thesis for covid 19

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 76, Issue 2
• COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on social relationships and health
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1512-4471 Emily Long 1 ,
• Susan Patterson 1 ,
• Karen Maxwell 1 ,
• Carolyn Blake 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7342-4566 Raquel Bosó Pérez 1 ,
• Ruth Lewis 1 ,
• Mark McCann 1 ,
• Julie Riddell 1 ,
• Kathryn Skivington 1 ,
• Rachel Wilson-Lowe 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4409-6601 Kirstin R Mitchell 2
• 1 MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit , University of Glasgow , Glasgow , UK
• 2 MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health & Wellbeing , University of Glasgow , Glasgow , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Emily Long, MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G3 7HR, UK; emily.long{at}glasgow.ac.uk

This essay examines key aspects of social relationships that were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses explicitly on relational mechanisms of health and brings together theory and emerging evidence on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic to make recommendations for future public health policy and recovery. We first provide an overview of the pandemic in the UK context, outlining the nature of the public health response. We then introduce four distinct domains of social relationships: social networks, social support, social interaction and intimacy, highlighting the mechanisms through which the pandemic and associated public health response drastically altered social interactions in each domain. Throughout the essay, the lens of health inequalities, and perspective of relationships as interconnecting elements in a broader system, is used to explore the varying impact of these disruptions. The essay concludes by providing recommendations for longer term recovery ensuring that the social relational cost of COVID-19 is adequately considered in efforts to rebuild.

• inequalities

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study. Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated or analysed for this essay.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2021-216690

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Infectious disease pandemics, including SARS and COVID-19, demand intrapersonal behaviour change and present highly complex challenges for public health. 1 A pandemic of an airborne infection, spread easily through social contact, assails human relationships by drastically altering the ways through which humans interact. In this essay, we draw on theories of social relationships to examine specific ways in which relational mechanisms key to health and well-being were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Relational mechanisms refer to the processes between people that lead to change in health outcomes.

At the time of writing, the future surrounding COVID-19 was uncertain. Vaccine programmes were being rolled out in countries that could afford them, but new and more contagious variants of the virus were also being discovered. The recovery journey looked long, with continued disruption to social relationships. The social cost of COVID-19 was only just beginning to emerge, but the mental health impact was already considerable, 2 3 and the inequality of the health burden stark. 4 Knowledge of the epidemiology of COVID-19 accrued rapidly, but evidence of the most effective policy responses remained uncertain.

The initial response to COVID-19 in the UK was reactive and aimed at reducing mortality, with little time to consider the social implications, including for interpersonal and community relationships. The terminology of ‘social distancing’ quickly became entrenched both in public and policy discourse. This equation of physical distance with social distance was regrettable, since only physical proximity causes viral transmission, whereas many forms of social proximity (eg, conversations while walking outdoors) are minimal risk, and are crucial to maintaining relationships supportive of health and well-being.

The aim of this essay is to explore four key relational mechanisms that were impacted by the pandemic and associated restrictions: social networks, social support, social interaction and intimacy. We use relational theories and emerging research on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic response to make three key recommendations: one regarding public health responses; and two regarding social recovery. Our understanding of these mechanisms stems from a ‘systems’ perspective which casts social relationships as interdependent elements within a connected whole. 5

Social networks

Social networks characterise the individuals and social connections that compose a system (such as a workplace, community or society). Social relationships range from spouses and partners, to coworkers, friends and acquaintances. They vary across many dimensions, including, for example, frequency of contact and emotional closeness. Social networks can be understood both in terms of the individuals and relationships that compose the network, as well as the overall network structure (eg, how many of your friends know each other).

Social networks show a tendency towards homophily, or a phenomenon of associating with individuals who are similar to self. 6 This is particularly true for ‘core’ network ties (eg, close friends), while more distant, sometimes called ‘weak’ ties tend to show more diversity. During the height of COVID-19 restrictions, face-to-face interactions were often reduced to core network members, such as partners, family members or, potentially, live-in roommates; some ‘weak’ ties were lost, and interactions became more limited to those closest. Given that peripheral, weaker social ties provide a diversity of resources, opinions and support, 7 COVID-19 likely resulted in networks that were smaller and more homogenous.

Such changes were not inevitable nor necessarily enduring, since social networks are also adaptive and responsive to change, in that a disruption to usual ways of interacting can be replaced by new ways of engaging (eg, Zoom). Yet, important inequalities exist, wherein networks and individual relationships within networks are not equally able to adapt to such changes. For example, individuals with a large number of newly established relationships (eg, university students) may have struggled to transfer these relationships online, resulting in lost contacts and a heightened risk of social isolation. This is consistent with research suggesting that young adults were the most likely to report a worsening of relationships during COVID-19, whereas older adults were the least likely to report a change. 8

Lastly, social connections give rise to emergent properties of social systems, 9 where a community-level phenomenon develops that cannot be attributed to any one member or portion of the network. For example, local area-based networks emerged due to geographic restrictions (eg, stay-at-home orders), resulting in increases in neighbourly support and local volunteering. 10 In fact, research suggests that relationships with neighbours displayed the largest net gain in ratings of relationship quality compared with a range of relationship types (eg, partner, colleague, friend). 8 Much of this was built from spontaneous individual interactions within local communities, which together contributed to the ‘community spirit’ that many experienced. 11 COVID-19 restrictions thus impacted the personal social networks and the structure of the larger networks within the society.

Social support

Social support, referring to the psychological and material resources provided through social interaction, is a critical mechanism through which social relationships benefit health. In fact, social support has been shown to be one of the most important resilience factors in the aftermath of stressful events. 12 In the context of COVID-19, the usual ways in which individuals interact and obtain social support have been severely disrupted.

One such disruption has been to opportunities for spontaneous social interactions. For example, conversations with colleagues in a break room offer an opportunity for socialising beyond one’s core social network, and these peripheral conversations can provide a form of social support. 13 14 A chance conversation may lead to advice helpful to coping with situations or seeking formal help. Thus, the absence of these spontaneous interactions may mean the reduction of indirect support-seeking opportunities. While direct support-seeking behaviour is more effective at eliciting support, it also requires significantly more effort and may be perceived as forceful and burdensome. 15 The shift to homeworking and closure of community venues reduced the number of opportunities for these spontaneous interactions to occur, and has, second, focused them locally. Consequently, individuals whose core networks are located elsewhere, or who live in communities where spontaneous interaction is less likely, have less opportunity to benefit from spontaneous in-person supportive interactions.

However, alongside this disruption, new opportunities to interact and obtain social support have arisen. The surge in community social support during the initial lockdown mirrored that often seen in response to adverse events (eg, natural disasters 16 ). COVID-19 restrictions that confined individuals to their local area also compelled them to focus their in-person efforts locally. Commentators on the initial lockdown in the UK remarked on extraordinary acts of generosity between individuals who belonged to the same community but were unknown to each other. However, research on adverse events also tells us that such community support is not necessarily maintained in the longer term. 16

Meanwhile, online forms of social support are not bound by geography, thus enabling interactions and social support to be received from a wider network of people. Formal online social support spaces (eg, support groups) existed well before COVID-19, but have vastly increased since. While online interactions can increase perceived social support, it is unclear whether remote communication technologies provide an effective substitute from in-person interaction during periods of social distancing. 17 18 It makes intuitive sense that the usefulness of online social support will vary by the type of support offered, degree of social interaction and ‘online communication skills’ of those taking part. Youth workers, for instance, have struggled to keep vulnerable youth engaged in online youth clubs, 19 despite others finding a positive association between amount of digital technology used by individuals during lockdown and perceived social support. 20 Other research has found that more frequent face-to-face contact and phone/video contact both related to lower levels of depression during the time period of March to August 2020, but the negative effect of a lack of contact was greater for those with higher levels of usual sociability. 21 Relatedly, important inequalities in social support exist, such that individuals who occupy more socially disadvantaged positions in society (eg, low socioeconomic status, older people) tend to have less access to social support, 22 potentially exacerbated by COVID-19.

Social and interactional norms

Interactional norms are key relational mechanisms which build trust, belonging and identity within and across groups in a system. Individuals in groups and societies apply meaning by ‘approving, arranging and redefining’ symbols of interaction. 23 A handshake, for instance, is a powerful symbol of trust and equality. Depending on context, not shaking hands may symbolise a failure to extend friendship, or a failure to reach agreement. The norms governing these symbols represent shared values and identity; and mutual understanding of these symbols enables individuals to achieve orderly interactions, establish supportive relationship accountability and connect socially. 24 25

Physical distancing measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 radically altered these norms of interaction, particularly those used to convey trust, affinity, empathy and respect (eg, hugging, physical comforting). 26 As epidemic waves rose and fell, the work to negotiate these norms required intense cognitive effort; previously taken-for-granted interactions were re-examined, factoring in current restriction levels, own and (assumed) others’ vulnerability and tolerance of risk. This created awkwardness, and uncertainty, for example, around how to bring closure to an in-person interaction or convey warmth. The instability in scripted ways of interacting created particular strain for individuals who already struggled to encode and decode interactions with others (eg, those who are deaf or have autism spectrum disorder); difficulties often intensified by mask wearing. 27

Large social gatherings—for example, weddings, school assemblies, sporting events—also present key opportunities for affirming and assimilating interactional norms, building cohesion and shared identity and facilitating cooperation across social groups. 28 Online ‘equivalents’ do not easily support ‘social-bonding’ activities such as singing and dancing, and rarely enable chance/spontaneous one-on-one conversations with peripheral/weaker network ties (see the Social networks section) which can help strengthen bonds across a larger network. The loss of large gatherings to celebrate rites of passage (eg, bar mitzvah, weddings) has additional relational costs since these events are performed by and for communities to reinforce belonging, and to assist in transitioning to new phases of life. 29 The loss of interaction with diverse others via community and large group gatherings also reduces intergroup contact, which may then tend towards more prejudiced outgroup attitudes. While online interaction can go some way to mimicking these interaction norms, there are key differences. A sense of anonymity, and lack of in-person emotional cues, tends to support norms of polarisation and aggression in expressing differences of opinion online. And while online platforms have potential to provide intergroup contact, the tendency of much social media to form homogeneous ‘echo chambers’ can serve to further reduce intergroup contact. 30 31

Intimacy relates to the feeling of emotional connection and closeness with other human beings. Emotional connection, through romantic, friendship or familial relationships, fulfils a basic human need 32 and strongly benefits health, including reduced stress levels, improved mental health, lowered blood pressure and reduced risk of heart disease. 32 33 Intimacy can be fostered through familiarity, feeling understood and feeling accepted by close others. 34

Intimacy via companionship and closeness is fundamental to mental well-being. Positively, the COVID-19 pandemic has offered opportunities for individuals to (re)connect and (re)strengthen close relationships within their household via quality time together, following closure of many usual external social activities. Research suggests that the first full UK lockdown period led to a net gain in the quality of steady relationships at a population level, 35 but amplified existing inequalities in relationship quality. 35 36 For some in single-person households, the absence of a companion became more conspicuous, leading to feelings of loneliness and lower mental well-being. 37 38 Additional pandemic-related relational strain 39 40 resulted, for some, in the initiation or intensification of domestic abuse. 41 42

Physical touch is another key aspect of intimacy, a fundamental human need crucial in maintaining and developing intimacy within close relationships. 34 Restrictions on social interactions severely restricted the number and range of people with whom physical affection was possible. The reduction in opportunity to give and receive affectionate physical touch was not experienced equally. Many of those living alone found themselves completely without physical contact for extended periods. The deprivation of physical touch is evidenced to take a heavy emotional toll. 43 Even in future, once physical expressions of affection can resume, new levels of anxiety over germs may introduce hesitancy into previously fluent blending of physical and verbal intimate social connections. 44

The pandemic also led to shifts in practices and norms around sexual relationship building and maintenance, as individuals adapted and sought alternative ways of enacting sexual intimacy. This too is important, given that intimate sexual activity has known benefits for health. 45 46 Given that social restrictions hinged on reducing household mixing, possibilities for partnered sexual activity were primarily guided by living arrangements. While those in cohabiting relationships could potentially continue as before, those who were single or in non-cohabiting relationships generally had restricted opportunities to maintain their sexual relationships. Pornography consumption and digital partners were reported to increase since lockdown. 47 However, online interactions are qualitatively different from in-person interactions and do not provide the same opportunities for physical intimacy.

Recommendations and conclusions

In the sections above we have outlined the ways in which COVID-19 has impacted social relationships, showing how relational mechanisms key to health have been undermined. While some of the damage might well self-repair after the pandemic, there are opportunities inherent in deliberative efforts to build back in ways that facilitate greater resilience in social and community relationships. We conclude by making three recommendations: one regarding public health responses to the pandemic; and two regarding social recovery.

Recommendation 1: explicitly count the relational cost of public health policies to control the pandemic

Effective handling of a pandemic recognises that social, economic and health concerns are intricately interwoven. It is clear that future research and policy attention must focus on the social consequences. As described above, policies which restrict physical mixing across households carry heavy and unequal relational costs. These include for individuals (eg, loss of intimate touch), dyads (eg, loss of warmth, comfort), networks (eg, restricted access to support) and communities (eg, loss of cohesion and identity). Such costs—and their unequal impact—should not be ignored in short-term efforts to control an epidemic. Some public health responses—restrictions on international holiday travel and highly efficient test and trace systems—have relatively small relational costs and should be prioritised. At a national level, an earlier move to proportionate restrictions, and investment in effective test and trace systems, may help prevent escalation of spread to the point where a national lockdown or tight restrictions became an inevitability. Where policies with relational costs are unavoidable, close attention should be paid to the unequal relational impact for those whose personal circumstances differ from normative assumptions of two adult families. This includes consideration of whether expectations are fair (eg, for those who live alone), whether restrictions on social events are equitable across age group, religious/ethnic groupings and social class, and also to ensure that the language promoted by such policies (eg, households; families) is not exclusionary. 48 49 Forethought to unequal impacts on social relationships should thus be integral to the work of epidemic preparedness teams.

