Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T15:43:47.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Psychological impact of the quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic on the general European adult population: a systematic review of the evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2022

M. Bonati*
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Mother and Child Health, Department of Public Health, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, 20156 Milan, Italy
R. Campi
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Mother and Child Health, Department of Public Health, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, 20156 Milan, Italy
G. Segre
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Mother and Child Health, Department of Public Health, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, 20156 Milan, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: M. Bonati, E-mail: maurizio.bonati@marionegri.it
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims

Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) different countries implemented quarantine measures to limit the spread of the virus. Many studies analysed the mental health consequences of restrictive confinement, some of which focused their attention on specific populations. The general public's mental health also requires significant attention, however. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 quarantine on the general population's mental health in different European countries. Risk and protective factors associated with the psychological symptoms were analysed.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted on four electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus and Google Scholar). Studies published up until 20th April 2021, and following eligibility criteria were selected for this review. One thousand three hundred thirty-five (1335) studies were screened, 105 of which were included. Via network analysis, the current study investigated the pathways that underlie possible risk factors for mental health outcomes.

Results

Anxiety, depression, distress and post-traumatic symptoms are frequently experienced during the COVID-19 quarantine and are often associated with changes in sleeping and eating habits. Some socio-demographic and COVID-19-related variables were found to be risk factors for an individual's wellbeing. In particular, being female, young, having a low income, being unemployed and having COVID-19-like symptoms or chronic disorders, were found to be the most common risk factors for mental health symptoms.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic represented an unprecedented threat to mental health globally. In order to prevent psychological morbidity and offer support tailored to short-, medium- and long-term negative outcomes, it is essential to identify the direct and indirect psychosocial effects of the lockdown and quarantine measures, especially in certain vulnerable groups. In addition to measures to reduce the curve of viral transmission, policy makers should urgently take into consideration provisions to alleviate hazards to mental health.

Type
Special Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

From December 2019 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection spread rapidly around the world, and in March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global pandemic (World Health Organization, 2020).

The impact of the coronavirus disease was dramatic also because appropriate tools for diagnosis and therapy were not available at the time.

Quarantine has been defined as the separation and restriction of movement of people who have potentially been exposed to a contagious disease to ascertain if they become unwell, so reducing the risk of them infecting others (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). Quarantine was used mainly at the local level during historic outbreaks, e.g. during the 2014 Ebola outbreak in African villages.

For coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), quarantine and social distancing measures were effective public health tools in limiting the dissemination and outcomes of the infection (Tognotti, Reference Tognotti2013). Although the severity of these restrictions has varied between and within countries, they have had a significant impact on people's daily life, influencing their job, leisure activities, livelihood and social relationships. Each country's general population has experienced the emotional, social and economic impact of this emergency.

Previous studies have shown that widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases, such as SARS, Ebola and H1N1, are associated with psychological distress and mental health symptoms (Bao et al., Reference Bao, Sun, Meng, Shi and Lu2020; Maalouf et al., Reference Maalouf, Mdawar, Meho and Akl2021; Chaundri et al., Reference Chaudhry, Kazmi, Sharjeel, Akhtar and Shahid2021). The psychiatric implications continued far beyond the outbreak: SARS survivors reported having persistent mental health issues years afterwards (Mak et al., Reference Mak, Chu, Pan, Yiu and Chan2009).

A review published at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (Brooks et al., Reference Brooks, Webster, Smith, Woodland, Wessely, Greenberg and Rubin2020) showed that quarantines could lead to deleterious psychological effects, including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, anger, infection fears, frustration and boredom.

Several studies have investigated the mental consequences of COVID-19 on target populations such as children, students and healthcare professionals (Husky et al., Reference Husky, Kovess-Masfety and Swendsen2020; Xie et al., Reference Xie, Xue, Zhou, Zhu, Liu, Zhang and Song2020; Segre et al., Reference Segre, Campi, Scarpellini, Clavenna, Zanetti, Cartabia and Bonati2021; Stocchetti et al., Reference Stocchetti, Segre, Zanier, Zanetti, Campi, Scarpellini, Clavenna and Bonati2021)

While such a focus is understandable, it is also necessary to detect relevant changes in health behaviours that may be occurring at a community level in order to better understand the range of psychosocial consequences of the pandemic's containment measures.

A systematic review and meta-analysis conducted at the beginning of the pandemic (Salari et al., Reference Salari, Hosseinian-Far, Jalali, Vaisi-Raygani, Rasoulpoor, Mohammadi, Rasoulpoor and Khaledi-Paveh2020) showed that the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression symptoms among the general population was 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 24.3–35.4), 32% (95% CI 28–37) and 34% (95% CI 28–41), respectively.

Since lifestyle behaviours can affect mental wellbeing and health behaviours can change during the COVID-19 pandemic (Parletta et al., Reference Parletta, Aljeesh and Baune2016; Arora and Grey, Reference Arora and Grey2020), the potential benefits of mandatory mass quarantine need to be weighed against the possible costs, including psychological ones.

Although the first wave of the pandemic seems far away, two others have followed and others, albeit less intense, may occur. The use of quarantine to deal with epidemics or pandemics, however, may occur again.

Although many studies (Necho et al., Reference Necho, Tsehay, Birkie, Biset and Tadesse2021; Prati et al., Reference Prati and Mancini2021; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Pan, Cai and Pan2021) have evaluated the mental health consequences of the current pandemic on the general population, there has been no published systematic review focusing primarily on the broader psychological impact of COVID-19 quarantine on European general population samples.

The main objective of the present study was therefore to investigate the effects of the COVID-19 quarantine during the first wave (the most intense one) on mental health and lifestyle changes of the general population in European countries. Specifically, it aimed to analyse the socio-demographic and COVID-19-related variables in order to identify those individuals at elevated risk for adverse mental health outcomes. Specific focus was placed on pre-quarantine predictors of psychological impact and stressors during quarantine.

Methods

Search strategy and selection criteria

For the present review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. A computer-based literature search was conducted on the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO and Scopus, including studies published from the inception of the pandemic (January 2020) until the 20th of April 2021. A manual search on Google Scholar was performed to identify additional relevant studies. The full list of search terms can be found in the Appendix (Table A1). In brief, we used a combination of terms relating to quarantine (e.g. ‘quarantine’, ‘isolation’, ‘confinement’ and ‘lockdown’), psychological outcomes (e.g. ‘psychological’, ‘mental health’, ‘depression’, ‘anxiety’, ‘insomnia’, ‘eating habits’ and ‘lifestyle changes’), survey (e.g. ‘online survey’ and ‘questionnaire’) and COVID-19 (e.g. ‘COVID’, ‘corona-virus’ and ‘pandemic’).

For studies to be included in this review they had to be journal articles, report on primary research, be published in peer-reviewed journals, be written in English, include participants asked to enter into quarantine outside of a hospital environment for at least 24 h and include data on the prevalence of mental health symptoms or psychological wellbeing, or on related factors. In particular, studies with a cross-sectional design and longitudinal studies with data collected only during the quarantine were included. Studies were excluded if they focused on particular subgroups of the population such as healthcare workers, students or people with chronic conditions, or if they did not have full-text availability. The present review followed the PRISMA checklist and reporting guidance (PRISMA-P Group et al., Reference Moher, Shamseer, Clarke, Ghersi, Liberati, Petticrew, Shekelle and Stewart2015).

The titles and abstracts were evaluated by the authors, independently, to decide whether to include or exclude the studies. Disagreements on the eligibility of a study were resolved by discussion until consensus was reached. Moreover, a review of the references of the included studies was performed. Complete references were downloaded and stored using Reference Manager 2011.0.1 software (Thompson Research Soft, Carlsbad, CA, USA).

After the first screening, only studies conducted during the first wave of the pandemic on European countries' general adult population were included. In particular, those living in countries located in the European continent, extending from the island nation of Iceland, in the west, to the Ural Mountains of Russia, in the east, were considered.

Data analysis

The network analysis approach (Borsboom and Cramer, Reference Borsboom and Cramer2013) was used to investigate the relationship between the 20 variables considered as potential risk factors for mental health outcomes related to COVID-19 quarantine (gender, age, educational level, marital status, parental status, working situation, living conditions during confinement, financial situation, social support, levels of general health, being in a vulnerable group, pre-existing mental health disorder, working situation, changes in diet and nutrition, changes in sleep, physical activity during quarantine, living in specific areas during the pandemic, symptoms of COVID-19/Physical symptoms, contact with COVID-19 cases, coping strategies/strategies to deal with stress). The Fruchterman–Reingold algorithm was used (Fruchterman and Reingold, Reference Fruchterman and Reingold1991), in which a force-directed layout dissembles the graph as a system of a large quantity of nodes or vertices. Psychological distress is seen as a network of specific risk factors (termed nodes) that dynamically interact with, and impact, one another. The nodes represent the 20 variables considered and the edges represent the connections between the nodes. Nodes act as mass particles and edges behave as springs between the nodes. The degree of a node is its number of connections (how many neighbours the variable has with other variables). The figure generated shows the most consistent associations, where thicker edges show stronger relationships and thinner edges weaker relationships.

For each node, we calculated:

  • betweenness centrality, which measures all the shortest paths between every pair of nodes of the network and then counts how many times a node is on a shortest path between two others,

  • closeness centrality, which calculates the shortest paths between all nodes, then assigns each node a score based on its sum of shortest paths,

  • eigen centrality, which measures a node's influence based on the number of links it has to other nodes in the network and can identify nodes with an influence over the whole network, not just those directly connected to it.

A community detection analysis was carried out using the Louvain method (Blondel et al., Reference Blondel, Guillaume, Lambiotte and Lefebvre2008) to extract communities and calculate modularity. It is one of the most frequently used methods for clustering on large networks, it is very efficient and allows one to define communities in a hierarchical way to group together certain nodes, diminish the dimensionality of a dataset and facilitate interpretability. Network analysis was performed using Gephi version 0.9.2 (Bastian et al., Reference Bastian, Heymann and Jacomy2009).

Methodological quality/bias risk were recorded using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for cross-sectional and cohort studies (see Appendix Tables A2 and A3).

Results

Figure 1 presents the procedural steps adopted and the record count, duplicates and final studies obtained after screening. The initial search yielded 1335 studies, of which 105 included relevant data and were included in this review.

