Gender-Related Vulnerability to Social Anxiety During Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present review aimed to evaluate research studies on gender patterns of social anxiety during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in order to determine whether there is an increased COVID-19-related vulnerability for women as compared to men. The re-conceptualization of essential social components of quality of life due to COVID-19 pandemic has globally increased rates of psychological disorders such as social anxiety, although the issue of increased gender-related susceptibility is not settled. The searching process was conducted from September 2022 to February 2023 across 3 databases: Cochrane, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The study followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for systematic reviews. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were subsequently considered for the review. Empirical data originated from 8 different countries, including Canada, Poland, Spain, China, USA, Australia, United Kingdom, and Portugal. Cross-sectional studies outnumbered longitudinal studies and generally indicated significant gender differences (women were significantly more likely to have social anxiety), although effect sizes were small. However, the claim of increased vulnerability of women as related to the COVID-19 pandemic was only supported by 3 studies. Although gender differences in social anxiety were generally present across countries, there was insufficient research evidence on increased COVID-19-related vulnerability to social anxiety for women as compared to men. Further research should address the methodological limitations of studies, particularly as regards instrumentation or the involvement of cross-cultural variables. Cite this article as: Melonashi E, Kaleci B, Bodinaku A. Gender-related vulnerability to social anxiety during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Arch Health Sci Res. 2024;11(1):2-7.
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 | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".