Mental health concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic as revealed by helpline calls

ADMINO | news | 12 فبراير, 2026

Of these, five studies used probabilistic samples or quota-based sampling (e.g., 19,23), four of which recruited participants from existing panels or ongoing studies and one recruited through random digit dialling. Twenty-six studies were conducted with samples (or control/comparison samples) clearly drawn from the general population. Hölzle et al. conducted a cross-sectional survey but did not specify the method by which data were collected. One cross-sectional study used “a convergent mixed-methods approach” (, p. 4) including both in-depth qualitative telephone interviewing and online survey.

Additional federal resources

Our study shows that the psychological toll of COVID-19 and past epidemics was substantial and widespread in the community. https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/2020-04-29/parenting-teens-coronavirus Fifth, most studies relied on screening instruments, and the findings could represent acute reactions to a stressful event as opposed to true psychopathology . Such cohorts could be instrumental to informing the appropriate response and mobilisation of resources and mental health services 10, 55, 110, 136.

1. Populations with greater susceptibility

Many resources are available to help you manage mental health challenges during the pandemic. Like a car trying to run without gas, your capacity to deal with stress may be limited if your physical and mental health are running on empty. Here are a few ways to care for your mental health during the pandemic and beyond.

The search returned 4,594 records from the four searched databases, resulting in 3,491 records following removal of duplicates. In the full text review stage, conflicts between two independent reviewers regarding eligibility of a study for inclusion were resolved by the Principal Investigator. Conflicts between independent reviewers regarding eligibility of a study for inclusion were discussed and resolved by a minimum of three reviewers, including the Principal Investigator. Publication year limits applied were 2019-present, reflecting the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

• ECBT has been shown to be effective in treating depression, anxiety, and loneliness and should therefore be widely available (Etzelmueller et al., 2020; Masi et al., 2011; Phillips et al., 2019).
• The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed how primitive emotional reactions to the risk of being infected by a potentially severe contagious disease can impact prevention and treatment programs.
• In summary, we found no evidence of long-lasting negative effects of the pandemic on the average trajectory of healthy people’s psychological strain.
• It reported direct and indirect effects of pre-pandemic cortisol on the changes in self-reported, perceived self-efficacy during confinement.
• However, the screening instruments have been shown to be valid and reliable (Table S3) and we excluded studies using non-validated mental health measures (e.g. self-conceived questions, single-item measures) .

One study reported that people had been influenced by anxiety- and trauma-related disorders and by adverse societal dynamics relating to work and PPE shortages. One study reported that frontline nurses experience higher rates of anxiety, emotional exhaustion, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Cases of anxiety and depression within healthcare workers who interact with COVID-19 patients increased by 1.57% and 1.52% respectively. COVID-19’s physical and emotional burden impacted healthcare workers increased rates of anxiety, depression, and burnout that impacted sleep, quality work/empathy towards patients, and suicide rates.

These outcomes represent topics that have been widely assessed and discussed during the pandemic (e.g., Clay, 2020; Miller, 2020). For this reason, we are cautious about extrapolating these data to other nations and cultural contexts. Second, much of the large-scale data available to date catalogues the impact of COVID-19 in relatively Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) nations (Henrich et al., 2010). We prioritized data with one or more of these qualities because such evidence is more likely to provide the most useful insights through robust estimates, generalizable conclusions, and nonspurious information. Because the prevalence of the virus and public-health response patterns are in flux, the full picture is still unfolding.