Fig. 1. Study selection.

An overview with the characteristics of the studies is presented in online Supplementary Tables 1 and 2.

All eligible studies were included in the review, regardless of their quality assessment results. Of the 98 cross-sectional studies, 45 studies (46%) were of very good quality (maximum score on the JBI) and 8 (9%) were of poor quality (JBI score <5 points). All cohort studies were of good quality. Selected studies were conducted mainly in 17 different countries (Italy: n = 39, Spain: n = 25, UK: n = 9 and Greece: n = 4).

The psychological impact of quarantine

Seventy-nine studies reported anxiety symptoms in the general population, with a prevalence ranging from 5.5 to 70.4%. The highest levels of anxiety were found in an Italian study (Di Renzo et al., Reference Di Renzo, Gualtieri, Cinelli, Bigioni, Soldati, Attinà, Bianco, Caparello, Camodeca, Carrano, Ferraro, Giannattasio, Leggeri, Rampello, Lo Presti, Tarsitano and De Lorenzo2020); these involved 70.4% of the enrolled population, 57.8% of whom with physical manifestations of anxiety (tachycardia, headache, sweating). On the contrary, three studies (Bonati et al., Reference Bonati, Campi, Zanetti, Cartabia, Scarpellini, Clavenna and Segre2021; Budimir et al., Reference Budimir, Pieh, Dale and Probst2021; Silva Moreira et al., Reference Silva Moreira, Ferreira, Couto, Machado-Sousa, Fernández, Raposo-Lima, Sousa, Picó-Pérez and Morgado2021) found low percentages of anxiety symptoms (<10% of the sample).

A comparative investigation between Spanish and Greek participants (Papandreou et al., Reference Papandreou, Arija, Aretouli, Tsilidis and Bulló2020) observed a similar prevalence of moderate and severe anxiety symptoms, with 12.3% in Spain and 13.2% in Greece. Similar rates were found also in a German study (Munk et al., Reference Munk, Schmidt, Alexander, Henkel and Hennig2020), in which 12% of the sample met the criteria for the general anxiety disorder (GAD) during the lockdown, compared with 2% before the pandemic.

Depressive symptomatology and mood variables were assessed in 74 studies and their clinical prevalence ranged from 3.2 to 82.6%. Sixteen studies classified the frequency and severity of symptoms in three categories: mild, moderate and severe. The lowest percentages of severe depressive symptoms were found in 3.2% of the Austrian sample (Budimir et al., Reference Budimir, Pieh, Dale and Probst2021) and 9.3% of the Greek sample (Fountoulakis et al., Reference Fountoulakis, Apostolidou, Atsiova, Filippidou, Florou, Gousiou, Katsara, Mantzari, Padouva-Markoulaki, Papatriantafyllou, Sacharidi, Tonia, Tsagalidou, Zymara, Prezerakos, Koupidis, Fountoulakis and Chrousos2021). Close rates were reported in the Portuguese population (Paulino et al., Reference Paulino, Dumas-Diniz, Brissos, Brites, Alho, Simões Mário and Silva Carlos2021) in which only 11.7% of the participants presented moderate to severe depressive symptoms on the ‘Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale’ (DASS). On the contrary, the findings of a Polish study (Bodecka et al., Reference Bodecka, Nowakowska, Zajenkowska, Rajchert, Kaźmierczak and Jelonkiewicz2021) showed that the majority of participants displayed at least mild depressive symptoms (82.6%). Nearly two-thirds of the Italian respondents (61.3%) experienced depressed mood (Di Renzo et al., Reference Di Renzo, Gualtieri, Cinelli, Bigioni, Soldati, Attinà, Bianco, Caparello, Camodeca, Carrano, Ferraro, Giannattasio, Leggeri, Rampello, Lo Presti, Tarsitano and De Lorenzo2020).

Psychological distress has been assessed with different tools: the majority of the included studies used the DASS stress scale. Four Italian studies (Costantini and Mazzotti, Reference Costantini and Mazzotti2020; Landi et al., Reference Landi, Pakenham, Boccolini, Grandi and Tossani2020; Pakenham et al., Reference Pakenham, Landi, Boccolini, Furlani, Grandi and Tossani2020; Bonati et al., Reference Bonati, Campi, Zanetti, Cartabia, Scarpellini, Clavenna and Segre2021) used the ‘COVID-19 Peritraumatic Distress Index (CPDI)’ with positive responses ranging from 15 to 40%. Nearly one-third of people experienced symptoms of mild to moderate and severe peritraumatic distress in two studies (Costantini and Mazzotti, Reference Costantini and Mazzotti2020; Pakenham et al., Reference Pakenham, Landi, Boccolini, Furlani, Grandi and Tossani2020), while lower rates (15.5% of the sample) were reported in another study (CPDI mean 17.95, s.d. 11.50) (Landi et al., Reference Landi, Pakenham, Boccolini, Grandi and Tossani2020).

Eighteen studies focused their attention on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. In total, 54.4% of the Italian participants met criteria for a clinical level of stress related problems and 30% of the sample had probable diagnosis of PTSD (Panno et al., Reference Panno, Carbone, Massullo, Farina and Imperatori2020). Lower scores of PTSD (5.1%) were reported in a study (Favieri et al., Reference Favieri, Forte, Tambelli and Casagrande2021) that specifically used the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Related to COVID-19 (COVID-19-PTSD). High levels of avoidance symptoms at the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R) were found in two studies (Fiorillo et al., Reference Fiorillo, Sampogna, Giallonardo, Del Vecchio, Luciano, Albert, Carmassi, Carrà, Cirulli, Dell'Osso, Nanni, Pompili, Sani, Tortorella and Volpe2020; Jiménez et al., Reference Jiménez, Sánchez-Sánchez and García-Montes2020).

Seventeen studies focused specifically on resilience and/or coping strategies, i.e. the individual's ability to cope with stress and adapt to changes. Resilience has been associated with a lower risk for any mental health symptoms; the same results were obtained regarding coping (Munk et al., Reference Munk, Schmidt, Alexander, Henkel and Hennig2020). A higher score on the positive coping strategy dimension was associated with a lower prevalence of depressive symptoms, while more supportive/distractive strategies were associated with an increased prevalence (Skapinakis et al., Reference Skapinakis, Bellos, Oikonomou, Dimitriadis, Gkikas, Perdikari and Mavreas2020).

Pre-quarantine predictors of psychological impact

Several predictive factors were identified from the included studies.

Female gender is the most common risk factor associated with psychological symptoms during the COVID emergency. The risk of developing anxiety, depression, distress symptoms or PTSD was double in female compared to male participants (Casagrande et al., Reference Casagrande, Favieri, Tambelli and Forte2020; Fiorillo et al., Reference Fiorillo, Sampogna, Giallonardo, Del Vecchio, Luciano, Albert, Carmassi, Carrà, Cirulli, Dell'Osso, Nanni, Pompili, Sani, Tortorella and Volpe2020; Gualano et al., Reference Gualano, Lo Moro, Voglino, Bert and Siliquini2020; Landi et al., Reference Landi, Pakenham, Boccolini, Grandi and Tossani2020; Mariani et al., Reference Mariani, Renzi, Di Trani, Trabucchi, Danskin and Tambelli2020; Mazza et al., Reference Mazza, Ricci, Biondi, Colasanti, Ferracuti, Napoli and Roma2020; Pieh et al., Reference Pieh, Budimir and Probst2020; Rodríguez-Rey et al., Reference Rodríguez-Rey, Garrido-Hernansaiz and Collado2020; Suso-Ribera and Martín-Brufau, Reference Suso-Ribera and Martín-Brufau2020; Bonati et al., Reference Bonati, Campi, Zanetti, Cartabia, Scarpellini, Clavenna and Segre2021; Rettie and Daniels, Reference Rettie and Daniels2021). On the contrary, a Spanish study reported similar levels of anxiety, stress and depression (Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., Reference Ozamiz-Etxebarria, Idoiaga Mondragon, Dosil Santamaría and Picaza Gorrotxategi2020). Women reported more frequent and severe sleeping problems (such as insomnia) than men (Bacaro et al., Reference Bacaro, Chiabudini, Buonanno, De Bartolo, Riemann, Mancini and Baglioni2020; Casagrande et al., Reference Casagrande, Favieri, Tambelli and Forte2020; Margetić et al., Reference Margetić, Peraica, Stojanović and Ivanec2021); they exhibited more PTSD or secondary traumatic stress and posttraumatic growth, were less resilient and used all kinds of coping strategies more often (Kalaitzaki, Reference Kalaitzaki2021).

An age-related variation was analysed in different studies: the psychological impact of COVID-19 confinement seems to ameliorate as people get older. The youngest participants (<35 years old) showed higher levels of depression, anxiety, stress, insomnia and PTSD symptoms compared to the other age groups (Antunes et al., Reference Antunes, Frontini, Amaro, Salvador, Matos, Morouço and Rebelo-Gonçalves2020; Bacaro et al., Reference Bacaro, Chiabudini, Buonanno, De Bartolo, Riemann, Mancini and Baglioni2020; Bonsaksen et al., Reference Bonsaksen, Heir, Schou-Bredal, Ekeberg, Skogstad and Grimholt2020; Rodríguez-Rey et al., Reference Rodríguez-Rey, Garrido-Hernansaiz and Collado2020; Paulino et al., Reference Paulino, Dumas-Diniz, Brissos, Brites, Alho, Simões Mário and Silva Carlos2021; Rettie and Daniels, Reference Rettie and Daniels2021; Rossi et al., Reference Rossi, Jannini, Socci, Pacitti and Lorenzo2021). The greater vulnerability to distress in young adulthood could be due to the precariousness of the working activities, with consequent interruption of income, and/or the interruption of the initial phase of development of one's professional activity, and/or the presence of children, with resulting age-related concerns or the forced cohabitation in a phase in which young adults would normally leave the family of origin. Age remained positively associated with wellbeing and negatively associated with depression (Dawson and Golijani-Moghaddam, Reference Dawson and Golijani-Moghaddam2020): marked differences in prevalence of depression were found between 18 and 24 year (63.3%) olds and people over 65 years of age (11.5%) (Pieh et al., Reference Pieh, Budimir, Delgadillo, Barkham, Fontaine and Probst2021). A similar pattern, even if slighter, was reported for sleep problems (Gualano et al., Reference Gualano, Lo Moro, Voglino, Bert and Siliquini2020; Beck et al., Reference Beck, Léger, Fressard, Peretti-Watel and Verger2021). Results of a Spanish (Vicario-Merino, Reference Vicario-Merino2020) and a UK study (Neill et al., Reference Neill, Blair, Best, McGlinchey and Armour2021) stated that symptoms of stress and depression tended to increase with an increase in age range.

