Professionals’ views on the mental health problems and vulnerability of children and young people during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

  1. Julian Edbrooke-Childs
  2. Angelika Labno
  3. Melissa A. Cortina
  4. Anna Gilleard
  5. Daniel Hayes
  6. Yeosun Yoon
  7. Christian Dalton-Locke
  8. Sonia Johnson
  9. Alan Simpson
  10. Norha Vera San Juan
  11. Ellie Brooks-Hall
  12. Mental Health Policy Research Unit

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic caused major disruptions to everyday life for children and young people. The aim of this study was to examine professionals’ views on the mental health problems and vulnerabilities of children and young people during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a secondary analysis of an online survey completed by mental health professionals in the UK between 22 April 2020 and 12 May 2020. The final sample was N = 601 professionals who at least partly worked with children and young people. Quantitative and qualitative survey data showed that professionals were concerned about young people experiencing economic disadvantage and young people from minority ethnic groups, as pre-existing social inequalities resulted in increased risk of infection and reduced access to physical and mental health care. Professionals were concerned about young people with little family support and young people at risk of relapse or deterioration in mental health, reporting the exacerbation of pre-existing mental health difficulties and challenging behaviours. Further research, involving young people as researchers, is needed to explore the continued impact for children and young people, and their families, including in comparison to their experiences before the pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.26.21256103: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The King’s College London research ethics committee approved this study (MRA-19/20-18372).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    4.1 Strengths and limitations: This study helps shed light on a novel situation that is still unfolding and offers insight into the challenges many children and young people are facing. One strength of this study is the diversity of professionals who completed the survey. This may help paint a fuller picture on which groups of children and young people may be suffering disproportionally and identify those at risk of developing symptoms stemming from stress and worry. Additionally, this data was collected during the height of the first lockdown, allowing us to gain insight into professionals’ concerns during the most restrictive phase of the pandemic. This may be particularly relevant as communities face subsequent lockdowns or during future pandemics so contingency plans can be put in place to mitigate against the negative mental health consequences. Several limitations should also be considered. First is the use of the convenience sample to collect survey data which was used in this analysis. As such, findings may not be representative of the professional population at large as there may be some underrepresented groups such as community organisations, health visitors, children’s nurses, and teachers who are likely to know young people and families intimately and to capture stronger opinions than what is representative of the entire workforce. Indeed, as the pandemic emerged, many job roles shifted to cope with the increased demand on CYPMHS and social services. Next, the sam...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.26.21256103 on medRxiv