Recommendation 2: intelligently balance online and offline ways of relating

A key ingredient for well-being is ‘getting together’ in a physical sense. This is fundamental to a human need for intimate touch, physical comfort, reinforcing interactional norms and providing practical support. Emerging evidence suggests that online ways of relating cannot simply replace physical interactions. But online interaction has many benefits and for some it offers connections that did not exist previously. In particular, online platforms provide new forms of support for those unable to access offline services because of mobility issues (eg, older people) or because they are geographically isolated from their support community (eg, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) youth). Ultimately, multiple forms of online and offline social interactions are required to meet the needs of varying groups of people (eg, LGBTQ, older people). Future research and practice should aim to establish ways of using offline and online support in complementary and even synergistic ways, rather than veering between them as social restrictions expand and contract. Intelligent balancing of online and offline ways of relating also pertains to future policies on home and flexible working. A decision to switch to wholesale or obligatory homeworking should consider the risk to relational ‘group properties’ of the workplace community and their impact on employees’ well-being, focusing in particular on unequal impacts (eg, new vs established employees). Intelligent blending of online and in-person working is required to achieve flexibility while also nurturing supportive networks at work. Intelligent balance also implies strategies to build digital literacy and minimise digital exclusion, as well as coproducing solutions with intended beneficiaries.

Recommendation 3: build stronger and sustainable localised communities

In balancing offline and online ways of interacting, there is opportunity to capitalise on the potential for more localised, coherent communities due to scaled-down travel, homeworking and local focus that will ideally continue after restrictions end. There are potential economic benefits after the pandemic, such as increased trade as home workers use local resources (eg, coffee shops), but also relational benefits from stronger relationships around the orbit of the home and neighbourhood. Experience from previous crises shows that community volunteer efforts generated early on will wane over time in the absence of deliberate work to maintain them. Adequately funded partnerships between local government, third sector and community groups are required to sustain community assets that began as a direct response to the pandemic. Such partnerships could work to secure green spaces and indoor (non-commercial) meeting spaces that promote community interaction. Green spaces in particular provide a triple benefit in encouraging physical activity and mental health, as well as facilitating social bonding. 50 In building local communities, small community networks—that allow for diversity and break down ingroup/outgroup views—may be more helpful than the concept of ‘support bubbles’, which are exclusionary and less sustainable in the longer term. Rigorously designed intervention and evaluation—taking a systems approach—will be crucial in ensuring scale-up and sustainability.

The dramatic change to social interaction necessitated by efforts to control the spread of COVID-19 created stark challenges but also opportunities. Our essay highlights opportunities for learning, both to ensure the equity and humanity of physical restrictions, and to sustain the salutogenic effects of social relationships going forward. The starting point for capitalising on this learning is recognition of the disruption to relational mechanisms as a key part of the socioeconomic and health impact of the pandemic. In recovery planning, a general rule is that what is good for decreasing health inequalities (such as expanding social protection and public services and pursuing green inclusive growth strategies) 4 will also benefit relationships and safeguard relational mechanisms for future generations. Putting this into action will require political will.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not required.

• Office for National Statistics (ONS)
• Ford T , et al
• Riordan R ,
• Ford J , et al
• Glonti K , et al
• McPherson JM ,
• Smith-Lovin L
• Granovetter MS
• Fancourt D et al
• Stadtfeld C
• Office for Civil Society
• Cook J et al
• Rodriguez-Llanes JM ,
• Guha-Sapir D
• Patulny R et al
• Granovetter M
• Winkeler M ,
• Filipp S-H ,
• Kaniasty K ,
• de Terte I ,
• Guilaran J , et al
• Wright KB ,
• Martin J et al
• Gabbiadini A ,
• Baldissarri C ,
• Durante F , et al
• Sommerlad A ,
• Marston L ,
• Huntley J , et al
• Turner RJ ,
• Bicchieri C
• Brennan G et al
• Watson-Jones RE ,
• Amichai-Hamburger Y ,
• McKenna KYA
• Page-Gould E ,
• Aron A , et al
• Pietromonaco PR ,
• Timmerman GM
• Bradbury-Jones C ,
• Mikocka-Walus A ,
• Klas A , et al
• Marshall L ,
• Steptoe A ,
• Stanley SM ,
• Campbell AM
• ↵ (ONS), O.f.N.S., Domestic abuse during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, England and Wales . Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseduringthecoronaviruscovid19pandemicenglandandwales/november2020
• Rosenberg M ,
• Hensel D , et al
• Banerjee D ,
• Bruner DW , et al
• Bavel JJV ,
• Baicker K ,
• Boggio PS , et al
• van Barneveld K ,
• Quinlan M ,
• Kriesler P , et al
• Mitchell R ,
• de Vries S , et al

Twitter @karenmaxSPHSU, @Mark_McCann, @Rwilsonlowe, @KMitchinGlasgow

Contributors EL and KM led on the manuscript conceptualisation, review and editing. SP, KM, CB, RBP, RL, MM, JR, KS and RW-L contributed to drafting and revising the article. All authors assisted in revising the final draft.

Funding The research reported in this publication was supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/1, MC_UU_00022/3) and the Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU11, SPHSU14). EL is also supported by MRC Skills Development Fellowship Award (MR/S015078/1). KS and MM are also supported by a Medical Research Council Strategic Award (MC_PC_13027).

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 05 August 2020

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research

• Katherine R. Tuttle   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2235-0103 1 , 2  

Nature Reviews Nephrology volume  16 ,  pages 562–564 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

23k Accesses

87 Citations

11 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Acute kidney injury
• Clinical trials
• Infectious diseases

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a tremendous strain on sustaining the clinical research enterprise and will also likely affect key study outcomes; these effects must be considered during data analysis and interpretation. Nevertheless, the responses to the pandemic have also introduced innovations that will advance the conduct of clinical research.

The first recognized case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection leading to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the USA occurred during late January 2020 in the state of Washington 1 . Our state was hit hard by the outbreak that followed, as hospitals and emergency medical services became overwhelmed by severely ill patients in the major health-care hubs 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 . We first had a sprint, from March through to May 2020 when elective procedures and in-person patient visits were halted to reduce the risk of viral transmission, conserve personal protective equipment (PPE) and make more health-care workers available for the enormous clinical impact of COVID-19. As initial social distancing and other efforts to contain the virus dampened the spread, we began to gradually re-open in health-care systems and society at large. However, this was soon followed by another uptick in cases beginning in June 2020 that required backtracking to more restrictive measures. It is now clear that COVID-19 is with us for the long haul, a marathon that we will run for months or years to come.

COVID-19 is with us for the long haul, a marathon that we will run for months or years to come

SARS-CoV-2 infection spreads via extremely contagious respiratory droplets 6 . COVID-19 is commonly a mild upper respiratory illness, but a substantial minority of patients develop severe bilateral pneumonia leading to hospitalization for supplementary oxygen and supportive care, or respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation 7 , 8 , 9 . SARS-CoV-2 infection also spreads from the lungs to other organs 6 . Acute kidney injury is common in patients with COVID-19 and may be due to viral infiltration or other kidney injuries caused by a systemic inflammatory response, hypotension or nephrotoxins 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 10 . As a result, clinical nephrology services have been overwhelmed by the acute dialysis needs of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Many of us, no matter how senior or focused on academic work, have been called to clinical service. I was the only nephrologist still in practice who knew how to implement acute peritoneal dialysis should we run short of resources for continuous kidney replacement therapy. This important skill has all but disappeared in contemporary nephrology practice, despite its practicality and effectiveness in acute care settings.

I began my career as an intern in 1982 when AIDS had started to wreak havoc at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago. I cared for more pneumocystis pneumonia than pneumococcal pneumonia and more Kaposi’s sarcoma than breast cancer. Nearly half of the medical services were AIDS wards when I finished my residency in 1985. HIV was identified as the cause around that time. However, intense research efforts led to HIV testing and novel treatment options, which have dramatically reduced the number of full-blown AIDS cases and turned HIV infection into a mostly manageable chronic condition. There are many lessons from HIV/AIDS that have informed my current thinking and response to COVID-19.

The Providence St Joseph Health hospitals in Washington state have had >7,000 admissions for COVID-19 as of 20 July 2020, and more come each day. Within this health-care system, I am executive director for research in the Providence Health Care region and, in this role, I rapidly turned old lessons from the HIV/AIDS era into new actions. Our overarching goal was to address the critical needs of COVID-19 research while maintaining research for essential concerns across other therapeutic areas in both adult and paediatric medicine. The main priority was to open the platform clinical trial of anti-viral treatments sponsored by the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/National Institutes of Health (NIAID/NIH), which required redirection of clinical research resources from other therapeutic areas to COVID-19 and a rapid administrative response. Our regulatory group and Institutional Review Board prepared, reviewed and approved the study protocol and informed consent form within 3 days over a weekend. Our budget and contracting groups similarly moved with record speed. As a result, our site was among the first ten sites activated on the initial NIAID/NIH clinical trial of remdesivir versus placebo. Our first participant was enrolled just 5 days after we received the study protocol.

Research groups from other therapeutic areas were quickly deployed, trained and certified by NIAID/NIH to ensure that enough investigators and study coordinators were available to manage this intense clinical trial activity. Our COVID-19 investigators are a multi-specialty team consisting of experts in infectious diseases, pulmonary and critical care, hospital medicine and nephrology. Similarly, research coordinators who normally manage studies in cardiology and nephrology were moved onto the COVID-19 team. We meet in a daily huddle to review all hospital admissions for COVID-19 with the goal of having a study option for every patient. The NIAID/NIH platform trial is continuing and we have since activated other new protocols for serology testing, biobanking and therapeutic interventions in those who have been excluded from the NIAID/NIH protocols, such as patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml/min/1.73m 2 . Informed consent forms are currently available in five languages, and we have implemented Institutional Review Board-approved consent via remote technologies and using legally authorized representatives.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a tremendous strain on the clinical research enterprise. With the redirection of resources and temporary halting of in-person visits, studies in other therapeutic areas have been unavoidably constrained. However, the COVID-19 response has also introduced innovations that have advanced our overall conduct of clinical research (Table  1 ). Although recruitment and enrolment for most other studies stopped during the early stages of the pandemic, both our study sponsors and sites developed new approaches to conduct remote visits by telehealth, use home-based testing or monitoring technologies, and provide curbside or courier pick-up and delivery of participant samples and investigational products. Our research leaders, investigators and staff have made concerted efforts to provide study updates to participants — by telephone, email and through the electronic health record portal — during and after the pause in the studies. We re-opened for in-person visits on 18 May 2020 under strict enforcement of clinical protocols for viral infection prevention and the use of PPE according to the guidelines established by our health-care system. Study participants are given the option of a remote visit whenever possible. Every person who enters the clinical research centre is screened for COVID-19 symptoms, fever and potential exposure. Masks and physical distancing are required for all in-person interactions and no visitors are allowed, except for one parent in the case of paediatric patients, or one carer in the case of patients with disabilities.

The enrolment rates for our research programme are now similar to those recorded pre-pandemic. To the best of our knowledge, we have sustained retention in the ongoing studies. We will survey participants about their experiences and perspectives to facilitate research despite the risks associated with COVID-19. Notably, we must be cognizant that COVID-19 might affect key study outcomes. For example, SARS-CoV-2 infection could worsen glycaemic control in persons with diabetes, raise or lower blood pressure in those with hypertension, or accelerate progression of chronic kidney disease. Adverse events, particularly acute illnesses, hospitalizations and mortality may be caused by the viral infection or by deferral of care due to fear of contracting it. Participants are also likely to have changed their lifestyles to minimize contact with others, which may also affect outcomes. These are crucial considerations for study analysis and interpretation. Potential confounding may be addressed by examining pre-and post-pandemic outcome rates and COVID-19 surveillance with control for evidence of exposure or infection entered into data analysis plans. Nevertheless, with proactive measures, it is feasible to maintain interest, participation and quality in clinical research.

with proactive measures, it is feasible to maintain interest, participation and quality in clinical research

Investigators, coordinators and clinicians have a renewed sense of urgency and purpose to use science to solve problems that are important to patients and the public. We do get tired at times, and burnout is a real risk. Yet, we move forward with mutual support, encouragement and focus on tangible goals to keep making research better. All of these are positive changes that we will retain long after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides.

Holshue, M. L. et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 382 , 929–936 (2020).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bhatraju, P. K. et al. Covid-19 in critically ill patients in the Seattle region – case series. N. Engl. J. Med. 382 , 2012–2022 (2020).

Buckner, F. S. et al. Clinical features and outcomes of 105 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Seattle, Washington. Clin. Infect. Dis. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa632 (2020).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Arentz, M. et al. Characteristics and outcomes of 21 critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Washington State. JAMA 323 , 1612–1614 (2020).

Yang, B. Y. et al. Clinical characteristics of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving emergency medical services in King County, Washington. JAMA Netw. Open 3 , e2014549 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Tay, M. Z., Poh, C. M., Rénia, L., MacAry, P. A. & Ng, L. F. P. The trinity of COVID-19: immunity, inflammation and intervention. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20 , 363–374 (2020).

Richardson, S. et al. Presenting characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes among 5700 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the New York City area. JAMA 323 , 2052–2059 (2020).

Grasselli, G. et al. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy region, Italy. JAMA 323 , 1574–1581 (2020).

Zhou, F. et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 395 , 1054–1062 (2020).

Hirsch, J. S. et al. Acute kidney injury in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Kidney Int. 98 , 209–218 (2020).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Providence Medical Research Center, Providence Health Care, Spokane, WA, USA

Katherine R. Tuttle

Nephrology Division, Kidney Research Institute and Institute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Spokane and Seattle, WA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine R. Tuttle .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tuttle, K.R. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research. Nat Rev Nephrol 16 , 562–564 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-020-00336-9

Download citation

Published : 05 August 2020

Issue Date : October 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-020-00336-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

The impact of geo-political socio-economic factors on vaccine dissemination trends: a case-study on covid-19 vaccination strategies.

• Ritu Chauhan
• Gatha Varma
• Megat F. Zuhairi

BMC Public Health (2023)

The positive impact of COVID-19 on critical care: from unprecedented challenges to transformative changes, from the perspective of young intensivists

• Bertrand Hermann
• Sarah Benghanem
• Alexandra Beurton

Annals of Intensive Care (2023)

Impact of early COVID-19-related challenges on pediatric researchers: an exploratory analysis

• Shetal Shah
• Joyce R. Javier
• Lois K. Lee

Pediatric Research (2023)

Impact of COVID-19 on Adolescent HIV Prevention and Treatment Research in the AHISA Network

• Elizabeth D. Lowenthal
• Stephanie M. DeLong
• Michael T. Mbizvo

AIDS and Behavior (2023)

The COVID-19 pandemic as a catalyst for innovation: a regulatory framework to assess fit-for-purpose innovative approaches in clinical research

• Lada Leyens
• Tracy Simkins
• Nafsika Kronidou Horst

Trials (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 04 June 2021

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews

• Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento 1 , 2 ,
• Dónal P. O’Mathúna 3 , 4 ,
• Thilo Caspar von Groote 5 ,
• Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem 6 ,
• Ishanka Weerasekara 7 , 8 ,
• Ana Marusic 9 ,
• Livia Puljak   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-6061 10 ,
• Vinicius Tassoni Civile 11 ,
• Irena Zakarija-Grkovic 9 ,
• Tina Poklepovic Pericic 9 ,
• Alvaro Nagib Atallah 11 ,
• Santino Filoso 12 ,
• Nicola Luigi Bragazzi 13 &
• Milena Soriano Marcolino 1

On behalf of the International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19)

BMC Infectious Diseases volume  21 , Article number:  525 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

16k Accesses

29 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.

Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO’s Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes.

Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as “critically low”. Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82–95%), cough with or without sputum (58–72%), dyspnea (26–59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29–51%), sore throat (10–13%), headache (8–12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5–9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%.

Conclusions

In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was “critically low”. Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

Peer Review reports

The spread of the “Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2), the causal agent of COVID-19, was characterized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020 and has triggered an international public health emergency [ 1 ]. The numbers of confirmed cases and deaths due to COVID-19 are rapidly escalating, counting in millions [ 2 ], causing massive economic strain, and escalating healthcare and public health expenses [ 3 , 4 ].

The research community has responded by publishing an impressive number of scientific reports related to COVID-19. The world was alerted to the new disease at the beginning of 2020 [ 1 ], and by mid-March 2020, more than 2000 articles had been published on COVID-19 in scholarly journals, with 25% of them containing original data [ 5 ]. The living map of COVID-19 evidence, curated by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), contained more than 40,000 records by February 2021 [ 6 ]. More than 100,000 records on PubMed were labeled as “SARS-CoV-2 literature, sequence, and clinical content” by February 2021 [ 7 ].

Due to publication speed, the research community has voiced concerns regarding the quality and reproducibility of evidence produced during the COVID-19 pandemic, warning of the potential damaging approach of “publish first, retract later” [ 8 ]. It appears that these concerns are not unfounded, as it has been reported that COVID-19 articles were overrepresented in the pool of retracted articles in 2020 [ 9 ]. These concerns about inadequate evidence are of major importance because they can lead to poor clinical practice and inappropriate policies [ 10 ].

Systematic reviews are a cornerstone of today’s evidence-informed decision-making. By synthesizing all relevant evidence regarding a particular topic, systematic reviews reflect the current scientific knowledge. Systematic reviews are considered to be at the highest level in the hierarchy of evidence and should be used to make informed decisions. However, with high numbers of systematic reviews of different scope and methodological quality being published, overviews of multiple systematic reviews that assess their methodological quality are essential [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. An overview of systematic reviews helps identify and organize the literature and highlights areas of priority in decision-making.

In this overview of systematic reviews, we aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.

Methodology

Research question.

This overview’s primary objective was to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews that assessed any type of primary clinical data from patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Our research question was purposefully broad because we wanted to analyze as many systematic reviews as possible that were available early following the COVID-19 outbreak.

Study design

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. The idea for this overview originated in a protocol for a systematic review submitted to PROSPERO (CRD42020170623), which indicated a plan to conduct an overview.

Overviews of systematic reviews use explicit and systematic methods for searching and identifying multiple systematic reviews addressing related research questions in the same field to extract and analyze evidence across important outcomes. Overviews of systematic reviews are in principle similar to systematic reviews of interventions, but the unit of analysis is a systematic review [ 14 , 15 , 16 ].

We used the overview methodology instead of other evidence synthesis methods to allow us to collate and appraise multiple systematic reviews on this topic, and to extract and analyze their results across relevant topics [ 17 ]. The overview and meta-analysis of systematic reviews allowed us to investigate the methodological quality of included studies, summarize results, and identify specific areas of available or limited evidence, thereby strengthening the current understanding of this novel disease and guiding future research [ 13 ].

A reporting guideline for overviews of reviews is currently under development, i.e., Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) [ 18 ]. As the PRIOR checklist is still not published, this study was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 statement [ 19 ]. The methodology used in this review was adapted from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and also followed established methodological considerations for analyzing existing systematic reviews [ 14 ].

Approval of a research ethics committee was not necessary as the study analyzed only publicly available articles.

Eligibility criteria

Systematic reviews were included if they analyzed primary data from patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 as confirmed by RT-PCR or another pre-specified diagnostic technique. Eligible reviews covered all topics related to COVID-19 including, but not limited to, those that reported clinical symptoms, diagnostic methods, therapeutic interventions, laboratory findings, or radiological results. Both full manuscripts and abbreviated versions, such as letters, were eligible.

No restrictions were imposed on the design of the primary studies included within the systematic reviews, the last search date, whether the review included meta-analyses or language. Reviews related to SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses were eligible, but from those reviews, we analyzed only data related to SARS-CoV-2.

No consensus definition exists for a systematic review [ 20 ], and debates continue about the defining characteristics of a systematic review [ 21 ]. Cochrane’s guidance for overviews of reviews recommends setting pre-established criteria for making decisions around inclusion [ 14 ]. That is supported by a recent scoping review about guidance for overviews of systematic reviews [ 22 ].

Thus, for this study, we defined a systematic review as a research report which searched for primary research studies on a specific topic using an explicit search strategy, had a detailed description of the methods with explicit inclusion criteria provided, and provided a summary of the included studies either in narrative or quantitative format (such as a meta-analysis). Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews were considered eligible for inclusion, with or without meta-analysis, and regardless of the study design, language restriction and methodology of the included primary studies. To be eligible for inclusion, reviews had to be clearly analyzing data related to SARS-CoV-2 (associated or not with other viruses). We excluded narrative reviews without those characteristics as these are less likely to be replicable and are more prone to bias.

Scoping reviews and rapid reviews were eligible for inclusion in this overview if they met our pre-defined inclusion criteria noted above. We included reviews that addressed SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses if they reported separate data regarding SARS-CoV-2.

Information sources

Nine databases were searched for eligible records published between December 1, 2019, and March 24, 2020: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Sciences, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), PDQ-Evidence, WHO’s Global Research on Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), and Epistemonikos.

The comprehensive search strategy for each database is provided in Additional file 1 and was designed and conducted in collaboration with an information specialist. All retrieved records were primarily processed in EndNote, where duplicates were removed, and records were then imported into the Covidence platform [ 23 ]. In addition to database searches, we screened reference lists of reviews included after screening records retrieved via databases.

Study selection

All searches, screening of titles and abstracts, and record selection, were performed independently by two investigators using the Covidence platform [ 23 ]. Articles deemed potentially eligible were retrieved for full-text screening carried out independently by two investigators. Discrepancies at all stages were resolved by consensus. During the screening, records published in languages other than English were translated by a native/fluent speaker.

Data collection process

We custom designed a data extraction table for this study, which was piloted by two authors independently. Data extraction was performed independently by two authors. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or by consulting a third researcher.

We extracted the following data: article identification data (authors’ name and journal of publication), search period, number of databases searched, population or settings considered, main results and outcomes observed, and number of participants. From Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), we extracted journal rank (quartile) and Journal Impact Factor (JIF).

We categorized the following as primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, need for and length of mechanical ventilation, length of hospitalization (in days), admission to intensive care unit (yes/no), and length of stay in the intensive care unit.

The following outcomes were categorized as exploratory: diagnostic methods used for detection of the virus, male to female ratio, clinical symptoms, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, laboratory findings (full blood count, liver enzymes, C-reactive protein, d-dimer, albumin, lipid profile, serum electrolytes, blood vitamin levels, glucose levels, and any other important biomarkers), and radiological findings (using radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound).

We also collected data on reporting guidelines and requirements for the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses from journal websites where included reviews were published.

Quality assessment in individual reviews

Two researchers independently assessed the reviews’ quality using the “A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2)”. We acknowledge that the AMSTAR 2 was created as “a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both” [ 24 ]. However, since AMSTAR 2 was designed for systematic reviews of intervention trials, and we included additional types of systematic reviews, we adjusted some AMSTAR 2 ratings and reported these in Additional file 2 .

Adherence to each item was rated as follows: yes, partial yes, no, or not applicable (such as when a meta-analysis was not conducted). The overall confidence in the results of the review is rated as “critically low”, “low”, “moderate” or “high”, according to the AMSTAR 2 guidance based on seven critical domains, which are items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 as defined by AMSTAR 2 authors [ 24 ]. We reported our adherence ratings for transparency of our decision with accompanying explanations, for each item, in each included review.

One of the included systematic reviews was conducted by some members of this author team [ 25 ]. This review was initially assessed independently by two authors who were not co-authors of that review to prevent the risk of bias in assessing this study.

Synthesis of results

For data synthesis, we prepared a table summarizing each systematic review. Graphs illustrating the mortality rate and clinical symptoms were created. We then prepared a narrative summary of the methods, findings, study strengths, and limitations.

For analysis of the prevalence of clinical outcomes, we extracted data on the number of events and the total number of patients to perform proportional meta-analysis using RStudio© software, with the “meta” package (version 4.9–6), using the “metaprop” function for reviews that did not perform a meta-analysis, excluding case studies because of the absence of variance. For reviews that did not perform a meta-analysis, we presented pooled results of proportions with their respective confidence intervals (95%) by the inverse variance method with a random-effects model, using the DerSimonian-Laird estimator for τ 2 . We adjusted data using Freeman-Tukey double arcosen transformation. Confidence intervals were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method for individual studies. We created forest plots using the RStudio© software, with the “metafor” package (version 2.1–0) and “forest” function.

Managing overlapping systematic reviews

Some of the included systematic reviews that address the same or similar research questions may include the same primary studies in overviews. Including such overlapping reviews may introduce bias when outcome data from the same primary study are included in the analyses of an overview multiple times. Thus, in summaries of evidence, multiple-counting of the same outcome data will give data from some primary studies too much influence [ 14 ]. In this overview, we did not exclude overlapping systematic reviews because, according to Cochrane’s guidance, it may be appropriate to include all relevant reviews’ results if the purpose of the overview is to present and describe the current body of evidence on a topic [ 14 ]. To avoid any bias in summary estimates associated with overlapping reviews, we generated forest plots showing data from individual systematic reviews, but the results were not pooled because some primary studies were included in multiple reviews.

Our search retrieved 1063 publications, of which 175 were duplicates. Most publications were excluded after the title and abstract analysis ( n = 860). Among the 28 studies selected for full-text screening, 10 were excluded for the reasons described in Additional file 3 , and 18 were included in the final analysis (Fig. 1 ) [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Reference list screening did not retrieve any additional systematic reviews.

PRISMA flow diagram

Characteristics of included reviews

Summary features of 18 systematic reviews are presented in Table 1 . They were published in 14 different journals. Only four of these journals had specific requirements for systematic reviews (with or without meta-analysis): European Journal of Internal Medicine, Journal of Clinical Medicine, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Clinical Research in Cardiology . Two journals reported that they published only invited reviews ( Journal of Medical Virology and Clinica Chimica Acta ). Three systematic reviews in our study were published as letters; one was labeled as a scoping review and another as a rapid review (Table 2 ).

All reviews were published in English, in first quartile (Q1) journals, with JIF ranging from 1.692 to 6.062. One review was empty, meaning that its search did not identify any relevant studies; i.e., no primary studies were included [ 36 ]. The remaining 17 reviews included 269 unique studies; the majority ( N = 211; 78%) were included in only a single review included in our study (range: 1 to 12). Primary studies included in the reviews were published between December 2019 and March 18, 2020, and comprised case reports, case series, cohorts, and other observational studies. We found only one review that included randomized clinical trials [ 38 ]. In the included reviews, systematic literature searches were performed from 2019 (entire year) up to March 9, 2020. Ten systematic reviews included meta-analyses. The list of primary studies found in the included systematic reviews is shown in Additional file 4 , as well as the number of reviews in which each primary study was included.

Population and study designs

Most of the reviews analyzed data from patients with COVID-19 who developed pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), or any other correlated complication. One review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of using surgical masks on preventing transmission of the virus [ 36 ], one review was focused on pediatric patients [ 34 ], and one review investigated COVID-19 in pregnant women [ 37 ]. Most reviews assessed clinical symptoms, laboratory findings, or radiological results.

Systematic review findings

The summary of findings from individual reviews is shown in Table 2 . Overall, all-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9% (Fig. 2 ).

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of mortality

Clinical symptoms

Seven reviews described the main clinical manifestations of COVID-19 [ 26 , 28 , 29 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 41 ]. Three of them provided only a narrative discussion of symptoms [ 26 , 34 , 35 ]. In the reviews that performed a statistical analysis of the incidence of different clinical symptoms, symptoms in patients with COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82–95%), cough with or without sputum (58–72%), dyspnea (26–59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29–51%), sore throat (10–13%), headache (8–12%), gastrointestinal disorders, such as diarrhea, nausea or vomiting (5.0–9.0%), and others (including, in one study only: dizziness 12.1%) (Figs. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and 9 ). Three reviews assessed cough with and without sputum together; only one review assessed sputum production itself (28.5%).

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of fever

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of cough

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of dyspnea

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of fatigue or myalgia

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of headache

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of gastrointestinal disorders

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of sore throat

Diagnostic aspects

Three reviews described methodologies, protocols, and tools used for establishing the diagnosis of COVID-19 [ 26 , 34 , 38 ]. The use of respiratory swabs (nasal or pharyngeal) or blood specimens to assess the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid using RT-PCR assays was the most commonly used diagnostic method mentioned in the included studies. These diagnostic tests have been widely used, but their precise sensitivity and specificity remain unknown. One review included a Chinese study with clinical diagnosis with no confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 if they presented with at least two symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, together with laboratory and chest radiography abnormalities) [ 34 ].

