Systematic Review on the Mental Health and Treatment Impacts of COVID-19 on Neurocognitive Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. The COVID-19 pandemic has had many public health impacts, especially on vulnerable individuals including adults with neurocognitive disorders (NCD). With increasing literature, this systematic literature review aimed to address the mental health effects of COVID-19 on people with NCD in addition to examine the impact of the pandemic on treatments/resources for NCD. Methods. A literature search was conducted in the electronic databases of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Studies were included so long as they assessed the mental health or therapeutic effects of COVID-19 on NCD. Results. Among the retrieved articles, 59 met eligibility criteria. First, the pandemic and resulting self-isolation led to many detrimental effects on psychological well-being. Exacerbation and relapses of neurocognitive and behavioral symptoms were observed, as well as emergences of new psychological symptoms (i.e., depression, anxiety). Second, therapeutic and community services for individuals suffering from NCD, such as social support services and outpatient clinics, were disrupted or reduced leading to postponed appointments and evaluations, as well as reduced access to medications. These issues were somewhat palliated with the growth of telemedicine. Conclusions. This systematic review highlights the extent of the effects of the pandemic, and the topics addressed should be taken into consideration by healthcare practitioners, institutions, and policymakers to ensure that proper measures are employed to protect this population from additional harm.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".