A Mental Health Surveillance System for the General Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for a Multiwave Cross-sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak can potentially be categorized as a traumatic event. Public health surveillance is one of the cornerstones of public health practice, and it empowers decision makers to lead and manage public health crises and programs more effectively by providing timely and useful evidence. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a study that aims to identify, track, and monitor trends in the population in Saudi Arabia at risk of major depressive disorders and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study utilizes continuous, cross-sectional, national-level mental health screening via computer-assisted phone interviews, conducted in four waves on a monthly basis (between May and August 2020). Arabic-speaking adults, aged ≥18 years, and living in Saudi Arabia were recruited via a random phone list. This surveillance system used the proportional quota sampling technique to achieve an equal distribution of participants, stratified by age and gender, and region, within and across the 13 administrative regions of Saudi Arabia. A sample size of 4056 participants per wave was calculated to achieve enough power to detect changes in mental health status. The questionnaire includes the Arabic version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to measure depressive symptoms and the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) to measure anxiety. In addition, it will collect data on sociodemographic variables and potential risk factors. RESULTS: Study recruitment began in May 2020. The data analysis was completed in October 2020, and the final report is expected to be published by the end of December 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring the population's mental health status during the COVID-19 pandemic will inform decision makers of any potential deterioration in mental health on a national level and among subgroups, including across regions, age groups, and gender groups. It will allow decision makers to recognize issues and intervene sooner. It will also provide valuable scientific data to help understand the effects of epidemics and pandemics on mental health. As far as we know, this is the only study that attempts to monitor the mental health status of the general population on a monthly basis. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/23748.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".