Therapeutic possibilities

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions (supportive therapies) used in treating patients with COVID-19 were reported in five reviews [ 25 , 27 , 34 , 35 , 38 ]. Antivirals used empirically for COVID-19 treatment were reported in seven reviews [ 25 , 27 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 41 ]; most commonly used were protease inhibitors (lopinavir, ritonavir, darunavir), nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (tenofovir), nucleotide analogs (remdesivir, galidesivir, ganciclovir), and neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir). Umifenovir, a membrane fusion inhibitor, was investigated in two studies [ 25 , 35 ]. Possible supportive interventions analyzed were different types of oxygen supplementation and breathing support (invasive or non-invasive ventilation) [ 25 ]. The use of antibiotics, both empirically and to treat secondary pneumonia, was reported in six studies [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 34 , 35 , 38 ]. One review specifically assessed evidence on the efficacy and safety of the anti-malaria drug chloroquine [ 27 ]. It identified 23 ongoing trials investigating the potential of chloroquine as a therapeutic option for COVID-19, but no verifiable clinical outcomes data. The use of mesenchymal stem cells, antifungals, and glucocorticoids were described in four reviews [ 25 , 34 , 35 , 38 ].

Laboratory and radiological findings

Of the 18 reviews included in this overview, eight analyzed laboratory parameters in patients with COVID-19 [ 25 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 39 ]; elevated C-reactive protein levels, associated with lymphocytopenia, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, as well as slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase (AST, ALT) were commonly described in those eight reviews. Lippi et al. assessed cardiac troponin I (cTnI) [ 25 ], procalcitonin [ 32 ], and platelet count [ 33 ] in COVID-19 patients. Elevated levels of procalcitonin [ 32 ] and cTnI [ 30 ] were more likely to be associated with a severe disease course (requiring intensive care unit admission and intubation). Furthermore, thrombocytopenia was frequently observed in patients with complicated COVID-19 infections [ 33 ].

Chest imaging (chest radiography and/or computed tomography) features were assessed in six reviews, all of which described a frequent pattern of local or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity [ 25 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. Those six reviews showed that septal thickening, bronchiectasis, pleural and cardiac effusions, halo signs, and pneumothorax were observed in patients suffering from COVID-19.

Quality of evidence in individual systematic reviews

Table 3 shows the detailed results of the quality assessment of 18 systematic reviews, including the assessment of individual items and summary assessment. A detailed explanation for each decision in each review is available in Additional file 5 .

Using AMSTAR 2 criteria, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as “critically low” (Table 3 ). Common methodological drawbacks were: omission of prospective protocol submission or publication; use of inappropriate search strategy: lack of independent and dual literature screening and data-extraction (or methodology unclear); absence of an explanation for heterogeneity among the studies included; lack of reasons for study exclusion (or rationale unclear).

Risk of bias assessment, based on a reported methodological tool, and quality of evidence appraisal, in line with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, were reported only in one review [ 25 ]. Five reviews presented a table summarizing bias, using various risk of bias tools [ 25 , 29 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. One review analyzed “study quality” [ 37 ]. One review mentioned the risk of bias assessment in the methodology but did not provide any related analysis [ 28 ].

This overview of systematic reviews analyzed the first 18 systematic reviews published after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, up to March 24, 2020, with primary studies involving more than 60,000 patients. Using AMSTAR-2, we judged that our confidence in all those reviews was “critically low”. Ten reviews included meta-analyses. The reviews presented data on clinical manifestations, laboratory and radiological findings, and interventions. We found no systematic reviews on the utility of diagnostic tests.

Symptoms were reported in seven reviews; most of the patients had a fever, cough, dyspnea, myalgia or muscle fatigue, and gastrointestinal disorders such as diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Olfactory dysfunction (anosmia or dysosmia) has been described in patients infected with COVID-19 [ 43 ]; however, this was not reported in any of the reviews included in this overview. During the SARS outbreak in 2002, there were reports of impairment of the sense of smell associated with the disease [ 44 , 45 ].

The reported mortality rates ranged from 0.3 to 14% in the included reviews. Mortality estimates are influenced by the transmissibility rate (basic reproduction number), availability of diagnostic tools, notification policies, asymptomatic presentations of the disease, resources for disease prevention and control, and treatment facilities; variability in the mortality rate fits the pattern of emerging infectious diseases [ 46 ]. Furthermore, the reported cases did not consider asymptomatic cases, mild cases where individuals have not sought medical treatment, and the fact that many countries had limited access to diagnostic tests or have implemented testing policies later than the others. Considering the lack of reviews assessing diagnostic testing (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of RT-PCT or immunoglobulin tests), and the preponderance of studies that assessed only symptomatic individuals, considerable imprecision around the calculated mortality rates existed in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Few reviews included treatment data. Those reviews described studies considered to be at a very low level of evidence: usually small, retrospective studies with very heterogeneous populations. Seven reviews analyzed laboratory parameters; those reviews could have been useful for clinicians who attend patients suspected of COVID-19 in emergency services worldwide, such as assessing which patients need to be reassessed more frequently.

All systematic reviews scored poorly on the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews. Most of the original studies included in the reviews were case series and case reports, impacting the quality of evidence. Such evidence has major implications for clinical practice and the use of these reviews in evidence-based practice and policy. Clinicians, patients, and policymakers can only have the highest confidence in systematic review findings if high-quality systematic review methodologies are employed. The urgent need for information during a pandemic does not justify poor quality reporting.

We acknowledge that there are numerous challenges associated with analyzing COVID-19 data during a pandemic [ 47 ]. High-quality evidence syntheses are needed for decision-making, but each type of evidence syntheses is associated with its inherent challenges.

The creation of classic systematic reviews requires considerable time and effort; with massive research output, they quickly become outdated, and preparing updated versions also requires considerable time. A recent study showed that updates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews are published a median of 5 years after the publication of the previous version [ 48 ].

Authors may register a review and then abandon it [ 49 ], but the existence of a public record that is not updated may lead other authors to believe that the review is still ongoing. A quarter of Cochrane review protocols remains unpublished as completed systematic reviews 8 years after protocol publication [ 50 ].

Rapid reviews can be used to summarize the evidence, but they involve methodological sacrifices and simplifications to produce information promptly, with inconsistent methodological approaches [ 51 ]. However, rapid reviews are justified in times of public health emergencies, and even Cochrane has resorted to publishing rapid reviews in response to the COVID-19 crisis [ 52 ]. Rapid reviews were eligible for inclusion in this overview, but only one of the 18 reviews included in this study was labeled as a rapid review.

Ideally, COVID-19 evidence would be continually summarized in a series of high-quality living systematic reviews, types of evidence synthesis defined as “ a systematic review which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available ” [ 53 ]. However, conducting living systematic reviews requires considerable resources, calling into question the sustainability of such evidence synthesis over long periods [ 54 ].

Research reports about COVID-19 will contribute to research waste if they are poorly designed, poorly reported, or simply not necessary. In principle, systematic reviews should help reduce research waste as they usually provide recommendations for further research that is needed or may advise that sufficient evidence exists on a particular topic [ 55 ]. However, systematic reviews can also contribute to growing research waste when they are not needed, or poorly conducted and reported. Our present study clearly shows that most of the systematic reviews that were published early on in the COVID-19 pandemic could be categorized as research waste, as our confidence in their results is critically low.

Our study has some limitations. One is that for AMSTAR 2 assessment we relied on information available in publications; we did not attempt to contact study authors for clarifications or additional data. In three reviews, the methodological quality appraisal was challenging because they were published as letters, or labeled as rapid communications. As a result, various details about their review process were not included, leading to AMSTAR 2 questions being answered as “not reported”, resulting in low confidence scores. Full manuscripts might have provided additional information that could have led to higher confidence in the results. In other words, low scores could reflect incomplete reporting, not necessarily low-quality review methods. To make their review available more rapidly and more concisely, the authors may have omitted methodological details. A general issue during a crisis is that speed and completeness must be balanced. However, maintaining high standards requires proper resourcing and commitment to ensure that the users of systematic reviews can have high confidence in the results.

Furthermore, we used adjusted AMSTAR 2 scoring, as the tool was designed for critical appraisal of reviews of interventions. Some reviews may have received lower scores than actually warranted in spite of these adjustments.

Another limitation of our study may be the inclusion of multiple overlapping reviews, as some included reviews included the same primary studies. According to the Cochrane Handbook, including overlapping reviews may be appropriate when the review’s aim is “ to present and describe the current body of systematic review evidence on a topic ” [ 12 ], which was our aim. To avoid bias with summarizing evidence from overlapping reviews, we presented the forest plots without summary estimates. The forest plots serve to inform readers about the effect sizes for outcomes that were reported in each review.

Several authors from this study have contributed to one of the reviews identified [ 25 ]. To reduce the risk of any bias, two authors who did not co-author the review in question initially assessed its quality and limitations.

Finally, we note that the systematic reviews included in our overview may have had issues that our analysis did not identify because we did not analyze their primary studies to verify the accuracy of the data and information they presented. We give two examples to substantiate this possibility. Lovato et al. wrote a commentary on the review of Sun et al. [ 41 ], in which they criticized the authors’ conclusion that sore throat is rare in COVID-19 patients [ 56 ]. Lovato et al. highlighted that multiple studies included in Sun et al. did not accurately describe participants’ clinical presentations, warning that only three studies clearly reported data on sore throat [ 56 ].

In another example, Leung [ 57 ] warned about the review of Li, L.Q. et al. [ 29 ]: “ it is possible that this statistic was computed using overlapped samples, therefore some patients were double counted ”. Li et al. responded to Leung that it is uncertain whether the data overlapped, as they used data from published articles and did not have access to the original data; they also reported that they requested original data and that they plan to re-do their analyses once they receive them; they also urged readers to treat the data with caution [ 58 ]. This points to the evolving nature of evidence during a crisis.

Our study’s strength is that this overview adds to the current knowledge by providing a comprehensive summary of all the evidence synthesis about COVID-19 available early after the onset of the pandemic. This overview followed strict methodological criteria, including a comprehensive and sensitive search strategy and a standard tool for methodological appraisal of systematic reviews.

In conclusion, in this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all the reviews was “critically low”. Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic could be categorized as research waste. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards to provide patients, clinicians, and decision-makers trustworthy evidence.

Availability of data and materials

All data collected and analyzed within this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

World Health Organization. Timeline - COVID-19: Available at: https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline . Accessed 1 June 2021.

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). Available at: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Anzai A, Kobayashi T, Linton NM, Kinoshita R, Hayashi K, Suzuki A, et al. Assessing the Impact of Reduced Travel on Exportation Dynamics of Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19). J Clin Med. 2020;9(2):601.

Chinazzi M, Davis JT, Ajelli M, Gioannini C, Litvinova M, Merler S, et al. The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Science. 2020;368(6489):395–400. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9757 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fidahic M, Nujic D, Runjic R, Civljak M, Markotic F, Lovric Makaric Z, et al. Research methodology and characteristics of journal articles with original data, preprint articles and registered clinical trial protocols about COVID-19. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01047-2 .

EPPI Centre . COVID-19: a living systematic map of the evidence. Available at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Projects/DepartmentofHealthandSocialCare/Publishedreviews/COVID-19Livingsystematicmapoftheevidence/tabid/3765/Default.aspx . Accessed 1 June 2021.

NCBI SARS-CoV-2 Resources. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/ . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Gustot T. Quality and reproducibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. JHEP Rep. 2020;2(4):100141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhepr.2020.100141 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kodvanj, I., et al., Publishing of COVID-19 Preprints in Peer-reviewed Journals, Preprinting Trends, Public Discussion and Quality Issues. Preprint article. bioRxiv 2020.11.23.394577; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.23.394577 .

Dobler CC. Poor quality research and clinical practice during COVID-19. Breathe (Sheff). 2020;16(2):200112. https://doi.org/10.1183/20734735.0112-2020 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 .

Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, McKenzie JE. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1-purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):231. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0617-1 .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Pieper D, Hartling L. Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane. 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane. 2020; Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Newton AS, Scott SD, Hartling L. The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0914-3 .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Newton AS, Scott SD, Hartling L. A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0768-8 .

Hunt H, Pollock A, Campbell P, Estcourt L, Brunton G. An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8 .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Pieper D, Tricco AC, Gates M, Gates A, et al. Preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR): a protocol for development of a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):335. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1252-9 .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123–30.

Krnic Martinic M, Pieper D, Glatt A, Puljak L. Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0855-0 .

Puljak L. If there is only one author or only one database was searched, a study should not be called a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:4–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.002 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gates M, Gates A, Guitard S, Pollock M, Hartling L. Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):254. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01509-0 .

Covidence - systematic review software. Available at: https://www.covidence.org/ . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

Borges do Nascimento IJ, et al. Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) in Humans: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2020;9(4):941.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Adhikari SP, Meng S, Wu YJ, Mao YP, Ye RX, Wang QZ, et al. Epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, prevention and control of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) during the early outbreak period: a scoping review. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020;9(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-020-00646-x .

Cortegiani A, Ingoglia G, Ippolito M, Giarratano A, Einav S. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. J Crit Care. 2020;57:279–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.03.005 .

Li B, Yang J, Zhao F, Zhi L, Wang X, Liu L, et al. Prevalence and impact of cardiovascular metabolic diseases on COVID-19 in China. Clin Res Cardiol. 2020;109(5):531–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01626-9 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Li LQ, Huang T, Wang YQ, Wang ZP, Liang Y, Huang TB, et al. COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(6):577–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25757 .

Lippi G, Lavie CJ, Sanchis-Gomar F. Cardiac troponin I in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): evidence from a meta-analysis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2020;63(3):390–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2020.03.001 .

Lippi G, Henry BM. Active smoking is not associated with severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Eur J Intern Med. 2020;75:107–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2020.03.014 .

Lippi G, Plebani M. Procalcitonin in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020;505:190–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.004 .

Lippi G, Plebani M, Henry BM. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: a meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020;506:145–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022 .

Ludvigsson JF. Systematic review of COVID-19 in children shows milder cases and a better prognosis than adults. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109(6):1088–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15270 .

Lupia T, Scabini S, Mornese Pinna S, di Perri G, de Rosa FG, Corcione S. 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak: a new challenge. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020;21:22–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2020.02.021 .

Marasinghe, K.M., A systematic review investigating the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among medically not diagnosed individuals: shedding light on current recommendations provided to individuals not medically diagnosed with COVID-19. Research Square. Preprint article. doi : https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-16701/v1 . 2020 .

Mullins E, Evans D, Viner RM, O’Brien P, Morris E. Coronavirus in pregnancy and delivery: rapid review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;55(5):586–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.22014 .

Pang J, Wang MX, Ang IYH, Tan SHX, Lewis RF, Chen JIP, et al. Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV): a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2020;9(3):623.

Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Cardona-Ospina JA, Gutiérrez-Ocampo E, Villamizar-Peña R, Holguin-Rivera Y, Escalera-Antezana JP, et al. Clinical, laboratory and imaging features of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020;34:101623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101623 .

