write a thesis statement on the following topics covid 19 pandemic brainly

Paragraph Writing on Covid 19

Ai generator.

write a thesis statement on the following topics covid 19 pandemic brainly

COVID-19, caused by the coronavirus, significantly impacted global health and daily life. Action plans focused on prevention, treatment, and vaccination. Some sought religious exemptions from mandates. A health thesis statement might explore the pandemic’s effects on mental health. The tone is informative and serious. This paragraph highlights the comprehensive response to COVID-19.

Checkout → Free Paragraph Writer Tool

Short Paragraph on Covid-19

Covid-19 is a global pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus. It has significantly impacted daily life, with governments worldwide implementing lockdowns, social distancing, and mask mandates to curb the virus’s spread. The pandemic has highlighted the importance of healthcare systems and the need for vaccines. It has also emphasized global cooperation and resilience in facing unprecedented challenges.

Medium Paragraph on Covid-19

Covid-19, caused by the novel coronavirus, has had a profound impact on the world since its outbreak. The pandemic led to widespread lockdowns, social distancing measures, and mandatory mask-wearing to prevent the virus’s spread. Healthcare systems were overwhelmed, emphasizing the need for robust medical infrastructure and preparedness. The development and distribution of vaccines became a global priority, showcasing the importance of scientific research and international cooperation. Economies faced significant challenges, with businesses closing and unemployment rates rising. Despite these hardships, the pandemic also brought communities together, highlighting resilience, adaptability, and the critical role of healthcare workers in combating the crisis.

Long Paragraph on Covid-19

Covid-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, emerged in late 2019 and rapidly spread across the globe, leading to an unprecedented pandemic. The virus’s high transmission rate prompted governments worldwide to implement stringent measures such as lockdowns, social distancing, and mask mandates to control its spread. These measures, while necessary, significantly disrupted daily life, impacting economies, education, and social interactions. Healthcare systems were strained, underscoring the need for better preparedness and robust medical infrastructure. The rapid development and global distribution of vaccines became a beacon of hope, demonstrating the power of scientific collaboration and innovation. The pandemic also highlighted the disparities in healthcare access and the importance of public health initiatives. Despite the immense challenges, communities showed resilience and adaptability, finding new ways to connect and support each other. The dedication of healthcare workers and the collective effort to combat the virus underscored the importance of global solidarity. Covid-19 has reshaped our world, teaching valuable lessons about preparedness, the significance of science, and the strength of human resilience in the face of adversity.

Tone-wise Paragraph Examples on Covid-19

Formal tone.

Covid-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, represents an unprecedented global health crisis. The pandemic has led to widespread implementation of public health measures such as lockdowns, social distancing, and mandatory mask usage to mitigate the virus’s transmission. Healthcare systems worldwide faced significant strain, highlighting the critical need for robust medical infrastructure and emergency preparedness. The rapid development and distribution of vaccines have been pivotal in controlling the spread of the virus, underscoring the importance of scientific research and international cooperation. The pandemic has also revealed existing disparities in healthcare access and emphasized the necessity of coordinated global public health strategies to effectively manage such crises.

Informal Tone

Covid-19 has really shaken things up since it started spreading in late 2019. Caused by a new coronavirus, it led to lockdowns, social distancing, and everyone wearing masks. Daily life changed a lot, with schools and businesses shutting down, and everyone trying to stay safe. The healthcare system was hit hard, showing us just how important it is to be prepared. Vaccines were developed super quickly, giving us hope to get back to normal. Even though it was tough, people came together, supported each other, and adapted to the new normal. Covid-19 taught us a lot about resilience and the importance of healthcare.

Persuasive Tone

Covid-19, caused by the novel coronavirus, has highlighted the urgent need for better healthcare systems and global cooperation. The pandemic led to widespread lockdowns, social distancing, and mask mandates, disrupting daily life and economies. Our healthcare systems were overwhelmed, underscoring the critical need for robust medical infrastructure. The rapid development of vaccines showcased the power of scientific research and international collaboration. Now, more than ever, it is crucial to support and strengthen our healthcare systems, invest in scientific research, and promote global cooperation to ensure we are better prepared for future health crises. Let’s learn from this pandemic and build a stronger, healthier world together.

Reflective Tone

Reflecting on the impact of Covid-19, it’s clear that the pandemic has reshaped our world in profound ways. The novel coronavirus led to unprecedented global lockdowns, social distancing, and mask mandates, dramatically altering daily life. Our healthcare systems were tested like never before, revealing both strengths and weaknesses. The rapid development and distribution of vaccines highlighted the importance of scientific innovation and international cooperation. Amid the challenges, communities showed remarkable resilience and adaptability, finding new ways to connect and support one another. Covid-19 has taught us valuable lessons about preparedness, the significance of healthcare, and the power of human resilience in the face of adversity.

Inspirational Tone

Covid-19 has been a challenging journey, but it has also shown the incredible strength and resilience of humanity. The novel coronavirus led to global lockdowns, social distancing, and mask mandates, changing our daily lives dramatically. Despite these hardships, the rapid development and distribution of vaccines brought hope and showcased the power of scientific innovation and global cooperation. Communities came together, supporting each other and adapting to new realities. Healthcare workers became heroes, showing unparalleled dedication and bravery. Covid-19 has taught us the importance of unity, resilience, and the ability to overcome even the toughest challenges. Together, we can build a brighter, healthier future.

Optimistic Tone

Covid-19, caused by the novel coronavirus, brought significant challenges, but it also highlighted the resilience and adaptability of people worldwide. The pandemic led to lockdowns, social distancing, and mask-wearing, changing our daily routines. Despite these difficulties, the rapid development of vaccines brought hope and demonstrated the power of scientific progress. Communities came together, supporting one another and finding new ways to connect. Healthcare workers showed incredible dedication, and the world witnessed the strength of human spirit. Covid-19 has been a tough journey, but it also reinforced our ability to overcome adversity and work towards a healthier, more connected future.

Urgent Tone

The Covid-19 pandemic, caused by the novel coronavirus, demands our immediate attention and action. Since its outbreak, the virus has led to widespread lockdowns, social distancing, and mandatory mask usage, significantly disrupting daily life. Healthcare systems have been overwhelmed, highlighting the urgent need for better preparedness and robust medical infrastructure. The rapid development of vaccines has been crucial, but we must continue to prioritize public health measures and global cooperation to combat this crisis. Now is the time to invest in healthcare, support scientific research, and work together to overcome this pandemic. Immediate action is essential to protect lives and prevent further devastation.

Word Count-wise Paragraph Examples on Covid-19

Text prompt

Instructive
Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Our Writers
How to Order
Assignment Writing Service
Report Writing Service
Buy Coursework
Dissertation Writing Service
Research Paper Writing Service
All Essay Services
Buy Research Paper
Buy Term Paper
Buy Dissertation
Buy Case study
Buy Presentation
Buy Personal statement

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Covid19

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

11 min read

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Here are the steps to help you write a persuasive essay on this topic, along with an example essay:

Step 1: Choose a Specific Thesis Statement

Your thesis statement should clearly state your position on a specific aspect of COVID-19. It should be debatable and clear. For example:

"COVID-19 vaccination mandates are necessary for public health and safety."

Step 2: Research and Gather Information

Collect reliable and up-to-date information from reputable sources to support your thesis statement. This may include statistics, expert opinions, and scientific studies. For instance:

COVID-19 vaccination effectiveness data
Information on vaccine mandates in different countries
Expert statements from health organizations like the WHO or CDC

Step 3: Outline Your Essay

Create a clear and organized outline to structure your essay. A persuasive essay typically follows this structure:

Introduction
Background Information
Body Paragraphs (with supporting evidence)
Counterarguments (addressing opposing views)

Step 4: Write the Introduction

In the introduction, grab your reader's attention and present your thesis statement. For example:

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented an unprecedented global challenge, and in the face of this crisis, many countries have debated the implementation of vaccination mandates. This essay argues that such mandates are essential for safeguarding public health and preventing further devastation caused by the virus.

Step 5: Provide Background Information

Offer context and background information to help your readers understand the issue better. For instance:

COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, emerged in late 2019 and quickly spread worldwide, leading to millions of infections and deaths. Vaccination has proven to be an effective tool in curbing the virus's spread and severity.

Step 6: Develop Body Paragraphs

Each body paragraph should present a single point or piece of evidence that supports your thesis statement. Use clear topic sentences, evidence, and analysis. Here's an example:

One compelling reason for implementing COVID-19 vaccination mandates is the overwhelming evidence of vaccine effectiveness. According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines demonstrated an efficacy of over 90% in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 cases. This level of protection not only reduces the risk of infection but also minimizes the virus's impact on healthcare systems.

Step 7: Address Counterarguments

Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and refute them with strong counterarguments. This demonstrates that you've considered different perspectives. For example:

Some argue that vaccination mandates infringe on personal freedoms and autonomy. While individual freedom is a crucial aspect of democratic societies, public health measures have long been implemented to protect the collective well-being. Seatbelt laws, for example, are in place to save lives, even though they restrict personal choice.

Step 8: Write the Conclusion

Summarize your main points and restate your thesis statement in the conclusion. End with a strong call to action or thought-provoking statement. For instance:

In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination mandates are a crucial step toward controlling the pandemic, protecting public health, and preventing further loss of life. The evidence overwhelmingly supports their effectiveness, and while concerns about personal freedoms are valid, they must be weighed against the greater good of society. It is our responsibility to take collective action to combat this global crisis and move toward a safer, healthier future.

Step 9: Revise and Proofread

Edit your essay for clarity, coherence, grammar, and spelling errors. Ensure that your argument flows logically.

Step 10: Cite Your Sources

Include proper citations and a bibliography page to give credit to your sources.

Remember to adjust your approach and arguments based on your target audience and the specific angle you want to take in your persuasive essay about COVID-19.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid19

When writing a persuasive essay about the Covid-19 pandemic, it’s important to consider how you want to present your argument. To help you get started, here are some example essays for you to read:

Check out some more PDF examples below:

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Pandemic

Sample Of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 In The Philippines - Example

If you're in search of a compelling persuasive essay on business, don't miss out on our “ persuasive essay about business ” blog!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Vaccine

Covid19 vaccines are one of the ways to prevent the spread of Covid-19, but they have been a source of controversy. Different sides argue about the benefits or dangers of the new vaccines. Whatever your point of view is, writing a persuasive essay about it is a good way of organizing your thoughts and persuading others.

A persuasive essay about the Covid-19 vaccine could consider the benefits of getting vaccinated as well as the potential side effects.

Below are some examples of persuasive essays on getting vaccinated for Covid-19.

Covid19 Vaccine Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay on Covid Vaccines

Interested in thought-provoking discussions on abortion? Read our persuasive essay about abortion blog to eplore arguments!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Integration

Covid19 has drastically changed the way people interact in schools, markets, and workplaces. In short, it has affected all aspects of life. However, people have started to learn to live with Covid19.