Being more educated predicted greater wellbeing: lower educational status was significantly associated with higher depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms (Benke et al., Reference Benke, Autenrieth, Asselmann and Pané-Farré2020; Di Crosta et al., Reference Di Crosta, Palumbo, Marchetti, Ceccato, La Malva, Maiella, Cipi, Roma, Mammarella, Verrocchio and Di Domenico2020; Haesebaert et al., Reference Haesebaert, Haesebaert, Zante and Franck2020; Skapinakis et al., Reference Skapinakis, Bellos, Oikonomou, Dimitriadis, Gkikas, Perdikari and Mavreas2020; Suso-Ribera and Martín-Brufau, Reference Suso-Ribera and Martín-Brufau2020; Gutiérrez-Hernández et al., Reference Gutiérrez-Hernández, Fanjul, Díaz-Megolla, Reyes-Hurtado, Herrera-Rodríguez, Enjuto-Castellanos and Peñate2021; Silva Moreira et al., Reference Silva Moreira, Ferreira, Couto, Machado-Sousa, Fernández, Raposo-Lima, Sousa, Picó-Pérez and Morgado2021). The trend of the association with education level, however, is likely also related also to the cultural context, as found in Italian results (Bonati et al., Reference Bonati, Campi, Zanetti, Cartabia, Scarpellini, Clavenna and Segre2021) v. Portuguese ones (Paulino et al., Reference Paulino, Dumas-Diniz, Brissos, Brites, Alho, Simões Mário and Silva Carlos2021).

Moreover, having a partner also predicted greater wellbeing (Haesebaert et al., Reference Haesebaert, Haesebaert, Zante and Franck2020): married participants and those cohabiting with their partner showed significantly lower psychological impact and felt less lonely than single participants (Balsamo and Carlucci, Reference Balsamo and Carlucci2020; Cerbara et al., Reference Cerbara, Ciancimino, Crescimbene, La Longa, Parsi, Tintori and Palomba2020; Saita et al., Reference Saita, Facchin, Pagnini and Molgora2021). Although, an Italian study (Velotti et al., Reference Velotti, Rogier, Beomonte Zobel, Castellano and Tambelli2021) reported that having a partner was associated with overeating and social network use during the quarantine, sharing everyday life with someone during quarantine was a protective factor (Dawson and Golijani-Moghaddam, Reference Dawson and Golijani-Moghaddam2020; Gualano et al., Reference Gualano, Lo Moro, Voglino, Bert and Siliquini2020).

Additionally, living with children in the household was revealed as a protective factor against psychological distress, anxiety and depressive symptoms in five different studies (Gómez-Salgado et al., Reference Gómez-Salgado, Andrés-Villas, Domínguez-Salas, Díaz-Milanés and Ruiz-Frutos2020; Mazza et al., Reference Mazza, Ricci, Biondi, Colasanti, Ferracuti, Napoli and Roma2020; Rodríguez-Rey et al., Reference Rodríguez-Rey, Garrido-Hernansaiz and Collado2020; Ellen and De Vriendt Patricia, Reference Ellen and De Vriendt Patricia2021; Saita et al., Reference Saita, Facchin, Pagnini and Molgora2021). In particular, a low rate of psychological distress was observed among people living with older children or adolescents (Gómez-Salgado et al., Reference Gómez-Salgado, Andrés-Villas, Domínguez-Salas, Díaz-Milanés and Ruiz-Frutos2020; Rodríguez-Rey et al., Reference Rodríguez-Rey, Garrido-Hernansaiz and Collado2020), but those living with children under ten had poorer wellbeing (Haesebaert et al., Reference Haesebaert, Haesebaert, Zante and Franck2020).

The impact of confinement was more damaging for people living in very poor cohabitation conditions. In particular, participants living in houses of more than 120 square meters showed lower psychological impact, stress, anxiety and depression symptoms than those living in less than 30 square meters (odds ratio (OR) 1.98, 95% CI 1.19–3.30) (Ramiz et al., Reference Ramiz, Contrand, Rojas Castro, Dupuy, Lu, Sztal-Kutas and Lagarde2021). Moreover, people with access to an outdoor space (e.g. garden, balcony) had higher wellbeing scores (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.00–1.89) (Ramiz et al., Reference Ramiz, Contrand, Rojas Castro, Dupuy, Lu, Sztal-Kutas and Lagarde2021) and better mental health (Haesebaert et al., Reference Haesebaert, Haesebaert, Zante and Franck2020; Ellen and De Vriendt Patricia, Reference Ellen and De Vriendt Patricia2021). Both the number of cohabitants and the quality of the relationships must be taken into account, however, levels of psychological distress were higher and sleep quality was lower in people living alone (Pérez et al., Reference Pérez, Masegoso and Hernández-Espeso2021).

Being affected by a pre-existing mental disorder or having a pre-existing physical disease were found to be factors associated with worse levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms (Fiorillo et al., Reference Fiorillo, Sampogna, Giallonardo, Del Vecchio, Luciano, Albert, Carmassi, Carrà, Cirulli, Dell'Osso, Nanni, Pompili, Sani, Tortorella and Volpe2020; Mazza et al., Reference Mazza, Ricci, Biondi, Colasanti, Ferracuti, Napoli and Roma2020; Pérez et al., Reference Pérez, Masegoso and Hernández-Espeso2021; Rettie and Daniels, Reference Rettie and Daniels2021). In particular, people in ‘vulnerable’ groups were significantly more anxious, and more anxious concerning their health, compared to individuals in nonvulnerable groups (Rettie and Daniels, Reference Rettie and Daniels2021).

Stressors during quarantine

Unemployed participants, who were more vulnerable to the possible economic crisis in the pandemic's aftermath, presented higher rates of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms compared to employed participants (Benke et al., Reference Benke, Autenrieth, Asselmann and Pané-Farré2020; Pieh et al., Reference Pieh, Budimir and Probst2020; Bonati et al., Reference Bonati, Campi, Zanetti, Cartabia, Scarpellini, Clavenna and Segre2021; Paulino et al., Reference Paulino, Dumas-Diniz, Brissos, Brites, Alho, Simões Mário and Silva Carlos2021). Unemployed participants were also at higher risk of developing sleep disorders (68%), often associated with some impairment of their daytime daily activities (OR 1.34; 95% 95% CI 1.02–1.70) (Casagrande et al., Reference Casagrande, Favieri, Tambelli and Forte2020; Beck et al., Reference Beck, Léger, Fressard, Peretti-Watel and Verger2021). Working outside the home was associated with higher levels of psychological distress: people working in-presence showed significantly higher psychological impact compared to those working remotely (Di Giuseppe et al., Reference Di Giuseppe, Zilcha-Mano, Prout, Perry, Orrù and Conversano2020; Gómez-Salgado et al., Reference Gómez-Salgado, Andrés-Villas, Domínguez-Salas, Díaz-Milanés and Ruiz-Frutos2020; Mazza et al., Reference Mazza, Ricci, Biondi, Colasanti, Ferracuti, Napoli and Roma2020; Paulino et al., Reference Paulino, Dumas-Diniz, Brissos, Brites, Alho, Simões Mário and Silva Carlos2021), although the type of job and professional role may affect the relationship (Fiorenzato et al., Reference Fiorenzato, Zabberoni, Costa and Cona2021). Economic stability, and socioeconomic status in general, are related to depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms (Di Crosta et al., Reference Di Crosta, Palumbo, Marchetti, Ceccato, La Malva, Maiella, Cipi, Roma, Mammarella, Verrocchio and Di Domenico2020; Prati, Reference Prati2021): participants with high monthly family income showed lower psychological impact than those whose family income was lower (Nese et al., Reference Nese, Riboli, Brighetti, Sassi, Camela, Caselli, Sassaroli and Borlimi2022; Pieh et al., Reference Pieh, Budimir and Probst2020, Reference Pieh, Budimir, Delgadillo, Barkham, Fontaine and Probst2021; Skapinakis et al., Reference Skapinakis, Bellos, Oikonomou, Dimitriadis, Gkikas, Perdikari and Mavreas2020; Pérez-Rodrigo et al., Reference Pérez-Rodrigo, Gianzo Citores, Hervás Bárbara, Ruiz-Litago, Casis Sáenz, Arija, López-Sobaler, Martínez de Victoria, Ortega, Partearroyo, Quiles-Izquierdo, Ribas-Barba, Rodríguez-Martín, Salvador Castell, Tur, Varela-Moreiras, Serra-Majem and Aranceta-Bartrina2021).

Health became one of the primary concerns during the COVID-19 confinement. Symptomatic individuals expressed higher psychological impact and increased levels of depression, anxiety, stress symptoms and sleep disorders; these symptoms could be interpreted as potential symptoms of COVID-19 (Beck et al., Reference Beck, Léger, Fressard, Peretti-Watel and Verger2021; Paulino et al., Reference Paulino, Dumas-Diniz, Brissos, Brites, Alho, Simões Mário and Silva Carlos2021; Vujčić et al., Reference Vujčić, Safiye, Milikić, Popović, Dubljanin, Dubljanin, Dubljanin and Čabarkapa2021). Patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 reported greater sleep problems (52% severe) and worse levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms (Fiorillo et al., Reference Fiorillo, Sampogna, Giallonardo, Del Vecchio, Luciano, Albert, Carmassi, Carrà, Cirulli, Dell'Osso, Nanni, Pompili, Sani, Tortorella and Volpe2020). Having had a contact with a positive case in the previous 14 days showed a statistically significant relationship with the presence of psychological distress (Gómez-Salgado et al., Reference Gómez-Salgado, Andrés-Villas, Domínguez-Salas, Díaz-Milanés and Ruiz-Frutos2020).

Home confinement affected habits and lifestyle (in terms of sleep disorders, food consumption and physical activity), inducing common mental health problems (Balanzá-Martínez et al., Reference Balanzá-Martínez, Kapczinski, de Azevedo Cardoso, Atienza-Carbonell, Rosa, Mota and De Boni2021).

