing physical violence from an intimate partner. However, research in many other domains, including use of contraception, unwanted pregnancy, and sexual violence came to divergent conclusions and challenge some common narratives regarding child marriage. Conclusions There are many reasons to be concerned about child marriage. However, evidence that child marriage causes the health outcomes described in this review is severely limited. There is more heterogeneity in the results of these studies than is often recognized. For these reasons, greater caution is warranted when discussing the potential impact of child marriage on health. We provide suggestions for avoiding common biases and improving the strength of the evidence on this subject. Trial registration The protocol of this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182652) in May 2020.

Background The One-Child Policy led to the imbalance of the sex ratio at birth (SRB) in China. After that, Two-Child Policy was introduced and gradually liberalized at three stages. If both the husband and wife of one couple were the only child of their parents, they were allowed to have two children in policy (BTCP). If only one of them was the only child, they were allowed to have two children in policy (OTCP). The Universal Two-Child Policy (UTCP) allowed every couple to have two children. The objective of this study was to explore the changing trend of SRB at the stages of Two-Child Policy, to analyze the effect of population policy on SRB in terms of maternal age, delivery mode, parity, maternal education, delivery hospital, and to figure out what factors have greater impact on the SRB. Methods The data of the study came from Hebei Province Maternal Near Miss Surveillance System, covered the parturients delivered at 28 gestation weeks or more in 22 hospitals from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017. We compared the SRB at different policy stages, analyzed the relationship between the SRB and population policy by logistic regression analysis. Results Total 270,878 singleton deliveries were analyzed. The SRB, 1.084 at BTCP, 1.050 at OTCP, 1.047 at UTCP, declined rapidly (χ2 = 15.97, P < 0.01). With the introduction of Two-Child Policy, the percentage of parturients who were 30–34, ≥35 years old rose significantly, and the percentage of multiparous women increased significantly (40.7, 47.2, 56.6%). The neonatal mortality declined significantly (8.4‰, 6.7‰, 5.9‰, χ2 = 44.49, P < 0.01), the mortality rate of female infant gradually declined (48.2, 43.7, 43.9%). The logistic regression analysis showed the SRB was correlated to the three population policy stages in terms of maternal age, delivery mode, parity, maternal education, delivery hospital. Conclusions The SRB has declined to normal level with the gradually liberalizing of Two-Child Policy in China. Advanced maternal age, cesarean delivery, multiparous women, middle level education, rural hospital are the main factors of effect on the decline of the SRB.

No abstract