MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206497807 · doi:10.2196/preprints.25118

Efficiency and Quality of Data Collection Among Public Mental Health Surveys Conducted During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2020· preprint· en· W4206497807 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yu‐Hsuan Lin, Chung-Yen Chen, Shiow‐Ing Wu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPandemicPublic healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Data collectionScale (ratio)PreprintMedicinePopulationMeta-analysisEnvironmental healthPsychologyFamily medicineGeographyPsychiatryNursingSocial scienceSociologyCartographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND The World Health Organization has recognized the importance of assessing population-level mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. During a global crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, a timely surveillance method is urgently needed to track the impact on public mental health. OBJECTIVE This brief systematic review focused on the efficiency and quality of data collection of studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS We searched the PubMed database using the following search strings: ((COVID-19) OR (SARS-CoV-2)) AND ((Mental health) OR (psychological) OR (psychiatry)). We screened the titles, abstracts, and texts of the published papers to exclude irrelevant studies. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate the quality of each research paper. RESULTS Our search yielded 37 relevant mental health surveys of the general public that were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, as of July 10, 2020. All these public mental health surveys were cross-sectional in design, and the journals efficiently made these articles available online in an average of 18.7 (range 1-64) days from the date they were received. The average duration of recruitment periods was 9.2 (range 2-35) days, and the average sample size was 5137 (range 100-56,679). However, 73% (27/37) of the selected studies had Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores of <3 points, which suggests that these studies are of very low quality for inclusion in a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS The studies examined in this systematic review used an efficient data collection method, but there was a high risk of bias, in general, among the existing public mental health surveys. Therefore, following recommendations to avoid selection bias, or employing novel methodologies considering both a longitudinal design and high temporal resolution, would help provide a strong basis for the formation of national mental health policies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.113
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.468
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1130.468
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.012
Bibliometrics0.0140.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.437
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.073 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→