Writing a persuasive essay about it shouldn't be stressful. Read the sample essay below to get idea for your own essay about Covid19 integration.

Persuasive Essay About Working From Home During Covid19

Searching for the topic of Online Education? Our persuasive essay about online education is a must-read.

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid 19

Covid-19 has been an ever-evolving issue, with new developments and discoveries being made on a daily basis.

Writing an argumentative essay about such an issue is both interesting and challenging. It allows you to evaluate different aspects of the pandemic, as well as consider potential solutions.

Here are some examples of argumentative essays on Covid19.

Argumentative Essay About Covid19 Sample

Argumentative Essay About Covid19 With Introduction Body and Conclusion

Looking for a persuasive take on the topic of smoking? You'll find it all related arguments in out Persuasive Essay About Smoking blog!

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Do you need to prepare a speech about Covid19 and need examples? We have them for you!

Persuasive speeches about Covid-19 can provide the audience with valuable insights on how to best handle the pandemic. They can be used to advocate for specific changes in policies or simply raise awareness about the virus.

Check out some examples of persuasive speeches on Covid-19:

Persuasive Speech About Covid-19 Example

Persuasive Speech About Vaccine For Covid-19

You can also read persuasive essay examples on other topics to master your persuasive techniques!

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Writing a persuasive essay about COVID-19 requires a thoughtful approach to present your arguments effectively.

Here are some tips to help you craft a compelling persuasive essay on this topic:

Choose a Specific Angle

Start by narrowing down your focus. COVID-19 is a broad topic, so selecting a specific aspect or issue related to it will make your essay more persuasive and manageable. For example, you could focus on vaccination, public health measures, the economic impact, or misinformation.

Provide Credible Sources

Support your arguments with credible sources such as scientific studies, government reports, and reputable news outlets. Reliable sources enhance the credibility of your essay.

Use Persuasive Language

Employ persuasive techniques, such as ethos (establishing credibility), pathos (appealing to emotions), and logos (using logic and evidence). Use vivid examples and anecdotes to make your points relatable.

Organize Your Essay

Structure your essay involves creating a persuasive essay outline and establishing a logical flow from one point to the next. Each paragraph should focus on a single point, and transitions between paragraphs should be smooth and logical.

Emphasize Benefits

Highlight the benefits of your proposed actions or viewpoints. Explain how your suggestions can improve public health, safety, or well-being. Make it clear why your audience should support your position.

Use Visuals -H3

Incorporate graphs, charts, and statistics when applicable. Visual aids can reinforce your arguments and make complex data more accessible to your readers.

Call to Action

End your essay with a strong call to action. Encourage your readers to take a specific step or consider your viewpoint. Make it clear what you want them to do or think after reading your essay.

Revise and Edit

Proofread your essay for grammar, spelling, and clarity. Make sure your arguments are well-structured and that your writing flows smoothly.

Seek Feedback

Have someone else read your essay to get feedback. They may offer valuable insights and help you identify areas where your persuasive techniques can be improved.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Common Topics for a Persuasive Essay on COVID-19

Here are some persuasive essay topics on COVID-19:

The Importance of Vaccination Mandates for COVID-19 Control
Balancing Public Health and Personal Freedom During a Pandemic
The Economic Impact of Lockdowns vs. Public Health Benefits
The Role of Misinformation in Fueling Vaccine Hesitancy
Remote Learning vs. In-Person Education: What's Best for Students?
The Ethics of Vaccine Distribution: Prioritizing Vulnerable Populations
The Mental Health Crisis Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
The Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 on Healthcare Systems
Global Cooperation vs. Vaccine Nationalism in Fighting the Pandemic
The Future of Telemedicine: Expanding Healthcare Access Post-COVID-19

In search of more inspiring topics for your next persuasive essay? Our persuasive essay topics blog has plenty of ideas!

To sum it up,

You have read good sample essays and got some helpful tips. You now have the tools you needed to write a persuasive essay about Covid-19. So don't let the doubts stop you, start writing!

If you need professional writing help, don't worry! We've got that for you as well.

MyPerfectWords.com is a professional persuasive essay writing service that can help you craft an excellent persuasive essay on Covid-19. Our experienced essay writer will create a well-structured, insightful paper in no time!

So don't hesitate and place your ' write my essay online ' request today!

Frequently Asked Questions

Are there any ethical considerations when writing a persuasive essay about covid-19.

Yes, there are ethical considerations when writing a persuasive essay about COVID-19. It's essential to ensure the information is accurate, not contribute to misinformation, and be sensitive to the pandemic's impact on individuals and communities. Additionally, respecting diverse viewpoints and emphasizing public health benefits can promote ethical communication.

What impact does COVID-19 have on society?

The impact of COVID-19 on society is far-reaching. It has led to job and economic losses, an increase in stress and mental health disorders, and changes in education systems. It has also had a negative effect on social interactions, as people have been asked to limit their contact with others.

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Research article
Open access
Published: 04 June 2021

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews

Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento 1 , 2 ,
Dónal P. O’Mathúna 3 , 4 ,
Thilo Caspar von Groote 5 ,
Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem 6 ,
Ishanka Weerasekara 7 , 8 ,
Ana Marusic 9 ,
Livia Puljak ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-6061 10 ,
Vinicius Tassoni Civile 11 ,
Irena Zakarija-Grkovic 9 ,
Tina Poklepovic Pericic 9 ,
Alvaro Nagib Atallah 11 ,
Santino Filoso 12 ,
Nicola Luigi Bragazzi 13 &
Milena Soriano Marcolino 1

On behalf of the International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19)

BMC Infectious Diseases volume 21 , Article number: 525 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

30 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.

Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO’s Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes.

Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as “critically low”. Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82–95%), cough with or without sputum (58–72%), dyspnea (26–59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29–51%), sore throat (10–13%), headache (8–12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5–9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%.

Conclusions

In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was “critically low”. Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

Peer Review reports

The spread of the “Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2), the causal agent of COVID-19, was characterized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020 and has triggered an international public health emergency [ 1 ]. The numbers of confirmed cases and deaths due to COVID-19 are rapidly escalating, counting in millions [ 2 ], causing massive economic strain, and escalating healthcare and public health expenses [ 3 , 4 ].

The research community has responded by publishing an impressive number of scientific reports related to COVID-19. The world was alerted to the new disease at the beginning of 2020 [ 1 ], and by mid-March 2020, more than 2000 articles had been published on COVID-19 in scholarly journals, with 25% of them containing original data [ 5 ]. The living map of COVID-19 evidence, curated by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), contained more than 40,000 records by February 2021 [ 6 ]. More than 100,000 records on PubMed were labeled as “SARS-CoV-2 literature, sequence, and clinical content” by February 2021 [ 7 ].

Due to publication speed, the research community has voiced concerns regarding the quality and reproducibility of evidence produced during the COVID-19 pandemic, warning of the potential damaging approach of “publish first, retract later” [ 8 ]. It appears that these concerns are not unfounded, as it has been reported that COVID-19 articles were overrepresented in the pool of retracted articles in 2020 [ 9 ]. These concerns about inadequate evidence are of major importance because they can lead to poor clinical practice and inappropriate policies [ 10 ].

Systematic reviews are a cornerstone of today’s evidence-informed decision-making. By synthesizing all relevant evidence regarding a particular topic, systematic reviews reflect the current scientific knowledge. Systematic reviews are considered to be at the highest level in the hierarchy of evidence and should be used to make informed decisions. However, with high numbers of systematic reviews of different scope and methodological quality being published, overviews of multiple systematic reviews that assess their methodological quality are essential [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. An overview of systematic reviews helps identify and organize the literature and highlights areas of priority in decision-making.

In this overview of systematic reviews, we aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.

Methodology

Research question.

This overview’s primary objective was to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews that assessed any type of primary clinical data from patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Our research question was purposefully broad because we wanted to analyze as many systematic reviews as possible that were available early following the COVID-19 outbreak.

Study design

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. The idea for this overview originated in a protocol for a systematic review submitted to PROSPERO (CRD42020170623), which indicated a plan to conduct an overview.

Overviews of systematic reviews use explicit and systematic methods for searching and identifying multiple systematic reviews addressing related research questions in the same field to extract and analyze evidence across important outcomes. Overviews of systematic reviews are in principle similar to systematic reviews of interventions, but the unit of analysis is a systematic review [ 14 , 15 , 16 ].

We used the overview methodology instead of other evidence synthesis methods to allow us to collate and appraise multiple systematic reviews on this topic, and to extract and analyze their results across relevant topics [ 17 ]. The overview and meta-analysis of systematic reviews allowed us to investigate the methodological quality of included studies, summarize results, and identify specific areas of available or limited evidence, thereby strengthening the current understanding of this novel disease and guiding future research [ 13 ].

A reporting guideline for overviews of reviews is currently under development, i.e., Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) [ 18 ]. As the PRIOR checklist is still not published, this study was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 statement [ 19 ]. The methodology used in this review was adapted from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and also followed established methodological considerations for analyzing existing systematic reviews [ 14 ].

Approval of a research ethics committee was not necessary as the study analyzed only publicly available articles.

Eligibility criteria

Systematic reviews were included if they analyzed primary data from patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 as confirmed by RT-PCR or another pre-specified diagnostic technique. Eligible reviews covered all topics related to COVID-19 including, but not limited to, those that reported clinical symptoms, diagnostic methods, therapeutic interventions, laboratory findings, or radiological results. Both full manuscripts and abbreviated versions, such as letters, were eligible.

No restrictions were imposed on the design of the primary studies included within the systematic reviews, the last search date, whether the review included meta-analyses or language. Reviews related to SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses were eligible, but from those reviews, we analyzed only data related to SARS-CoV-2.

No consensus definition exists for a systematic review [ 20 ], and debates continue about the defining characteristics of a systematic review [ 21 ]. Cochrane’s guidance for overviews of reviews recommends setting pre-established criteria for making decisions around inclusion [ 14 ]. That is supported by a recent scoping review about guidance for overviews of systematic reviews [ 22 ].

Thus, for this study, we defined a systematic review as a research report which searched for primary research studies on a specific topic using an explicit search strategy, had a detailed description of the methods with explicit inclusion criteria provided, and provided a summary of the included studies either in narrative or quantitative format (such as a meta-analysis). Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews were considered eligible for inclusion, with or without meta-analysis, and regardless of the study design, language restriction and methodology of the included primary studies. To be eligible for inclusion, reviews had to be clearly analyzing data related to SARS-CoV-2 (associated or not with other viruses). We excluded narrative reviews without those characteristics as these are less likely to be replicable and are more prone to bias.

Scoping reviews and rapid reviews were eligible for inclusion in this overview if they met our pre-defined inclusion criteria noted above. We included reviews that addressed SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses if they reported separate data regarding SARS-CoV-2.