In total, 74% of the participants of a French study reported trouble sleeping, of whom females and the young had greater frequency and severity (Beck et al., Reference Beck, Léger, Fressard, Peretti-Watel and Verger2021). Reduced sleep, poor sleep quality and changes in usual sleep patterns were associated with more negative mood and anxiety symptoms (Bacaro et al., Reference Bacaro, Chiabudini, Buonanno, De Bartolo, Riemann, Mancini and Baglioni2020; Suso-Ribera and Martín-Brufau, Reference Suso-Ribera and Martín-Brufau2020). Adhering to a routine, maintaining the same weight and moderate physical exercise were associated with fewer negative effects, indicating that they are important protective factors (Gismero-González et al., Reference Gismero-González, Bermejo-Toro, Cagigal, Roldán, Martínez-Beltrán and Halty2020). Age was inversely related to dietary control, and being female was associated with being more anxious and disposed to eating comfort food than males (Di Renzo et al., Reference Di Renzo, Gualtieri, Cinelli, Bigioni, Soldati, Attinà, Bianco, Caparello, Camodeca, Carrano, Ferraro, Giannattasio, Leggeri, Rampello, Lo Presti, Tarsitano and De Lorenzo2020).

Increased emotional eating was predicted by higher depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of personal relationships and quality of life, while an increase in bingeing was predicted by higher stress (Cecchetto et al., Reference Cecchetto, Aiello, Gentili, Ionta and Osimo2021).

The respondents who maintained the same physical activity habits had higher levels of positive emotions (energy), lower levels of negative emotions (fear and anxiety) and lower levels of experienced symptoms (headache and fatigue) (Di Corrado et al., Reference Di Corrado, Magnano, Muzii, Coco, Guarnera, De Lucia and Maldonato2020). Increased duration and greater intensity of physical activity were both associated with further reduction in the prevalence of depression (Jacob et al., Reference Jacob, Tully, Barnett, Lopez-Sanchez, Butler, Schuch, López-Bueno, McDermott, Firth, Grabovac, Yakkundi, Armstrong, Young and Smith2020; Pieh et al., Reference Pieh, Budimir and Probst2020), in particular in females, suggesting that variations in physical activity habits may have more influence in women's psychological status than in men's (Maugeri et al., Reference Maugeri, Castrogiovanni, Battaglia, Pippi, D'Agata, Palma, Di Rosa and Musumeci2020).

Network analysis

The connections between the 20 prevalent variables analysed in the retrieved studies and the structure of the network are shown in Fig. 2a, where the diameter of the node refers to the degree centrality and the hue of the node refers to betweenness centrality (darker = higher value). The network had 330 non-zero edges out of 380 possible edges. The weights of the connections are presented in online Supplementary Table 3.

Fig. 2. Network analysis.

In agreement with the narrative analysis reported above, the strongest connection emerged between gender and age, meaning that these were found to be the most common risk factors for psychological distress during quarantine. A cluster was found between age, gender, living in specific areas and working situation during the pandemic. Other noteworthy associations were reported between gender and working situation, age and living area, and working situation and living area, during the quarantine.

Figure 2b shows the results of the community detection analysis, where the colour of the node refers to the partition of the network. All nodes related to socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, working situation, living condition, financial situation and marital status) and variables related to health (symptoms of COVID-19/physical symptoms/being infected by COVID-19, pre-existing mental health disorder) formed one large module (node in violet). Two nodes were found outside this large module: the first comprised of changes in diet and nutrition, changes in sleep patterns and physical activity (node in orange); the second one (node in green) was related to coping strategies/responses/strategies to deal with stress and social support.

Figure 3 shows the resulting plot for centrality metrics, which highlights the differences in connectivity of the network.

Fig. 3. Centrality measures (centrality metrics are shown as standardised z-scores).

The three indices are significantly intercorrelated with each other: the correlation between eigen and closeness is 0.99 (p < 0.01), the correlation between eigen and betweenness is 0.91 (p < 0.01) and the correlation between closeness and betweenness is 0.95 (p < 0.01).

Gender, age, education, marital status, living conditions, financial situation, working situation and living in specific areas have the highest betweenness, closeness and eigen strengths, being the most central nodes, suggesting that they have the most connections in the network.

All the centrality measures indicate that the most central isolation variables in the network are physical activity, contact with COVID-19 case/quarantine and coping strategies/responses/strategies to deal with stress. Parental status, levels of general health, changes in sleep patterns and symptoms of COVID-19/physical symptoms/being infected by COVID-19 are the most central variables in the distribution of the three z-scored centrality metrics.

Discussion

This systematic review has analysed data from different studies that investigated the psychological impact of the quarantine on the general European population during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Similar to those of other reviews (Luo et al., Reference Luo, Guo, Yu, Jiang and Wang2020; Salari et al., Reference Salari, Hosseinian-Far, Jalali, Vaisi-Raygani, Rasoulpoor, Mohammadi, Rasoulpoor and Khaledi-Paveh2020), the findings of the present study highlight the fact that anxiety, depression, distress and post-traumatic symptoms were frequently experienced during the COVID-19 quarantine and were often associated with changes in sleeping and eating habits. In particular, the overall effect of the pandemic has been linked with worsening psychiatric symptoms. The long-term effect of direct COVID-19 infection has, however, been associated with no, or mild, symptoms (Bourmistrova et al., Reference Bourmistrova, Solomon, Braude, Strawbridge and Carter2022)

These data should be interpreted with caution since different studies reported a considerable heterogeneity of mental health problems: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic may have been different across different social groups and across different contexts and countries.

An increase in mental health problems was seen from pre-pandemic assessments through the first phase of lockdown; during lockdown, no uniform trend could be identified and after lockdown, mental health problems decreased slightly (Richter et al., Reference Richter, Riedel-Heller and Zuercher2021).

Similarly, another recent review (Robinson et al., Reference Robinson, Sutin, Daly and Jones2022) observed an increase in mental health symptoms among most population sub-groups and symptom types soon after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which then decreased and were comparable to pre-pandemic levels by mid-2020.

On the contrary, a relatively small effect of lockdowns on mental health was reported (Prati and Mancini, Reference Prati and Mancini2021) providing evidence of people's robust capacity for resilience.

Several issues should be kept in mind when interpreting the findings of the current study.

Only studies written in English have been considered in the present review, and this may have led to some bias, although a study conducted in 2012 (Morrison et al., Reference Morrison, Polisena, Husereau, Moulton, Clark, Fiander, Mierzwinski-Urban, Clifford, Hutton and Rabb2012) showed that little evidence of bias was introduced from the exclusion of non-English studies.

Some of the selected studies were conducted during the initial stages of the COVID-19 outbreak; it is therefore possible that they underestimated the actual occurrence of traumatic stress in the population, since delayed onset of symptoms, especially PTSD ones, is conceivable. Moreover, data collection time for cross-sectional studies (online Supplementary material, Fig. 4) differed also because decisions concerning time and type of quarantine differed between European countries.

Fig. 4. Timing of data collection for each European country.

The majority (98 out of 105) of the selected studies had a cross-sectional observational design, which does not allow one to establish cause and effect relationships and temporal association between variables, so these should be interpreted with caution. Time-limited, cross-sectional survey data shed little light on the enduring effects of quarantine, on how adaptations to quarantine changed or evolved over time, and on what happened during re-opening, when home-confinement restrictions began to ease. Only a few studies (Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., Reference Ozamiz-Etxebarria, Idoiaga Mondragon, Dosil Santamaría and Picaza Gorrotxategi2020; Salfi et al., Reference Salfi, Lauriola, Amicucci, Corigliano, Viselli, Tempesta and Ferrara2020; Ausín et al., Reference Ausín, González-Sanguino, Castellanos and Muñoz2021; Cheval et al., Reference Cheval, Sivaramakrishnan, Maltagliati, Fessler, Forestier, Sarrazin, Orsholits, Chalabaev, Sander, Ntoumanis and Boisgontier2021; O'Connor et al., Reference O'Connor, Wetherall, Cleare, McClelland, Melson, Niedzwiedz, O'Carroll, O'Connor, Platt, Scowcroft, Watson, Zortea, Ferguson and Robb2021; Velotti et al., Reference Velotti, Rogier, Beomonte Zobel, Castellano and Tambelli2021; Zavlis et al., Reference Zavlis, Butter, Bennett, Hartman, Hyland, Mason, McBride, Murphy, Gibson-Miller, Levita, Martinez, Shevlin, Stocks, Vallières and Bentall2021) analysed data at different time-points during the restrictive measures, in order to investigate the psychological impact caused by the pandemic longitudinally.

Considering that previous research on the long-term effects of pandemics and quarantining (Brooks et al., Reference Brooks, Webster, Smith, Woodland, Wessely, Greenberg and Rubin2020) has shown that not only acute mental health effects occur, but that psychological distress may persist long after the crisis, it is essential to prioritise studies with longitudinal designs.

It is thus imperative to prospectively document the synergistic effects of multiple co-occurring risk factors, such as economic precarity, unemployment, isolation, uncertainty, loss, and fear, which may increase the likelihood of mental health difficulties. It is also important to highlight the fact that the effects of stress exposure may not manifest themselves immediately, but, in some individuals, may unfold over time (Wade et al., Reference Wade, Prime and Browne2020; Veldhius et al., Reference Veldhuis, Nesoff, McKowen, Rice, Ghoneima, Wootton, Papautsky, Arigo, Goldberg and Anderson2021).

Moreover, the processes that cultivate resilience change dynamically over time, and this supports the fact that the pandemic requires longitudinal analyses in order to monitor individual adaptation to uncertain conditions.

Only four studies (Szabó et al., Reference Szabó, Pukánszky and Kemény2020; Castellini et al., Reference Castellini, Rossi, Cassioli, Sanfilippo, Innocenti, Gironi, Silvestri, Voller and Ricca2021; Lorant et al., Reference Lorant, Smith, Van den Broeck and Nicaise2021; Ramiz et al., Reference Ramiz, Contrand, Rojas Castro, Dupuy, Lu, Sztal-Kutas and Lagarde2021) compared data collected during the pandemic's quarantine with the level of psychological status found in the general population under normal conditions.

