Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/epih/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 95 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 96
1Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
2Nature Study Society of Bangladesh, Khulna, Bangladesh
3The IIHMR University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
©2020, Korean Society of Epidemiology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare for this study.
FUNDING
None.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization: MMH, AS. Data curation: MMH, AS, NP. Formal analysis: MMH, AS. Funding acquisition: None. Methodology: MMH. Project administration: MMH, NP. Visualization: MMH. Writing- original draft: MMH. Writing- review and editing: MMH, AS, NP.
Study | Name and timeframe of databases searched | Name and timeframe of databases searched | Country or locations of the primary studies | Quality of the review | Sample size and characteristics |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Morgan et al., 2009 [40] | MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, and additional sources; 1970-2008 | 7 studies on mental health outcomes: 5 cohort studies, 2 cross-sectional and series interviews | Not specified | Medium | Sample size ranged from 8 to 43; participants in 7 selected studies; most (n=6) studies recruited hospitalized patient populations, 1 study included both patients and providers |
Abad et al., 2010 [41] | MEDLINE and CINAHL; 1966-2009 | 8 cohort studies and 7 case-control studies | Not specified | Medium | Sample size ranged from 16 to 156; most studies had adult participants; 2 studies recruited children; samples were recruited from hospital wards |
Barratt et al., 2011 [42] | MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library Databases; 1990-2010 | Studies were qualitative (n=7), cohort (n=7), cross-sectional (n=6), case studies (n=2), and review (n=1) | Most studies were from the UK (n=6) followed by the US (n=4), Hong Kong (n=1), and Canada (n=1) | Medium | Sample size ranged from 7 to 300; samples were recruited from different clinical settings |
Gammon et al., 2018 [43] | PubMed and ASSIA; 1990-2017 | Not specified | Not specified | Medium | Sample size ranged from 13 to 41 among studies reporting sample sizes; participants were recruited from different hospital wards |
Gammon et al., 2019 [28] | MEDLINE and ASSIA; 1990-2017 | 14: only 1 study was cohort-based; most studies were cross-sectional, and 10 studies had a qualitative design | Most studies were from the UK (n=6), followed by the US (n=2), Sweden (n=2), and 1 study each from the Netherlands, New Zealand, Ireland, and Brazil | High | Sample size ranged from 1 to 528; most studies recruited patients and providers from clinical settings, whereas 2 samples included nursing students |
Brooks et al., 2020 [29] | MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science; timeframe not specified | 25: cross-sectional (n=11), qualitative (n=7), longitudinal (n=1), observational (n=2), mixed methods (n=3), and psychological evaluation (n=1) | Most studies were conducted in Canada (n=8) and China (n=4); 2 studies each from Taiwan, Australia, Korea, and Liberia; 1 study each from Sierra Leone, Senegal, Hong Kong, and Sweden; 1 study had participants both from the US and Canada | Medium | Sample size ranged from 10 to 6,231; diverse samples including patients, providers, students, institutional stakeholders, and community members were recruited |
Purssell et al., 2020 [44] | Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO; from the inception of the databases until December 2018 | 26: cohort (n=12), case-control (n=6), cross-sectional (n=4), and quasi-experimental (n=2) studies | Most studies were from the US (n=14), followed by the UK (n=3), Canada (n=3), and 1 study each from Spain, Turkey, Netherlands, Singapore, France, and 1 study had participants both from the US and Canada | High | Sample size ranged from 14 to 9,684; patients were recruited from diverse clinical settings |
Sharma et al., 2020 [45] | Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar; studies published through March 2019 | 7: cohort (n=4), quasi-experimental (n=2), and not specified (n=1) | Not specified | High | Sample size ranged from 16 to 148; participants were recruited from diverse clinical settings |