Information sources

Nine databases were searched for eligible records published between December 1, 2019, and March 24, 2020: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Sciences, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), PDQ-Evidence, WHO’s Global Research on Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), and Epistemonikos.

The comprehensive search strategy for each database is provided in Additional file 1 and was designed and conducted in collaboration with an information specialist. All retrieved records were primarily processed in EndNote, where duplicates were removed, and records were then imported into the Covidence platform [ 23 ]. In addition to database searches, we screened reference lists of reviews included after screening records retrieved via databases.

Study selection

All searches, screening of titles and abstracts, and record selection, were performed independently by two investigators using the Covidence platform [ 23 ]. Articles deemed potentially eligible were retrieved for full-text screening carried out independently by two investigators. Discrepancies at all stages were resolved by consensus. During the screening, records published in languages other than English were translated by a native/fluent speaker.

Data collection process

We custom designed a data extraction table for this study, which was piloted by two authors independently. Data extraction was performed independently by two authors. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or by consulting a third researcher.

We extracted the following data: article identification data (authors’ name and journal of publication), search period, number of databases searched, population or settings considered, main results and outcomes observed, and number of participants. From Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), we extracted journal rank (quartile) and Journal Impact Factor (JIF).

We categorized the following as primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, need for and length of mechanical ventilation, length of hospitalization (in days), admission to intensive care unit (yes/no), and length of stay in the intensive care unit.

The following outcomes were categorized as exploratory: diagnostic methods used for detection of the virus, male to female ratio, clinical symptoms, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, laboratory findings (full blood count, liver enzymes, C-reactive protein, d-dimer, albumin, lipid profile, serum electrolytes, blood vitamin levels, glucose levels, and any other important biomarkers), and radiological findings (using radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound).

We also collected data on reporting guidelines and requirements for the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses from journal websites where included reviews were published.

Quality assessment in individual reviews

Two researchers independently assessed the reviews’ quality using the “A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2)”. We acknowledge that the AMSTAR 2 was created as “a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both” [ 24 ]. However, since AMSTAR 2 was designed for systematic reviews of intervention trials, and we included additional types of systematic reviews, we adjusted some AMSTAR 2 ratings and reported these in Additional file 2 .

Adherence to each item was rated as follows: yes, partial yes, no, or not applicable (such as when a meta-analysis was not conducted). The overall confidence in the results of the review is rated as “critically low”, “low”, “moderate” or “high”, according to the AMSTAR 2 guidance based on seven critical domains, which are items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 as defined by AMSTAR 2 authors [ 24 ]. We reported our adherence ratings for transparency of our decision with accompanying explanations, for each item, in each included review.

One of the included systematic reviews was conducted by some members of this author team [ 25 ]. This review was initially assessed independently by two authors who were not co-authors of that review to prevent the risk of bias in assessing this study.

Synthesis of results

For data synthesis, we prepared a table summarizing each systematic review. Graphs illustrating the mortality rate and clinical symptoms were created. We then prepared a narrative summary of the methods, findings, study strengths, and limitations.

For analysis of the prevalence of clinical outcomes, we extracted data on the number of events and the total number of patients to perform proportional meta-analysis using RStudio© software, with the “meta” package (version 4.9–6), using the “metaprop” function for reviews that did not perform a meta-analysis, excluding case studies because of the absence of variance. For reviews that did not perform a meta-analysis, we presented pooled results of proportions with their respective confidence intervals (95%) by the inverse variance method with a random-effects model, using the DerSimonian-Laird estimator for τ 2 . We adjusted data using Freeman-Tukey double arcosen transformation. Confidence intervals were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method for individual studies. We created forest plots using the RStudio© software, with the “metafor” package (version 2.1–0) and “forest” function.

Managing overlapping systematic reviews

Some of the included systematic reviews that address the same or similar research questions may include the same primary studies in overviews. Including such overlapping reviews may introduce bias when outcome data from the same primary study are included in the analyses of an overview multiple times. Thus, in summaries of evidence, multiple-counting of the same outcome data will give data from some primary studies too much influence [ 14 ]. In this overview, we did not exclude overlapping systematic reviews because, according to Cochrane’s guidance, it may be appropriate to include all relevant reviews’ results if the purpose of the overview is to present and describe the current body of evidence on a topic [ 14 ]. To avoid any bias in summary estimates associated with overlapping reviews, we generated forest plots showing data from individual systematic reviews, but the results were not pooled because some primary studies were included in multiple reviews.

Our search retrieved 1063 publications, of which 175 were duplicates. Most publications were excluded after the title and abstract analysis ( n = 860). Among the 28 studies selected for full-text screening, 10 were excluded for the reasons described in Additional file 3 , and 18 were included in the final analysis (Fig. 1 ) [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Reference list screening did not retrieve any additional systematic reviews.

PRISMA flow diagram

Characteristics of included reviews

Summary features of 18 systematic reviews are presented in Table 1 . They were published in 14 different journals. Only four of these journals had specific requirements for systematic reviews (with or without meta-analysis): European Journal of Internal Medicine, Journal of Clinical Medicine, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Clinical Research in Cardiology . Two journals reported that they published only invited reviews ( Journal of Medical Virology and Clinica Chimica Acta ). Three systematic reviews in our study were published as letters; one was labeled as a scoping review and another as a rapid review (Table 2 ).

All reviews were published in English, in first quartile (Q1) journals, with JIF ranging from 1.692 to 6.062. One review was empty, meaning that its search did not identify any relevant studies; i.e., no primary studies were included [ 36 ]. The remaining 17 reviews included 269 unique studies; the majority ( N = 211; 78%) were included in only a single review included in our study (range: 1 to 12). Primary studies included in the reviews were published between December 2019 and March 18, 2020, and comprised case reports, case series, cohorts, and other observational studies. We found only one review that included randomized clinical trials [ 38 ]. In the included reviews, systematic literature searches were performed from 2019 (entire year) up to March 9, 2020. Ten systematic reviews included meta-analyses. The list of primary studies found in the included systematic reviews is shown in Additional file 4 , as well as the number of reviews in which each primary study was included.

Population and study designs

Most of the reviews analyzed data from patients with COVID-19 who developed pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), or any other correlated complication. One review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of using surgical masks on preventing transmission of the virus [ 36 ], one review was focused on pediatric patients [ 34 ], and one review investigated COVID-19 in pregnant women [ 37 ]. Most reviews assessed clinical symptoms, laboratory findings, or radiological results.

Systematic review findings

The summary of findings from individual reviews is shown in Table 2 . Overall, all-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9% (Fig. 2 ).

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of mortality

Clinical symptoms

Seven reviews described the main clinical manifestations of COVID-19 [ 26 , 28 , 29 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 41 ]. Three of them provided only a narrative discussion of symptoms [ 26 , 34 , 35 ]. In the reviews that performed a statistical analysis of the incidence of different clinical symptoms, symptoms in patients with COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82–95%), cough with or without sputum (58–72%), dyspnea (26–59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29–51%), sore throat (10–13%), headache (8–12%), gastrointestinal disorders, such as diarrhea, nausea or vomiting (5.0–9.0%), and others (including, in one study only: dizziness 12.1%) (Figs. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and 9 ). Three reviews assessed cough with and without sputum together; only one review assessed sputum production itself (28.5%).

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of fever

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of cough

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of dyspnea

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of fatigue or myalgia

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of headache

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of gastrointestinal disorders

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of sore throat

Diagnostic aspects

Three reviews described methodologies, protocols, and tools used for establishing the diagnosis of COVID-19 [ 26 , 34 , 38 ]. The use of respiratory swabs (nasal or pharyngeal) or blood specimens to assess the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid using RT-PCR assays was the most commonly used diagnostic method mentioned in the included studies. These diagnostic tests have been widely used, but their precise sensitivity and specificity remain unknown. One review included a Chinese study with clinical diagnosis with no confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 if they presented with at least two symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, together with laboratory and chest radiography abnormalities) [ 34 ].

Therapeutic possibilities

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions (supportive therapies) used in treating patients with COVID-19 were reported in five reviews [ 25 , 27 , 34 , 35 , 38 ]. Antivirals used empirically for COVID-19 treatment were reported in seven reviews [ 25 , 27 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 41 ]; most commonly used were protease inhibitors (lopinavir, ritonavir, darunavir), nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (tenofovir), nucleotide analogs (remdesivir, galidesivir, ganciclovir), and neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir). Umifenovir, a membrane fusion inhibitor, was investigated in two studies [ 25 , 35 ]. Possible supportive interventions analyzed were different types of oxygen supplementation and breathing support (invasive or non-invasive ventilation) [ 25 ]. The use of antibiotics, both empirically and to treat secondary pneumonia, was reported in six studies [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 34 , 35 , 38 ]. One review specifically assessed evidence on the efficacy and safety of the anti-malaria drug chloroquine [ 27 ]. It identified 23 ongoing trials investigating the potential of chloroquine as a therapeutic option for COVID-19, but no verifiable clinical outcomes data. The use of mesenchymal stem cells, antifungals, and glucocorticoids were described in four reviews [ 25 , 34 , 35 , 38 ].

Laboratory and radiological findings

Of the 18 reviews included in this overview, eight analyzed laboratory parameters in patients with COVID-19 [ 25 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 39 ]; elevated C-reactive protein levels, associated with lymphocytopenia, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, as well as slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase (AST, ALT) were commonly described in those eight reviews. Lippi et al. assessed cardiac troponin I (cTnI) [ 25 ], procalcitonin [ 32 ], and platelet count [ 33 ] in COVID-19 patients. Elevated levels of procalcitonin [ 32 ] and cTnI [ 30 ] were more likely to be associated with a severe disease course (requiring intensive care unit admission and intubation). Furthermore, thrombocytopenia was frequently observed in patients with complicated COVID-19 infections [ 33 ].

Chest imaging (chest radiography and/or computed tomography) features were assessed in six reviews, all of which described a frequent pattern of local or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity [ 25 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. Those six reviews showed that septal thickening, bronchiectasis, pleural and cardiac effusions, halo signs, and pneumothorax were observed in patients suffering from COVID-19.

Quality of evidence in individual systematic reviews

Table 3 shows the detailed results of the quality assessment of 18 systematic reviews, including the assessment of individual items and summary assessment. A detailed explanation for each decision in each review is available in Additional file 5 .

Using AMSTAR 2 criteria, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as “critically low” (Table 3 ). Common methodological drawbacks were: omission of prospective protocol submission or publication; use of inappropriate search strategy: lack of independent and dual literature screening and data-extraction (or methodology unclear); absence of an explanation for heterogeneity among the studies included; lack of reasons for study exclusion (or rationale unclear).

