Impact of COVID-19 mitigations on anxiety and depression amongst university students: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: While much research has addressed mental health concerns related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there remains a scarcity of studies specifically exploring the changes in anxiety and depression among university students before and after the implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched databases including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), the WHO COVID-19 database, Scopus, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science) as of 15 February 2023. We included studies that used a validated tool to measure changes in anxiety or depression at two distinct time points - before (T1) and during (T2); during (T2) and after (T3); or before (T1) and after (T3) COVID-19 mitigation. The quality of studies was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for longitudinal studies. Utilising random-effects models, we synthesised changes in continuous outcomes as standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and binary outcomes as risk difference (RD) with 95% CI. Results: In total, 15 studies were included in this review, with eight of moderate and seven of high quality. In most of the included studies (n = 13), the majority of participants were women. Eleven studies analysed mental health outcomes between T1 and T2 of COVID-19 mitigations. Continuous symptom changes were a minimal or small improvement for anxiety (SMD = -0.03, 95% CI = -0.24 to 0.19, I2 = 90%); but worsened for depression (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.62). However, the proportions of students reporting moderate-to-severe symptoms, defined by specific cut-offs, increased during COVID-19 mitigation measures for both anxiety (RD = 0.17, 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.38, I2 = 95%) and depression (RD = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.22, I2 = 72%). Sensitivity analyses, which distinguished between baseline periods based on awareness of COVID-19, demonstrated an exacerbation of both symptoms when comparing the period before the global awareness of the COVID-19 outbreak (before December 2019) with the period during the implementation of mitigation measures. Conclusions: Mental health outcomes, especially depressive symptoms, were observed to worsen in university students during COVID-19 mitigations. Despite considerable heterogeneity requiring careful interpretation of results, the impact of COVID-19 mitigations on mental health in university students is evident. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021266889).

Which factors influence the extent of indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2? A rapid evidence review.

BACKGROUND: This rapid evidence review identifies and integrates evidence from epidemiology, microbiology and fluid dynamics on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in indoor environments. METHODS: Searches were conducted in May 2020 in PubMed, medRxiv, arXiv, Scopus, WHO COVID-19 database, Compendex & Inspec. We included studies reporting data on any indoor setting except schools, any indoor activities and any potential means of transmission. Articles were screened by a single reviewer, with rejections assessed by a second reviewer. We used Joanna Briggs Institute and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools for evaluating epidemiological studies and developed bespoke tools for the evaluation of study types not covered by these instruments. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by a single reviewer. We conducted a meta-analysis of secondary attack rates in household transmission. Otherwise, data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: We identified 1573 unique articles. After screening and quality assessment, fifty-eight articles were retained for analysis. Experimental evidence from fluid mechanics and microbiological studies demonstrates that aerosolised transmission is theoretically possible; however, we found no conclusive epidemiological evidence of this occurring. The evidence suggests that ventilation systems have the potential to decrease virus transmission near the source through dilution but to increase transmission further away from the source through dispersal. We found no evidence for faecal-oral transmission. Laboratory studies suggest that the virus survives for longer on smooth surfaces and at lower temperatures. Environmental sampling studies have recovered small amounts of viral RNA from a wide range of frequently touched objects and surfaces; however, epidemiological studies are inconclusive on the extent of fomite transmission. We found many examples of transmission in settings characterised by close and prolonged indoor contact. We estimate a pooled secondary attack rate within households of 11% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 9, 13). There were insufficient data to evaluate the transmission risks associated with specific activities. Workplace challenges related to poverty warrant further investigation as potential risk factors for workplace transmission. Fluid mechanics evidence on the physical properties of droplets generated by coughing, speaking and breathing reinforce the importance of maintaining 2 m social distance to reduce droplet transmission. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a snap-shot of evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in indoor environments from the early months of the pandemic. The overall quality of the evidence was low. As the quality and quantity of available evidence grows, it will be possible to reach firmer conclusions on the risk factors for and mechanisms of indoor transmission.