Salehi S, Abedi A, Balakrishnan S, Gholamrezanezhad A. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of imaging findings in 919 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215(1):87–93. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23034 .

Sun P, Qie S, Liu Z, Ren J, Li K, Xi J. Clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a single arm meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(6):612–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25735 .

Yang J, Zheng Y, Gou X, Pu K, Chen Z, Guo Q, et al. Prevalence of comorbidities and its effects in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;94:91–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.017 .

Bassetti M, Vena A, Giacobbe DR. The novel Chinese coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infections: challenges for fighting the storm. Eur J Clin Investig. 2020;50(3):e13209. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13209 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Hwang CS. Olfactory neuropathy in severe acute respiratory syndrome: report of a case. Acta Neurol Taiwanica. 2006;15(1):26–8.

Google Scholar  

Suzuki M, Saito K, Min WP, Vladau C, Toida K, Itoh H, et al. Identification of viruses in patients with postviral olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope. 2007;117(2):272–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000249922.37381.1e .

Rajgor DD, Lee MH, Archuleta S, Bagdasarian N, Quek SC. The many estimates of the COVID-19 case fatality rate. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(7):776–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30244-9 .

Wolkewitz M, Puljak L. Methodological challenges of analysing COVID-19 data during the pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-00972-6 .

Rombey T, Lochner V, Puljak L, Könsgen N, Mathes T, Pieper D. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of non-Cochrane updates of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(3):471–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1409 .

Runjic E, Rombey T, Pieper D, Puljak L. Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;116:114–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.08.010 .

Runjic E, Behmen D, Pieper D, Mathes T, Tricco AC, Moher D, et al. Following Cochrane review protocols to completion 10 years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:41–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.006 .

Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 .

COVID-19 Rapid Reviews: Cochrane’s response so far. Available at: https://training.cochrane.org/resource/covid-19-rapid-reviews-cochrane-response-so-far . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Cochrane. Living systematic reviews. Available at: https://community.cochrane.org/review-production/production-resources/living-systematic-reviews . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Millard T, Synnot A, Elliott J, Green S, McDonald S, Turner T. Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):325. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1248-5 .

Babic A, Poklepovic Pericic T, Pieper D, Puljak L. How to decide whether a systematic review is stable and not in need of updating: analysis of Cochrane reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(6):884–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1451 .

Lovato A, Rossettini G, de Filippis C. Sore throat in COVID-19: comment on “clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a single arm meta-analysis”. J Med Virol. 2020;92(7):714–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25815 .

Leung C. Comment on Li et al: COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(9):1431–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25912 .

Li LQ, Huang T, Wang YQ, Wang ZP, Liang Y, Huang TB, et al. Response to Char’s comment: comment on Li et al: COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(9):1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25924 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Catherine Henderson DPhil from Swanscoe Communications for pro bono medical writing and editing support. We acknowledge support from the Covidence Team, specifically Anneliese Arno. We thank the whole International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19) for their commitment and involvement. Members of the InterNetCOVID-19 are listed in Additional file 6 . We thank Pavel Cerny and Roger Crosthwaite for guiding the team supervisor (IJBN) on human resources management.

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University Hospital and School of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento & Milena Soriano Marcolino

Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento

Helene Fuld Health Trust National Institute for Evidence-based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare, College of Nursing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Dónal P. O’Mathúna

School of Nursing, Psychotherapy and Community Health, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

Thilo Caspar von Groote

Department of Sport and Health Science, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem

School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia

Ishanka Weerasekara

Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Cochrane Croatia, University of Split, School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

Ana Marusic, Irena Zakarija-Grkovic & Tina Poklepovic Pericic

Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

Livia Puljak

Cochrane Brazil, Evidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Vinicius Tassoni Civile & Alvaro Nagib Atallah

Yorkville University, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

Santino Filoso

Laboratory for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (LIAM), Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Nicola Luigi Bragazzi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

IJBN conceived the research idea and worked as a project coordinator. DPOM, TCVG, HMA, IW, AM, LP, VTC, IZG, TPP, ANA, SF, NLB and MSM were involved in data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, and initial draft writing. All authors revised the manuscript critically for the content. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Livia Puljak .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not required as data was based on published studies.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix 1..

Search strategies used in the study.

Additional file 2: Appendix 2.

Adjusted scoring of AMSTAR 2 used in this study for systematic reviews of studies that did not analyze interventions.

Additional file 3: Appendix 3.

List of excluded studies, with reasons.

Additional file 4: Appendix 4.

Table of overlapping studies, containing the list of primary studies included, their visual overlap in individual systematic reviews, and the number in how many reviews each primary study was included.

Additional file 5: Appendix 5.

A detailed explanation of AMSTAR scoring for each item in each review.

Additional file 6: Appendix 6.

List of members and affiliates of International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Borges do Nascimento, I.J., O’Mathúna, D.P., von Groote, T.C. et al. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Infect Dis 21 , 525 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06214-4

Download citation

Received : 12 April 2020

Accepted : 19 May 2021

Published : 04 June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06214-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Coronavirus
• Evidence-based medicine
• Infectious diseases

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A literature review

Affiliations.

• 1 Medical Research Unit, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia; Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia; Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 Division of Infectious Diseases, AichiCancer Center Hospital, Chikusa-ku Nagoya, Japan. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 3 Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 4 Department of Pulmonology and Respiratory Medicine, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 5 School of Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 6 Siem Reap Provincial Health Department, Ministry of Health, Siem Reap, Cambodia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 7 Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Warmadewa University, Denpasar, Indonesia; Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 8 Medical Research Unit, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia; Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia; Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia; Department of Clinical Microbiology, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 9 Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, MI 48109, USA. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 10 Medical Research Unit, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia; Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia; Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• PMID: 32340833
• PMCID: PMC7142680
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.03.019

In early December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), occurred in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China. On January 30, 2020 the World Health Organization declared the outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. As of February 14, 2020, 49,053 laboratory-confirmed and 1,381 deaths have been reported globally. Perceived risk of acquiring disease has led many governments to institute a variety of control measures. We conducted a literature review of publicly available information to summarize knowledge about the pathogen and the current epidemic. In this literature review, the causative agent, pathogenesis and immune responses, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and management of the disease, control and preventions strategies are all reviewed.

Keywords: 2019-nCoV; COVID-19; Novel coronavirus; Outbreak; SARS-CoV-2.

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Publication types

• Betacoronavirus
• Clinical Trials as Topic
• Coronavirus Infections* / epidemiology
• Coronavirus Infections* / immunology
• Coronavirus Infections* / therapy
• Coronavirus Infections* / virology
• Disease Outbreaks* / prevention & control
• Pneumonia, Viral* / epidemiology
• Pneumonia, Viral* / immunology
• Pneumonia, Viral* / therapy
• Pneumonia, Viral* / virology

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the way people deal with them. A qualitative longitudinal study

Contributed equally to this work with: Dominika Maison, Diana Jaworska, Dominika Adamczyk, Daria Affeltowicz

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology

• Dominika Maison, 
• Diana Jaworska, 
• Dominika Adamczyk, 
• Daria Affeltowicz

• Published: October 11, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258133
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

The conducted qualitative research was aimed at capturing the biggest challenges related to the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The interviews were carried out in March-June (five stages of the research) and in October (the 6 th stage of the research). A total of 115 in-depth individual interviews were conducted online with 20 respondents, in 6 stages. The results of the analysis showed that for all respondents the greatest challenges and the source of the greatest suffering were: a) limitation of direct contact with people; b) restrictions on movement and travel; c) necessary changes in active lifestyle; d) boredom and monotony; and e) uncertainty about the future.

Citation: Maison D, Jaworska D, Adamczyk D, Affeltowicz D (2021) The challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the way people deal with them. A qualitative longitudinal study. PLoS ONE 16(10): e0258133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258133

Editor: Shah Md Atiqul Haq, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, BANGLADESH

Received: April 6, 2021; Accepted: September 18, 2021; Published: October 11, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Maison 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.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files ( S1 Dataset ).

Funding: This work was supported by the Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Poland from the funds awarded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in the form of a subsidy for the maintenance and development of research potential in 2020 (501-D125-01-1250000). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19), discovered in December 2019 in China, has reached the level of a pandemic and, till June 2021, it has affected more than 171 million people worldwide and caused more than 3.5 million deaths all over the world [ 1 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic as a major health crisis has caught the attention of many researchers, which has led to the creation of a broad quantitative picture of human behavior during the coronavirus outbreak [ 2 – 4 ]. What has been established so far is, among others, the psychological symptoms that can occur as a result of lockdown [ 2 ], and the most common coping strategies [ 5 ]. However, what we still miss is an in-depth understanding of the changes in the ways of coping with challenges over different stages of the pandemic. In the following study, we used a longitudinal qualitative method to investigate the challenges during the different waves of the coronavirus pandemic as well as the coping mechanisms accompanying them.

In Poland, the first patient was diagnosed with COVID-19 on the 4 th March 2020. Since then, the number of confirmed cases has grown to more than 2.8 million and the number of deaths to more than 73,000 (June 2021) [ 1 ]. From mid-March 2020, the Polish government, similarly to many other countries, began to introduce a number of restrictions to limit the spread of the virus. These restrictions had been changing from week to week, causing diverse reactions in people [ 6 ]. It needs to be noted that the reactions to such a dynamic situation cannot be covered by a single study. Therefore, in our study we used qualitative longitudinal research in order to monitor changes in people’s emotions, attitudes, and behavior. So far, few longitudinal studies have been carried out that investigated the various issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, all of them were quantitative [ 7 – 10 ]. The qualitative approach (and especially the use of enabling and projective techniques) allows for an in-depth exploration of respondents’ reactions that goes beyond respondents’ declarations and captures what they are less aware of or even unconscious of. This study consisted of six stages of interviews that were conducted at key moments for the development of the pandemic situation in Poland. The first stage of the study was carried out at the moment of the most severe lockdown and the biggest restrictions (March 2020) and was focused on exploration how did people react to the new uncertain situation. The second stage of the study was conducted at the time when restrictions were extended and the obligation to cover the mouth and nose everywhere outside the household were introduced (middle of April 2020) and was focused at the way how did people deal with the lack of family gatherings over Easter. The third stage of the study was conducted at the moment of announcing the four stages of lifting the restrictions (April 2020) and was focused on people’s reaction to an emerging vision of getting back to normalcy. The fourth stage of the study was carried out, after the introduction of the second stage of lifting the restrictions: shopping malls, hotels, and cultural institutions were gradually being opened (May 2020). The fifth stage of the study was conducted after all four stages of restriction lifting were in place (June 2020). Only the obligation to cover the mouth and nose in public spaces, an order to maintain social distance, as well as the functioning of public places under a sanitary regime were still in effect. During those 5 stages coping strategies with the changes in restrictions were explored. The sixth and last stage of the study was a return to the respondents after a longer break, at the turn of October and November 2020, when the number of coronavirus cases in Poland began to increase rapidly and the media declared “the second wave of the pandemic”. It was the moment when the restrictions were gradually being reintroduced. A full description of the changes occurring in Poland at the time of the study can be found in S1 Table .

The following study is the first qualitative longitudinal study investigating how people cope with the challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic at its different stages. The study, although conducted in Poland, shows the universal psychological relations between the challenges posed by the pandemic (and, even more, the restrictions resulting from the pandemic, which were very similar across different countries, not only European) and the ways of dealing with them.

Literature review

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a global health crisis with severe economic [ 11 ], social [ 3 ], and psychological consequences [ 4 ]. Despite the fact that there were multiple crises in recent years, such as natural disasters, economic crises, and even epidemics, the coronavirus pandemic is the first in 100 years to severely affect the entire world. The economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic concern an impending global recession caused by the lockdown of non-essential industries and the disruption of production and supply chains [ 11 ]. Social consequences may be visible in many areas, such as the rise in family violence [ 3 ], the ineffectiveness of remote education, and increased food insecurity among impoverished families due to school closures [ 12 ]. According to some experts, the psychological consequences of COVID-19 are the ones that may persist for the longest and lead to a global mental health crisis [ 13 ]. The coronavirus outbreak is generating increased depressive symptoms, stress, anxiety, insomnia, denial, fear, and anger all over the world [ 2 , 14 ]. The economic, social, and psychological problems that people are currently facing are the consequences of novel challenges that have been posed by the pandemic.

The coronavirus outbreak is a novel, uncharted situation that has shaken the world and completely changed the everyday lives of many individuals. Due to the social distancing policy, many people have switched to remote work—in Poland, almost 75% of white-collar workers were fully or partially working from home from mid-March until the end of May 2020 [ 15 ]. School closures and remote learning imposed a new obligation on parents of supervising education, especially with younger children [ 16 ]. What is more, the government order of self-isolation forced people to spend almost all their time at home and limit or completely abandon human encounters. In addition, the deteriorating economic situation was the cause of financial hardship for many people. All these difficulties and challenges arose in the aura of a new, contagious disease with unexplored, long-lasting health effects and not fully known infectivity and lethality [ 17 ]. Dealing with the situation was not facilitated by the phenomenon of global misinformation, called by some experts as the “infodemic”, which may be defined as an overabundance of information that makes it difficult for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance [ 18 ]. Studies have shown that people have multiple ways of reacting to a crisis: from radical and even violent practices, towards individual solutions and depression [ 19 ]. Not only the challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic but also the ways of reacting to it and coping with it are issues of paramount importance that are worth investigating.

The reactions to unusual crisis situations may be dependent on dispositional factors, such as trait anxiety or perceived control [ 20 , 21 ]. A study on reactions to Hurricane Hugo has shown that people with higher trait anxiety are more likely to develop posttraumatic symptoms following a natural disaster [ 20 ]. Moreover, lack of perceived control was shown to be positively related to the level of distress during an earthquake in Turkey [ 21 ]. According to some researchers, the COVID-19 crisis and natural disasters have much in common, as the emotions and behavior they cause are based on the same primal human emotion—fear [ 22 ]. Both pandemics and natural disasters disrupt people’s everyday lives and may have severe economic, social and psychological consequences [ 23 ]. However, despite many similarities to natural disasters, COVID-19 is a unique situation—only in 2020, the current pandemic has taken more lives than the world’s combined natural disasters in any of the past twenty years [ 24 ]. It needs to be noted that natural disasters may pose different challenges than health crises and for this reason, they may provoke disparate reactions [ 25 ]. Research on the reactions to former epidemics has shown that avoidance and safety behaviors, such as avoiding going out, visiting crowded places, and visiting hospitals, are widespread at such times [ 26 ]. When it comes to the ways of dealing with the current COVID-19 pandemic, a substantial part of the quantitative research on this issue focuses on coping mechanisms. Studies have shown that the most prevalent coping strategies are highly problem-focused [ 5 ]. Most people tend to listen to expert advice and behave calmly and appropriately in the face of the coronavirus outbreak [ 5 ]. Problem-focused coping is particularly characteristic of healthcare professionals. A study on Chinese nurses has shown that the closer the problem is to the person and the more fear it evokes, the more problem-focused coping strategy is used to deal with it [ 27 ]. On the other hand, a negative coping style that entails risky or aggressive behaviors, such as drug or alcohol use, is also used to deal with the challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic [ 28 ]. The factors that are correlated with negative coping include coronavirus anxiety, impairment, and suicidal ideation [ 28 ]. It is worth emphasizing that social support is a very important component of dealing with crises [ 29 ].