Risk of bias assessment, based on a reported methodological tool, and quality of evidence appraisal, in line with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, were reported only in one review [ 25 ]. Five reviews presented a table summarizing bias, using various risk of bias tools [ 25 , 29 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. One review analyzed “study quality” [ 37 ]. One review mentioned the risk of bias assessment in the methodology but did not provide any related analysis [ 28 ].

This overview of systematic reviews analyzed the first 18 systematic reviews published after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, up to March 24, 2020, with primary studies involving more than 60,000 patients. Using AMSTAR-2, we judged that our confidence in all those reviews was “critically low”. Ten reviews included meta-analyses. The reviews presented data on clinical manifestations, laboratory and radiological findings, and interventions. We found no systematic reviews on the utility of diagnostic tests.

Symptoms were reported in seven reviews; most of the patients had a fever, cough, dyspnea, myalgia or muscle fatigue, and gastrointestinal disorders such as diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Olfactory dysfunction (anosmia or dysosmia) has been described in patients infected with COVID-19 [ 43 ]; however, this was not reported in any of the reviews included in this overview. During the SARS outbreak in 2002, there were reports of impairment of the sense of smell associated with the disease [ 44 , 45 ].

The reported mortality rates ranged from 0.3 to 14% in the included reviews. Mortality estimates are influenced by the transmissibility rate (basic reproduction number), availability of diagnostic tools, notification policies, asymptomatic presentations of the disease, resources for disease prevention and control, and treatment facilities; variability in the mortality rate fits the pattern of emerging infectious diseases [ 46 ]. Furthermore, the reported cases did not consider asymptomatic cases, mild cases where individuals have not sought medical treatment, and the fact that many countries had limited access to diagnostic tests or have implemented testing policies later than the others. Considering the lack of reviews assessing diagnostic testing (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of RT-PCT or immunoglobulin tests), and the preponderance of studies that assessed only symptomatic individuals, considerable imprecision around the calculated mortality rates existed in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Few reviews included treatment data. Those reviews described studies considered to be at a very low level of evidence: usually small, retrospective studies with very heterogeneous populations. Seven reviews analyzed laboratory parameters; those reviews could have been useful for clinicians who attend patients suspected of COVID-19 in emergency services worldwide, such as assessing which patients need to be reassessed more frequently.

All systematic reviews scored poorly on the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews. Most of the original studies included in the reviews were case series and case reports, impacting the quality of evidence. Such evidence has major implications for clinical practice and the use of these reviews in evidence-based practice and policy. Clinicians, patients, and policymakers can only have the highest confidence in systematic review findings if high-quality systematic review methodologies are employed. The urgent need for information during a pandemic does not justify poor quality reporting.

We acknowledge that there are numerous challenges associated with analyzing COVID-19 data during a pandemic [ 47 ]. High-quality evidence syntheses are needed for decision-making, but each type of evidence syntheses is associated with its inherent challenges.

The creation of classic systematic reviews requires considerable time and effort; with massive research output, they quickly become outdated, and preparing updated versions also requires considerable time. A recent study showed that updates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews are published a median of 5 years after the publication of the previous version [ 48 ].

Authors may register a review and then abandon it [ 49 ], but the existence of a public record that is not updated may lead other authors to believe that the review is still ongoing. A quarter of Cochrane review protocols remains unpublished as completed systematic reviews 8 years after protocol publication [ 50 ].

Rapid reviews can be used to summarize the evidence, but they involve methodological sacrifices and simplifications to produce information promptly, with inconsistent methodological approaches [ 51 ]. However, rapid reviews are justified in times of public health emergencies, and even Cochrane has resorted to publishing rapid reviews in response to the COVID-19 crisis [ 52 ]. Rapid reviews were eligible for inclusion in this overview, but only one of the 18 reviews included in this study was labeled as a rapid review.

Ideally, COVID-19 evidence would be continually summarized in a series of high-quality living systematic reviews, types of evidence synthesis defined as “ a systematic review which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available ” [ 53 ]. However, conducting living systematic reviews requires considerable resources, calling into question the sustainability of such evidence synthesis over long periods [ 54 ].

Research reports about COVID-19 will contribute to research waste if they are poorly designed, poorly reported, or simply not necessary. In principle, systematic reviews should help reduce research waste as they usually provide recommendations for further research that is needed or may advise that sufficient evidence exists on a particular topic [ 55 ]. However, systematic reviews can also contribute to growing research waste when they are not needed, or poorly conducted and reported. Our present study clearly shows that most of the systematic reviews that were published early on in the COVID-19 pandemic could be categorized as research waste, as our confidence in their results is critically low.

Our study has some limitations. One is that for AMSTAR 2 assessment we relied on information available in publications; we did not attempt to contact study authors for clarifications or additional data. In three reviews, the methodological quality appraisal was challenging because they were published as letters, or labeled as rapid communications. As a result, various details about their review process were not included, leading to AMSTAR 2 questions being answered as “not reported”, resulting in low confidence scores. Full manuscripts might have provided additional information that could have led to higher confidence in the results. In other words, low scores could reflect incomplete reporting, not necessarily low-quality review methods. To make their review available more rapidly and more concisely, the authors may have omitted methodological details. A general issue during a crisis is that speed and completeness must be balanced. However, maintaining high standards requires proper resourcing and commitment to ensure that the users of systematic reviews can have high confidence in the results.

Furthermore, we used adjusted AMSTAR 2 scoring, as the tool was designed for critical appraisal of reviews of interventions. Some reviews may have received lower scores than actually warranted in spite of these adjustments.

Another limitation of our study may be the inclusion of multiple overlapping reviews, as some included reviews included the same primary studies. According to the Cochrane Handbook, including overlapping reviews may be appropriate when the review’s aim is “ to present and describe the current body of systematic review evidence on a topic ” [ 12 ], which was our aim. To avoid bias with summarizing evidence from overlapping reviews, we presented the forest plots without summary estimates. The forest plots serve to inform readers about the effect sizes for outcomes that were reported in each review.

Several authors from this study have contributed to one of the reviews identified [ 25 ]. To reduce the risk of any bias, two authors who did not co-author the review in question initially assessed its quality and limitations.

Finally, we note that the systematic reviews included in our overview may have had issues that our analysis did not identify because we did not analyze their primary studies to verify the accuracy of the data and information they presented. We give two examples to substantiate this possibility. Lovato et al. wrote a commentary on the review of Sun et al. [ 41 ], in which they criticized the authors’ conclusion that sore throat is rare in COVID-19 patients [ 56 ]. Lovato et al. highlighted that multiple studies included in Sun et al. did not accurately describe participants’ clinical presentations, warning that only three studies clearly reported data on sore throat [ 56 ].

In another example, Leung [ 57 ] warned about the review of Li, L.Q. et al. [ 29 ]: “ it is possible that this statistic was computed using overlapped samples, therefore some patients were double counted ”. Li et al. responded to Leung that it is uncertain whether the data overlapped, as they used data from published articles and did not have access to the original data; they also reported that they requested original data and that they plan to re-do their analyses once they receive them; they also urged readers to treat the data with caution [ 58 ]. This points to the evolving nature of evidence during a crisis.

Our study’s strength is that this overview adds to the current knowledge by providing a comprehensive summary of all the evidence synthesis about COVID-19 available early after the onset of the pandemic. This overview followed strict methodological criteria, including a comprehensive and sensitive search strategy and a standard tool for methodological appraisal of systematic reviews.

In conclusion, in this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all the reviews was “critically low”. Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic could be categorized as research waste. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards to provide patients, clinicians, and decision-makers trustworthy evidence.

Availability of data and materials

All data collected and analyzed within this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

World Health Organization. Timeline - COVID-19: Available at: https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline . Accessed 1 June 2021.

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). Available at: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Anzai A, Kobayashi T, Linton NM, Kinoshita R, Hayashi K, Suzuki A, et al. Assessing the Impact of Reduced Travel on Exportation Dynamics of Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19). J Clin Med. 2020;9(2):601.

Chinazzi M, Davis JT, Ajelli M, Gioannini C, Litvinova M, Merler S, et al. The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Science. 2020;368(6489):395–400. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9757 .

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Fidahic M, Nujic D, Runjic R, Civljak M, Markotic F, Lovric Makaric Z, et al. Research methodology and characteristics of journal articles with original data, preprint articles and registered clinical trial protocols about COVID-19. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01047-2 .

EPPI Centre . COVID-19: a living systematic map of the evidence. Available at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Projects/DepartmentofHealthandSocialCare/Publishedreviews/COVID-19Livingsystematicmapoftheevidence/tabid/3765/Default.aspx . Accessed 1 June 2021.

NCBI SARS-CoV-2 Resources. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/ . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Gustot T. Quality and reproducibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. JHEP Rep. 2020;2(4):100141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhepr.2020.100141 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kodvanj, I., et al., Publishing of COVID-19 Preprints in Peer-reviewed Journals, Preprinting Trends, Public Discussion and Quality Issues. Preprint article. bioRxiv 2020.11.23.394577; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.23.394577 .

Dobler CC. Poor quality research and clinical practice during COVID-19. Breathe (Sheff). 2020;16(2):200112. https://doi.org/10.1183/20734735.0112-2020 .

Article Google Scholar

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 .

Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, McKenzie JE. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1-purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):231. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0617-1 .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Pieper D, Hartling L. Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane. 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane. 2020; Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Newton AS, Scott SD, Hartling L. The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0914-3 .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Newton AS, Scott SD, Hartling L. A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0768-8 .

Hunt H, Pollock A, Campbell P, Estcourt L, Brunton G. An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8 .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Pieper D, Tricco AC, Gates M, Gates A, et al. Preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR): a protocol for development of a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):335. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1252-9 .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123–30.

Krnic Martinic M, Pieper D, Glatt A, Puljak L. Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0855-0 .

Puljak L. If there is only one author or only one database was searched, a study should not be called a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:4–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.002 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Gates M, Gates A, Guitard S, Pollock M, Hartling L. Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):254. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01509-0 .

Covidence - systematic review software. Available at: https://www.covidence.org/ . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

Borges do Nascimento IJ, et al. Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) in Humans: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2020;9(4):941.

Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

Adhikari SP, Meng S, Wu YJ, Mao YP, Ye RX, Wang QZ, et al. Epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, prevention and control of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) during the early outbreak period: a scoping review. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020;9(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-020-00646-x .

Cortegiani A, Ingoglia G, Ippolito M, Giarratano A, Einav S. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. J Crit Care. 2020;57:279–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.03.005 .

Li B, Yang J, Zhao F, Zhi L, Wang X, Liu L, et al. Prevalence and impact of cardiovascular metabolic diseases on COVID-19 in China. Clin Res Cardiol. 2020;109(5):531–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01626-9 .

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Li LQ, Huang T, Wang YQ, Wang ZP, Liang Y, Huang TB, et al. COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(6):577–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25757 .

Lippi G, Lavie CJ, Sanchis-Gomar F. Cardiac troponin I in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): evidence from a meta-analysis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2020;63(3):390–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2020.03.001 .

