Back

The impact of self-isolation on psychological wellbeing and how to reduce it: a systematic review

Martin, A. F.; Smith, L. E.; Brooks, S. K.; Stein, M.; Davies, R.; Amlot, R.; Greenberg, N.; Rubin, G. J.

2023-10-16 public and global health
10.1101/2023.10.16.23296895 medRxiv
Show abstract

Self-isolation is a public health measure used to prevent the spread of infection, and which can have an impact on the psychological wellbeing of those going through it. It is likely that self-isolation will be used to contain future outbreaks of infectious disease. We synthesised evidence on the impact of home self-isolation on psychological wellbeing of the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022378140). We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, and grey literature (01 January 2020 to 13 December 2022). Our definition of wellbeing included adverse mental health outcomes and adaptive wellbeing. Studies that investigated isolation in managed facilities, children, and healthcare workers were excluded. We followed PRISMA and synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines. We extracted data on the impact of self-isolation on wellbeing, and factors associated with and interventions targeting wellbeing during self-isolation. We included 36 studies (most were cross sectional, two were longitudinal cohort studies, three assessed interventions, and five were qualitative). The mode quality rating was high-risk. Depressive and anxiety symptoms were most investigated. Evidence for an impact of self-isolation on wellbeing was often inconsistent in quantitative studies, although qualitative studies consistently reported a negative impact on wellbeing. However, people with pre-existing mental and physical health needs consistently reported increased symptoms of mental ill health during self-isolation. Studies reported modifiable stressors that have been reported in previous infectious disease contexts, such as inadequate support, poor coping strategies, inadequate and conflicting information, and the importance of regular contact from trusted healthcare professionals. However, interventions targeting psychological wellbeing were rare and evaluative studies of these had high or very high risk of bias. When implementing self-isolation directives, public health officials should prioritise support for more vulnerable individuals who have pre-existing mental or physical health needs, lack support, or who are facing significant life stressors. Clinicians can play a key role in identifying and supporting those most at risk. Focus should be directed toward interventions that address loneliness, worries, and misinformation, whilst monitoring and identifying individuals in need of additional support.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.5%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.5%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.9%
4
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.4%
5
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
6
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
7
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
8
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
105 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.8%
9
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
50% of probability mass above
10
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
11
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
12
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
13
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
14
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 38%
1.9%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.7%
16
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
17
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
18
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
19
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
20
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
21
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
22
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
23
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
24
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
25
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
26
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
27
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
28
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
29
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
30
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%