Concerning the assessment tools, the majority of the studies used validated and reliable assessment instruments in order to investigate several domains of mental health and psychological wellbeing. Different assessment scales were used for population screening and different cut offs were employed by studies that used the same tests. The self-report questionnaires used in the majority of the studies were ‘the Patient Health Questionnaire’ (PHQ), used in 29 studies, and the GAD, used in 27 studies. Seven studies created ad hoc questionnaires (Cancello et al., Reference Cancello, Soranna, Zambra, Zambon and Invitti2020; Cerbara et al., Reference Cerbara, Ciancimino, Crescimbene, La Longa, Parsi, Tintori and Palomba2020; Di Corrado et al., Reference Di Corrado, Magnano, Muzii, Coco, Guarnera, De Lucia and Maldonato2020; Đogaš et al., Reference Đogaš, Lušić Kalcina, Pavlinac Dodig, Demirović, Madirazza, Valić and Pecotić2020; Ferrucci et al., Reference Ferrucci, Averna, Marino, Reitano, Ruggiero, Mameli, Dini, Poletti, Barbieri, Priori and Pravettoni2020; Nese et al., Reference Nese, Riboli, Brighetti, Sassi, Camela, Caselli, Sassaroli and Borlimi2022; Izdebski and Mazur, Reference Izdebski and Mazur2021). It must be noted that data collected relied on self-report measures related to psychological symptoms, and thus cannot be considered sufficient to formulate diagnoses of specific disorders.

The degree to which self-reported prevalence rates effectively represent common distress is still unknown, as well as to what extent this distress will result in increased rates of mental disorders and need for subsequent health treatment (Richter et al., Reference Richter, Riedel-Heller and Zuercher2021).

Although the symptomatology was assessed with widely used screening tools, scores should not be confused with a diagnosis, which can be assessed only by mental health professionals with additional assessment methods such as structured clinical interviews. It is important to note that the increase in psychological distress during quarantine is related to subjective perception and that there is a lack of pre-post pandemic analyses.

Another relevant aspect that should be considered is the possibility of selection bias related to the use of online surveys. The use of online surveys, and the snowball method for increasing participation, limit the generalisability of the results, although surveys currently represent the best methodological choice for data collection in a short time and in a pandemic situation. The convenient non-probabilistic nature of the chosen sample may not represent the countries' general populations: use of an online tool limits the participation of persons who do not use this type of technology, penalising, for example, elderly people or those living in socially disadvantaged contexts. Moreover, it was not possible to assess the participation rate since the number of subjects who received the link to the surveys was unknown.

A possible gender-related effect, which may not have been identified due to the small number of men who responded, should also be taken into consideration. More women than men participated in the studies, coherently with previous research, reaffirming that it is more difficult to recruit male participants (Korkeila et al., Reference Korkeila, Suominen, Ahvenainen, Ojanlatva, Rautava, Helenius and Koskenvuo2001; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Jordan, Lacey, Shapley and Jinks2004). Furthermore, variable distribution might differ between a sample and the population of reference for residence, age, sex, education and other characteristics, and this requires that study findings be generalised with caution.

Lastly, more than half of the studies enrolled Italian and Spanish populations: 40 studies collected data from Italy and 26 from Spain. This represents an unbalanced interest compared with other European countries, although the severity of COVID-19 in the two Mediterranean countries from the beginning of the pandemic can, in part, justify such a huge production. All the questionnaires were launched nation-wide but, at the time of data collection, the COVID-19 outbreak was more severe in some countries and in specific regions. This may have motivated more people living in those areas to fill in the questionnaires compared to residents from other regions. Moreover, COVID-19 has had different mortality rates worldwide, and the severity and frequency of mental health outcomes could be related to the intensity of the viral spread.

What can be done to mitigate the consequences of quarantine?

The current COVID-19 health emergency has completely changed the daily life of the population. Both the confinement scenario and the spread of the virus, as well as associated consequences, could alter people's cognitive and emotional state through perceived threat from the virus and through development of negative affective balance and feelings. Several individual, economic and psychological factors have also been found to play a role in the development of higher levels of symptomatology.

The pandemic has highlighted the need to pay greater attention to gender and to the private sphere to prevent, and alleviate, the psychological consequences of pandemic on more vulnerable groups.

Despite the limitations of the retrieved studies, justified in part by the need to rapidly to assess the situation as a whole, our results highlight the importance of identifying which groups may face more difficulties in adopting healthy behaviours (e.g. physical activity, healthy food choices and sleep routines) and maintaining physical and psychological wellbeing. By identifying vulnerable groups, intervention strategies may be more targeted, and the effectiveness of health strategies may be improved.

Maintaining regular habits during restrictive measures could be considered a protective factor for mental health outcomes. Encouraging healthy food choices, regular mealtimes and the carrying out of physical activity at home could therefore be a useful strategy to make the population aware of the need to remain healthy. The promotion of correct lifestyles is important for the protection of health, but it becomes even more important during periods of forced home confinement in reducing long-term negative effects of quarantine. Suggestions on how to maintain a correct lifestyle could be provided through video or app-based supports, but also through non-digital channels (such as TV, newspapers, journals, posters or leaflets) in order to reach less technology-oriented people.

Given that the most effective healthcare measure for reducing the incidence of the coronavirus pandemic was quarantine, and the fact that globalisation and travel increase the likelihood that a similar situation may occur in the future, knowledge of the emotional and cognitive effects of quarantine on the population could lead to the implementation of more effective measures aimed at facilitating coping strategies.

It is essential to implement psychoeducational programmes to manage the emotional and affective alterations caused by restrictive measures, especially if they are taken on a mass level and are repeated in time.

Conclusions

The implementation of forced restrictive measures to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 infection, in particular the more limiting ones such as quarantine, has influenced individual mental health. Depression, anxiety, psychological distress and post-traumatic symptoms have been the predominant, new-onset psychological health problems in European general populations during the pandemic. Several risk factors have been identified, such as being female, young, having a low income, being unemployed and having COVID-19-like symptoms.

Overall, despite the limitation of the studies, due also to the emergency pandemic situation, the results of this review suggest that there is an immediate psychological impact of the quarantine. Concerning the long-lasting effects, this impact may depend on each country's strategies and duration of restrictive measures taken. To mitigate the significant negative effects on emotional wellbeing, the adoption of appropriate strategies by health services is fundamental, as is preparing the general population for possible future waves of the pandemic. When applying quarantine measures, policy makers should attempt to find the right balance between reducing the risk of infection and minimising the risk of negative mental consequences, while also empowering wellbeing, especially in vulnerable groups.

Future research, based on longitudinal analyses, should attempt to monitor the increase in mental health symptoms over time, in particular their course after the end of the restrictive measures. It would also be important to investigate the social context-related factors that are likely to influence their relationship with quarantine.

Moreover, in addition to providing a focus on the most vulnerable populations, research should investigate between-country variations that result from the confluence of specific environmental stressors and time and type of quarantine in that given area.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796022000051

Availability of data and materials

The data are available from the authors upon request.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Chiara Pandolfini for language editing and Daniela Miglio for editing.

Author contributions

G. S. wrote the first draft of the manuscript with input from M.B. R.C. did the network analysis. M.B. critically revised the article and reviewed the final draft of the article. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. The authors read and approved the final manuscript. M.B. is the guarantor.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Appendix

