RESUMEN
Background: Though quarantine is a pertinent control measure for the spread of COVID-19, it is equally important to consider its negative impacts, as it causes severe psychological, emotional, and financial problems not only for those who are quarantined but also for many others who are directly or indirectly connected to those who are quarantined. There appears to be a need to synthesise the available literature evidence on the psychological impact of quarantine experience, especially the multilevel risk factors that make individuals vulnerable to psychological impact and the protective factors to deal with the negative effects of quarantine. Objective: This systematic review attempted to identify the various psychological impacts associated with the experience of quarantine, the risk and protective factors and list out various psycho-social interventions that can minimise the risks and facilitate the protective factors associated with the experience of quarantine. Methods: A systematic search adhering to the PRISMA guidelines was performed in four databases PubMed, Scopus, PsycNet, Web of Science and 10518 articles related to COVID-19 and quarantine were obtained. After screening processes and quality assessment using standard checklist 74 articles that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were chosen for the final review. Findings: Individuals subjected to quarantine had anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms, sleep problems, and somatic difficulties. Some of the key risk factors during quarantine are young age, female gender, low money, fear of infection, poor sleep quality, reduced physical activity, increased sedentary behaviours, and a lack of social support. Financial difficulties and stigma remained risk factors even after the quarantine period had ended. Key protective factors were coping skills, home based exercise, leisure, recreational activities, maintaining relationships using social media and availability of mental health services. The findings also highlight the necessity for tele mental health interventions to address the psychological effects of quarantine. Conclusion: Multilevel interventions are required to minimise the impact of risk factors and enhance protective factors.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: We compared depression of people who smoke and those who do not, depending on whether they have an underlying disease making them at risk for COVID-19. Moreover, we analyzed the factors associated with their depression. METHODS: We recruited 948 Lebanese residents, ages 18 and above. Our survey included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to assess depression. We divided participants, based on smoking and having a disease making one at risk for a COVID19 infection into four groups: non-smokers not at risk (NSNR), non-smokers at risk (NSR), smokers not at risk (SNR), and smokers at risk (SR). RESULTS: SR had PHQ-9 scores higher than other groups. The diet was not changed during the pandemic, whereas weight increased in all groups but SR. Those not at risk slept longer, while sports were decreased in NSR and SNR. Hobbies were decreased in all groups except SNR. Depending on the group, factors such as age, sex, residency, diet, exercise, sleep duration, and hobbies were associated with PHQ-9 scores. LIMITATIONS: we cannot draw causal relationships. Participation required internet access, and participants might not represent the actual population due to the snowball effect. Also, recall bias might skew results. We did not inquire about sexual activity, which could be an essential coping mechanism. CONCLUSION: Factors associated with depression for one group did not necessarily do so for another. Controlling the underlying risk or smoking cessation could move a patient to a group with more options associated with depression, thereby additional methods to decrease depression.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The values, perspectives, and behavior patterns that begin in adolescence can continue throughout one's life. Because of these lifetime effects, much research has focused on adolescent risk and prevention, but a new body of knowledge investigates protective factors and strengths. Positive youth development (PYD) increases internal and external assets during adolescence and is often based within communities. This review, however, focuses on school-based PYD interventions because these institutions are the largest youth-serving institutions in the country. METHODS: This review considered 711 PYD school-based programs found using 4 databases. We included articles published after 2000, and did not review those reporting on regular school curriculum or activities. RESULTS: The 24 remaining articles describe PYD programs that fall under 3 general categories: curriculum-based, leadership development, and student-based mentorship programs. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluations indicate that programs increase intrapsychic measures of well-being in youth as well as social confidence and healthy behaviors. However, it is important to not only include "at-risk" persons in programming, because a mixed group of young people encourages a more positive peer-to-peer climate. In addition, peer mentorship activities should be actively facilitated by an adult supervisor to ensure positive communication and trust between the mentor and mentee.