Lippi G, Henry BM. Active smoking is not associated with severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Eur J Intern Med. 2020;75:107–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2020.03.014 .

Lippi G, Plebani M. Procalcitonin in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020;505:190–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.004 .

Lippi G, Plebani M, Henry BM. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: a meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020;506:145–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022 .

Ludvigsson JF. Systematic review of COVID-19 in children shows milder cases and a better prognosis than adults. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109(6):1088–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15270 .

Lupia T, Scabini S, Mornese Pinna S, di Perri G, de Rosa FG, Corcione S. 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak: a new challenge. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020;21:22–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2020.02.021 .

Marasinghe, K.M., A systematic review investigating the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among medically not diagnosed individuals: shedding light on current recommendations provided to individuals not medically diagnosed with COVID-19. Research Square. Preprint article. doi : https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-16701/v1 . 2020 .

Mullins E, Evans D, Viner RM, O’Brien P, Morris E. Coronavirus in pregnancy and delivery: rapid review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;55(5):586–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.22014 .

Pang J, Wang MX, Ang IYH, Tan SHX, Lewis RF, Chen JIP, et al. Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV): a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2020;9(3):623.

Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Cardona-Ospina JA, Gutiérrez-Ocampo E, Villamizar-Peña R, Holguin-Rivera Y, Escalera-Antezana JP, et al. Clinical, laboratory and imaging features of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020;34:101623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101623 .

Salehi S, Abedi A, Balakrishnan S, Gholamrezanezhad A. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of imaging findings in 919 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215(1):87–93. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23034 .

Sun P, Qie S, Liu Z, Ren J, Li K, Xi J. Clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a single arm meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(6):612–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25735 .

Yang J, Zheng Y, Gou X, Pu K, Chen Z, Guo Q, et al. Prevalence of comorbidities and its effects in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;94:91–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.017 .

Bassetti M, Vena A, Giacobbe DR. The novel Chinese coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infections: challenges for fighting the storm. Eur J Clin Investig. 2020;50(3):e13209. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13209 .

Article CAS Google Scholar

Hwang CS. Olfactory neuropathy in severe acute respiratory syndrome: report of a case. Acta Neurol Taiwanica. 2006;15(1):26–8.

Google Scholar

Suzuki M, Saito K, Min WP, Vladau C, Toida K, Itoh H, et al. Identification of viruses in patients with postviral olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope. 2007;117(2):272–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000249922.37381.1e .

Rajgor DD, Lee MH, Archuleta S, Bagdasarian N, Quek SC. The many estimates of the COVID-19 case fatality rate. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(7):776–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30244-9 .

Wolkewitz M, Puljak L. Methodological challenges of analysing COVID-19 data during the pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-00972-6 .

Rombey T, Lochner V, Puljak L, Könsgen N, Mathes T, Pieper D. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of non-Cochrane updates of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(3):471–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1409 .

Runjic E, Rombey T, Pieper D, Puljak L. Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;116:114–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.08.010 .

Runjic E, Behmen D, Pieper D, Mathes T, Tricco AC, Moher D, et al. Following Cochrane review protocols to completion 10 years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:41–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.006 .

Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 .

COVID-19 Rapid Reviews: Cochrane’s response so far. Available at: https://training.cochrane.org/resource/covid-19-rapid-reviews-cochrane-response-so-far . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Cochrane. Living systematic reviews. Available at: https://community.cochrane.org/review-production/production-resources/living-systematic-reviews . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Millard T, Synnot A, Elliott J, Green S, McDonald S, Turner T. Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):325. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1248-5 .

Babic A, Poklepovic Pericic T, Pieper D, Puljak L. How to decide whether a systematic review is stable and not in need of updating: analysis of Cochrane reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(6):884–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1451 .

Lovato A, Rossettini G, de Filippis C. Sore throat in COVID-19: comment on “clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a single arm meta-analysis”. J Med Virol. 2020;92(7):714–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25815 .

Leung C. Comment on Li et al: COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(9):1431–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25912 .

Li LQ, Huang T, Wang YQ, Wang ZP, Liang Y, Huang TB, et al. Response to Char’s comment: comment on Li et al: COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(9):1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25924 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Catherine Henderson DPhil from Swanscoe Communications for pro bono medical writing and editing support. We acknowledge support from the Covidence Team, specifically Anneliese Arno. We thank the whole International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19) for their commitment and involvement. Members of the InterNetCOVID-19 are listed in Additional file 6 . We thank Pavel Cerny and Roger Crosthwaite for guiding the team supervisor (IJBN) on human resources management.

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University Hospital and School of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento & Milena Soriano Marcolino

Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento

Helene Fuld Health Trust National Institute for Evidence-based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare, College of Nursing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Dónal P. O’Mathúna

School of Nursing, Psychotherapy and Community Health, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

Thilo Caspar von Groote

Department of Sport and Health Science, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem

School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia

Ishanka Weerasekara

Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Cochrane Croatia, University of Split, School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

Ana Marusic, Irena Zakarija-Grkovic & Tina Poklepovic Pericic

Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

Livia Puljak

Cochrane Brazil, Evidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Vinicius Tassoni Civile & Alvaro Nagib Atallah

Yorkville University, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

Santino Filoso

Laboratory for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (LIAM), Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Nicola Luigi Bragazzi

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

IJBN conceived the research idea and worked as a project coordinator. DPOM, TCVG, HMA, IW, AM, LP, VTC, IZG, TPP, ANA, SF, NLB and MSM were involved in data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, and initial draft writing. All authors revised the manuscript critically for the content. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Livia Puljak .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not required as data was based on published studies.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix 1..

Search strategies used in the study.

Additional file 2: Appendix 2.

Adjusted scoring of AMSTAR 2 used in this study for systematic reviews of studies that did not analyze interventions.

Additional file 3: Appendix 3.

List of excluded studies, with reasons.

Additional file 4: Appendix 4.

Table of overlapping studies, containing the list of primary studies included, their visual overlap in individual systematic reviews, and the number in how many reviews each primary study was included.

Additional file 5: Appendix 5.

A detailed explanation of AMSTAR scoring for each item in each review.

Additional file 6: Appendix 6.

List of members and affiliates of International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Borges do Nascimento, I.J., O’Mathúna, D.P., von Groote, T.C. et al. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Infect Dis 21 , 525 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06214-4

Download citation

Received : 12 April 2020

Accepted : 19 May 2021

Published : 04 June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06214-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Coronavirus
Evidence-based medicine
Infectious diseases

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

General enquiries: [email protected]

Paragraph Writing
Paragraph Writing On Covid 19

Paragraph Writing on Covid 19 - Check Samples for Various Word Limits

The Covid-19 pandemic has been a deadly pandemic that has affected the whole world. It was a viral infection that affected almost everyone in some way or the other. However, the effects have been felt differently depending on various factors. As it is a virus, it will change with time, and different variants might keep coming. The virus has affected the lifestyle of human beings. The pandemic has affected the education system and the economy of the world as well. Many people have lost their lives, jobs, near and dear, etc.

Paragraph writing on covid-19 in 100 words, paragraph writing on covid-19 in 150 words, paragraph writing on covid-19 in 200 words, paragraph writing on covid-19 in 250 words, frequently asked questions on covid-19.

Check the samples provided below before you write a paragraph on Covid-19.

Coronavirus is an infectious disease and is commonly called Covid-19. It affects the human respiratory system causing difficulty in breathing. It is a contagious disease and has been spreading across the world like wildfire. The virus was first identified in 2019 in Wuhan, China. In March, WHO declared Covid-19 as a pandemic that has been affecting the world. The virus was spreading from an infected person through coughing, sneezing, etc. Therefore, the affected people were isolated from everyone. The affected people were even isolated from their own family members and their dear ones. Other symptoms noticed in Covid – 19 patients include weariness, sore throat, muscle soreness, and loss of taste and smell.

Coronavirus, often known as Covid-19, is an infectious disease. It affects the human respiratory system, making breathing difficult. It’s a contagious disease that has been spreading like wildfire over the world. The virus was initially discovered in Wuhan, China, in 2019. Covid-19 was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization in March. The virus was transferred by coughing, sneezing, and other means from an infected person. As a result, the people who were affected were isolated from the rest of society. The folks who were afflicted were even separated from their own family members and loved ones. Weariness, sore throat, muscle stiffness, and loss of taste and smell are among the other complaints reported by Covid-19 individuals. Almost every individual has been affected by the virus. A lot of people have lost their lives due to the severity of the infections. The dropping of oxygen levels and the unavailability of oxygen cylinders were the primary concerns during the pandemic.

The Covid-19 pandemic was caused due to a man-made virus called coronavirus. It is an infectious disease that has affected millions of people’s lives. The pandemic has affected the entire world differently. It was initially diagnosed in 2019 in Wuhan, China but later, in March 2020, WHO declared that it was a pandemic that was affecting the whole world like wildfire. Covid-19 is a contagious disease. Since it is a viral disease, the virus spreads rapidly in various forms. The main symptoms of this disease were loss of smell and taste, loss of energy, pale skin, sneezing, coughing, reduction of oxygen level, etc. Therefore, all the affected people were asked to isolate themselves from the unaffected ones. The affected people were isolated from their family members in a separate room. The government has taken significant steps to ensure the safety of the people. The frontline workers were like superheroes who worked selflessly for the safety of the people. A lot of doctors had to stay away from their families and their babies for the safety of their patients and their close ones. The government has taken significant steps, and various protocols were imposed for the safety of the people. The government imposed a lockdown and shut down throughout the country.

The coronavirus was responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic. It is an infectious disease that has affected millions of people’s lives. The pandemic has impacted people all across the world in diverse ways. It was first discovered in Wuhan, China, in 2019. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) proclaimed it a pandemic in March 2020, claiming that it has spread throughout the globe like wildfire. The pandemic has claimed the lives of millions of people. The virus had negative consequences for those who were infected, including the development of a variety of chronic disorders. The main symptoms of this disease were loss of smell and taste, fatigue, pale skin, sneezing, coughing, oxygen deficiency, etc. Because Covid-19 was an infectious disease, all those who were infected were instructed to segregate themselves from those who were not. The folks who were affected were separated from their families and locked in a room. The government has prioritised people’s safety. The frontline personnel were like superheroes, working tirelessly to ensure the public’s safety. For the sake of their patients’ and close relatives’ safety, many doctors had to stay away from their families and babies. The government had also taken significant steps and implemented different protocols for the protection of people.

What is meant by the Covid-19 pandemic?

The Covid-19 pandemic was a deadly pandemic that affected the lives of millions of people. A lot of people lost their lives, and some people lost their jobs and lost their entire families due to the pandemic. Many covid warriors, like doctors, nurses, frontline workers, etc., lost their lives due to the pandemic.