Study | Type and reasons for quarantine, isolation, or other measures for infection prevention | Mental health impacts |
---|---|---|
Morgan et al., 2009 [40] | Contact precaution; MDROs | Patients expressed feeling neglected, isolated, angry (p=0.037), depression (up to 77%, p-values ranged from < 0.01 to < 0.001), anxiety (p<0.001), low self-esteem (p<0.01), perception of less control (p<0.001); less patient-provider contact was reported |
Abad et al., 2010 [41] | Isolation; multiple infectious conditions including VRE, MRSA, healthcare-associated infections, MDRO, SARS, and mixed infections | Most studies reported higher scores for depression, anxiety, anger-hostility, fear, loneliness, boredom, and low self-esteem; One study reported higher freedom and privacy perceived by the patients; higher anxiety scores were associated with history of mental illness; Most studies found that providers visited less frequently and spent less time with isolated patients compared to the controls |
Barratt et al., 2011 [42] | Source isolation; VRE, MRSA, SARS, and mixed infections | Studies reported stress, anxiety, depression, loneliness, anger, neglect, abandonment, boredom, stigmatization, low sense of control and self-esteem, and negative emotions |
Gammon et al., 2018 [43] | Source isolation; MRSA, tuberculosis, and other non-specified infections | Participants experienced limited visiting, lack of attention and lesser interaction with providers, and disruption of routine; Additionally, feelings of loneliness, abandonment, social exclusion, stigmatization, anxiety, depression, mood changes, stress, negative effects on coping and psychological functioning, low self-esteem and sense of control, emotional problems, anger, perceived feeling of dirtiness, and a lack of clarity on the isolation process were reported; Moreover, studies have found that many psychosocial issues were attributable to the primary cause(s) of hospitalization |
Gammon et al., 2019 [28] | Source isolation; MRSA and other non-specified infectious conditions | Patients reported a lack of control and feeling lonely in isolation, which led to a perceived state of social exclusion; Along with poor mental health (33%), about 32% of MRSA carriers reported stigma; of these, 14% reported “clear stigma” and 42% reported “suggestive for stigma”; Patients also reported suboptimal patient-provider communication, lack of understanding facial expression due to masks, and procedures that provoked anxiety and stresses of isolation |
Brooks et al., 2020 [29] | Quarantine; SARS (n=15), Ebola (n=5), H1N1 influenza (n=3), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (n=2), and equine influenza (n=1) | Patients reported general psychological problems, emotional disturbance, depression, stress, low mood (up to 73%), irritability (up to 57%), anger, guilt, nervousness, sadness, fear, numbness, vigilant handwashing and avoidance of crowds even after quarantine period; The parents and children who were quarantined had higher prevalence of trauma-related mental disorders (28% parents had such symptoms compared to 6% control parents); Healthcare providers also reported acute stress disorder, exhaustion, detachment, anxiety, depression, irritability, insomnia, poor concentration, deterioration of work performance, alcohol use, avoidance behavior, and posttraumatic stress-related symptoms even 3 yr after the quarantine period |
Purssell et al., 2020 [44] | Contact precaution and isolation; MRSA and MDROs | The pooled standardized mean difference was 1.28 (95% CI, 0.47 to 2.09) for depression and 1.45 (95% CI, 0.56 to 2.34) for anxiety among the study participants |
Sharma et al., 2020 [45] | Isolation precaution; MRSA, MDROs, and other infections | The pooled mean difference estimates for HADS-A was -1.4 (p=0.15) and that for HADS-D was -1.85 (p= 0.09) for anxiety and depression, respectively; Most studies (n=6) reported negative effects on psychological burden scales in the empirical analysis |
Search query | Keywords (searched within titles, abstracts, subject headings such as MeSH, and general keywords) |
---|---|
1 | “quarantine” OR “isolation” OR “source isolation” OR “contact isolation” OR “patient isolation” OR “confinement” |