Scientists have attempted to systematize the reactions to difficult and unusual situations. One such concept is the “3 Cs” model created by Reich [ 30 ]. It accounts for the general rules of resilience in situations of stress caused by crises, such as natural disasters. The 3 Cs stand for: control (a belief that personal resources can be accessed to achieve valued goals), coherence (the human desire to make meaning of the world), and connectedness (the need for human contact and support) [ 30 ]. Polizzi and colleagues [ 22 ] reviewed this model from the perspective of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The authors claim that natural disasters and COVID-19 pandemic have much in common and therefore, the principles of resilience in natural disaster situations can also be used in the situation of the current pandemic [ 22 ]. They propose a set of coping behaviors that could be useful in times of the coronavirus outbreak, which include control (e.g., planning activities for each day, getting adequate sleep, limiting exposure to the news, and helping others), coherence (e.g., mindfulness and developing a coherent narrative on the event), and connectedness (e.g., establishing new relationships and caring for existing social bonds) [ 22 ].

Current study

The issue of the challenges arising from the current COVID-19 pandemic and the ways of coping with them is complex and many feelings accompanying these experiences may be unconscious and difficult to verbalize. Therefore, in order to explore and understand it deeply, qualitative methodology was applied. Although there were few qualitative studies on the reaction to the pandemic [e.g., 31 – 33 ], they did not capture the perception of the challenges and their changes that arise as the pandemic develops. Since the situation with the COVID-19 pandemic is very dynamic, the reactions to the various restrictions, orders or bans are evolving. Therefore, it was decided to conduct a qualitative longitudinal study with multiple interviews with the same respondents [ 34 ].

The study investigates the challenges arising from the current pandemic and the way people deal with them. The main aim of the project was to capture people’s reactions to the unusual and unexpected situation of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the project was largely exploratory in nature. Interviews with the participants at different stages of the epidemic allowed us to see a wide spectrum of problems and ways of dealing with them. The conducted study had three main research questions:

• What are the biggest challenges connected to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions?
• How are people dealing with the pandemic challenges?
• What are the ways of coping with the restrictions resulting from a pandemic change as it continues and develops (perspective of first 6 months)?

The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Faculty of Psychology University of Warsaw, Poland. All participants were provided written and oral information about the study, which included that participation was voluntary, that it was possible to withdraw without any consequences at any time, and the precautions that would be taken to protect data confidentiality. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. To ensure confidentiality, quotes are presented only with gender, age, and family status.

The study was based on qualitative methodology: individual in-depth interviews, s which are the appropriate to approach a new and unknown and multithreaded topic which, at the beginning of 2020, was the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the need to observe respondents’ reactions to the dynamically changing situation of the COVID-19 pandemic, longitudinal study was used where the moderator met on-line with the same respondent several times, at specific time intervals. A longitudinal study was used to capture the changes in opinions, emotions, and behaviors of the respondents resulting from the changes in the external circumstances (qualitative in-depth interview tracking–[ 34 ]).

The study took place from the end of March to October 2020. Due to the epidemiological situation in the country interviews took place online, using the Google Meets online video platform. The audio was recorded and then transcribed. Before taking part in the project, the respondents were informed about the purpose of the study, its course, and the fact that participation in the project is voluntary, and that they will be able to withdraw from participation at any time. The respondents were not paid for taking part in the project.

Participants.

In total, 115 interviews were conducted with 20 participants (6 interviews with the majority of respondents). Two participants (number 11 and 19, S2 Table ) dropped out of the last two interviews, and one (number 6) dropped out of the last interview. The study was based on a purposive sample and the respondents differed in gender, age, education, family status, and work situation (see S2 Table ). In addition to demographic criteria intended to ensure that the sample was as diverse as possible, an additional criterion was to have a permanent Internet connection and a computer capable of online video interviewing. Study participants were recruited using the snowball method. They were distant acquaintances of acquaintances of individuals involved in the study. None of the moderators knew their interviewees personally.

A total of 10 men and 10 women participated in the study; their age range was: 25–55; the majority had higher education (17 respondents), they were people with different professions and work status, and different family status (singles, couples without children, and families with children). Such diversity of respondents allowed us to obtain information from different life perspectives. A full description of characteristics of study participants can be found in S2 Table .

Each interview took 2 hours on average, which gives around 240 hours of interviews. Subsequent interviews with the same respondents conducted at different intervals resulted from the dynamics of the development of the pandemic and the restrictions introduced in Poland by the government.

The interviews scenario took a semi-structured form. This allowed interviewers freely modify the questions and topics depending on the dynamics of the conversation and adapt the subject matter of the interviews not only to the research purposes but also to the needs of a given respondent. The interview guides were modified from week to week, taking into account the development of the epidemiological situation, while at the same time maintaining certain constant parts that were repeated in each interview. The main parts of the interview topic guide consisted of: (a) experiences from the time of previous interviews: thoughts, feeling, fears, and hopes; (b) everyday life—organization of the day, work, free time, shopping, and eating, etc.; (c) changes—what had changed in the life of the respondent from the time of the last interview; (d) ways of coping with the situation; and (e) media—reception of information appearing in the media. Additionally, in each interview there were specific parts, such as the reactions to the beginning of the pandemic in the first interview or the reaction to the specific restrictions that were introduced.

The interviews were conducted by 5 female interviewers with experience in moderating qualitative interviews, all with a psychological background. After each series of interviews, all the members of the research teams took part in debriefing sessions, which consisted of discussing the information obtained from each respondent, exchanging general conclusions, deciding about the topics for the following interview stage, and adjusting them to the pandemic situation in the country.

Data analysis.

All the interviews were transcribed in Polish by the moderators and then double-checked (each moderator transcribed the interviews of another moderator, and then the interviewer checked the accuracy of the transcription). The whole process of analysis was conducted on the material in Polish (the native language of the authors of the study and respondents). The final page count of the transcript is approximately 1800 pages of text. The results presented below are only a portion of the total data collected during the interviews. While there are about 250 pages of the transcription directly related to the topic of the article, due to the fact that the interview was partly free-form, some themes merge with others and it is not possible to determine the exact number of pages devoted exclusively to analysis related to the topic of the article. Full dataset can be found in S1 Dataset .

Data was then processed into thematic analysis, which is defined as a method of developing qualitative data consisting of the identification, analysis, and description of the thematic areas [ 35 ]. In this type of analysis, a thematic unit is treated as an element related to the research problem that includes an important aspect of data. An important advantage of thematic analysis is its flexibility, which allows for the adoption of the most appropriate research strategy to the phenomenon under analysis. An inductive approach was used to avoid conceptual tunnel vision. Extracting themes from the raw data using an inductive approach precludes the researcher from imposing a predetermined outcome.

As a first step, each moderator reviewed the transcripts of the interviews they had conducted. Each transcript was thematically coded individually from this point during the second and the third reading. In the next step, one of the researchers reviewed the codes extracted by the other members of the research team. Then she made initial interpretations by generating themes that captured the essence of the previously identified codes. The researcher created a list of common themes present in all of the interviews. In the next step, the extracted themes were discussed again with all the moderators conducting the coding in order to achieve consistency. This collaborative process was repeated several times during the analysis. Here, further superordinate (challenges of COVID-19 pandemic) and subordinate (ways of dealing with challenges) themes were created, often by collapsing others together, and each theme listed under a superordinate and subordinate category was checked to ensure they were accurately represented. Through this process of repeated analysis and discussion of emerging themes, it was possible to agree on the final themes that are described below.

Main challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Challenge 1 –limitation of direct contact with people . The first major challenge of the pandemic was that direct contact with other people was significantly reduced. The lockdown forced many people to work from home and limit contact not only with friends but also with close family (parents, children, and siblings). Limiting contact with other people was a big challenge for most of our respondents, especially those who were living alone and for those who previously led an active social life. Depending on their earlier lifestyle profile, for some, the bigger problem was the limitation of contact with the family, for others with friends, and for still others with co-workers.

I think that because I can’t meet up with anyone and that I’m not in a relationship , I miss having sex , and I think it will become even more difficult because it will be increasingly hard to meet anyone . (5 . 3_ M_39_single) . The number In the brackets at the end of the quotes marks the respondent’s number (according to Table 1 ) and the stage of the interview (after the dash), further is information about gender (F/M), age of the respondent and family status. Linguistic errors in the quotes reflect the spoken language of the respondents.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258133.t001

Changes over time . Over the course of the 6 months of the study, an evolution in the attitudes to the restriction of face-to-face contact could be seen: from full acceptance, to later questioning its rationale. Initially (March and April), almost all the respondents understood the reasons for the isolation and were compliant. At the beginning, people were afraid of the unknown COVID-19. They were concerned that the tragic situation from Italy, which was intensively covered in the media, could repeat itself in Poland (stage 1–2 of the study). However, with time, the isolation started to bother them more and more, and they started to look for solutions to bypass the isolation guidelines (stage 3–4), both real (simply meeting each other) and mental (treating isolation only as a guideline and not as an order, perceiving the family as being less threatening than acquaintances or strangers in a store). The turning point was the long May weekend that, due to two public holidays (1 st and 3 rd May), has for many years been used as an opportunity to go away with family or friends. Many people broke their voluntary isolation during that time encouraged by information about the coming loosening of restrictions.

During the summer (stage 5 of the survey), practically no one was fully compliant with the isolation recommendations anymore. At that time, a growing familiarity could be observed with COVID-19 and an increasing tendency to talk about it as “one of many diseases”, and to convince oneself that one is not at risk and that COVID-19 is no more threatening than other viruses. Only a small group of people consciously failed to comply with the restrictions of contact with others from the very beginning of the pandemic. This behavior was mostly observed among people who were generally less anxious and less afraid of COVID-19.

I’ve had enough. I’ve had it with sitting at home. Okay, there’s some kind of virus, it’s as though it’s out there somewhere; it’s like I know 2 people who were infected but they’re still alive, nothing bad has happened to anyone. It’s just a tiny portion of people who are dying. And is it really such a tragedy that we have to be locked up at home? Surely there’s an alternative agenda there? (17.4_F_35_Adult and child)

Ways of dealing . In the initial phase, when almost everyone accepted this restriction and submitted to it, the use of communication platforms for social meetings increased (see Ways of dealing with challenges in Table 1 ) . Meetings on communication platforms were seen as an equivalent of the previous face-to-face contact and were often even accompanied by eating or drinking alcohol together. However, over time (at around stage 4–5 of the study) people began to feel that such contact was an insufficient substitute for face-to-face meetings and interest in online meetings began to wane. During this time, however, an interesting phenomenon could be seen, namely, that for many people the family was seen as a safer environment than friends, and definitely safer than strangers. The belief was that family members would be honest about being sick, while strangers not necessarily, and—on an unconscious level—the feeling was that the “family is safe”, and the “family can’t hurt them”.

When it became clear that online communication is an insufficient substitute for face-to-face contacts, people started to meet up in real life. However, a change in many behaviors associated with meeting people is clearly visible, e.g.: refraining from shaking hands, refraining from cheek kissing to greet one another, and keeping a distance during a conversation.

I can’t really say that I could ‘feel’ Good Friday or Holy Saturday. On Sunday, we had breakfast together with my husband’s family and his sister. We were in three different places but we connected over Skype. Later, at noon, we had some coffee with my parents, also over Skype. It’s obvious though that this doesn’t replace face-to-face contact but it’s always some form of conversation. (9.3_F_25_Couple, no children)

Challenge 2 –restrictions on movement and travel . In contrast to the restrictions on contact with other people, the restrictions on movement and the closing of borders were perceived more negatively and posed bigger challenges for some people (especially those who used to do a lot of travelling). In this case, it was less clear why these regulations were introduced (especially travel restrictions within the country). Moreover, travel restrictions, particularly in the case of international travels, were associated with a limitation of civil liberties. The limitation (or complete ban) on travelling abroad in the Polish situation evoked additional connotations with the communist times, that is, with the fact that there was no freedom of movement for Polish citizens (associations with totalitarianism and dictatorship). Interestingly, the lack of acceptance of this restriction was also manifested by people who did not travel much. Thus, it was not just a question of restricting travelling abroad but more of restricting the potential opportunity (“even if I’m not planning on going anywhere, I know I still can”).

Limitations on travelling around the country were particularly negatively felt by families with children, where parents believe that regular exercise and outings are necessary for the proper development of their children. For parents, it was problematic to accept the prohibition of leaving the house and going to the playground (which remained closed until mid-May). Being outdoors was perceived as important for maintaining immunity (exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle), therefore, people could not understand the reason underlying this restriction and, as a consequence, often did not accept it.

I was really bothered by the very awareness that I can’t just jump in my car or get on a plane whenever I want and go wherever I want. It’s not something that I have to do on a daily basis but freedom of movement and travelling are very important for me. (14.2_M_55_Two adults and children)

Changes over time . The travel and movement limitations, although objectively less severe for most people, aroused much greater anger than the restrictions on social contact. This was probably due to a greater sense of misunderstanding as to why these rules were being introduced in the first place. Moreover, they were often communicated inconsistently and chaotically (e.g., a ban on entering forests was introduced while, at the same time, shopping malls remained open and masses were allowed to attend church services). This anger grew over time—from interview to interview, the respondents’ irritation and lack of acceptance of this was evident (culminating in the 3 rd -4 th stage of the study). The limitation of mobility was also often associated with negative consequences for both health and the economy. Many people are convinced that being in the open air (especially accompanied by physical activity) strengthens immunity, therefore, limiting such activity may have negative health consequences. Some respondents pointed out that restricting travelling, the use of hotels and restaurants, especially during the holiday season, will have serious consequences for the existence of the tourism industry.

