https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5557-9801
Figures
Abstract
In this scoping review, we investigated the psychotherapies and psychological support provided during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to clarify its recipients and the methods employed, among other characteristics. We used Scopus and PubMed as the two search engines and employed the following search terms: “COVID*” AND (“psychotherap*” OR “psychological support*”) AND “psychological distress*.” The first search was conducted on October 18, 2022, by reviewing search engines and conducting a manual search. It yielded 154 articles, of which 18 finally met the eligibility criteria after the second round of screening. The distribution of the participants in the intervention studies included in this review was diverse, including the general population, patients with COVID-19, and patients who had recovered from COVID-19. The implementation of psychotherapy was not limited to more advanced countries in psychiatry, indicating the broader reach of these interventions. Psychotherapy includes various methods, including cognitive behavioral therapy, acceptance commitment therapy, mindfulness, supportive care, virtual reality therapy, and online educational content via apps. The rise of new technologies may have increased the replacement rate of human therapists. In addition, the use of remote interventions was more common than that of face-to-face interventions. It is necessary to monitor whether the technologies and methods used for the first time during the pandemic will continue to be used in the future. Therefore, further research is needed to compare the effectiveness of remote randomized controlled trials with conventional face-to-face randomized controlled trials. Finally, most of those providing psychotherapies and psychological support in the studies included in this review were not doctors or psychologists.
Citation: Yagihashi M, Sakuma A, Murakami M (2025) Psychotherapies and psychological support for individuals facing psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 20(4): e0318192. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318192
Editor: Mohammad Jamil Rababa, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Jordan
Received: December 13, 2023; Accepted: January 11, 2025; Published: April 1, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Yagihashi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This research received funding from two specific grants: 1. JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K14214 as a “Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists” 2. The Nippon Foundation - Osaka University Project for Infectious Disease Prevention.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The deterioration of mental health caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a public health concern globally [1]. The exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms amid the COVID-19 spread can be attributed to the bio-psycho-social model [2], as is typically observed in the development of psychiatric symptoms. This model includes biological factors such as physical pain and its sequelae, that is, lingering symptoms caused by COVID-19 infection [3]; psychological factors such as isolation due to behavioral restrictions and fear of infection [4], a sense of self-inflicted guilt for having been infected [5], and discrimination against infected people or people with specific backgrounds [6]; and social factors such as lockdown and refraining from activities [7] and economic deprivation caused by lockdowns and business restrictions [8]. Disaster psychiatry studies that focus on pandemics have shown that people may choose to avoid seeking psychological help during the acute phase of an infectious threat and that many mental health disorders will subsequently surface as the infectious threat decreases because requests for mental healthcare and support services will then increase rapidly [9].
While some studies have investigated this topic, more attention should be paid to psychological support for those who have recovered from the acute symptoms of COVID-19 but still suffer from chronic symptoms. For example, an early review of healthcare workers’ mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic reported six intervention studies on this topic; however, none of these six studies reported the effectiveness of the examined interventions [10]. Another study reviewed psychological support interventions for healthcare professionals and informal caregivers (i.e., family members and others close to them) during the COVID-19 pandemic [11]. Additionally, a narrative review of interventions for family caregivers of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis reported their experience using telemedicine [12]. However, as of October 8, 2022 (searched again to confirm before submitting on July 5, 2023), none of the 21 reviews found by searching Scopus using the terms “COVID,” “distress,” and “psychological support” had summarized the types of psychotherapies and psychological support offered to diverse audiences or the means through which they were delivered.
Determining what types of psychotherapies and psychological support should be provided for those affected by COVID-19 as well as by emerging infectious diseases in the future is crucial. Reviewing the literature on the psychotherapies and psychological support provided during the pandemic would allow the public to reflect on the support available at that time and help healthcare professionals and medical staff review the support they could provide. A few of the psychotherapies or psychological support carried out in medical settings have thus far been examined in academic studies; the papers published on this topic are significant and must be used effectively to shed necessary light on global trends and perspectives. This would be useful not only for COVID-19 but also for intervention research after future infectious disease outbreaks and disasters. Based on the foregoing, we conducted a scoping review to clarify the types of psychotherapies and psychological support provided during the COVID-19 pandemic and the providers.
