MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155383830 · doi:10.1037/cap0000272

The impact of inequality on mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.

2021· article· en· W3155383830 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Mental healthPsychology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)InequalitySystematic reviewMEDLINEPsychiatryMedicinePolitical scienceVirologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research on pandemics and emergencies has shown that such events often widen health inequalities in society and have a greater impact on socially disadvantaged groups. No review has so far looked at the impact of inequality factors on mental health outcomes during the novel coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19). The aim of the current review was therefore to assess the impact of inequality factors on mental health outcomes during COVID-19. After registration on PROSPERO, a systematic review was conducted for papers published up to July 31, 2020, using the databases Google Scholar, PsycINFO, PubMed (MEDLINE), and Web of Science. The following inequality factors were considered: education, income, employment, occupation, material and social deprivation, age, immigrant status, sexual orientation, functional health, cultural/racial background, sex, gender, and place of residence. Out of 1,931 references, 117 studies (300,061 participants) were included. Female sex, being of a younger age, financial insecurity, lack of access to clear messaging/information about the pandemic, proximity to large infection sites, having existing physical and/or psychological health conditions, and being subjected to abuse/stigma because of one’s identity as a member of an ethnic or sexual marginalized group predicted mental health inequalities. More research is required on how inequality affects mental health in less studied vulnerable populations, such as ethnic, sexual, and gender marginalized participants, as well as how inequality factors interact to affect mental health in the long term. Recommendations for researchers, mental health practitioners, and public health authorities for mitigating adverse mental health outcomes in vulnerable populations are outlined. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved) <strong xmlns:lang="en">Public Significance Statement—The findings of this review suggest that several inequality factors, such as female sex, younger age, financial insecurity, having existing chronic health conditions, and being in an ethnic or sexual marginalized group predict worse mental health outcomes during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. There is an urgent need for mental health services to support vulnerable populations at this time, to reduce mental health inequalities and improve long-term psychological functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved) Des recherches antérieures sur les pandémies et les urgences ont montré que de tels événements augmentent souvent les inégalités en matière de santé dans la société et ont une incidence plus grave sur les groupes socialement défavorisés. À ce jour, aucune étude n’a examiné l’incidence des facteurs d’inégalité sur les résultats en matière de santé mentale lors de l’épidémie du nouveau coronavirus (COVID-19). L’objectif de la présente étude était donc d’évaluer l’incidence des facteurs d’inégalité sur les résultats en matière de santé mentale pendant la COVID-19. Après inscription sur PROSPERO, un examen systématique a été effectué pour les articles publiés jusqu’au 31 juillet 2020, en utilisant les bases de données Google Scholar, PsycINFO, PubMed (MEDLINE) et Web of Science. Les facteurs d’inégalité suivants ont été pris en considération : éducation, revenu, emploi, profession, privation matérielle et sociale, âge, statut d’immigrant, orientation sexuelle, santé fonctionnelle, origine culturelle/raciale, sexe, genre et lieu de résidence. Sur 1 931 références, 117 études (300 061 participants) ont été incluses. Le sexe féminin, le jeune âge, l’insécurité financière, le manque d’accès à des messages/renseignements clairs sur la pandémie, la proximité d’importants sites d’infection, les conditions de santé physique et/ou psychologique existantes et le fait d’être victime d’abus/stigmatisation en raison de son identité en tant que membre d’un groupe ethnique ou sexuel marginalisé ont permis de prédire les inégalités en matière de santé mentale. Des recherches supplémentaires sont nécessaires sur la manière dont les inégalités affectent la santé mentale dans les populations vulnérables moins étudiées, telles que les participants marginalisés sur le plan ethnique, sexuel et sexospécifique, ainsi que sur la manière dont les facteurs d’inégalité interagissent pour affecter la santé mentale à long terme. Des recommandations sont formulées à l’intention des chercheurs, des praticiens de la santé mentale et des autorités de santé publique pour atténuer les effets néfastes sur la santé mentale des populations vulnérables. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it