I can’t say I completely agree with these limitations because it’s treating everything selectively. It’s like the shopping mall is closed, I can’t buy any shoes but I can go to a home improvement store and buy some wallpaper for myself. So I don’t see the difference between encountering people in a home improvement store and a shopping mall. (18.2_F_48_Two adults and children)

Ways of dealing . Since the restriction of movement and travel was more often associated with pleasure-related behaviors than with activities necessary for living, the compensations for these restrictions were usually also from the area of hedonistic behaviors. In the statements of our respondents, terms such as “indulging” or “rewarding oneself” appeared, and behaviors such as throwing small parties at home, buying better alcohol, sweets, and new clothes were observed. There were also increased shopping behaviors related to hobbies (sometimes hobbies that could not be pursued at the given time)–a kind of “post-pandemic” shopping spree (e.g., a new bike or new skis).

Again, the reaction to this restriction also depended on the level of fear of the COVID-19 disease. People who were more afraid of being infected accepted these restrictions more easily as it gave them the feeling that they were doing something constructive to protect themselves from the infection. Conversely, people with less fears and concerns were more likely to rebel and break these bans and guidelines.

Another way of dealing with this challenge was making plans for interesting travel destinations for the post-pandemic period. This was especially salient in respondents with an active lifestyle in the past and especially visible during the 5 th stage of the study.

Today was the first day when I went to the store (due to being in quarantine after returning from abroad). I spent loads of money but I normally would have never spent so much on myself. I bought sweets and confectionery for Easter time, some Easter chocolates, too. I thought I’d do some more baking so I also bought some ingredients to do this. (1.2_ F_25_single)

Challenge 3 –necessary change in active lifestyle . Many of the limitations related to COVID-19 were a challenge for people with an active lifestyle who would regularly go to the cinema, theater, and gym, use restaurants, and do a lot of travelling. For those people, the time of the COVID constraints has brought about huge changes in their lifestyle. Most of their activities were drastically restricted overnight and they suddenly became domesticated by force, especially when it was additionally accompanied by a transition to remote work.

Compulsory spending time at home also had serious consequences for people with school-aged children who had to confront themselves with the distance learning situation of their children. The second challenge for families with children was also finding (or helping find) activities for their children to do in their free time without leaving the house.

I would love to go to a restaurant somewhere. We order food from the restaurant at least once a week, but I’d love to go to the restaurant. Spending time there is a different way of functioning. It is enjoyable and that is what I miss. I would also go to the cinema, to the theater. (13.3_M_46_Two adults and child.)

Changes over time . The nuisance of restrictions connected to an active lifestyle depended on the level of restrictions in place at a given time and the extent to which a given activity could be replaced by an alternative. Moreover, the response to these restrictions depended more on the individual differences in lifestyle rather than on the stage of the interview (except for the very beginning, when the changes in lifestyle and everyday activities were very sudden).

I miss that these restaurants are not open . And it’s not even that I would like to eat something specific . It is in all of this that I miss such freedom the most . It bothers me that I have no freedom . And I am able to get used to it , I can cook at home , I can order from home . But I just wish I had a choice . (2 . 6_F_27_single ).

Ways of dealing . In the initial phase of the pandemic (March-April—stage 1–3 of the study), when most people were afraid of the coronavirus, the acceptance of the restrictions was high. At the same time, efforts were made to find activities that could replace existing ones. Going to the gym was replaced by online exercise, and going to the cinema or theater by intensive use of streaming platforms. In the subsequent stages of the study, however, the respondents’ fatigue with these “substitutes” was noticeable. It was then that more irritation and greater non-acceptance of certain restrictions began to appear. On the other hand, the changes or restrictions introduced during the later stages of the pandemic were less sudden than the initial ones, so they were often easier to get used to.

I bought a small bike and even before that we ordered some resistance bands to work out at home, which replace certain gym equipment and devices. […] I’m considering learning a language. From the other online things, my girlfriend is having yoga classes, for instance. (7.2_M_28_Couple, no children)

Challenge 4 –boredom , monotony . As has already been shown, for many people, the beginning of the pandemic was a huge change in lifestyle, an absence of activities, and a resulting slowdown. It was sometimes associated with a feeling of weariness, monotony, and even of boredom, especially for people who worked remotely, whose days began to be similar to each other and whose working time merged with free time, weekdays with the weekends, and free time could not be filled with previous activities.

In some way, boredom. I can’t concentrate on what I’m reading. I’m trying to motivate myself to do such things as learning a language because I have so much time on my hands, or to do exercises. I don’t have this balance that I’m actually doing something for myself, like reading, working out, but also that I’m meeting up with friends. This balance has gone, so I’ve started to get bored with many things. Yesterday I felt that I was bored and something should start happening. (…) After some time, this lack of events and meetings leads to such immense boredom. (1.5_F_25_single)

Changes over time . The feeling of monotony and boredom was especially visible in stage 1 and 2 of the study when the lockdown was most restrictive and people were knocked out of their daily routines. As the pandemic continued, boredom was often replaced by irritation in some, and by stagnation in others (visible in stages 3 and 4 of the study) while, at the same time, enthusiasm for taking up new activities was waning. As most people were realizing that the pandemic was not going to end any time soon, a gradual adaptation to the new lifestyle (slower and less active) and the special pandemic demands (especially seen in stage 5 and 6 of the study) could be observed.

But I see that people around me , in fact , both family and friends , are slowly beginning to prepare themselves for more frequent stays at home . So actually more remote work , maybe everything will not be closed and we will not be locked in four walls , but this tendency towards isolation or self-isolation , such a deliberate one , appears . I guess we are used to the fact that it has to be this way . (15 . 6_M_43_Two adults and child) .

Ways of dealing . The answer to the monotony of everyday life and to finding different ways of separating work from free time was to stick to certain rituals, such as “getting dressed for work”, even when work was only by a computer at home or, if possible, setting a fixed meal time when the whole family would gather together. For some, the time of the beginning of the pandemic was treated as an extra vacation. This was especially true of people who could not carry out their work during the time of the most severe restrictions (e.g., hairdressers and doctors). For them, provided that they believed that everything would return to normal and that they would soon go back to work, a “vacation mode” was activated wherein they would sleep longer, watch a lot of movies, read books, and generally do pleasant things for which they previously had no time and which they could now enjoy without feeling guilty. Another way of dealing with the monotony and transition to a slower lifestyle was taking up various activities for which there was no time before, such as baking bread at home and cooking fancy dishes.

I generally do have a set schedule. I begin work at eight. Well, and what’s changed is that I can get up last minute, switch the computer on and be practically making my breakfast and coffee during this time. I do some work and then print out some materials for my younger daughter. You know, I have work till four, I keep on going up to the computer and checking my emails. (19.1_F_39_Two adults and children)

Challenge 5 –uncertainty about the future . Despite the difficulties arising from the circumstances and limitations described above, it seems that psychologically, the greatest challenge during a pandemic is the uncertainty of what will happen next. There was a lot of contradictory information in the media that caused a sense of confusion and heightened the feeling of anxiety.

I’m less bothered about the changes that were put in place and more about this concern about what will happen in the future. Right now, it’s like there’s these mood swings. […] Based on what’s going on, this will somehow affect every one of us. And that’s what I’m afraid of. The fact that someone will not survive and I have no way of knowing who this could be—whether it will be me or anyone else, or my dad, if somehow the coronavirus will sneak its way into our home. I simply don’t know. I’m simply afraid of this. (10.1_F_55_Couple, no children)

Changes over time . In the first phase of the pandemic (interviews 1–3), most people felt a strong sense of not being in control of the situation and of their own lives. Not only did the consequences of the pandemic include a change in lifestyle but also, very often, the suspension of plans altogether. In addition, many people felt a strong fear of the future, about what would happen, and even a sense of threat to their own or their loved ones’ lives. Gradually (interview 4), alongside anxiety, anger began to emerge about not knowing what would happen next. At the beginning of the summer (stage 5 of the study), most people had a hope of the pandemic soon ending. It was a period of easing restrictions and of opening up the economy. Life was starting to look more and more like it did before the pandemic, fleetingly giving an illusion that the end of the pandemic was “in sight” and the vision of a return to normal life. Unfortunately, autumn showed that more waves of the pandemic were approaching. In the interviews of the 6 th stage of the study, we could see more and more confusion and uncertainty, a loss of hope, and often a manifestation of disagreement with the restrictions that were introduced.

This is making me sad and angry. More angry, in fact. […] I don’t know what I should do. Up until now, there was nothing like this. Up until now, I was pretty certain of what I was doing in all the decisions I was making. (14.4_M_55_Two adults and children)

Ways of dealing . People reacted differently to the described feeling of insecurity. In order to reduce the emerging fears, some people searched (sometimes even compulsively) for any information that could help them “take control” of the situation. These people searched various sources, for example, information on the number of infected persons and the number of deaths. This knowledge gave them the illusion of control and helped them to somewhat reduce the anxiety evoked by the pandemic. The behavior of this group was often accompanied by very strict adherence to all guidelines and restrictions (e.g., frequent hand sanitization, wearing a face mask, and avoiding contact with others). This behavior increased the sense of control over the situation in these people.

A completely opposite strategy to reducing the feeling of uncertainty which we also observed in some respondents was cutting off information in the media about the scale of the disease and the resulting restrictions. These people, unable to keep up with the changing information and often inconsistent messages, in order to maintain cognitive coherence tried to cut off the media as much as possible, assuming that even if something really significant had happened, they would still find out.

I want to keep up to date with the current affairs. Even if it is an hour a day. How is the pandemic situation developing—is it increasing or decreasing. There’s a bit of propaganda there because I know that when they’re saying that they have the situation under control, they can’t control it anyway. Anyhow, it still has a somewhat calming effect that it’s dying down over here and that things aren’t that bad. And, apart from this, I listen to the news concerning restrictions, what we can and can’t do. (3.1_F_54_single)

Discussion and conclusions

The results of our study showed that the five greatest challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic are: limitations of direct contact with people, restrictions on movement and travel, change in active lifestyle, boredom and monotony, and finally uncertainty about the future. As we can see the spectrum of problems resulting from the pandemic is very wide and some of them have an impact on everyday functioning and lifestyle, some other influence psychological functioning and well-being. Moreover, different people deal with these problems differently and different changes in everyday life are challenging for them. The first challenge of the pandemic COVID-19 problem is the consequence of the limitation of direct contact with others. This regulation has very strong psychological consequences in the sense of loneliness and lack of closeness. Initially, people tried to deal with this limitation through the use of internet communicators. It turned out, however, that this form of contact for the majority of people was definitely insufficient and feelings of deprivation quickly increased. As much data from psychological literature shows, contact with others can have great psychological healing properties [e.g., 29 ]. The need for closeness is a natural need in times of crisis and catastrophes [ 30 ]. Unfortunately, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the ability to meet this need was severely limited by regulations. This led to many people having serious problems with maintaining a good psychological condition.

Another troubling limitation found in our study were the restrictions on movement and travel, and the associated restrictions of most activities, which caused a huge change in lifestyle for many people. As shown in previous studies, travel and diverse leisure activities are important predictors of greater well-being [ 36 ]. Moreover, COVID-19 pandemic movement restrictions may be perceived by some people as a threat to human rights [ 37 ], which can contribute to people’s reluctance to accept lockdown rules.

The problem with accepting these restrictions was also related to the lack of understanding of the reasons behind them. Just as the limitation in contact with other people seemed understandable, the limitations related to physical activity and mobility were less so. Because of these limitations many people lost a sense of understanding of the rules and restrictions being imposed. Inconsistent communication in the media—called by some researchers the ‘infodemic’ [ 18 ], as well as discordant recommendations in different countries, causing an increasing sense of confusion in people.

Another huge challenge posed by the current pandemic is the feeling of uncertainty about the future. This feeling is caused by constant changes in the rules concerning daily functioning during the pandemic and what is prohibited and what is allowed. People lose their sense of being in control of the situation. From the psychological point of view, a long-lasting experience of lack of control can cause so-called learned helplessness, a permanent feeling of having no influence over the situation and no possibility of changing it [ 38 ], which can even result in depression and lower mental and physical wellbeing [ 39 ]. Control over live and the feeling that people have an influence on what happens in their lives is one of the basic rules of crisis situation resilience [ 30 ]. Unfortunately, also in this area, people have huge deficits caused by the pandemic. The obtained results are coherent with previous studies regarding the strategies harnessed to cope with the pandemic [e.g., 5 , 10 , 28 , 33 ]. For example, some studies showed that seeking social support is one of the most common strategies used to deal with the coronavirus pandemic [ 33 , 40 ]. Other ways to deal with this situation include distraction, active coping, and a positive appraisal of the situation [ 41 ]. Furthermore, research has shown that simple coping behaviors such as a healthy diet, not reading too much COVID-19 news, following a daily routine, and spending time outdoors may be protective factors against anxiety and depressive symptoms in times of the coronavirus pandemic [ 41 ].

This study showed that the acceptance of various limitations, and especially the feeling of discomfort associated with them, depended on the person’s earlier lifestyle. The more active and socializing a person was, the more restrictions were burdensome for him/her. The second factor, more of a psychological nature, was the fear of developing COVID-19. In this case, people who were more afraid of getting sick were more likely to submit to the imposed restrictions that, paradoxically, did not reduce their anxiety, and sometimes even heightened it.

Limitations of the study.

While the study shows interesting results, it also has some limitations. The purpose of the study was primarily to capture the first response to problems resulting from a pandemic, and as such its design is not ideal. First, the study participants are not diverse as much as would be desirable. They are mostly college-educated and relatively well off, which may influence how they perceive the pandemic situation. Furthermore, the recruitment was done by searching among the further acquaintances of the people involved in the study, so there is a risk that all the people interviewed come from a similar background. It would be necessary to conduct a study that also describes the reaction of people who are already in a more difficult life situation before the pandemic starts.

Moreover, it would also be worthwhile to pay attention to the interviewers themselves. All of the moderators were female, and although gender effects on the quality of the interviews and differences between the establishment of relationships between women and men were not observed during the debriefing process, the topic of gender effects on the results of qualitative research is frequently addressed in the literature [ 42 , 43 ]. Although the researchers approached the process with reflexivity and self-criticism at all stages, it would have seemed important to involve male moderators in the study to capture any differences in relationship dynamics.