Materials and methods
Of the manifold review methods (i.e., literature review, scoping review, systematic review, umbrella review), scoping reviews are a relatively new method of identifying knowledge gaps and are often conducted as a preliminary step to systematic reviews. While similar to systematic reviews, scoping reviews do not evaluate targeted studies or integrate their results. The methodology for scoping reviews was first proposed by Arksey and O’Malley in 2005 [13] and later developed by Levac et al. [14] in 2010. In 2015, the JBI scoping review methodology group developed guidelines for conducting scoping reviews [15]. In 2018, to promote transparency when using this methodology, Tricco et al. [16] proposed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guidelines for scoping reviews. In this study, we chose a scoping review as our methodology because it was the most suitable to clarify the types of psychotherapies and psychological support provided during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, this study was conducted according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines [16]. The review was conducted in four phases: identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and final synthesis (Fig 1).
Note. We conducted the first screening for the paper found by a manual search in accordance with the protocol described in this study, but it did not meet our selection criteria and was removed.
Identification
We conducted our search on October 18, 2022. Since the objective was to determine the types of psychotherapies and psychological support provided for psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the primary keywords were “COVID-19,” “psychotherapy” (or) “psychological support,” and “psychological distress.” To be able to search and access all targeted papers without omission, we searched two search engines (PubMed and Scopus) following previous research [17]. First, PubMed is a paper search tool developed by the National Library of Medicine in the United States, part of the National Institutes of Health. Owing to its high profile and practical advantages, it is the most frequently used source of information in the biomedical field. In particular, PubMed allows researchers to search and view articles from an early stage (i.e., from the first edition). Second, Scopus is a journal search tool run by Elsevier in Europe. It can search a wider range of journal fields than PubMed; however, articles cannot be viewed until they are officially published. In addition, the papers listed are limited to those published after 1995. However, as we studied psychotherapies and psychological support conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., from 2019), this was not a concern. Therefore, to conduct a thorough and accurate search for recent papers, we used both databases.
In this study, the inclusion criteria were as follows: the article had to be an original paper or review article, its full text had to be available (not just the abstract), and it had to be written in English. Protocol articles were also included among the articles obtained by the search engine but were excluded from the screening. The search formula for Scopus was the following: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“COVID*” AND (“psychotherap*” OR “psychological support*”) AND “psychological distress*”) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,”ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,”re”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE,”English”))). The search formula for PubMed was as follows: ((“covid*”[Title/Abstract] OR “COVID-19”[MeSH Terms]) AND (“psychotherap*”[Title/Abstract] OR “psychological support*”[Title/Abstract]) AND (“ Psychological Distress *”[Title/Abstract] OR “Psychological Distress”[MeSH Terms])) AND ((ffrft[Filter]) AND (fha[Filter]) AND (clinicaltrial[Filter] OR meta-analysis[Filter] OR randomizedcontrolledtrial[Filter] OR review[Filter] OR systematicreview[Filter]) AND (fft[Filter])).
Screening
The screening procedure was conducted in two stages (Fig 1). During the first stage on October 18, 2022, the search yielded 153 entries (141 from Scopus, 12 from PubMed). In addition, one entry was added through manual search [18]. All these entries (n = 154) were output using Endnote reference management (Endnote X8, Clarivate Analytics). Duplicates (n = 10) and those without abstracts (n = 1) were removed according to the inclusion criteria. In the first screening, two independent experts, M.Y. (major in clinical psychology) and M.M. (major in risk science), determined whether the inclusion criteria were met based on the titles and abstracts. The results were integrated through discussion. The kappa coefficient of agreement was 0.68. When the judgments were not in accordance with the two independent experts mentioned above, a third expert, A.S. (major in psychiatry, especially liaison psychiatry), was consulted. A total of 122 papers were excluded in the first screening stage, including the paper added by manual search (n = 1). Hence, 21 papers remained eligible for the second screening stage.
