Mental health indicators in Sweden over a 12-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic – Baseline data of the Omtanke2020 Study

  1. Anikó Lovik
  2. Juan González-Hijón
  3. Anna K. Kähler
  4. Unnur A. Valdimarsdóttir
  5. Emma M. Frans
  6. Patrik K.E. Magnusson
  7. Nancy L. Pedersen
  8. Per Hall
  9. Kamila Czene
  10. Patrick F. Sullivan
  11. Fang Fang

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.jad.2022.11.004
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.10.21267338: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: A total of 29,521 individuals participated in the study by giving informed consent, including 28,293 participants who answered at least one question.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    For validated scales, imputation based on the joint distribution was performed if the number of missing items from the scale was less than 35% (at maximum three missing items for PHQ-9, two for GAD-7, and one for PSS-4 and PC-PTSD-5).
    PC-PTSD-5
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Participants were invited through (social) media campaigns and through personal invitation via ongoing studies at Karolinska Institutet including LifeGene (https://lifegene.se), Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA, https://karmastudy.org) and the Swedish Twin Registry (STR, https://strdata.se).
    LifeGene
    suggested: (LifeGene, RRID:SCR_010524)

    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:
    Strengths and limitations: The strengths of the study include a complex and inclusive recruitment strategy, allowing interested people enough time to join the study and regular (monthly) follow-ups throughout the second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also have a much larger sample size than previous studies from Sweden (close to 28,000 compared to 1,503 in Rondung, Leiler, Meurling, & Bjártå (2021) and 1,212 in McCracken, Badinlou, Buhrman, & Brocki (2020)). Our study also has limitations. First, while the survey has been open to all, selection bias cannot be neglected. More than 80% of the sample were women which is partly because women are more likely to participate in survey research but also because the KARMA cohort (contributing over 5,500 participants) is made up entirely by women. Moreover, the younger age groups were under-represented. Further, recruitment type (through personal invitation or self-recruitment through social media and other outreach activities) was strongly related to mental health outcomes. For this reason, we corrected all analyses and figures for these factors (age, sex, and recruitment type). However, leftover influence of these factors might still have impacted the results to some extent. Regardless, the fact that over 43% of the participants scored above cut-off values of at least one of the mental health measures indicates the notable mental health burden of COVID-19. This is very close to the 45.6% reported by McCracken and collea...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.10.21267338v1 on medRxiv