The Psychological Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic among Emerging Adults: An Observational Cross-Sectional Study

Prevalence of suicidal ideation and correlated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis of 113 studies from 31 countries

The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of suicidal ideation and correlated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Web of Science (WOS) and PubMed were searched according to a pre-set strategy. A total of 132 studies were identified, 104 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of suicidal ideation was approximately 14.7% (95%CI: 12.5%, 16.8%, P < 0.01) in the general population, approximately 22.4% (95%CI: 17.1%, 27.8%, P < 0.01）in adolescents, approximately 21.0% (95%CI: 12.8%, 29.2%, P < 0.01) in psychiatric patients, approximately 20.6% (95%CI: 18.7%, 22.5%, P < 0.01）in university students, approximately 18.9% (95%CI: 8.3%, 29.5%, P < 0.01) in younger adults, approximately 10.6% (95%CI: 1.0%, 20.2%, P = 0.031) in COVID-19 patients and approximately 7.4% (95%CI: 4.3%, 10.5%, P < 0.01) in healthcare workers. The prevalence in North America was approximately 16.0% (95%CI: 13.6%-18.4%, P < 0.001), approximately 14.5% in Asia (95%CI: 9.5%-19.4%, P < 0.001), approximately 10.5% in Europe (95%CI: 8.5%-12.4%, P < 0.001), and approximately 20.5% in South America (95%CI: 19.5%-21.5%, P < 0.001). The following were risk factors which might be correlated with suicidal ideation: severe anxiety symptoms, mild to moderate depression, a strong feeling of loneliness/social isolation, poor sleep quality, having COVID-19-related experience, having quarantine or lockdown experience, being female, being single or divorced, having financial problems and having a history of suicidal ideation/attempt. This article reports the prevalence of suicidal ideation and discussing potential risk factors during the pandemic among general population and vulnerable groups. Early detection and follow-up were necessary for the noteworthy population.

Hidden Costs of the COVID-19 Pandemic Response

"First, do no harm" [...].

Effect of telemonitoring and telerehabilitation on physical activity, exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and healthcare use in patients with chronic lung diseases or COVID-19: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Telemonitoring and telerehabilitation can support home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) and benefit patients with lung diseases or COVID-19. This study aimed to (1) identify which telemonitoring and telerehabilitation interventions (e.g. videoconferencing) are used to provide telehealth care for people with chronic respiratory conditions or COVID-19, and (2) provide an overview of the effects of telemonitoring and telerehabilitation on exercise capacity, physical activity, health-related QoL (HRQoL), and healthcare use in patients with lung diseases or COVID-19.

METHODS

A search was performed in the electronic databases of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cinahl through 15 June 2021. Subject heading and keywords were used to reflect the concepts of telemonitoring, telerehabilitation, chronic lung diseases, and COVID-19. Studies that explored the effect of a telerehabilitation and/or telemonitoring intervention, in patients with a chronic lung disease such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), or COVID-19, and reported the effect of the intervention in one or more of our outcomes of interest were included. Excluding criteria included evaluation of new technological components, teleconsultation or one-time patient assessment.

RESULTS

This scoping review included 44 publications reporting the effect of telemonitoring (25 studies), telerehabilitation (8 studies) or both (11 studies) on patients with COPD (35 studies), asthma (5 studies), COPD and asthma (1 study), and COVID-19 (2 studies). Patients who received telemonitoring and/or telerehabilitation had improvements in exercise capacity in 9 out of 11 (82%) articles, better HRQoL in 21 out of 25 (84%), and fewer health care use in 3 out of 3 (100%) articles compared to pre-intervention. Compared to controls, no statistically significant differences were found in the intervention groups' exercise capacity in 5 out 6 (83%) articles, physical activity in 3 out of 3 (100%) articles, HRQoL in 21 out of 25 (84%) articles, and healthcare use in 15 out of 20 (75%) articles. The main limitation of the study was the high variability between the characteristics of the studies, such as the number and age of the patients, the outcome measures, the duration of the intervention, the technological components involved, and the additional elements included in the interventions that may influence the generalization of the results.

CONCLUSION

Telemonitoring and telerehabilitation interventions had a positive effect on patient outcomes and appeared to be as effective as standard care. Therefore, they are promising alternatives to support remote home-based rehabilitation in patients with chronic lung diseases or COVID-19.