Prevalence of depressive symptoms in U.S. adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a worsening of mental health among U.S. adults. However, no review to date has synthesized the overall prevalence of population depressive symptoms in the U.S. over the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to document the population prevalence of depressive symptoms and psychological distress across time since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, both to identify patterns that emerged in the literature and to assess the data sources, methods, sampling, and measurement used to examine population mental health during the pandemic. In a systematic review of the peer review literature, we identified 49 articles reporting 88 prevalence points of depressive symptoms and related constructs in nationally representative samples of U.S. adults from March 2020 to June 2021. First, we found that the average prevalence of poor mental health across studies was 12.9% for severe depression, 26.0% for at least moderate depression, and 36.0% for at least mild depression. Second, we found that women reported significantly higher prevalence of probable depression than men in 63% of studies that reported depression levels by gender and that results on statistically significant differences between racial and ethnic groups were mixed. Third, we found that the 49 articles published were based on 12 studies; the most common sources were the Household Pulse Survey (n = 15, 31%), the AmeriSpeak panel (n = 8, 16%), the Qualtrics panel (n = 8, 16%), and the Understanding America Study (n = 5, 10%). Prevalence estimates varied based on mental health screening instruments and cutoffs used. The most commonly used instruments were the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) (n = 36, 73%) and the Kessler (n = 8, 16%) series. While the prevalence of population depression varied over time depending on the survey instruments, severity, and constructs reported, the overall prevalence of depression remained high from March 2020 through June 2021 across instruments and severity. Understanding the scope of population mental health can help policymakers and providers address and prepare to meet the ongoing and future mental health needs of U.S. adults in the post-COVID-19 context and beyond.

Consistency between Household and County Measures of Onsite Schooling during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The academic, socioemotional, and health impacts of school policies throughout the COVID-19 pandemic have been a source of many questions that require accurate information about the extent of onsite schooling occurring. This article investigates school operational status datasets during the pandemic, comparing (1) self-report data collected nationally on the household level through a Facebook-based survey, (2) county-level school policy data, and (3) a school-level closure status dataset based on phone GPS tracking. The percentage of any onsite instruction within states and counties are compared across datasets from December 2020 to May 2021. Sources were relatively consistent at the state level and for large counties, but key differences were revealed between units of measurement, showing differences between policy and household decisions surrounding children's schooling experiences. The consistency levels across sources support the usage of each of the school policy sources to answer questions about the educational experiences, factors, and impacts related to K-12 education across the nation during the pandemic, but it remains vital to think critically as to which unit of measurement is most relevant to targeted research questions.

Association of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions to Reduce the Spread of SARS-CoV-2 With Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms: A Multi-National Study of 43 Countries

Objectives: To examine the association of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) with anxiety and depressive symptoms among adults and determine if these associations varied by gender and age. Methods: We combined survey data from 16,177,184 adults from 43 countries who participated in the daily COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey via Facebook with time-varying NPI data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker between 24 April 2020 and 20 December 2020. Using logistic regression models, we examined the association of [1] overall NPI stringency and [2] seven individual NPIs (school closures, workplace closures, cancellation of public events, restrictions on the size of gatherings, stay-at-home requirements, restrictions on internal movement, and international travel controls) with anxiety and depressive symptoms. Results: More stringent implementation of NPIs was associated with a higher odds of anxiety and depressive symptoms, albeit with very small effect sizes. Individual NPIs had heterogeneous associations with anxiety and depressive symptoms by gender and age. Conclusion: Governments worldwide should be prepared to address the possible mental health consequences of stringent NPI implementation with both universal and targeted interventions for vulnerable groups.