Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal mental health, early childhood development, and parental practices: a global scoping review.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the COVID-19 outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), generating stark economic and social repercussions that directly or indirectly affected families' wellbeing and health status. AIMS: This review aims at mapping the existing evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal mental health, early childhood development, and parental practices, worldwide, to identify evidence gaps and better inform future delivery of care and health policy measures. METHODS: Following the protocol defined by PRISMA-ScR, this scoping review has searched for relevant studies published between January 2020 and June 2021, selecting evidence sources based on pre-established criteria. From a total of 2,308 articles, data were extracted from 537 publications from 35 countries on all three health domains. RESULTS: The combined stressors brought forth by the pandemic have exerted a heavy burden on the mental health of mothers and the development of young children, partly mediated by its impact on parental practices. CONCLUSIONS: Despite remaining gaps, we have identified sufficient evidence pointing to an urgent need for more concerted global research efforts and rapid policy responses to timely address severe and pervasive negative impacts to the mental health of mothers and children at a key developmental stage.

Psychometric Properties and Cross-Cultural Invariance of the Beck Depression Inventory-II and Beck Anxiety Inventory among a Representative Sample of Spanish, Portuguese, and Brazilian Undergraduate Students.

Clinical psychologists often use the Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition (BDI-II), and Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) to aid in the diagnosis of mental health issues and verify the effectiveness of treatments. Despite this common practice, studies that implement a cross-cultural design to check psychometric properties and the invariance of these scales are still scarce in the literature, which can lead to biased results that prevent comparisons among different groups. The present study investigated the internal structure of both tools and their level of invariance. From a representative sample of undergraduate students from Spain (n = 1216), Portugal (n = 426), and Brazil (n = 315), Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis were performed. The results revealed suitable fit indices for the two-factor structure of the BDI-II and BAI, assessed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis procedures. Additionally, the two-factor model of the BDI-II reached invariant properties at three levels, whereas the structural model of the BAI did not. Altogether, these results suggest using the BDI-II in this group in these three countries and imply that BAI scores should be interpreted cautiously.