In the second stage, all 21 papers were obtained by manual search. Two independent experts (M.M. and A.S.) read half of the articles and M.Y. read them all. Three studies were subsequently excluded, leaving 18 studies in the final review. We reconfirmed that these met the inclusion criteria for this study and itemized the content according to the intervention participants, number of participants, countries in which the psychotherapies and psychological support were provided, target population for psychotherapies and psychological support, types and means of this support, support provider, and means of the measures used.
- Intervention participants.
Participants were classified according to the descriptions provided in the articles, allowing for duplicate responses.
- Number of participants.
The total number of participants and number of intervention and control groups were recorded according to each study design.
- Countries.
The countries in which the interventions were implemented were documented and categorized based on the descriptions in the articles.
- Types of psychotherapies and psychological support.
Classifications were made broadly considering the real-world settings of the interventions, and duplicate responses were allowed. Humanistic psychology is a form of psychology developed in the United States in the 1960s [19]. In particular, client-centered therapy advocated by Rogers is well known, and the three core conditions (congruence (authenticity), unconditional positive regard, and empathic understanding) are the basic attitudes required of those involved in psychological support, such as therapists and counselors. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) primarily comprises cognitive therapy and behavioral therapy. Based on these, psychotherapies, known as third-generation therapies, such as acceptance commitment therapy (ACT) and mindfulness, have emerged since the 1990s [19]. Various versions of these therapies specialize in symptoms or diseases. In this study, we broadly classified them according to the descriptions in the papers (e.g., simplified CBT - Insomnia (S - CBTI) was classified as CBT). Telephone support was also classified according to the theory or therapy on which it was based if a description was provided. If no description was provided, we classified it as telephone support. Furthermore, for intervention studies divided into control and intervention groups, support for the control group was not included (e.g., distribution of newsletters and provision of regular support).
- Types of interventions.
The following items were classified: validation of feasibility, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), established existing interventions, and others. Duplicate responses were allowed.
- Means of psychotherapies and psychological support.
Means of support were classified as remote, face-to-face, and others. Remote communication included both voice-only, including conventional telephone calls and calls made online, and video calls but was defined as remote when real-time two-way communication was possible. Duplicate responses were allowed.
- Providers.
Providers included medical doctors, psychologists/counselors, and others. To maintain consistency, “psychologist” and “counselor” were considered to be identical for classification purposes, acknowledging that the definitions may vary by country. Duplicate responses were allowed.
- Means of the measures used
These were written according to the descriptions in the studies. Duplicate responses were allowed.
Eligibility assessment and inclusion
After the second screening, if the two independent researchers disagreed on the results, the three experts discussed and reached a consensus. Consequently, 18 papers were included in this study [14-31]. The paper’s content was compiled by M.Y. and subsequently reviewed and edited by M.M. and A.S.
Results
Table 1 summarizes the papers included in this review, and Fig 2 shows the distribution of each item.
Bars indicate the distribution (%) of target papers (n = 18). The number next to the bars indicates the number of papers that match each item.
- a). Intervention participants.
The figure indicates the number of papers corresponding to each item: patients with COVID-19, patients who had recovered from COVID-19, caregivers, healthcare workers, and others. Others (n = 2) included clients at the clinic and refugees.
- b). Types of psychotherapies and psychological support.
The figure indicates the number of papers corresponding to each item: humanistic psychology/psychological support, virtual reality therapy, telephone support, mindfulness, ACT, CBT, etc. Others (n = 4) included problem management plus EMDR therapy, parenting intervention, and video-based psychotherapy.
- c). Types of interventions.
The figure indicates the number of papers corresponding to each item: feasibility validation, RCT, established existing intervention, and others. Others (n = 1) included an exploratory-descriptive design.
- d). Means of psychotherapies and psychological support.
The figure indicates the number of papers corresponding to each item: remote, face-to-face, and others. Others (n = 6) included no intervention by any person but by a mobile app, educational video, watching virtual reality therapy, webinars, paper-based system (material), and no description.
