Prevalence of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress in war- and conflict-afflicted areas: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background With the rise of fragility, conflict and violence (FCV), understanding the prevalence and risk factors associated with mental disorders is beneficial to direct aid to vulnerable groups. To better understand mental disorders depending on the population and the timeframe, we performed a systematic review to investigate the aggregate prevalence of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms among both civilian and military population exposed to war. Methods We used MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Embase to identify studies published from inception or 1–Jan, 1945 (whichever earlier), to 31–May, 2022, to reporting on the prevalence of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms using structured clinical interviews and validated questionnaires as well as variables known to be associated with prevalence to perform meta-regression. We then used random-effects bivariate meta-analysis models to estimate the aggregate prevalence rate. Results The aggregate prevalence of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress during times of conflict or war were 28.9, 30.7, and 23.5%, respectively. Our results indicate a significant difference in the levels of depression and anxiety, but not post-traumatic stress, between the civilian group and the military group respectively (depression 34.7 vs 21.1%, p < 0.001; anxiety 38.6 vs 16.2%, p < 0.001; post-traumatic stress: 25.7 vs 21.3%, p = 0.256). The aggregate prevalence of depression during the wars was 38.7% (95% CI: 30.0–48.3, I 2 = 98.1%), while the aggregate prevalence of depression post-wars was 29.1% (95% CI: 24.7–33.9, I 2 = 99.2%). The aggregate prevalence of anxiety during the wars was 43.4% (95% CI: 27.5–60.7, I 2 = 98.6%), while the aggregate prevalence of anxiety post-wars was 30.3% (95% CI: 24.5–36.9, I 2 = 99.2%). The subgroup analysis showed significant difference in prevalence of depression, and anxiety between the civilians and military group ( p < 0.001). Conclusion The aggregate prevalence of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress in populations experiencing FCV are 28.9, 30.7, and 23.5%, respectively. There is a significant difference in prevalence of depression and anxiety between civilians and the military personnels. Our results show that there is a significant difference in the prevalence of depression and anxiety among individuals in areas affected by FCV during the wars compared to after the wars. Overall, these results highlight that mental health in times of conflict is a public health issue that cannot be ignored, and that appropriate aid made available to at risk populations can reduce the prevalence of psychiatric symptoms during time of FCV. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=337486 , Identifier 337486.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.054 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".