From where did the Covid-19 pandemic start?

The Covid-19 pandemic was initially found in Wuhan, China and later in the whole world.

What are the symptoms of Covid-19?

The symptoms of Covid-19 have been identified as sore throat, loss of smell and taste, cough, sneezing, reduction of oxygen level, etc.

ENGLISH Related Links

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Writing about COVID-19 in a college admission essay

by: Venkates Swaminathan | Updated: September 14, 2020

Print article

Writing about COVID-19 in your college admission essay

For students applying to college using the CommonApp, there are several different places where students and counselors can address the pandemic’s impact. The different sections have differing goals. You must understand how to use each section for its appropriate use.

The CommonApp COVID-19 question

First, the CommonApp this year has an additional question specifically about COVID-19 :

Community disruptions such as COVID-19 and natural disasters can have deep and long-lasting impacts. If you need it, this space is yours to describe those impacts. Colleges care about the effects on your health and well-being, safety, family circumstances, future plans, and education, including access to reliable technology and quiet study spaces. Please use this space to describe how these events have impacted you.

This question seeks to understand the adversity that students may have had to face due to the pandemic, the move to online education, or the shelter-in-place rules. You don’t have to answer this question if the impact on you wasn’t particularly severe. Some examples of things students should discuss include:

The student or a family member had COVID-19 or suffered other illnesses due to confinement during the pandemic.
The candidate had to deal with personal or family issues, such as abusive living situations or other safety concerns
The student suffered from a lack of internet access and other online learning challenges.
Students who dealt with problems registering for or taking standardized tests and AP exams.

Jeff Schiffman of the Tulane University admissions office has a blog about this section. He recommends students ask themselves several questions as they go about answering this section:

Are my experiences different from others’?
Are there noticeable changes on my transcript?
Am I aware of my privilege?
Am I specific? Am I explaining rather than complaining?
Is this information being included elsewhere on my application?

If you do answer this section, be brief and to-the-point.

Counselor recommendations and school profiles

Second, counselors will, in their counselor forms and school profiles on the CommonApp, address how the school handled the pandemic and how it might have affected students, specifically as it relates to:

Grading scales and policies
Graduation requirements
Instructional methods
Schedules and course offerings
Testing requirements
Your academic calendar
Other extenuating circumstances

Students don’t have to mention these matters in their application unless something unusual happened.

Writing about COVID-19 in your main essay

Write about your experiences during the pandemic in your main college essay if your experience is personal, relevant, and the most important thing to discuss in your college admission essay. That you had to stay home and study online isn’t sufficient, as millions of other students faced the same situation. But sometimes, it can be appropriate and helpful to write about something related to the pandemic in your essay. For example:

One student developed a website for a local comic book store. The store might not have survived without the ability for people to order comic books online. The student had a long-standing relationship with the store, and it was an institution that created a community for students who otherwise felt left out.
One student started a YouTube channel to help other students with academic subjects he was very familiar with and began tutoring others.
Some students used their extra time that was the result of the stay-at-home orders to take online courses pursuing topics they are genuinely interested in or developing new interests, like a foreign language or music.

Experiences like this can be good topics for the CommonApp essay as long as they reflect something genuinely important about the student. For many students whose lives have been shaped by this pandemic, it can be a critical part of their college application.

Want more? Read 6 ways to improve a college essay , What the &%$! should I write about in my college essay , and Just how important is a college admissions essay? .

Homes Nearby

Homes for rent and sale near schools

Why the worry about Critical Race Theory in schools?

How our schools are (and aren't) addressing race

The truth about homework in America

What should I write my college essay about?

What the #%@!& should I write about in my college essay?

Yes! Sign me up for updates relevant to my child's grade.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up!

Server Issue: Please try again later. Sorry for the inconvenience

Introduction - Pandemic Preparedness | Lessons From COVID-19

Introduction.

Recommendations
Other Views
Defense & Security
Diplomacy & International Institutions
Energy & Environment
Human Rights
Politics & Government
Social Issues
All Regions
Europe & Eurasia
Global Commons
Middle East & North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
More Explainers
Backgrounders
Special Projects

Research & Analysis

All Research & Analysis
Centers & Programs
Books & Reports
Independent Task Force Program
Fellowships

Communities

All Communities
State & Local Officials
Religion Leaders
Local Journalists
Lectureship Series
Webinars & Conference Calls
Member Login
ForeignAffairs.com
Co-chairs Sylvia Mathews Burwell and Frances Fragos Townsend
Authors Thomas J. Bollyky and Stewart M. Patrick
The work ahead—home

On December 31, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) contacted China about media reports of a cluster of viral pneumonias in Wuhan, later attributed to a coronavirus, now named SARS-CoV-2 . By January 30, 2020, scarcely a month later, WHO declared the virus to be a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC)—the highest alarm the organization can sound. Thirty days more and the pandemic was well underway; the coronavirus had spread to more than seventy countries and territories on six continents, and there were roughly ninety thousand confirmed cases worldwide of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.

The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over and could yet evolve in unanticipated ways, but one of its most important lessons is already clear: preparation and early execution are essential in detecting, containing, and rapidly responding to and mitigating the spread of potentially dangerous emerging infectious diseases. The ability to marshal early action depends on nations and global institutions being prepared for the worst-case scenario of a severe pandemic and ready to execute on that preparedness The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over and could yet evolve in unanticipated ways, but one of its most important lessons is already clear: preparation and early execution are essential in detecting, containing, and rapidly responding to and mitigating the spread of potentially dangerous emerging infectious diseases. The ability to marshal early action depends on nations and global institutions being prepared for the worst-case scenario of a severe pandemic and ready to execute on that preparedness before that worst-case outcome is certain.

The rapid spread of the coronavirus and its devastating death toll and economic harm have revealed a failure of global and U.S. domestic preparedness and implementation, a lack of cooperation and coordination across nations, a breakdown of compliance with established norms and international agreements, and a patchwork of partial and mishandled responses. This pandemic has demonstrated the difficulty of responding effectively to emerging outbreaks in a context of growing geopolitical rivalry abroad and intense political partisanship at home.

Pandemic preparedness is a global public good. Infectious disease threats know no borders, and dangerous pathogens that circulate unabated anywhere are a risk everywhere. As the pandemic continues to unfold across the United States and world, the consequences of inadequate preparation and implementation are abundantly clear. Despite decades of various commissions highlighting the threat of global pandemics and international planning for their inevitability, neither the United States nor the broader international system were ready to execute those plans and respond to a severe pandemic. The result is the worst global catastrophe since World War II.

The lessons of this pandemic could go unheeded once life returns to a semblance of normalcy and COVID-19 ceases to menace nations around the globe. The United States and the world risk repeating many of the same mistakes that exacerbated this crisis, most prominently the failure to prioritize global health security, to invest in the essential domestic and international institutions and infrastructure required to achieve it, and to act quickly in executing a coherent response at both the national and the global level.

The goal of this report is to curtail that possibility by identifying what went wrong in the early national and international responses to the coronavirus pandemic and by providing a road map for the United States and the multilateral system to better prepare and execute in future waves of the current pandemic and when the next pandemic threat inevitably emerges. This report endeavors to preempt the next global health challenge before it becomes a disaster.

A Rapid Spread, a Grim Toll, and an Economic Disaster

On January 23, 2020, China’s government began to undertake drastic measures against the coronavirus, imposing a lockdown on Wuhan, a city of ten million people, aggressively testing, and forcibly rounding up potential carriers in makeshift quarantine centers. 1 In the subsequent days and weeks, the Chinese government extended containment to most of the country, sealing off cities and villages and mobilizing tens of thousands of health workers to contain and treat the disease. By the time those interventions began, however, the disease had already spread well beyond the country’s borders.

SARS-CoV-2 is a highly transmissible emerging infectious disease for which no highly effective treatments or vaccines currently exist and against which people have no preexisting immunity. Some nations have been successful so far in containing its spread through public health measures such as testing, contact tracing, and isolation of confirmed and suspected cases. Those nations have managed to keep the number of cases and deaths within their territories low.

More than one hundred countries implemented either a full or a partial shutdown in an effort to contain the spread of the virus and reduce pressure on their health systems. Although these measures to enforce physical distancing slowed the pace of infection, the societal and economic consequences in many nations have been grim. The supply chain for personal protective equipment (PPE), testing kits, and medical equipment such as oxygen treatment equipment and ventilators remains under immense pressure to meet global demand.

If international cooperation in response to COVID-19 has been occurring at the top levels of government, evidence of it has been scant, though technical areas such as data sharing have witnessed some notable successes. Countries have mostly gone their own ways, closing borders and often hoarding medical equipment. More than a dozen nations are competing in a biotechnology arms race to find a vaccine. A proposed international arrangement to ensure timely equitable access to the products of that biomedical innovation has yet to attract the necessary support from many vaccine-manufacturing nations, and many governments are now racing to cut deals with pharmaceutical firms and secure their own supplies.

As of August 31, 2020, the pandemic had infected at least twenty-five million people worldwide and killed at least 850,000 (both likely gross undercounts), including at least six million reported cases and 183,000 deaths in the United States. Meanwhile, the world economy had collapsed into a slump rivaling or surpassing the Great Depression, with unemployment rates averaging 8.4 percent in high-income economies. In the second quarter of 2020, the U.S gross domestic product (GDP) fell 9.5 percent, the largest quarterly decline in the nation’s history. 2

Already in May 2020, the Asia Development Bank estimated that the pandemic would cost the world $5.8 to 8.8 trillion, reducing global GDP in 2020 by 6.4 to 9.7 percent. The ultimate financial cost could be far higher. 3

The United States is among the countries most affected by the coronavirus, with about 24 percent of global cases (as of August 31) but just 4 percent of the world’s population. While many countries in Europe and Asia succeeded in driving down the rate of transmission in spring 2020, the United States experienced new spikes in infections in the summer because the absence of a national strategy left it to individual U.S. states to go their own way on reopening their economies. In the hardest-hit areas, U.S. hospitals with limited spare beds and intensive care unit capacity have struggled to accommodate the surge in COVID-19 patients. Resource-starved local and state public health departments have been unable to keep up with the staggering demand for case identification, contract tracing, and isolation required to contain the coronavirus’s spread.

A Failure to Heed Warnings

Institute of Medicine, Microbial Threats to Health (1992)
National Intelligence Estimate, The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications ...

This failing was not for any lack of warning of the dangers of pandemics. Indeed, many had sounded the alarm over the years. For nearly three decades, countless epidemiologists, public health specialists, intelligence community professionals, national security officials, and think tank experts have underscored the inevitability of a global pandemic of an emerging infectious disease. Starting with the Bill Clinton administration, successive administrations, including the current one, have included pandemic preparedness and response in their national security strategies. The U.S. government, foreign counterparts, and international agencies commissioned multiple scenarios and tabletop exercises that anticipated with uncanny accuracy the trajectory that a major outbreak could take, the complex national and global challenges it would create, and the glaring gaps and limitations in national and international capacity it would reveal.