2 | “infection” OR “infected” OR “infective” or “infectious” or “communicable” OR “COVID” OR “COVID-19” OR “nCoV” OR “corona-virus” OR “MERS” OR “SARS” OR “outbreak” OR “epidemic” OR “pandemic” |
3 | “mental health” OR “mental disorders” OR “mental illness” OR “psychiatric” OR “psychological” OR “psychosocial” OR “adverse outcomes” OR “unintended consequences” OR “depression” OR “depressive” OR “sleep disorder” OR “insomnia” OR “anxiety” OR “PTSD” OR “suicide” OR “self-harm” OR “suicidal” OR “distress” OR “affective” OR “fear” OR “phobia” |
4 | “systematic review” OR “systematic literature review” OR “evidence-based review” OR “meta-analysis” OR “meta-analytic” OR “meta-regression” OR “pooled effect” OR “pooled estimate” OR “scoping review” OR “rapid review” OR “evidence-based practice” OR “systematized review” OR “literature review” OR “review of the literature” |
Final search query | 1 AND 2 AND 3 AND 4 |
Study | Name and timeframe of databases searched | Name and timeframe of databases searched | Country or locations of the primary studies | Quality of the review | Sample size and characteristics |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Morgan et al., 2009 [40] | MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, and additional sources; 1970-2008 | 7 studies on mental health outcomes: 5 cohort studies, 2 cross-sectional and series interviews | Not specified | Medium | Sample size ranged from 8 to 43; participants in 7 selected studies; most (n=6) studies recruited hospitalized patient populations, 1 study included both patients and providers |
Abad et al., 2010 [41] | MEDLINE and CINAHL; 1966-2009 | 8 cohort studies and 7 case-control studies | Not specified | Medium | Sample size ranged from 16 to 156; most studies had adult participants; 2 studies recruited children; samples were recruited from hospital wards |
Barratt et al., 2011 [42] | MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library Databases; 1990-2010 | Studies were qualitative (n=7), cohort (n=7), cross-sectional (n=6), case studies (n=2), and review (n=1) | Most studies were from the UK (n=6) followed by the US (n=4), Hong Kong (n=1), and Canada (n=1) | Medium | Sample size ranged from 7 to 300; samples were recruited from different clinical settings |
Gammon et al., 2018 [43] | PubMed and ASSIA; 1990-2017 | Not specified | Not specified | Medium | Sample size ranged from 13 to 41 among studies reporting sample sizes; participants were recruited from different hospital wards |
Gammon et al., 2019 [28] | MEDLINE and ASSIA; 1990-2017 | 14: only 1 study was cohort-based; most studies were cross-sectional, and 10 studies had a qualitative design | Most studies were from the UK (n=6), followed by the US (n=2), Sweden (n=2), and 1 study each from the Netherlands, New Zealand, Ireland, and Brazil | High | Sample size ranged from 1 to 528; most studies recruited patients and providers from clinical settings, whereas 2 samples included nursing students |
Brooks et al., 2020 [29] | MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science; timeframe not specified | 25: cross-sectional (n=11), qualitative (n=7), longitudinal (n=1), observational (n=2), mixed methods (n=3), and psychological evaluation (n=1) | Most studies were conducted in Canada (n=8) and China (n=4); 2 studies each from Taiwan, Australia, Korea, and Liberia; 1 study each from Sierra Leone, Senegal, Hong Kong, and Sweden; 1 study had participants both from the US and Canada | Medium | Sample size ranged from 10 to 6,231; diverse samples including patients, providers, students, institutional stakeholders, and community members were recruited |
Purssell et al., 2020 [44] | Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO; from the inception of the databases until December 2018 | 26: cohort (n=12), case-control (n=6), cross-sectional (n=4), and quasi-experimental (n=2) studies | Most studies were from the US (n=14), followed by the UK (n=3), Canada (n=3), and 1 study each from Spain, Turkey, Netherlands, Singapore, France, and 1 study had participants both from the US and Canada | High | Sample size ranged from 14 to 9,684; patients were recruited from diverse clinical settings |
Sharma et al., 2020 [45] | Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar; studies published through March 2019 | 7: cohort (n=4), quasi-experimental (n=2), and not specified (n=1) | Not specified | High | Sample size ranged from 16 to 148; participants were recruited from diverse clinical settings |