Practical implications.

The study presented has many practical implications. Decision-makers in the state can analyze the COVID-19 pandemic crisis in a way that avoids a critical situation involving other infectious diseases in the future. The results of our study showing the most disruptive effects of the pandemic on people can serve as a basis for developing strategies to deal with the effects of the crisis so that it does not translate into a deterioration of the public’s mental health in the future.

The results of our study can also provide guidance on how to communicate information about restrictions in the future so that they are accepted and respected (for example by giving rational explanations of the reasons for introducing particular restrictions). In addition, the results of our study can also be a source of guidance on how to deal with the limitations that may arise in a recurrent COVID-19 pandemic, as well as other emergencies that could come.

The analysis of the results showed that the COVID-19 pandemic, and especially the lockdown periods, are a particular challenge for many people due to reduced social contact. On the other hand, it is social contacts that are at the same time a way of a smoother transition of crises. This knowledge should prompt decision-makers to devise ways to ensure pandemic safety without drastically limiting social contacts and to create solutions that give people a sense of control (instead of depriving it of). Providing such solutions can reduce the psychological problems associated with a pandemic and help people to cope better with it.

Conclusions

As more and more is said about the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic may not end soon and that we are likely to face more waves of this disease and related lockdowns, it is very important to understand how the different restrictions are perceived, what difficulties they cause and what are the biggest challenges resulting from them. For example, an important element of accepting the restrictions is understanding their sources, i.e., what they result from, what they are supposed to prevent, and what consequences they have for the fight against the pandemic. Moreover, we observed that the more incomprehensible the order was, the more it provoked to break it. This means that not only medical treatment is extremely important in an effective fight against a pandemic, but also appropriate communication.

The results of our study showed also that certain restrictions cause emotional deficits (e.g., loneliness, loss of sense of control) and, consequently, may cause serious problems with psychological functioning. From this perspective, it seems extremely important to understand which restrictions are causing emotional problems and how they can be dealt with in order to reduce the psychological discomfort associated with them.

Supporting information

S1 table. a full description of the changes occurring in poland at the time of the study..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258133.s001

S2 Table. Characteristics of study participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258133.s002

S1 Dataset. Transcriptions from the interviews.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258133.s003

• 1. JHU CSEE. COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University. 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 1]. https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19#covid-19-data-repository-by-the-center-for-systems-science-and-engineering-csse-at-johns-hopkins-university .
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 5. Gerhold L. COVID-19: Risk perception and coping strategies. Results from a survey in Germany. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. 2020 Mar 25.
• 6. Nowakowska K. Rok z koronawirusem: Od paniki, przez luz, do fatalizmu. [A year with coronavirus—from panic through chill to fatalism]. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna [Internet]. 2021 Mar 4 [cited 2021 Jun 1]. https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/wiadomosci/kraj/artykuly/8111858,szczepienia-maseczki-rok-z-koronawirusem-zycie-codzienne.html
• 11. Fernandes N. Economic effects of coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) on the world economy. IESE Business School Working Paper No. WP-1240-E. 2020 Mar 23.
• 15. ARC. Praca z domu w polskim wydaniu—badanie na zlecenie Gumtree.pl we współpracy z Randstat Polska [The Polish way of working from home—a study commissioned by Gumtree.pl in collaboration with Randstat Polska]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 1]. https://www.randstad.pl/strefa-pracownika/centrum-prasowe/badanie-gumtreepl-we-wspolpracy-z-randstad-potrafimy-sie-zorganizowac-choc-czasem-lubimy-sobie-poprzeszkadzac-praca-z-domu-w-polskim-wydaniu/
• 16. Sierpowska, I. O edukacji w czasie pandemii [On Education during pandemic]. Centrum Prasowe SWPS [Internet]. 2020 Sep 8. [cited 2021 Jun 1]. https://www.swps.pl/centrum-prasowe/informacje-prasowe/22390-o-edukacji-w-czasie-pandemii-2?dt=1622540060078
• 17. Polish Academy of Sciences. Understanding COVID-19. Report by the COVID-19 team at the President of the Polish Academy of Sciences. 2020 Sep 14. [Cited 2021 Jun 1]. https://informacje.pan.pl/images/2020/opracowanie-covid19-14-09-2020/ZrozumiecCovid19_opracowanie_PAN.pdf
• 25. Brown, K. The pandemic is not a natural disaster. The New Yorker [Internet]. 2020 Apr 13 [cited 2021 Jun 1]. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-pandemic-is-not-a-natural-disaster .
• 34. Maison D. Qualitative marketing research. Understanding consumer behaviour. London: Routledge; 2019.
• 36. Argyle M. Causes and correlates of happiness. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N, editors. Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1999. p. 353–373.

• Frontiers in Psychology
• Personality and Social Psychology
• Research Topics

Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): The Impact and Role of Mass Media During the Pandemic

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created a global health crisis that has had a deep impact on the way we perceive our world and our everyday lives. Not only the rate of contagion and patterns of transmission threatens our sense of agency, but the safety measures put in place to contain ...

Keywords : COVID-19, coronavirus disease, mass media, health communication, prevention, intervention, social behavioral changes

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Submission closed.

Participating Journals

Total views.

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

How to Write About Coronavirus in a College Essay

Students can share how they navigated life during the coronavirus pandemic in a full-length essay or an optional supplement.

Writing About COVID-19 in College Essays

Getty Images

Experts say students should be honest and not limit themselves to merely their experiences with the pandemic.

The global impact of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, means colleges and prospective students alike are in for an admissions cycle like no other. Both face unprecedented challenges and questions as they grapple with their respective futures amid the ongoing fallout of the pandemic.

Colleges must examine applicants without the aid of standardized test scores for many – a factor that prompted many schools to go test-optional for now . Even grades, a significant component of a college application, may be hard to interpret with some high schools adopting pass-fail classes last spring due to the pandemic. Major college admissions factors are suddenly skewed.

"I can't help but think other (admissions) factors are going to matter more," says Ethan Sawyer, founder of the College Essay Guy, a website that offers free and paid essay-writing resources.

College essays and letters of recommendation , Sawyer says, are likely to carry more weight than ever in this admissions cycle. And many essays will likely focus on how the pandemic shaped students' lives throughout an often tumultuous 2020.

But before writing a college essay focused on the coronavirus, students should explore whether it's the best topic for them.

Writing About COVID-19 for a College Application

Much of daily life has been colored by the coronavirus. Virtual learning is the norm at many colleges and high schools, many extracurriculars have vanished and social lives have stalled for students complying with measures to stop the spread of COVID-19.

"For some young people, the pandemic took away what they envisioned as their senior year," says Robert Alexander, dean of admissions, financial aid and enrollment management at the University of Rochester in New York. "Maybe that's a spot on a varsity athletic team or the lead role in the fall play. And it's OK for them to mourn what should have been and what they feel like they lost, but more important is how are they making the most of the opportunities they do have?"

That question, Alexander says, is what colleges want answered if students choose to address COVID-19 in their college essay.

But the question of whether a student should write about the coronavirus is tricky. The answer depends largely on the student.

"In general, I don't think students should write about COVID-19 in their main personal statement for their application," Robin Miller, master college admissions counselor at IvyWise, a college counseling company, wrote in an email.

"Certainly, there may be exceptions to this based on a student's individual experience, but since the personal essay is the main place in the application where the student can really allow their voice to be heard and share insight into who they are as an individual, there are likely many other topics they can choose to write about that are more distinctive and unique than COVID-19," Miller says.

Opinions among admissions experts vary on whether to write about the likely popular topic of the pandemic.

"If your essay communicates something positive, unique, and compelling about you in an interesting and eloquent way, go for it," Carolyn Pippen, principal college admissions counselor at IvyWise, wrote in an email. She adds that students shouldn't be dissuaded from writing about a topic merely because it's common, noting that "topics are bound to repeat, no matter how hard we try to avoid it."

Above all, she urges honesty.

"If your experience within the context of the pandemic has been truly unique, then write about that experience, and the standing out will take care of itself," Pippen says. "If your experience has been generally the same as most other students in your context, then trying to find a unique angle can easily cross the line into exploiting a tragedy, or at least appearing as though you have."

But focusing entirely on the pandemic can limit a student to a single story and narrow who they are in an application, Sawyer says. "There are so many wonderful possibilities for what you can say about yourself outside of your experience within the pandemic."

He notes that passions, strengths, career interests and personal identity are among the multitude of essay topic options available to applicants and encourages them to probe their values to help determine the topic that matters most to them – and write about it.

That doesn't mean the pandemic experience has to be ignored if applicants feel the need to write about it.

Writing About Coronavirus in Main and Supplemental Essays

Students can choose to write a full-length college essay on the coronavirus or summarize their experience in a shorter form.

To help students explain how the pandemic affected them, The Common App has added an optional section to address this topic. Applicants have 250 words to describe their pandemic experience and the personal and academic impact of COVID-19.

"That's not a trick question, and there's no right or wrong answer," Alexander says. Colleges want to know, he adds, how students navigated the pandemic, how they prioritized their time, what responsibilities they took on and what they learned along the way.

If students can distill all of the above information into 250 words, there's likely no need to write about it in a full-length college essay, experts say. And applicants whose lives were not heavily altered by the pandemic may even choose to skip the optional COVID-19 question.

"This space is best used to discuss hardship and/or significant challenges that the student and/or the student's family experienced as a result of COVID-19 and how they have responded to those difficulties," Miller notes. Using the section to acknowledge a lack of impact, she adds, "could be perceived as trite and lacking insight, despite the good intentions of the applicant."

To guard against this lack of awareness, Sawyer encourages students to tap someone they trust to review their writing , whether it's the 250-word Common App response or the full-length essay.

Experts tend to agree that the short-form approach to this as an essay topic works better, but there are exceptions. And if a student does have a coronavirus story that he or she feels must be told, Alexander encourages the writer to be authentic in the essay.

"My advice for an essay about COVID-19 is the same as my advice about an essay for any topic – and that is, don't write what you think we want to read or hear," Alexander says. "Write what really changed you and that story that now is yours and yours alone to tell."

Sawyer urges students to ask themselves, "What's the sentence that only I can write?" He also encourages students to remember that the pandemic is only a chapter of their lives and not the whole book.

Miller, who cautions against writing a full-length essay on the coronavirus, says that if students choose to do so they should have a conversation with their high school counselor about whether that's the right move. And if students choose to proceed with COVID-19 as a topic, she says they need to be clear, detailed and insightful about what they learned and how they adapted along the way.

"Approaching the essay in this manner will provide important balance while demonstrating personal growth and vulnerability," Miller says.

Pippen encourages students to remember that they are in an unprecedented time for college admissions.

"It is important to keep in mind with all of these (admission) factors that no colleges have ever had to consider them this way in the selection process, if at all," Pippen says. "They have had very little time to calibrate their evaluations of different application components within their offices, let alone across institutions. This means that colleges will all be handling the admissions process a little bit differently, and their approaches may even evolve over the course of the admissions cycle."

Searching for a college? Get our complete rankings of Best Colleges.

10 Ways to Discover College Essay Ideas

Tags: students , colleges , college admissions , college applications , college search , Coronavirus

2024 Best Colleges

Search for your perfect fit with the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities.

College Admissions: Get a Step Ahead!

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

Ask an Alum: Making the Most Out of College

You May Also Like

Lawmakers ramp up response to unrest.

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton May 3, 2024

University Commencements Must Go On

Eric J. Gertler May 3, 2024

Where Astronauts Went to College

Cole Claybourn May 3, 2024

College Admitted Student Days

Jarek Rutz May 3, 2024

Universities, the Police and Protests

John J. Sloan III May 2, 2024

Biden Condemns Unrest on Campuses

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton May 2, 2024

How to Find a Mentor in College

Sarah Wood May 2, 2024

20 Beautiful College Campuses

Cole Claybourn May 1, 2024

Congress Comes Down on Campus Protests

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton May 1, 2024

University Leaders in Their Own Words

Laura Mannweiler May 1, 2024

• < Previous

Home > Honors College > Honors Theses > 1912

Honors Theses

An analysis of the effects of covid-19 on students at the university of mississippi: family, careers, mental health.

Hannah Newbold Follow

Date of Award

Spring 5-1-2021

Document Type

Undergraduate Thesis

Integrated Marketing Communication

First Advisor

Second advisor.

Cynthia Joyce

Third Advisor

Marquita Smith

Relational Format

Dissertation/Thesis

This study analyzes the effects of COVID-19 on students at the University of Mississippi. For students, COVID-19 changed the landscape of education, with classes and jobs going online. Students who graduated in May 2020 entered a poor job market and many ended up going to graduate school instead of finding a job. Access to medical and professional help was limited at the very beginning, with offices not taking patients or moving appointments to virtual only. This would require that each student needing help had to have access to quality internet service, which wasn’t always guaranteed, thus producing additional challenges.

These chapters, including a robust literature review of relevant sources, as well as a personal essay, consist further of interviews with students and mental health counselors conducted over the span of several months. These interviews were conducted and recorded over Zoom. The interviews were conducted with individuals who traveled in similar social circles as me. These previously existing relationships allowed the conversation to go deeper than before and allowed new levels of relationship. Emerging from these conversations were six overlapping themes: the importance of family, the need for health over career, the challenge of isolation, struggles with virtual education, assessing mental health, and facing the reality of a bright future not promised. Their revelations of deep academic challenges and fears about the future amid stories of devastating personal loss, produces a striking and complex picture of emerging strength.

Recommended Citation

Newbold, Hannah, "An Analysis Of The Effects Of COVID-19 On Students At The University of Mississippi: Family, Careers, Mental Health" (2021). Honors Theses . 1912. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis/1912

Accessibility Status

Searchable text

Creative Commons License

Since May 10, 2021

Included in

Counseling Commons , Higher Education Commons , Interpersonal and Small Group Communication Commons , Journalism Studies Commons , Psychology Commons

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately, you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.

• Collections
• Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Author Corner

• Submit Thesis

Additional Information

• Request an Accessible Copy

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Examination of the perceptions of the teaching experience for K-5 teachers during COVID-19

• Masters Thesis
• Matthews, Nicole
• Pella, Shannon
• Gonsier-Gerdin, Jean
• Graduate and Professional Studies in Education
• California State University, Sacramento
• Education (Special Education)
• COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020-
• Virtual instruction
• Student outcomes
• Accessibility
• oai:alma.01CALS_USL:11276684490001671
• http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12741/rep:11972

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.