Increased anxiety and stress-related visits to the Shanghai psychiatric emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 compared to 2018–2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant and far-reaching impact on mental health. The psychiatric emergency department (PED) is pivotal in the management of acute and severe mental illnesses, especially anxiety-and stress-related disorders. Aims This study aimed to evaluate whether changes in the frequency or patients’ demographics of visiting the PED occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic among individuals with anxiety and stress-related disorders. Methods This cross-sectional study used data on PED visit counts from the largest psychiatric hospital in China between 2018 and 2020 (before and during the COVID-19 pandemic). Data from 2020, representing the COVID-19 pandemic period, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared using descriptive statistics for the same periods in 2018 and 2019. Results The number of PED visits related to anxiety and stress disorders per year increased from 83 in 2018 to 136 (63.9% increase) in 2019 and 239 (188.0% increase) in 2020. Compared to that in 2018 and 2019, the proportion of PED visits in 2020 among patients with anxiety and stress disorders increased significantly. Patients with anxiety-and stress-related disorders during PED visits in 2020 were younger than those in 2018 and 2019 (three-year groups: F = 9.124, df = 2, p < 0.001). Conclusion Despite the epidemic-policy barriers against PED visits, PED care seeking has increased, thereby underscoring the need for crisis prevention services for patients with stress and anxiety disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".