The global health security community was almost uniformly in agreement that the most significant natural threat to population health and global security would be a respiratory virus—either a novel strain of influenza or a coronavirus that jumped from animals to humans. 4 Yet, for all this foresight and planning, national and international institutions alike have failed to rise to the occasion.

National Intelligence Estimate, The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States (2000)
Launch of the U.S. Global Health Security Initiative (2001)
Institute of Medicine, Microbial Threats to Health: Emergence, Detection, and Response (2003)
Revision of the International Health Regulations (2005)
World Health Organization, Global Influenza Preparedness Plan (2005)
Homeland Security Council, National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza (2005)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Health Security Strategy of the United States of America (2009)
U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Worldwide Threat Assessments (2009–2019)
World Health Organization, Report of Review Committee on the Functioning of the International Health Regulations (2005) in Relation to Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 (2011)
Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013
Launch of the Global Health Security Agenda (2014)
Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense (now Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense) (2015)
National Security Strategy (2017)
National Biodefense Strategy (2018)
Crimson Contagion Simulation (2019)
Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, A Work at Risk: Annual Report on Global Preparedness for Health Emergencies (2019)
CSIS Commission, Ending the Cycle of Crisis and Complacency in U.S. Global Health Security (2019)
U.S. National Health Security Strategy, 2019–2022 (2019)
Global Health Security Index (2019)

The challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the way people deal with them. A qualitative longitudinal study

Contributed equally to this work with: Dominika Maison, Diana Jaworska, Dominika Adamczyk, Daria Affeltowicz

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology

Dominika Maison,
Diana Jaworska,
Dominika Adamczyk,
Daria Affeltowicz

Published: October 11, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258133
Peer Review
Reader Comments

The conducted qualitative research was aimed at capturing the biggest challenges related to the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The interviews were carried out in March-June (five stages of the research) and in October (the 6 th stage of the research). A total of 115 in-depth individual interviews were conducted online with 20 respondents, in 6 stages. The results of the analysis showed that for all respondents the greatest challenges and the source of the greatest suffering were: a) limitation of direct contact with people; b) restrictions on movement and travel; c) necessary changes in active lifestyle; d) boredom and monotony; and e) uncertainty about the future.

Citation: Maison D, Jaworska D, Adamczyk D, Affeltowicz D (2021) The challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the way people deal with them. A qualitative longitudinal study. PLoS ONE 16(10): e0258133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258133

Editor: Shah Md Atiqul Haq, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, BANGLADESH

Received: April 6, 2021; Accepted: September 18, 2021; Published: October 11, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Maison et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files ( S1 Dataset ).

Funding: This work was supported by the Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Poland from the funds awarded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in the form of a subsidy for the maintenance and development of research potential in 2020 (501-D125-01-1250000). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19), discovered in December 2019 in China, has reached the level of a pandemic and, till June 2021, it has affected more than 171 million people worldwide and caused more than 3.5 million deaths all over the world [ 1 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic as a major health crisis has caught the attention of many researchers, which has led to the creation of a broad quantitative picture of human behavior during the coronavirus outbreak [ 2 – 4 ]. What has been established so far is, among others, the psychological symptoms that can occur as a result of lockdown [ 2 ], and the most common coping strategies [ 5 ]. However, what we still miss is an in-depth understanding of the changes in the ways of coping with challenges over different stages of the pandemic. In the following study, we used a longitudinal qualitative method to investigate the challenges during the different waves of the coronavirus pandemic as well as the coping mechanisms accompanying them.

In Poland, the first patient was diagnosed with COVID-19 on the 4 th March 2020. Since then, the number of confirmed cases has grown to more than 2.8 million and the number of deaths to more than 73,000 (June 2021) [ 1 ]. From mid-March 2020, the Polish government, similarly to many other countries, began to introduce a number of restrictions to limit the spread of the virus. These restrictions had been changing from week to week, causing diverse reactions in people [ 6 ]. It needs to be noted that the reactions to such a dynamic situation cannot be covered by a single study. Therefore, in our study we used qualitative longitudinal research in order to monitor changes in people’s emotions, attitudes, and behavior. So far, few longitudinal studies have been carried out that investigated the various issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, all of them were quantitative [ 7 – 10 ]. The qualitative approach (and especially the use of enabling and projective techniques) allows for an in-depth exploration of respondents’ reactions that goes beyond respondents’ declarations and captures what they are less aware of or even unconscious of. This study consisted of six stages of interviews that were conducted at key moments for the development of the pandemic situation in Poland. The first stage of the study was carried out at the moment of the most severe lockdown and the biggest restrictions (March 2020) and was focused on exploration how did people react to the new uncertain situation. The second stage of the study was conducted at the time when restrictions were extended and the obligation to cover the mouth and nose everywhere outside the household were introduced (middle of April 2020) and was focused at the way how did people deal with the lack of family gatherings over Easter. The third stage of the study was conducted at the moment of announcing the four stages of lifting the restrictions (April 2020) and was focused on people’s reaction to an emerging vision of getting back to normalcy. The fourth stage of the study was carried out, after the introduction of the second stage of lifting the restrictions: shopping malls, hotels, and cultural institutions were gradually being opened (May 2020). The fifth stage of the study was conducted after all four stages of restriction lifting were in place (June 2020). Only the obligation to cover the mouth and nose in public spaces, an order to maintain social distance, as well as the functioning of public places under a sanitary regime were still in effect. During those 5 stages coping strategies with the changes in restrictions were explored. The sixth and last stage of the study was a return to the respondents after a longer break, at the turn of October and November 2020, when the number of coronavirus cases in Poland began to increase rapidly and the media declared “the second wave of the pandemic”. It was the moment when the restrictions were gradually being reintroduced. A full description of the changes occurring in Poland at the time of the study can be found in S1 Table .

The following study is the first qualitative longitudinal study investigating how people cope with the challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic at its different stages. The study, although conducted in Poland, shows the universal psychological relations between the challenges posed by the pandemic (and, even more, the restrictions resulting from the pandemic, which were very similar across different countries, not only European) and the ways of dealing with them.

Literature review

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a global health crisis with severe economic [ 11 ], social [ 3 ], and psychological consequences [ 4 ]. Despite the fact that there were multiple crises in recent years, such as natural disasters, economic crises, and even epidemics, the coronavirus pandemic is the first in 100 years to severely affect the entire world. The economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic concern an impending global recession caused by the lockdown of non-essential industries and the disruption of production and supply chains [ 11 ]. Social consequences may be visible in many areas, such as the rise in family violence [ 3 ], the ineffectiveness of remote education, and increased food insecurity among impoverished families due to school closures [ 12 ]. According to some experts, the psychological consequences of COVID-19 are the ones that may persist for the longest and lead to a global mental health crisis [ 13 ]. The coronavirus outbreak is generating increased depressive symptoms, stress, anxiety, insomnia, denial, fear, and anger all over the world [ 2 , 14 ]. The economic, social, and psychological problems that people are currently facing are the consequences of novel challenges that have been posed by the pandemic.

The coronavirus outbreak is a novel, uncharted situation that has shaken the world and completely changed the everyday lives of many individuals. Due to the social distancing policy, many people have switched to remote work—in Poland, almost 75% of white-collar workers were fully or partially working from home from mid-March until the end of May 2020 [ 15 ]. School closures and remote learning imposed a new obligation on parents of supervising education, especially with younger children [ 16 ]. What is more, the government order of self-isolation forced people to spend almost all their time at home and limit or completely abandon human encounters. In addition, the deteriorating economic situation was the cause of financial hardship for many people. All these difficulties and challenges arose in the aura of a new, contagious disease with unexplored, long-lasting health effects and not fully known infectivity and lethality [ 17 ]. Dealing with the situation was not facilitated by the phenomenon of global misinformation, called by some experts as the “infodemic”, which may be defined as an overabundance of information that makes it difficult for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance [ 18 ]. Studies have shown that people have multiple ways of reacting to a crisis: from radical and even violent practices, towards individual solutions and depression [ 19 ]. Not only the challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic but also the ways of reacting to it and coping with it are issues of paramount importance that are worth investigating.

The reactions to unusual crisis situations may be dependent on dispositional factors, such as trait anxiety or perceived control [ 20 , 21 ]. A study on reactions to Hurricane Hugo has shown that people with higher trait anxiety are more likely to develop posttraumatic symptoms following a natural disaster [ 20 ]. Moreover, lack of perceived control was shown to be positively related to the level of distress during an earthquake in Turkey [ 21 ]. According to some researchers, the COVID-19 crisis and natural disasters have much in common, as the emotions and behavior they cause are based on the same primal human emotion—fear [ 22 ]. Both pandemics and natural disasters disrupt people’s everyday lives and may have severe economic, social and psychological consequences [ 23 ]. However, despite many similarities to natural disasters, COVID-19 is a unique situation—only in 2020, the current pandemic has taken more lives than the world’s combined natural disasters in any of the past twenty years [ 24 ]. It needs to be noted that natural disasters may pose different challenges than health crises and for this reason, they may provoke disparate reactions [ 25 ]. Research on the reactions to former epidemics has shown that avoidance and safety behaviors, such as avoiding going out, visiting crowded places, and visiting hospitals, are widespread at such times [ 26 ]. When it comes to the ways of dealing with the current COVID-19 pandemic, a substantial part of the quantitative research on this issue focuses on coping mechanisms. Studies have shown that the most prevalent coping strategies are highly problem-focused [ 5 ]. Most people tend to listen to expert advice and behave calmly and appropriately in the face of the coronavirus outbreak [ 5 ]. Problem-focused coping is particularly characteristic of healthcare professionals. A study on Chinese nurses has shown that the closer the problem is to the person and the more fear it evokes, the more problem-focused coping strategy is used to deal with it [ 27 ]. On the other hand, a negative coping style that entails risky or aggressive behaviors, such as drug or alcohol use, is also used to deal with the challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic [ 28 ]. The factors that are correlated with negative coping include coronavirus anxiety, impairment, and suicidal ideation [ 28 ]. It is worth emphasizing that social support is a very important component of dealing with crises [ 29 ].

Scientists have attempted to systematize the reactions to difficult and unusual situations. One such concept is the “3 Cs” model created by Reich [ 30 ]. It accounts for the general rules of resilience in situations of stress caused by crises, such as natural disasters. The 3 Cs stand for: control (a belief that personal resources can be accessed to achieve valued goals), coherence (the human desire to make meaning of the world), and connectedness (the need for human contact and support) [ 30 ]. Polizzi and colleagues [ 22 ] reviewed this model from the perspective of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The authors claim that natural disasters and COVID-19 pandemic have much in common and therefore, the principles of resilience in natural disaster situations can also be used in the situation of the current pandemic [ 22 ]. They propose a set of coping behaviors that could be useful in times of the coronavirus outbreak, which include control (e.g., planning activities for each day, getting adequate sleep, limiting exposure to the news, and helping others), coherence (e.g., mindfulness and developing a coherent narrative on the event), and connectedness (e.g., establishing new relationships and caring for existing social bonds) [ 22 ].