- e). Providers.
The figure indicates the number of papers corresponding to each item: psychologists/counselors, medical doctors, and others. Others (n = 11) included trained but non-specialist (n = 1), psycho-oncologist (n = 1), educational program (n = 3), “postdoctoral fellows, predoctoral psychology interns, and social workers” (n = 1), and not described (n = 5).
Intervention participants
The participants in the studies included in this review were categorized as follows: patients with COVID-19 (n = 4, 22%) [26,27,29,31], patients who had recovered from COVID-19 (n = 1, 6%) [16], citizens (n = 5, 28%) [21,23,26,30,35], caregivers (n = 4, 22%) [24,33,36,37], and healthcare workers (n = 4, 22%) [25,26,28,32]. Moreover, there were two cases falling under the category of others: clients at a clinic (n = 1) [34] and refugees (n = 1) [20].
Countries
The countries were widely distributed across Europe, Central and South Asia, East Asia, North America, and Central America (see Table 2).
Types of psychotherapies and psychological support
The distribution of psychotherapies and psychological support was as follows: humanistic psychological support (n = 3, 17%) [22–24], virtual reality therapy (n = 2, 11%) [26,32], telephone support (n = 2, 11%) [31,33], mindfulness (n = 3, 17%) [28,29,32], ACT (n = 3, 17%) [21,35,36], CBT (n = 4, 22%) [21,27,30,34], and others (n = 4, 22%). Others included problem management plus (n = 1) [20], EMDR therapy (n = 1) [25], parenting intervention (n = 1) [37], and video-based psychotherapy (n = 1) [29] (see Fig 2).
Types of interventions
The distribution of the types of interventions was as follows: validation of feasibility (n = 6, 33%) [26,29–32,37], RCT (n = 6, 33%) [20,21,26,28,33,36], established existing intervention (n = 7, 39%) [22,24–27,34,35], and others (n = 1, exploratory-descriptive design, 6%) [23] (see Fig 2).
Means of psychotherapies and psychological support
The distribution of the means of psychotherapies and psychological support was as follows: remote (n = 11, 61%) [21,23–25,27,30,31,33,34,36,37], face-to-face (n = 2, 11%) [20,22], and others (n = 6, 33%) [26–29,32,35]. Others included a paper-based system [27], mobile app [28], educational video [29], watching virtual reality [32], webinar [35], and no description [26] (see Fig 2).
Providers
The distribution of the types of providers was as follows: psychologists/counselors (n = 7, 39%) [21,22,25,31,33,34,37], medical doctors (n = 2, 11%) [27,30], and others (n = 11, 61%). The majority fell under the category of others and the breakdown was as follows: trained but non-specialist (n = 1) [20], psycho-oncologist (n = 1) [24], not human but educational program (n = 3) [29,30,32], postdoctoral fellows (n = 1) [37], post/predoctoral psychology interns (n = 1) [37], social workers (n = 1) [37], and not described (n = 5) [23,26,28,35,36] (see Fig 2).
Means of the measures used
The means of measuring the outcomes of the interventions were as follows: depression (Kessler, Beck Depression Inventory), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale), depression and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Hopkins Symptom Checklist, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale), post-traumatic stress (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist, The Impact of Event Scale － Revised), sleep (Insomnia Severity Index, Athens Insomnia Scale, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Perceived Sleep Quality), and physical symptoms and general health (Patient Health Questionnaire). The following assessments were performed: Emotion Thermometer, Fear of COVID-19 Scale, Personal Well-being Index, Professional Quality of Life Scale, Subjective Units of Distress Scale, Neuropsychiatric Inventory, Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, Self-Compassion Scale, Digit Span Tests (Forward and Backward), Symptom Checklist-90-R, Zait Burden Interview, Quality of Life Caregiver, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing short form, Comprehensive Assessment of Acceptance Commitment Therapy Processes, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire, Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale, Multi-System Model of Resilience, and Group Session Rating Scale (see Table 1).
