Efficiency and Quality of Data Collection Among Public Mental Health Surveys Conducted During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review

Abstract

Background The World Health Organization has recognized the importance of assessing population-level mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. During a global crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, a timely surveillance method is urgently needed to track the impact on public mental health. Objective This brief systematic review focused on the efficiency and quality of data collection of studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We searched the PubMed database using the following search strings: ((COVID-19) OR (SARS-CoV-2)) AND ((Mental health) OR (psychological) OR (psychiatry)). We screened the titles, abstracts, and texts of the published papers to exclude irrelevant studies. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate the quality of each research paper. Results Our search yielded 37 relevant mental health surveys of the general public that were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, as of July 10, 2020. All these public mental health surveys were cross-sectional in design, and the journals efficiently made these articles available online in an average of 18.7 (range 1-64) days from the date they were received. The average duration of recruitment periods was 9.2 (range 2-35) days, and the average sample size was 5137 (range 100-56,679). However, 73% (27/37) of the selected studies had Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores of <3 points, which suggests that these studies are of very low quality for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Conclusions The studies examined in this systematic review used an efficient data collection method, but there was a high risk of bias, in general, among the existing public mental health surveys. Therefore, following recommendations to avoid selection bias, or employing novel methodologies considering both a longitudinal design and high temporal resolution, would help provide a strong basis for the formation of national mental health policies.

Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care workers: a cross-sectional study

“…First, participation was voluntary, which may have introduced a difficult-to-predict bias due to self-selection of participants in the survey. 35 This is especially important when the non-response rate is high, although this limitation is inherent to the methodology employed and is similar to other studies based on telematic surveys. 36 Second, in a cross-sectional study, causality cannot be inferred from the factors associated with the assessed outcomes.…”

Suffering and Salutogenesis: A Conceptual Analysis of Lessons for Psychiatry From Existential Positive Psychology (PP2.0) in the Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…From these considerations, it is clear that around half of "significant" symptoms of anxiety, depression or PTSD identified in observational studies of COVID-19 cannot be equated with a syndromal mental disorder. It is important to note the researchers conducting studies of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic have acknowledged these limitations themselves, and that face-to-face interviews may not always be feasible in the context of social distancing or other safety measures (Lin et al, 2021). Therefore, the above considerations should not be taken as a dismissal of this valuable body of work.…”

Does COVID-19 related symptomatology indicate a transdiagnostic neuropsychiatric disorder? - Multidisciplinary implications

“…A recent narrative review of the psychometric qualities of scales noted that the heterogeneous and insufficient description of methods used to assess the psychometric characteristics of these scales may limit their usefulness for clinical and research purposes[ 66 ]. A systematic review focusing on the quality of data collection addressing 37 relevant mental health cross-sectional surveys of the general public (average sample size = 5137) noted a high risk of selection bias[ 67 ].…”