The effects of COVID-19 on European healthcare provision for people with major depressive disorder: a scoping review protocol

  1. Dilveer Sually
  2. Win Lee Edwin Wong
  3. Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei
  4. Vinciane Quoidbach
  5. Judit Simon
  6. Patrice Boyer
  7. Rebecca Strawbridge
  8. Allan H. Young

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Even before the pandemic, the treatment gaps in depression care were substantial, with issues ranging from rates of depression detection and intervention to a lack of follow-up after treatment initiation and access to secondary care services. The COVID-19 pandemic, which has had major effects on global healthcare systems, is almost certain to have impacted the MDD care pathway, though it is unclear what changes have manifested and what opportunities have arisen in response to COVID-19. The extent to which patients receive best-practice care is likely closely linked to clinical outcomes (and therefore disability burden) and as such, it is important to examine treatment gaps on the MDD care pathway during the pandemic. Here, we outline a protocol for a scoping review that investigates this broad topic, focusing on continuity of care and novel methods (e.g. digital approaches) used to mitigate care disruption. This scoping review protocol was designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) standards and will culminate in a narrative synthesis of evidence.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.17.22269638: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Search strategy: We will search the MEDLINE (PubMed) and APA PsycINFO (via OVID) databases from 1st January 2020 until the search date, inclusive, using search strings that are relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic and MDD and searching within record titles and abstracts.
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Screening & data extraction: All studies will be imported into EndNote reference manager software, after which duplicates will be automatically removed using EndNote’s duplicate identification tool.
    EndNote
    suggested: (EndNote, RRID:SCR_014001)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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 10.1101/2022.02.17.22269638v1 on medRxiv