Discussion
In this study, we investigated the types of psychotherapies and psychological support provided during COVID-19, target recipients, and delivery methods employed. When a disaster (including an outbreak of an infectious disease) occurs, the call for psychological support is often loud. In this research, we took a broad view of the types of psychotherapies and psychological support provided following the global scourge of COVID-19 and offer a number of novel findings.
For the target population, a wide range was found, including the public [21,23,26,30,35], caregivers [24,33,36,37], healthcare workers [25,26,28,32], COVID-19 patients [26,27,29,31], and patients who had recovered from COVID-19 [22]. Reports of worsening mental health as a sequela of COVID-19 have been numerous worldwide [38]. In this study, the target population included all people, regardless of whether they had been infected with COVID-19 and whether they had post-COVID-19 sequelae. However, among the studies identified by this review, none specifically examined people with post-COVID-19 sequelae, although one study provided psychological support for people who had recovered from COVID-19, including those suffering from depression or anxiety [22]. The lack of studies on patients with post-COVID-19 sequelae may be owing to the difficulty in maintaining a post-discharge connection with patients in the chronic phase of symptoms, such as those in the sequelae (which also leads to difficulties in recruiting study participants). Psychiatric symptoms in the chronic phase are diverse and difficult for both patients and practitioners to identify as sequelae of COVID-19. Alternatively, most people with COVID-19 may have experienced spontaneous remission within approximately one year [39, 40] and it may have been difficult to recruit participants for clinical trials.
The regional spread of the COVID-19 pandemic was clear from our review findings, with psychotherapies and psychological support provided across regions. Further research is needed to determine the driving factors of the differences in the number of reports by country found in this study. It may have been that the chosen countries have environments conducive to the provision and receipt of psychotherapies and psychological support. Alternatively, it may have been the result of social demand, that is, people may have been seeking psychotherapies and psychological support for their psychological recovery.
The types of psychotherapies and psychological support varied from well-known therapy and support (i.e., support based on humanistic psychology, CBT, ACT, mindfulness) [21,22,24,27–30,32,34–36] to relatively new methods (i.e., virtual reality therapy) [26,32]. The majority of the means of conducting psychotherapies and psychological support were remote interventions rather than conventional face-to-face interventions [21,23–25,27,30,31,33,34,36,37]. This could have been attributed to the infectious nature of COVID-19. It may also be that sufficient technological innovation had already occurred for non-face-to-face psychotherapies and psychological support to be provided and that the COVID-19 disaster provided an opportunity for its implementation. This study’s results also hinted that the paradigm of the psychiatry world was influenced by the social situation during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the review findings did not directly show whether social factors played a role. It remains to be seen whether the technologies and support methods rapidly introduced will take hold now the threat of COVID-19 has diminished.
Regarding the types of interventions, feasibility studies [26,29–32,37,41], RCTs [20,21,26,28,33,36], and existing interventions were established [22,24–27,34,35]. Although the majority of the studies in this review provided online psychotherapies and psychological support, only three studies involved online RCTs [21,33,36]. Moreover, no studies compared the effectiveness of online/remote psychotherapies and psychological support with face-to-face support. Therefore, further research on this topic is required.
In this scoping review, interventions by professionals dealing with psychotherapies and psychological support (medical doctors and certified psychotherapists/psychologists) did not account for the majority [21,22,25,27,30,31,33,34,37]. This suggests the difficulty in obtaining support from psychiatric professionals, replacement by other professionals or novel technologies, or the difficulty for physicians and psychologists to conduct large-scale interventions and publish the results because of their budget and human resources constraints, except in some of the most advanced regions. The replacement of psychiatric services with new technology (i.e., apps) offers several advantages to service recipients. First, it enhances accessibility to psychotherapies and psychological support, reducing barriers that may hinder individuals from seeking assistance. Second, this approach can lead to the standardization and homogenization of such support, which vary in quality among therapists. Regarding outcomes, a range of mental health-related items were employed, including anxiety, post-traumatic stress, sleep, and the fear of COVID-19 scale in addition to the primary focus on distress. Notably, most studies used multiple outcomes, suggesting a comprehensive assessment of participants’ mental health status to provide robust support.