Table A1. Keywords used for searching databases

Table A2. Critical appraisal of cross-sectional studies

Table A3. Critical appraisal of cohort studies

References

Antunes, R, Frontini, R, Amaro, N, Salvador, R, Matos, R, Morouço, P and Rebelo-Gonçalves, R (2020) Exploring lifestyle habits, physical activity, anxiety and basic psychological needs in a sample of Portuguese adults during COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 4360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arora, T and Grey, I (2020) Health behaviour changes during COVID-19 and the potential consequences: a mini-review. Journal of Health Psychology 25, 11551163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ausín, B, González-Sanguino, C, Castellanos, and Muñoz, M (2021) Gender-related differences in the psychological impact of confinement as a consequence of COVID-19 in Spain. Journal of Gender Studies 30, 2938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacaro, V, Chiabudini, M, Buonanno, C, De Bartolo, P, Riemann, D, Mancini, F and Baglioni, C (2020) Insomnia in the Italian population during COVID-19 outbreak: a snapshot on one major risk factor for depression and anxiety. Frontiers in Psychiatry 11, 579107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balanzá-Martínez, V, Kapczinski, F, de Azevedo Cardoso, T, Atienza-Carbonell, B, Rosa, AR, Mota, JC and De Boni, RB (2021) The assessment of lifestyle changes during the COVID-19 pandemic using a multidimensional scale. Revista de Psiquiatría y Salud Mental 14, 1626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balsamo, M and Carlucci, L (2020) Italians on the age of COVID-19: the self-reported depressive symptoms through web-based survey. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 569276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bao, Y, Sun, Y, Meng, S, Shi, J and Lu, L (2020) 2019-nCoV epidemic: address mental health care to empower society. The Lancet 395, e37e38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartoszek, A, Walkowiak, D, Bartoszek, A and Kardas, G (2020) Mental well-being (depression, loneliness, insomnia, daily life fatigue) during COVID-19 related home-confinement – a study from Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 7417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bastian, M, Heymann, S and Jacomy, M (2009) Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.Google Scholar
Beck, F, Léger, D, Fressard, L, Peretti-Watel, P and Verger, P and The Coconel Group (2021) COVID-19 health crisis and lockdown associated with high level of sleep complaints and hypnotic uptake at the population level. Journal of Sleep Research 30, e13119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benke, C, Autenrieth, LK, Asselmann, E and Pané-Farré, CA (2020) Lockdown, quarantine measures, and social distancing: associations with depression, anxiety and distress at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic among adults from Germany. Psychiatry Research 293, 113462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blondel, VD, Guillaume, J-L, Lambiotte, R and Lefebvre, E (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008, P10008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodecka, M, Nowakowska, I, Zajenkowska, A, Rajchert, J, Kaźmierczak, I and Jelonkiewicz, I (2021) Gender as a moderator between present-hedonistic time perspective and depressive symptoms or stress during COVID-19 lock-down. Personality and Individual Differences 168, 110395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonati, M, Campi, R, Zanetti, M, Cartabia, M, Scarpellini, F, Clavenna, A and Segre, G (2021) Psychological distress among Italians during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) QUARANTINE. BMC Psychiatry 21, 20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonsaksen, T, Heir, T, Schou-Bredal, I, Ekeberg, Ø, Skogstad, L and Grimholt, TK (2020) Post-traumatic stress disorder and associated factors during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 9210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borsboom, D and Cramer, AO (2013) Network analysis: an integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 9, 91121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourmistrova, NW, Solomon, T, Braude, P, Strawbridge, R and Carter, B (2022) Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: a systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders 299, 118125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, SK, Webster, RK, Smith, LE, Woodland, L, Wessely, S, Greenberg, N and Rubin, GJ (2020) The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet 395, 912920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budimir, S, Pieh, C, Dale, R and Probst, T (2021) Severe mental health symptoms during COVID-19: a comparison of the United Kingdom and Austria. Healthcare 9, 191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cancello, R, Soranna, D, Zambra, G, Zambon, A and Invitti, C (2020) Determinants of the lifestyle changes during COVID-19 pandemic in the residents of northern Italy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 6287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carriedo, A, Cecchini, JA, Fernández-Río, J and Méndez-Giménez, A (2020) Resilience and physical activity in people under home isolation due to COVID-19: a preliminary evaluation. Mental Health and Physical Activity 19, 100361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casagrande, M, Favieri, F, Tambelli, R and Forte, G (2020) The enemy who sealed the world: effects quarantine due to the COVID-19 on sleep quality, anxiety, and psychological distress in the Italian population. Sleep Medicine 75, 1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casali, N, Feraco, T, Ghisi, M and Meneghetti, C (2021) ‘Andrà tutto bene’: associations between character strengths, psychological distress and self-efficacy during COVID-19 lockdown. Journal of Happiness Studies 22, 22552274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellini, G, Rossi, E, Cassioli, E, Sanfilippo, G, Innocenti, M, Gironi, V, Silvestri, C, Voller, F and Ricca, V (2021) A longitudinal observation of general psychopathology before the COVID-19 outbreak and during lockdown in Italy. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 141, 110328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cecchetto, C, Aiello, M, Gentili, C, Ionta, S and Osimo, SA (2021) Increased emotional eating during COVID-19 associated with lockdown, psychological and social distress. Appetite 160, 105122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cellini, N, Conte, F, De Rosa, O, Giganti, F, Malloggi, S, Reyt, M, Guillemin, C, Schmidt, C, Muto, V and Ficca, G (2021) Changes in sleep timing and subjective sleep quality during the COVID-19 lockdown in Italy and Belgium: age, gender and working status as modulating factors. Sleep Medicine 77, 112119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017) Quarantine and isolation. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/index.html (Accessed 21 January 2022).Google Scholar
Cerami, C, Santi, GC, Galandra, C, Dodich, A, Cappa, SF, Vecchi, T and Crespi, C (2020) COVID-19 outbreak In Italy: are we ready for the psychosocial and the economic crisis? Baseline findings from the PsyCovid study. Frontiers in Psychiatry 11, 556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cerbara, L, Ciancimino, G, Crescimbene, M, La Longa, F, Parsi, MR, Tintori, A and Palomba, R (2020) A nation-wide survey on emotional and psychological impacts of COVID-19 social distancing. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 24, 71557163.Google ScholarPubMed
Chaudhry, AW, Kazmi, B, Sharjeel, S, Akhtar, Z and Shahid, S (2021) Learning from the past: a systematic review on risk and protective factors for psychological distress in past infectious epidemics and COVID-19. Journal of Research in Psychology 3, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheval, B, Sivaramakrishnan, H, Maltagliati, S, Fessler, L, Forestier, C, Sarrazin, P, Orsholits, D, Chalabaev, A, Sander, D, Ntoumanis, N and Boisgontier, MP (2021) Relationships between changes in self-reported physical activity, sedentary behaviour and health during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in France and Switzerland. Journal of Sports Sciences 39, 699704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chodkiewicz, J, Talarowska, M, Miniszewska, J, Nawrocka, N and Bilinski, P (2020) Alcohol consumption reported during the COVID-19 pandemic: the initial stage. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 4677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conversano, C, Di Giuseppe, M, Miccoli, M, Ciacchini, R, Gemignani, A and Orrù, G (2020) Mindfulness, age and gender as protective factors against psychological distress during COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 1900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coppola, I, Rania, N, Parisi, R and Lagomarsino, F (2021) Spiritual well-being and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Frontiers in Psychiatry 12, 626944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costantini, A and Mazzotti, E (2020) Italian validation of COVID-19 peritraumatic distress index and preliminary data in a sample of general population. Rivista di Psichiatria 55, 7.Google Scholar
Coulthard, H, Sharps, M, Cunliffe, L and van den Tol, A (2021) Eating in the lockdown during the COVID 19 pandemic; self-reported changes in eating behaviour, and associations with BMI, eating style, coping and health anxiety. Appetite 161, 105082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, DL and Golijani-Moghaddam, N (2020) COVID-19: psychological flexibility, coping, mental health, and wellbeing in the UK during the pandemic. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 17, 126134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Corrado, D, Magnano, P, Muzii, B, Coco, M, Guarnera, M, De Lucia, S and Maldonato, NM (2020) Effects of social distancing on psychological state and physical activity routines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sport Sciences for Health 16, 619624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Crosta, A, Palumbo, R, Marchetti, D, Ceccato, I, La Malva, P, Maiella, R, Cipi, M, Roma, P, Mammarella, N, Verrocchio, MC and Di Domenico, A (2020) Individual differences, economic stability, and fear of contagion as risk factors for PTSD symptoms in the COVID-19 emergency. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 567367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Giuseppe, M, Zilcha-Mano, S, Prout, TA, Perry, JC, Orrù, G and Conversano, C (2020) Psychological impact of coronavirus disease 2019 among Italians during the first week of lockdown. Frontiers in Psychiatry 11, 576597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Renzo, L, Gualtieri, P, Cinelli, G, Bigioni, G, Soldati, L, Attinà, A, Bianco, FF, Caparello, G, Camodeca, V, Carrano, E, Ferraro, S, Giannattasio, S, Leggeri, C, Rampello, T, Lo Presti, L, Tarsitano, MG and De Lorenzo, A (2020) Psychological aspects and eating habits during COVID-19 home confinement: results of EHLC-COVID-19 Italian online survey. Nutrients 12, 2152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Đogaš, Z, Lušić Kalcina, L, Pavlinac Dodig, I, Demirović, S, Madirazza, K, Valić, M and Pecotić, R (2020) The effect of COVID-19 lockdown on lifestyle and mood in Croatian general population: a cross-sectional study. Croatian Medical Journal 61, 309318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, KM, Jordan, K, Lacey, RJ, Shapley, M and Jinks, C (2004) Patterns of consent in epidemiologic research: evidence from over 25,000 responders. American Journal of Epidemiology 159, 10871094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellen, C and De Vriendt Patricia, (2021) Meaningful activities during COVID-19 lockdown and association with mental health in Belgian adults. BMC Public Health 21, 622.Google Scholar
Favieri, F, Forte, G, Tambelli, R and Casagrande, M (2021) The Italians in the time of coronavirus: psychosocial aspects of the unexpected COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychiatry 12, 551924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrucci, R, Averna, A, Marino, D, Reitano, MR, Ruggiero, F, Mameli, F, Dini, M, Poletti, B, Barbieri, S, Priori, A and Pravettoni, G (2020) Psychological impact during the first outbreak of COVID-19 in Italy. Frontiers in Psychiatry 11, 559266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiorenzato, E, Zabberoni, S, Costa, A and Cona, G (2021) Cognitive and mental health changes and their vulnerability factors related to COVID-19 lockdown in Italy. PLoS ONE 16, e0246204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiorillo, A, Sampogna, G, Giallonardo, V, Del Vecchio, V, Luciano, M, Albert, U, Carmassi, C, Carrà, G, Cirulli, F, Dell'Osso, B, Nanni, MG, Pompili, M, Sani, G, Tortorella, A and Volpe, U (2020) Effects of the lockdown on the mental health of the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: results from the COMET collaborative network. European Psychiatry 63, e87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fountoulakis, KN, Apostolidou, MK, Atsiova, MB, Filippidou, AK, Florou, AK, Gousiou, DS, Katsara, AR, Mantzari, SN, Padouva-Markoulaki, M, Papatriantafyllou, EI, Sacharidi, PI, Tonia, AI, Tsagalidou, EG, Zymara, VP, Prezerakos, PE, Koupidis, SA, Fountoulakis, NK and Chrousos, GP (2021) Self-reported changes in anxiety, depression and suicidality during the COVID-19 lockdown in Greece. Journal of Affective Disorders 279, 624629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschini, C, Musetti, A, Zenesini, C, Palagini, L, Scarpelli, S, Quattropani, MC, Lenzo, V, Freda, MF, Lemmo, D, Vegni, E, Borghi, L, Saita, E, Cattivelli, R, De Gennaro, L, Plazzi, G, Riemann, D and Castelnuovo, G (2020) Poor sleep quality and Its consequences on mental health during the COVID-19 lockdown in Italy. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 574475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fruchterman, TMJ and Reingold, EM (1991) Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software: Practice and Experience 21, 11.Google Scholar