Study | Type and reasons for quarantine, isolation, or other measures for infection prevention | Mental health impacts |
---|---|---|
Morgan et al., 2009 [40] | Contact precaution; MDROs | Patients expressed feeling neglected, isolated, angry (p=0.037), depression (up to 77%, p-values ranged from < 0.01 to < 0.001), anxiety (p<0.001), low self-esteem (p<0.01), perception of less control (p<0.001); less patient-provider contact was reported |
Abad et al., 2010 [41] | Isolation; multiple infectious conditions including VRE, MRSA, healthcare-associated infections, MDRO, SARS, and mixed infections | Most studies reported higher scores for depression, anxiety, anger-hostility, fear, loneliness, boredom, and low self-esteem; One study reported higher freedom and privacy perceived by the patients; higher anxiety scores were associated with history of mental illness; Most studies found that providers visited less frequently and spent less time with isolated patients compared to the controls |
Barratt et al., 2011 [42] | Source isolation; VRE, MRSA, SARS, and mixed infections | Studies reported stress, anxiety, depression, loneliness, anger, neglect, abandonment, boredom, stigmatization, low sense of control and self-esteem, and negative emotions |
Gammon et al., 2018 [43] | Source isolation; MRSA, tuberculosis, and other non-specified infections | Participants experienced limited visiting, lack of attention and lesser interaction with providers, and disruption of routine; Additionally, feelings of loneliness, abandonment, social exclusion, stigmatization, anxiety, depression, mood changes, stress, negative effects on coping and psychological functioning, low self-esteem and sense of control, emotional problems, anger, perceived feeling of dirtiness, and a lack of clarity on the isolation process were reported; Moreover, studies have found that many psychosocial issues were attributable to the primary cause(s) of hospitalization |
Gammon et al., 2019 [28] | Source isolation; MRSA and other non-specified infectious conditions | Patients reported a lack of control and feeling lonely in isolation, which led to a perceived state of social exclusion; Along with poor mental health (33%), about 32% of MRSA carriers reported stigma; of these, 14% reported “clear stigma” and 42% reported “suggestive for stigma”; Patients also reported suboptimal patient-provider communication, lack of understanding facial expression due to masks, and procedures that provoked anxiety and stresses of isolation |
Brooks et al., 2020 [29] | Quarantine; SARS (n=15), Ebola (n=5), H1N1 influenza (n=3), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (n=2), and equine influenza (n=1) | Patients reported general psychological problems, emotional disturbance, depression, stress, low mood (up to 73%), irritability (up to 57%), anger, guilt, nervousness, sadness, fear, numbness, vigilant handwashing and avoidance of crowds even after quarantine period; The parents and children who were quarantined had higher prevalence of trauma-related mental disorders (28% parents had such symptoms compared to 6% control parents); Healthcare providers also reported acute stress disorder, exhaustion, detachment, anxiety, depression, irritability, insomnia, poor concentration, deterioration of work performance, alcohol use, avoidance behavior, and posttraumatic stress-related symptoms even 3 yr after the quarantine period |
Purssell et al., 2020 [44] | Contact precaution and isolation; MRSA and MDROs | The pooled standardized mean difference was 1.28 (95% CI, 0.47 to 2.09) for depression and 1.45 (95% CI, 0.56 to 2.34) for anxiety among the study participants |
Sharma et al., 2020 [45] | Isolation precaution; MRSA, MDROs, and other infections | The pooled mean difference estimates for HADS-A was -1.4 (p=0.15) and that for HADS-D was -1.85 (p= 0.09) for anxiety and depression, respectively; Most studies (n=6) reported negative effects on psychological burden scales in the empirical analysis |
MeSH, Medical Subject Headings.
CINAHL, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; ASSIA, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts.
MDROs, multiple drug-resistant organisms; VRE, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus; MRSA, methicillin-resistant