This study clarified to whom and by what means psychotherapies and psychological support was provided during the COVID-19 pandemic, considering the characteristics of COVID-19 as an infectious disease, social context of the pandemic, and methods and means by which it was selected and implemented. However, this scoping review also revealed the following research gaps. First, the implementation of psychotherapies and psychological support for patients with post-COVID-19 sequelae may have been insufficient (patients may have been overlooked). Second, it is necessary to clarify the relative effectiveness of online/remote and face-to-face RCTs during the pandemic. Third, it is unclear whether the technology used during the pandemic will continue to be used. Lastly, research is needed on how physicians, psychologists, and other psychiatric professionals differentiate and coexist with non-human technologies (i.e., bots and apps). These issues need to be closely monitored in the long term.
Limitations
The first limitation of this study is the number of search databases used (i.e., two). Tricco et al. [16] state, “Present the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.” In other words, the method used in this study meets this guideline. However, using more databases may have opened up access to more papers. Additionally, the papers included in this review are limited to those written in English. In other words, the data available for the study are limited.
Second, the selection of psychotherapies and psychological support may have been influenced by factors such as the ease of implementation and availability of evidence-based measures. Therefore, this approach may not fully encompass the complexity and nuances of current clinical situations.
Finally, in this study, telephone support is treated as one type of support since the content of telephone support is not always classifiable in the psychiatric or clinical psychology field.
Conclusions
This study revealed the countries in which psychotherapies and psychological support were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, the main providers, and the major means of implementation. The following points are noteworthy:
- No studies on the use of psychotherapy for patients suffering from the sequelae of COVID-19 were found.
- The implementation of psychotherapy was not limited to more advanced countries in psychiatry, indicating the broader reach of these interventions.
- Psychotherapy includes many methods, including CBT, ACT, mindfulness, supportive care, virtual reality therapy, and online educational content via apps. The rise of new technologies may have increased the replacement rate of human therapists.
- The majority of psychotherapy interventions were delivered remotely. However, whether this trend will persist beyond the COVID-19 pandemic remains uncertain. Further research on the differences in effectiveness between remote and face-to-face psychotherapy is needed.
- Finally, most of those providing psychotherapies and psychological support in the studies included in this review were not doctors (n = 2, 11%) or psychologists (n = 7, 39%).
Acknowledgments
During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used DeepL to improve the English language expression. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed. Furthermore, the paper was carefully edited by Editage (http://www.editage.com). The authors take full responsibility for the content of the paper.
The preliminary results of this study were presented at the 41st Japanese Society for Social Psychiatry Congress and the seminar by SpringX, CiDER, and Knowledge Capital (YouTube: https://youtu.be/TEcwH-IR-38) and in the preprint (medRxiv: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.04.23295013v1).
References
- 1. Taquet M, Geddes JR, Husain M, Luciano S, Harrison PJ. 6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(5):416–27. pmid:33836148
- 2. Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196(4286):129–36. pmid:847460
- 3. Nalbandian A, Sehgal K, Gupta A, Madhavan MV, McGroder C, Stevens JS, et al. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Nat Med. 2021;27(4):601–15. pmid:33753937
- 4. Yagihashi M, Murakami M, Kato M, Yamamura A, Miura A, Hirai K. Exploratory study to characterise the individual types of health literacy and beliefs and their associations with infection prevention behaviours amid the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan: a longitudinal study. PeerJ. 2024;12:e16905. pmid:38406277
- 5. Murakami M, Hiraishi K, Yamagata M, Nakanishi D, Miura A. Belief in just deserts regarding individuals infected with COVID-19 in Japan and its associations with demographic factors and infection-srelated and socio-psychological characteristics: a cross-sectional study. PeerJ. 2022;10:e14545. pmid:36570010
- 6. Yamagata M, Teraguchi T, Miura A. Effects of Pathogen-Avoidance Tendency on Infection-Prevention Behaviors and Exclusionary Attitudes toward Foreigners: A Longitudinal Study of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Japan. Jpn Psychol Res. 2021. pmid:34548692
- 7. Coronavirus: The World In Lockdown In Maps And Charts. BBC News. 2020 Apr 7. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52103747.
