Factors linked to changes in mental health outcomes among Brazilians in quarantine due to COVID-19

  1. Matthew A. STULTS-KOLEHMAINEN
  2. Alberto J. FILGUEIRAS
  3. Miguel BLACUTT

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.23736/s2724-6612.22.02328-4
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.12.20099374v3 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.12.20099374v2 on medRxiv
  4. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.12.20099374: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIACUC: The Ethical Committee of the first author’s institution approved the project under the process #2020.2014-0932-12.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableParticipants were allowed to leave the online questionnaires at any time and procedures obeyed the Declaration of Helsinki. Volunteers for this study were 360 (248 women, 68.9%) Brazilians or foreigners living in Brazil from 9 States and 23 different cities.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Then, researchers used SPSS (IBM, version 21.0) to run the analyses.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)
    Finally, effect-sizes for the t-test of the LMR and the repeated-measures ANOVA (between, within and interaction) were calculated using the software G*Power 3.1 that also provided the interpretation criteria.
    G*Power
    suggested: (G*Power, RRID:SCR_013726)

    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:
    Despite the progress this study makes in tracking changes in mental health and identifying risk factors, the current research does demonstrate some limitations. First of all, there was no pre-quarantine baseline and assessments spanned just a single month. Furthermore, this was a relatively well-off population with higher-educated individuals being over-represented in the sample. There was no measure of adherence to quarantine guidelines. It is possible that those with higher compliance to regulations could be of either higher or lower distress. To lessen survey fatigue for participants, validated measures of exercise and dietary habits, which can be very lengthy, were not utilized. More importantly, the current data needs interpreted with some caution because factors other than quarantine could contribute to changes in the mental health outcomes observed, such as growing political and economic unrest in Brazil (THE LANCET, 2020). Also, it should be noted that effect sizes for changes over 1 month were small (Cohen’s d were .25 – stress, .30 – depression, and .38 – anxiety), possibly because in some cases individuals had improved mental health (n = 31; 8.6%) due to quarantine conditions, such as being closer to loved ones throughout the day or being removed from dangerous work environments. Lastly, correlations between instruments at time 1 or time 2 were small – possibly indicating the uniqueness of the quarantine as a stressor, particularly given the rapidly changing circum...

    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.

    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.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.12.20099374v1 on medRxiv