4.2 Review

Changes in Youth Mental Health, Psychological Wellbeing, and Substance Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid Review

期刊

ADOLESCENT RESEARCH REVIEW
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 161-177

出版社

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s40894-022-00185-6

关键词

Youth; Children; Adolescents; Mental health; Substance use; COVID-19

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [174964, 155942]
  2. Fonds de recherche du Quebec-Sante [296569]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reviewed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on youth mental health, psychological wellbeing, substance use, and relevant services. The results indicated poor outcomes in terms of mental health and psychological wellbeing, with substance use showing mixed results. Telehealth services were generally well-received, but some youth faced difficulties accessing them.
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers around the world have made efforts to assess its impact on youth mental health; however, the breadth of this topic has impeded a clear assessment of pandemic outcomes. This study aimed to address this gap by reviewing changes in youth (age <= 25) mental health, psychological wellbeing, substance use, and the use or delivery of relevant services during the pandemic. PubMed and Embase were searched in May 2021 to conduct a rapid review of the literature. The results encompass 156 primary publications and are reported using a narrative synthesis. Studies of mental health (n = 122) and psychological wellbeing (n = 28) generally indicated poor outcomes in many settings. Publications regarding substance use (n = 41) noted overall declines or unchanged patterns. Studies of service delivery (n = 12) indicated a generally positive reception for helplines and telehealth, although some youth experienced difficulties accessing services. The findings indicate negative impacts of the pandemic on youth mental health, with mixed results for substance use. Services must support marginalized youth who lack access to telehealth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据