Gambin, M, Sękowski, M, Woźniak-Prus, M, Wnuk, A, Oleksy, T, Cudo, A, Hansen, K, Huflejt-Łukasik, M, Kubicka, K, Łyś, AE, Gorgol, J, Holas, P, Kmita, G, Łojek, E and Maison, D (2021) Generalized anxiety and depressive symptoms in various age groups during the COVID-19 lockdown in Poland specific predictors and differences in symptoms severity. Comprehensive Psychiatry 105, 152222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
García-Álvarez, L, de la Fuente-Tomás, L, García-Portilla, MP, Sáiz, PA, Lacasa, CM, Dal Santo, F, González-Blanco, L, Bobes-Bascarán, MT, García, MV, Vázquez, , Iglesias, ÁV, Cao, CM, Fernández, AG, Bascarán Fernández, MT, Fernández, AP, Revuelta, JR, Zazo, ES, Madera, PZ, Álvarez, MS, Sánchez, ÁP, Delgado, CF, Suárez, SC, Miranda, IM, Treviño, LJ, Calzón, GP, Abad, I, Duque, CP, Riera, L, González, PM, Pedrero, EF and Bobes, J (2020) Early psychological impact of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and lockdown in a large Spanish sample. Journal of Global Health 10, 020505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gismero-González, E, Bermejo-Toro, L, Cagigal, V, Roldán, A, Martínez-Beltrán, MJ and Halty, L (2020) Emotional impact of COVID-19 lockdown among the Spanish population. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 616978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gómez-Salgado, J, Andrés-Villas, M, Domínguez-Salas, S, Díaz-Milanés, D and Ruiz-Frutos, C (2020) Related health factors of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 3947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groarke, JM, Berry, E, Graham-Wisener, L, McKenna-Plumley, PE, McGlinchey, E and Armour, C (2020) Loneliness in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional results from the COVID-19 psychological wellbeing study. PLoS ONE 15, e0239698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gualano, MR, Lo Moro, G, Voglino, G, Bert, F and Siliquini, R (2020) Effects of COVID-19 lockdown on mental health and sleep disturbances in Italy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 4779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Günther-Bel, C, Vilaregut, A, Carratala, E, Torras-Garat, S and Pérez-Testor, C (2020) A mixed-method study of individual, couple, and parental functioning during the state-regulated COVID-19 lockdown in Spain. Family Process 59, 10601079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutiérrez-Hernández, ME, Fanjul, LF, Díaz-Megolla, A, Reyes-Hurtado, P, Herrera-Rodríguez, JF, Enjuto-Castellanos, MDP and Peñate, W (2021) COVID-19 lockdown and mental health in a sample population in Spain: the role of self-compassion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, 2103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haesebaert, F, Haesebaert, J, Zante, E and Franck, N (2020) Who maintains good mental health in a locked-down country? A French nationwide online survey of 11,391 participants. Health & Place 66, 102440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husky, MM, Kovess-Masfety, V and Swendsen, JD (2020) Stress and anxiety among university students in France during COVID-19 mandatory confinement. Comprehensive Psychiatry 102, 152191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Izdebski, Z and Mazur, J (2021) Changes in mental well-being of adult Poles in the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic with reference to their occupational activity and remote work. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 34, 251262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacob, L, Tully, MA, Barnett, Y, Lopez-Sanchez, GF, Butler, L, Schuch, F, López-Bueno, R, McDermott, D, Firth, J, Grabovac, I, Yakkundi, A, Armstrong, N, Young, T and Smith, L (2020) The relationship between physical activity and mental health in a sample of the UK public: a cross-sectional study during the implementation of COVID-19 social distancing measures. Mental Health and Physical Activity 19, 100345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacques-Aviñó, C, López-Jiménez, T, Medina-Perucha, L, de Bont, J, Gonçalves, AQ, Duarte-Salles, T and Berenguera, A (2020) Gender-based approach on the social impact and mental health in Spain during COVID-19 lockdown: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 10, e044617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jané-Llopis, E, Anderson, P, Segura, L, Zabaleta, E, Muñoz, R, Ruiz, G, Rehm, J, Cabezas, C and Colom, J (2021) Mental ill-health during COVID-19 confinement. BMC Psychiatry 21, 194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiménez, Ó, Sánchez-Sánchez, LC and García-Montes, JM (2020) Psychological impact of COVID-19 confinement and its relationship with meditation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 6642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jung, S, Kneer, J and Krüger, THC (2020) Mental health, sense of COHERENCE, and interpersonal violence during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in Germany. Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, E3708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Justo-Alonso, A, García-Dantas, A, González-Vázquez, AI, Sánchez-Martín, M and del Río-Casanova, L (2020) How did different generations cope with the COVID-19 pandemic? Early stages of the pandemic in Spain. Psicothema 32, 490500.Google ScholarPubMed
Kalaitzaki, A (2021) Posttraumatic symptoms, posttraumatic growth, and internal resources among the general population in Greece: a nation-wide survey amid the first COVID-19 lockdown. International Journal of Psychology: Journal International De Psychologie 56, 766771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamberi, F, Jaho, J, Mechili, EA, Sinaj, E and Skendo, H (2020) Effect of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health among Albanian people residing in the country and abroad – implications for mental care. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 34, 507512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karaivazoglou, K, Konstantopoulou, G, Kalogeropoulou, M, Iliou, T, Vorvolakos, T, Assimakopoulos, K, Gourzis, P and Alexopoulos, P (2021) Psychological distress in the Greek general population during the first COVID-19 lockdown. BJPsych Open 7, e59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korkeila, K, Suominen, S, Ahvenainen, J, Ojanlatva, A, Rautava, P, Helenius, H and Koskenvuo, M (2001) Non-response and related factors in a nation-wide health survey. European Journal of Epidemiology 17, 991999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landi, G, Pakenham, KI, Boccolini, G, Grandi, S and Tossani, E (2020) Health anxiety and mental health outcome during COVID-19 lockdown in Italy: the mediating and moderating roles of psychological flexibility. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 2195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenzo, V, Quattropani, MC, Musetti, A, Zenesini, C, Freda, MF, Lemmo, D, Vegni, E, Borghi, L, Plazzi, G, Castelnuovo, G, Cattivelli, R, Saita, E and Franceschini, C (2020) Resilience contributes to low emotional impact of the COVID-19 outbreak among the general population in Italy. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 576485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
León-Zarceño, E, Moreno-Tenas, A, Boix Vilella, S, García-Naveira, A and Serrano-Rosa, MA (2021) Habits and psychological factors associated with changes in physical activity due to COVID-19 confinement. Frontiers in Psychology 12, 620745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
López-Bueno, R, Calatayud, J, Casaña, J, Casajús, JA, Smith, L, Tully, MA, Andersen, LL and López-Sánchez, GF (2020a) COVID-19 confinement and health risk behaviors in Spain. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Bueno, R, Calatayud, J, Ezzatvar, Y, Casajús, JA, Smith, L, Andersen, LL and López-Sánchez, GF (2020b) Association between current physical activity and current perceived anxiety and mood in the initial phase of COVID-19 confinement. Frontiers in Psychiatry 11, 729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Moreno, M, López, MTI, Miguel, M and Garcés-Rimón, M (2020) Physical and psychological effects related to food habits and lifestyle changes derived from COVID-19 home confinement in the Spanish population. Nutrients 12, 3445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorant, V, Smith, P, Van den Broeck, K and Nicaise, P (2021) Psychological distress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and suppression measures during the first wave in Belgium. BMC Psychiatry 21, 112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luo, M, Guo, L, Yu, M, Jiang, W and Wang, H (2020) The psychological and mental impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on medical staff and general public – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research 291, 113190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maalouf, FT, Mdawar, B, Meho, LI and Akl, EA (2021) Mental health research in response to the COVID-19, Ebola, and H1N1 outbreaks: a comparative bibliometric analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research 132, 198206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mak, IWC, Chu, CM, Pan, P, Yiu, MGC and Chan, VL (2009) Long-term psychiatric morbidities among SARS survivors. General Hospital Psychiatry 31, 318326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Margetić, B, Peraica, T, Stojanović, K and Ivanec, D (2021) Predictors of emotional distress during the COVID-19 pandemic; a Croatian study. Personality and Individual Differences 175, 110691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mariani, R, Renzi, A, Di Trani, M, Trabucchi, G, Danskin, K and Tambelli, R (2020) The impact of coping strategies and perceived family support on depressive and anxious symptomatology during the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) lockdown. Frontiers in Psychiatry 11, 587724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maugeri, G, Castrogiovanni, P, Battaglia, G, Pippi, R, D'Agata, V, Palma, A, Di Rosa, M and Musumeci, G (2020) The impact of physical activity on psychological health during COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Heliyon 6, e04315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazza, C, Ricci, E, Biondi, S, Colasanti, M, Ferracuti, S, Napoli, C and Roma, P (2020) A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Italian people during the COVID-19 pandemic: immediate psychological responses and associated factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 3165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Méndez-Giménez, A, Cecchini, JA, Fernández-Río, J and Carriedo, A (2021) Physical activity and prevention of depressive symptoms in the Spanish population during confinement due to COVID-19. Psicothema 33, 111117.Google ScholarPubMed
Moola, S, Munn, Z, Tufanaru, C, Aromataris, E, Sears, K, Sfetc, R, Currie, M, Lisy, K, Qureshi, R, Mattis, P and Mu, P-F (2020) Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In Aromataris, E and Munn, Z (éd.), JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.Google Scholar
Morrison, A, Polisena, J, Husereau, D, Moulton, K, Clark, M, Fiander, M, Mierzwinski-Urban, M, Clifford, T, Hutton, B and Rabb, D (2012) The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 28, 138144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munk, AJL, Schmidt, NM, Alexander, N, Henkel, K and Hennig, J (2020) COVID-19 – beyond virology: potentials for maintaining mental health during lockdown. PLoS ONE 15, e0236688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Necho, M, Tsehay, M, Birkie, M, Biset, G and Tadesse, E (2021) Prevalence of anxiety, depression, and psychological distress among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 67, 892906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neill, RD, Blair, C, Best, P, McGlinchey, E and Armour, C (2021) Media consumption and mental health during COVID-19 lockdown: a UK cross-sectional study across England, Wales, Scotland and northern Ireland. Journal of Public Health, 19.Google ScholarPubMed