- 8. Xiong J, Lipsitz O, Nasri F, Lui LMW, Gill H, Phan L, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2020;277:55–64. pmid:32799105
- 9.
Ursano R, , Fullerton C, Raphael B. Textbook of disaster psychiatry. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2017.
- 10. Muller AE, Hafstad EV, Himmels JPW, Smedslund G, Flottorp S, Stensland SØ, et al. The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, and interventions to help them: A rapid systematic review. Psychiatry Res. 2020;293:113441. pmid:32898840
- 11. Bertuzzi V, Semonella M, Bruno D, Manna C, Edbrook-Childs J, Giusti EM, et al. Psychological Support Interventions for Healthcare Providers and Informal Caregivers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(13):6939. pmid:34203529
- 12. D’Alvano G, Buonanno D, Passaniti C, De Stefano M, Lavorgna L, Tedeschi G, et al. Support Needs and Interventions for Family Caregivers of Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS): A Narrative Review with Report of Telemedicine Experiences at the Time of COVID-19 Pandemic. Brain Sci. 2021;12(1):49. pmid:35053794
- 13. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32.
- 14. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. pmid:20854677
- 15. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6. pmid:26134548
- 16. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033
- 17. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338–42. pmid:17884971
- 18. Rovere Querini P, De Lorenzo R, Conte C, Brioni E, Lanzani C, Yacoub MR, et al. Post-COVID-19 follow-up clinic: depicting chronicity of a new disease. Acta Biomed. 2020;91(9-S):22–8. pmid:32701913
- 19.
Tanno Y, Mohri T, Sasaki I, Sugiyama J, . Clinical psychology: evidence-based approach. Tokyo, Japan: Yuhikaku Publishing Co, Ltd. 2022.
- 20. Akhtar A, Bawaneh A, Awwad M, Al-Hayek H, Sijbrandij M, Cuijpers P, et al. A longitudinal study of mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Syrian refugees. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2021;12(1):1991651. pmid:34777714
- 21. Al-Alawi M, McCall RK, Sultan A, Al Balushi N, Al-Mahrouqi T, Al Ghailani A, et al. Efficacy of a Six-Week-Long Therapist-Guided Online Therapy Versus Self-help Internet-Based Therapy for COVID-19-Induced Anxiety and Depression: Open-label, Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Ment Health. 2021;8(2):e26683. pmid:33512323
- 22. Bonazza F, Borghi L, di San Marco EC, Piscopo K, Bai F, Monforte A d’Arminio, et al. Psychological outcomes after hospitalization for COVID-19: data from a multidisciplinary follow-up screening program for recovered patients. Res Psychother. 2021;23(3):491. pmid:33585298
- 23. Briceño Rodríguez MB, Gutiérrez-García RA. Mental health intervention program during the COVID-19 for Mexican adults. Gac Méd Caracas. 2022;130(Supl. 3):
- 24. Cheriyalinkal Parambil B, Goswami S, Roy Moulik N, Sonkusare L, Dhamne C, Narula G, et al. Psychological distress in primary caregivers of children with cancer during COVID-19 pandemic-A single tertiary care center experience. Psychooncology. 2022;31(2):253–9. pmid:34435720
- 25. Fernandez I, Pagani M, Gallina E. Post-traumatic stress disorder among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: Effectiveness of an eye movement desensitization and reprocessing intervention protocol. Front Psychol. 2022;13964334. pmid:36160528
- 26. Hatta MH, Sidi H, Siew Koon C, Che Roos NA, Sharip S, Abdul Samad FD, et al. Virtual Reality (VR) Technology for Treatment of Mental Health Problems during COVID-19: A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(9):5389. pmid:35564784
- 27. He J, Yang L, Pang J, Dai L, Zhu J, Deng Y, et al. Efficacy of simplified-cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (S-CBTI) among female COVID-19 patients with insomnia symptom in Wuhan mobile cabin hospital. Sleep Breath. 2021;25(4): 2213–19.
