Psychosocial Impact of Lockdown on Children due to COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Background: Quarantine measures during the COVID-19 lockdown had a negative impact on children’s psychology and development. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the psychological impact of quarantine on children due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia and to assess types of reported child maltreatment before and after the pandemic. Methods: A cross-sectional survey among parents was performed along with a retrospective data review for anonymized data from the National Family Safety Program, Saudi Arabia. 436 children participated in this survey during June-November 2020. Results: The percentage of fathers with an organic or psychological illness in the children with elevated anxiety levels is 18.5% (p-value = 0.019). The anxiety level of the participants was assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7). Based on the scores, 10.1% had severe anxiety. The depression level of the participants was assessed using Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Based on the scores, 4.4% had severe depression. The anxiety level of the children was assessed using Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale – Parent (SCAS-Parent). Based on the overall score, 28.1% of the children had elevated anxiety levels. The anxiety level was elevated in a panic attack and agoraphobia for 36.8% of the kids, in separation anxiety for 26.8%, in physical injury fears for 35.1%, in social phobia for 19%, in obsessive-compulsive for 25.1%, and in generalized anxiety disorder/overanxious for 27.3%. Conclusion: Quarantine and lockdown during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic have had a negative impact and many adverse effects on the mental and intellectual development of children. These negative outcomes may be addressed via well-planned multilevel interventions.

Prevalence of mental health symptoms in children and adolescents during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A meta‐analysis

“…After deduplication, we assessed 24,926 abstracts for eligibility (see Figure 1). After the screening process, 191 studies were included in the systematic review 50,51,56–244 with a total...…”