Nese, M, Riboli, G, Brighetti, G, Sassi, V, Camela, E, Caselli, G, Sassaroli, S and Borlimi, R (2022) Delay discounting of compliance with containment measures during the COVID-19 outbreak: a survey of the Italian population. Journal of Public Health (Berl.) 30, 503511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-020-01317-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, RC, Wetherall, K, Cleare, S, McClelland, H, Melson, AJ, Niedzwiedz, CL, O'Carroll, RE, O'Connor, DB, Platt, S, Scowcroft, E, Watson, B, Zortea, T, Ferguson, E and Robb, KA (2021) Mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal analyses of adults in the UK COVID-19 mental health & wellbeing study. The British Journal of Psychiatry 218, 326333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odriozola-González, P, Planchuelo-Gómez, Á, Irurtia, MJ and de Luis-García, R (2022) Psychological symptoms of the outbreak of the COVID-19 confinement in Spain. Journal of Health Psychology 27, 825835. doi: 10.1177/1359105320967086CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orlandi, M, Rosselli, M, Pellegrino, A, Boddi, M, Stefani, L, Toncelli, L and Modesti, PA (2021) Gender differences in the impact on physical activity and lifestyle in Italy during the lockdown, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases 31, 21732180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozamiz-Etxebarria, N, Idoiaga Mondragon, N, Dosil Santamaría, M and Picaza Gorrotxategi, M (2020) Psychological symptoms during the two stages of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 outbreak: an investigation in a sample of citizens in northern Spain. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakenham, KI, Landi, G, Boccolini, G, Furlani, A, Grandi, S and Tossani, E (2020) The moderating roles of psychological flexibility and inflexibility on the mental health impacts of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown in Italy. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 17, 109118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panno, A, Carbone, GA, Massullo, C, Farina, B and Imperatori, C (2020) COVID-19 related distress is associated with alcohol problems, social media and food addiction symptoms: insights from the Italian experience during the lockdown. Frontiers in Psychiatry 11, 577135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papandreou, C, Arija, V, Aretouli, E, Tsilidis, KK and Bulló, M (2020) Comparing eating behaviours, and symptoms of depression and anxiety between Spain and Greece during the COVID-19 outbreak: cross-sectional analysis of two different confinement strategies. European Eating Disorders Review 28, 836846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parletta, N, Aljeesh, Y and Baune, BT (2016) Health behaviors, knowledge, life satisfaction, and wellbeing in people with mental illness across four countries and comparisons with normative sample. Frontiers in Psychiatry 7, 145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulino, M, Dumas-Diniz, R, Brissos, S, Brites, R, Alho, L, Simões Mário, R and Silva Carlos, F (2021) COVID-19 in Portugal: exploring the immediate psychological impact on the general population. Psychology, Health & Medicine 26, 4455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez-Rodrigo, C, Gianzo Citores, M, Hervás Bárbara, G, Ruiz-Litago, F, Casis Sáenz, L, Arija, V, López-Sobaler, AM, Martínez de Victoria, E, Ortega, RM, Partearroyo, T, Quiles-Izquierdo, J, Ribas-Barba, L, Rodríguez-Martín, A, Salvador Castell, G, Tur, JA, Varela-Moreiras, G, Serra-Majem, L and Aranceta-Bartrina, J (2021) Patterns of change in dietary habits and physical activity during lockdown in Spain due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nutrients 13, 300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez, S, Masegoso, A and Hernández-Espeso, N (2021) Levels and variables associated with psychological distress during confinement due to the coronavirus pandemic in a community sample of Spanish adults. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 28, 606614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pieh, C, Budimir, S and Probst, T (2020) The effect of age, gender, income, work, and physical activity on mental health during coronavirus disease (COVID-19) lockdown in Austria. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 136, 110186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pieh, C, Budimir, S, Delgadillo, J, Barkham, M, Fontaine, JRJ and Probst, T (2021) Mental health during COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom. Psychosomatic Medicine 83, 328337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prati, G (2021) Mental health and its psychosocial predictors during national quarantine in Italy against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 34, 145156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prati, G and Mancini, AD (2021) The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns: a review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments. Psychological Medicine 13, 11.Google Scholar
Prete, G, Fontanesi, L, Porcelli, P and Tommasi, L (2020) The psychological impact of COVID-19 in Italy: worry leads to protective behavior, but at the cost of anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 566659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D, Shamseer, L, Clarke, M, Ghersi, D, Liberati, A, Petticrew, M, Shekelle, P and Stewart, LA (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews 4, 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramiz, L, Contrand, B, Rojas Castro, MY, Dupuy, M, Lu, L, Sztal-Kutas, C and Lagarde, E (2021) A longitudinal study of mental health before and during COVID-19 lockdown in the French population. Globalization and Health 17, 29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rania, N and Coppola, I (2021) Psychological impact of the lockdown in Italy due to the COVID-19 outbreak: are there gender differences? Frontiers in Psychology 12, 567470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rettie, H and Daniels, J (2021) Coping and tolerance of uncertainty: predictors and mediators of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist 76, 427437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richter, D, Riedel-Heller, S and Zuercher, S (2021) Mental health problems in the general population during and after the first lockdown phase due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: rapid review of multi-wave studies. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 30, E27. doi: 10.1017/S2045796021000160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, E, Sutin, AR, Daly, M and Jones, A (2022) A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies comparing mental health before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Journal of affective disorders 296, 567576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez-Rey, R, Garrido-Hernansaiz, H and Collado, S (2020) Psychological impact and associated factors during the initial stage of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic among the general population in Spain. Frontiers in Psychology 11, 1540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossi, R, Jannini, TB, Socci, V, Pacitti, F and Lorenzo, GD (2021) Stressful life events and resilience during the COVID-19 lockdown measures in Italy: association with mental health outcomes and age. Frontiers in Psychiatry 12, 635832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rotărescu, VS, Matei, DB, Mircea, IA, Mirescu, AM, Nedelescu, BG, Nedelea, DG, Raluca Neagu, AN, Necșulescu, AG, Oteșanu, GA and Tudor, LC (2021) How anxious did you feel during lockdown? The roles resilience, living environment, and gender play on the level of anxiety state during pandemic isolation. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome 23, 496.Google ScholarPubMed
Saita, E, Facchin, F, Pagnini, F and Molgora, S (2021) In the eye of the COVID-19 storm: a web-based survey of psychological distress among people living in Lombardy. Frontiers in Psychology 12, 566753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salari, N, Hosseinian-Far, A, Jalali, R, Vaisi-Raygani, A, Rasoulpoor, S, Mohammadi, M, Rasoulpoor, S and Khaledi-Paveh, B (2020) Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Globalization and health 16, 11.Google ScholarPubMed
Salfi, F, Lauriola, M, Amicucci, G, Corigliano, D, Viselli, L, Tempesta, D and Ferrara, M (2020) Gender-related time course of sleep disturbances and psychological symptoms during the COVID-19 lockdown: a longitudinal study on the Italian population. Neurobiology of Stress 13, 100259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segre, G, Campi, R, Scarpellini, F, Clavenna, A, Zanetti, M, Cartabia, M and Bonati, M (2021) Interviewing children: the impact of the COVID-19 quarantine on children's perceived psychological distress and changes in routine. BMC Pediatrics 21, 231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva Moreira, P, Ferreira, S, Couto, B, Machado-Sousa, M, Fernández, M, Raposo-Lima, C, Sousa, N, Picó-Pérez, M and Morgado, P (2021) Protective elements of mental health status during the COVID-19 outbreak in the Portuguese population. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, 1910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skapinakis, P, Bellos, S, Oikonomou, A, Dimitriadis, G, Gkikas, P, Perdikari, E and Mavreas, V (2020) Depression and Its relationship with coping strategies and illness perceptions during the COVID-19 lockdown in Greece: a cross-sectional survey of the population. Depression Research and Treatment 2020, 111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stocchetti, N, Segre, G, Zanier, ER, Zanetti, M, Campi, R, Scarpellini, F, Clavenna, A and Bonati, M (2021) Burnout in intensive care unit workers during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: a single center cross-sectional Italian study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, 6102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suso-Ribera, C and Martín-Brufau, R (2020) How much support is there for the recommendations made to the general population during confinement? A study during the first three days of the COVID-19 quarantine in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 4382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabó, C, Pukánszky, J and Kemény, L (2020) Psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on Hungarian adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 9565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tognotti, E (2013) Lessons from the history of quarantine, from plague to influenza A. Emerging Infectious Diseases 19, 254259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valiente, C, Contreras, A, Peinado, V, Trucharte, A, Martínez, AP and Vázquez, C (2021) Psychological adjustment in Spain during the COVID-19 pandemic: positive and negative mental health outcomes in the general population. The Spanish Journal of Psychology 24, e8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veldhuis, CB, Nesoff, ED, McKowen, AL, Rice, DR, Ghoneima, H, Wootton, AR, Papautsky, EL, Arigo, D, Goldberg, S and Anderson, JC (2021) Addressing the critical need for long-term mental health data during the COVID-19 pandemic: changes in mental health from April to September 2020. Preventive Medicine 1, 106465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velotti, P, Rogier, G, Beomonte Zobel, S, Castellano, R and Tambelli, R (2021) Loneliness, emotion dysregulation, and internalizing symptoms during coronavirus disease 2019: a structural equation modeling approach. Frontiers in Psychiatry 11, 581494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vicario-Merino, A (2020) Analysis of the stress, anxiety and healthy habits in the Spanish COVID-19 confinement. Health Science Journal 14, 6.Google Scholar
Vujčić, I, Safiye, T, Milikić, B, Popović, E, Dubljanin, D, Dubljanin, E, Dubljanin, J and Čabarkapa, M (2021) Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic and mental health Status in the general adult population of Serbia: a cross-sectional study. International of Journal Environmental Research Public Health 18, 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wade, M, Prime, H and Browne, DT (2020) Why we need longitudinal mental health research with children and youth during (and after) the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Research 290, 113143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (2020) Mental Health and Psychosocial Considerations during COVID-19 Outbreak. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Xie, X, Xue, Q, Zhou, Y, Zhu, K, Liu, Q, Zhang, J and Song, R (2020) Mental health status among children in home confinement during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in Hubei province, China. JAMA Pediatrics 174, 898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zavlis, O, Butter, S, Bennett, K, Hartman, TK, Hyland, P, Mason, L, McBride, O, Murphy, J, Gibson-Miller, J, Levita, L, Martinez, AP, Shevlin, M, Stocks, TVA, Vallières, F and Bentall, RP (2021) How does the COVID-19 pandemic impact on population mental health? A network analysis of COVID influences on depression, anxiety and traumatic stress in the UK population. Psychological Medicine, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, L, Pan, R, Cai, Y and Pan, J (2021) The prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis. Psychiatry investigation 18, 426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Study selection.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Network analysis.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Centrality measures (centrality metrics are shown as standardised z-scores).

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Timing of data collection for each European country.

Figure 4

Table A1. Keywords used for searching databases

Figure 5

Table A2. Critical appraisal of cross-sectional studies

Figure 6

Table A3. Critical appraisal of cohort studies

Supplementary material: File

Bonati et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S3

Download Bonati et al. supplementary material(File)
File 89.6 KB