- 28. Keng S-L, Chin JWE, Mammadova M, Teo I. Effects of mobile app-based mindfulness practice on healthcare workers: a randomized active controlled trial. Mindfulness (N Y). 2022;13(11):2691–704. pmid:36160038
- 29. Lukman PR, Saputra A, Elvira SD, , Almasyhur AF, Putri LA, et al. Efficacy of video-based psychotherapy in reducing psychological distress of COVID-19 patients treated in isolation ward. Med J Indones. 2021;30(4):250–5.
- 30. Mahoney A, Li I, Haskelberg H, Millard M, Newby JM. The uptake and effectiveness of online cognitive behaviour therapy for symptoms of anxiety and depression during COVID-19. J Affect Disord. 2021;292197–203. pmid:34126311
- 31. Maresca G, Formica C, De Cola MC, Lo Buono V, Latella D, Cimino V, et al. Care models for mental health in a population of patients affected by COVID-19. J Int Med Res. 2022;50(5). pmid:35531918
- 32. Pan X, Zhang Y-C, Ren D, Lu L, Wang Y-H, Li G-X, et al. Virtual reality in treatment for psychological problems in first-line health care professionals fighting COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Series. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2022;210(10):754–9. pmid:35849536
- 33. Rotondo E, Galimberti D, Mercurio M, Giardinieri G, Forti S, Vimercati R, et al. Caregiver Tele-Assistance for Reduction of Emotional Distress During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Psychological Support to Caregivers of People with Dementia: The Italian Experience. J Alzheimers Dis. 2022;85(3):1045–52. pmid:34806608
- 34. Sanderson WC, Arunagiri V, Funk AP, Ginsburg KL, Krychiw JK, Limowski AR, et al. The Nature and Treatment of Pandemic-Related Psychological Distress. J Contemp Psychother. 2020;50(4):251–63. pmid:32836377
- 35. Shepherd K, Golijani-Moghaddam N, Dawson DL. ACTing towards better living during COVID-19: The effects of Acceptance and Commitment therapy for individuals affected by COVID-19. J Contextual Behav Sci. 2022;23:98–108. pmid:34931160
- 36. Vahabi M, Pui-Hing Wong J, Moosapoor M, Akbarian A, Fung K. Effects of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) on Mental Health and Resiliency of Migrant Live-in Caregivers in Canada: Pilot Randomized Wait List Controlled Trial. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(1):e32136. pmid:35084337
- 37. Zayde A, Kilbride A, Kucer A, Willis HA, Nikitiades A, Alpert J, et al. Connection During COVID-19: Pilot Study of a Telehealth Group Parenting Intervention. Am J Psychother. 2022;75(2):67–74. pmid:34525847
- 38. Michelen M, Manoharan L, Elkheir N, Cheng V, Dagens A, Hastie C, et al. Characterising long COVID: a living systematic review. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(9):e005427. pmid:34580069
- 39. Zheng Y-B, Zeng N, Yuan K, Tian S-S, Yang Y-B, Gao N, et al. Prevalence and risk factor for long COVID in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis and systematic review. J Infect Public Health. 2023;16(5):660–72. pmid:36931142
- 40. Zeng N, Zhao Y-M, Yan W, Li C, Lu Q-D, Liu L, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of long term physical and mental sequelae of COVID-19 pandemic: call for research priority and action. Mol Psychiatry. 2023;28(1):423–33. pmid:35668159
- 41. Gonzalez Mendez MJ, Ma L, Alvarado R, Ramirez J, Xu KP, Xu HF, et al. A multi-center study on the negative psychological impact and associated factors in Chinese healthcare workers 1 year after the COVID-19 initial outbreak. Int J Public Health. 2022;67:1604979.