Current study

The issue of the challenges arising from the current COVID-19 pandemic and the ways of coping with them is complex and many feelings accompanying these experiences may be unconscious and difficult to verbalize. Therefore, in order to explore and understand it deeply, qualitative methodology was applied. Although there were few qualitative studies on the reaction to the pandemic [e.g., 31 – 33 ], they did not capture the perception of the challenges and their changes that arise as the pandemic develops. Since the situation with the COVID-19 pandemic is very dynamic, the reactions to the various restrictions, orders or bans are evolving. Therefore, it was decided to conduct a qualitative longitudinal study with multiple interviews with the same respondents [ 34 ].

The study investigates the challenges arising from the current pandemic and the way people deal with them. The main aim of the project was to capture people’s reactions to the unusual and unexpected situation of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the project was largely exploratory in nature. Interviews with the participants at different stages of the epidemic allowed us to see a wide spectrum of problems and ways of dealing with them. The conducted study had three main research questions:

What are the biggest challenges connected to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions?
How are people dealing with the pandemic challenges?
What are the ways of coping with the restrictions resulting from a pandemic change as it continues and develops (perspective of first 6 months)?

The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Faculty of Psychology University of Warsaw, Poland. All participants were provided written and oral information about the study, which included that participation was voluntary, that it was possible to withdraw without any consequences at any time, and the precautions that would be taken to protect data confidentiality. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. To ensure confidentiality, quotes are presented only with gender, age, and family status.

The study was based on qualitative methodology: individual in-depth interviews, s which are the appropriate to approach a new and unknown and multithreaded topic which, at the beginning of 2020, was the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the need to observe respondents’ reactions to the dynamically changing situation of the COVID-19 pandemic, longitudinal study was used where the moderator met on-line with the same respondent several times, at specific time intervals. A longitudinal study was used to capture the changes in opinions, emotions, and behaviors of the respondents resulting from the changes in the external circumstances (qualitative in-depth interview tracking–[ 34 ]).

The study took place from the end of March to October 2020. Due to the epidemiological situation in the country interviews took place online, using the Google Meets online video platform. The audio was recorded and then transcribed. Before taking part in the project, the respondents were informed about the purpose of the study, its course, and the fact that participation in the project is voluntary, and that they will be able to withdraw from participation at any time. The respondents were not paid for taking part in the project.

Participants.

In total, 115 interviews were conducted with 20 participants (6 interviews with the majority of respondents). Two participants (number 11 and 19, S2 Table ) dropped out of the last two interviews, and one (number 6) dropped out of the last interview. The study was based on a purposive sample and the respondents differed in gender, age, education, family status, and work situation (see S2 Table ). In addition to demographic criteria intended to ensure that the sample was as diverse as possible, an additional criterion was to have a permanent Internet connection and a computer capable of online video interviewing. Study participants were recruited using the snowball method. They were distant acquaintances of acquaintances of individuals involved in the study. None of the moderators knew their interviewees personally.

A total of 10 men and 10 women participated in the study; their age range was: 25–55; the majority had higher education (17 respondents), they were people with different professions and work status, and different family status (singles, couples without children, and families with children). Such diversity of respondents allowed us to obtain information from different life perspectives. A full description of characteristics of study participants can be found in S2 Table .

Each interview took 2 hours on average, which gives around 240 hours of interviews. Subsequent interviews with the same respondents conducted at different intervals resulted from the dynamics of the development of the pandemic and the restrictions introduced in Poland by the government.

The interviews scenario took a semi-structured form. This allowed interviewers freely modify the questions and topics depending on the dynamics of the conversation and adapt the subject matter of the interviews not only to the research purposes but also to the needs of a given respondent. The interview guides were modified from week to week, taking into account the development of the epidemiological situation, while at the same time maintaining certain constant parts that were repeated in each interview. The main parts of the interview topic guide consisted of: (a) experiences from the time of previous interviews: thoughts, feeling, fears, and hopes; (b) everyday life—organization of the day, work, free time, shopping, and eating, etc.; (c) changes—what had changed in the life of the respondent from the time of the last interview; (d) ways of coping with the situation; and (e) media—reception of information appearing in the media. Additionally, in each interview there were specific parts, such as the reactions to the beginning of the pandemic in the first interview or the reaction to the specific restrictions that were introduced.

The interviews were conducted by 5 female interviewers with experience in moderating qualitative interviews, all with a psychological background. After each series of interviews, all the members of the research teams took part in debriefing sessions, which consisted of discussing the information obtained from each respondent, exchanging general conclusions, deciding about the topics for the following interview stage, and adjusting them to the pandemic situation in the country.

Data analysis.

All the interviews were transcribed in Polish by the moderators and then double-checked (each moderator transcribed the interviews of another moderator, and then the interviewer checked the accuracy of the transcription). The whole process of analysis was conducted on the material in Polish (the native language of the authors of the study and respondents). The final page count of the transcript is approximately 1800 pages of text. The results presented below are only a portion of the total data collected during the interviews. While there are about 250 pages of the transcription directly related to the topic of the article, due to the fact that the interview was partly free-form, some themes merge with others and it is not possible to determine the exact number of pages devoted exclusively to analysis related to the topic of the article. Full dataset can be found in S1 Dataset .

Data was then processed into thematic analysis, which is defined as a method of developing qualitative data consisting of the identification, analysis, and description of the thematic areas [ 35 ]. In this type of analysis, a thematic unit is treated as an element related to the research problem that includes an important aspect of data. An important advantage of thematic analysis is its flexibility, which allows for the adoption of the most appropriate research strategy to the phenomenon under analysis. An inductive approach was used to avoid conceptual tunnel vision. Extracting themes from the raw data using an inductive approach precludes the researcher from imposing a predetermined outcome.

As a first step, each moderator reviewed the transcripts of the interviews they had conducted. Each transcript was thematically coded individually from this point during the second and the third reading. In the next step, one of the researchers reviewed the codes extracted by the other members of the research team. Then she made initial interpretations by generating themes that captured the essence of the previously identified codes. The researcher created a list of common themes present in all of the interviews. In the next step, the extracted themes were discussed again with all the moderators conducting the coding in order to achieve consistency. This collaborative process was repeated several times during the analysis. Here, further superordinate (challenges of COVID-19 pandemic) and subordinate (ways of dealing with challenges) themes were created, often by collapsing others together, and each theme listed under a superordinate and subordinate category was checked to ensure they were accurately represented. Through this process of repeated analysis and discussion of emerging themes, it was possible to agree on the final themes that are described below.

Main challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Challenge 1 –limitation of direct contact with people . The first major challenge of the pandemic was that direct contact with other people was significantly reduced. The lockdown forced many people to work from home and limit contact not only with friends but also with close family (parents, children, and siblings). Limiting contact with other people was a big challenge for most of our respondents, especially those who were living alone and for those who previously led an active social life. Depending on their earlier lifestyle profile, for some, the bigger problem was the limitation of contact with the family, for others with friends, and for still others with co-workers.

I think that because I can’t meet up with anyone and that I’m not in a relationship , I miss having sex , and I think it will become even more difficult because it will be increasingly hard to meet anyone . (5 . 3_ M_39_single) . The number In the brackets at the end of the quotes marks the respondent’s number (according to Table 1 ) and the stage of the interview (after the dash), further is information about gender (F/M), age of the respondent and family status. Linguistic errors in the quotes reflect the spoken language of the respondents.

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258133.t001

Changes over time . Over the course of the 6 months of the study, an evolution in the attitudes to the restriction of face-to-face contact could be seen: from full acceptance, to later questioning its rationale. Initially (March and April), almost all the respondents understood the reasons for the isolation and were compliant. At the beginning, people were afraid of the unknown COVID-19. They were concerned that the tragic situation from Italy, which was intensively covered in the media, could repeat itself in Poland (stage 1–2 of the study). However, with time, the isolation started to bother them more and more, and they started to look for solutions to bypass the isolation guidelines (stage 3–4), both real (simply meeting each other) and mental (treating isolation only as a guideline and not as an order, perceiving the family as being less threatening than acquaintances or strangers in a store). The turning point was the long May weekend that, due to two public holidays (1 st and 3 rd May), has for many years been used as an opportunity to go away with family or friends. Many people broke their voluntary isolation during that time encouraged by information about the coming loosening of restrictions.

During the summer (stage 5 of the survey), practically no one was fully compliant with the isolation recommendations anymore. At that time, a growing familiarity could be observed with COVID-19 and an increasing tendency to talk about it as “one of many diseases”, and to convince oneself that one is not at risk and that COVID-19 is no more threatening than other viruses. Only a small group of people consciously failed to comply with the restrictions of contact with others from the very beginning of the pandemic. This behavior was mostly observed among people who were generally less anxious and less afraid of COVID-19.

I’ve had enough. I’ve had it with sitting at home. Okay, there’s some kind of virus, it’s as though it’s out there somewhere; it’s like I know 2 people who were infected but they’re still alive, nothing bad has happened to anyone. It’s just a tiny portion of people who are dying. And is it really such a tragedy that we have to be locked up at home? Surely there’s an alternative agenda there? (17.4_F_35_Adult and child)

Ways of dealing . In the initial phase, when almost everyone accepted this restriction and submitted to it, the use of communication platforms for social meetings increased (see Ways of dealing with challenges in Table 1 ) . Meetings on communication platforms were seen as an equivalent of the previous face-to-face contact and were often even accompanied by eating or drinking alcohol together. However, over time (at around stage 4–5 of the study) people began to feel that such contact was an insufficient substitute for face-to-face meetings and interest in online meetings began to wane. During this time, however, an interesting phenomenon could be seen, namely, that for many people the family was seen as a safer environment than friends, and definitely safer than strangers. The belief was that family members would be honest about being sick, while strangers not necessarily, and—on an unconscious level—the feeling was that the “family is safe”, and the “family can’t hurt them”.

When it became clear that online communication is an insufficient substitute for face-to-face contacts, people started to meet up in real life. However, a change in many behaviors associated with meeting people is clearly visible, e.g.: refraining from shaking hands, refraining from cheek kissing to greet one another, and keeping a distance during a conversation.

I can’t really say that I could ‘feel’ Good Friday or Holy Saturday. On Sunday, we had breakfast together with my husband’s family and his sister. We were in three different places but we connected over Skype. Later, at noon, we had some coffee with my parents, also over Skype. It’s obvious though that this doesn’t replace face-to-face contact but it’s always some form of conversation. (9.3_F_25_Couple, no children)

Challenge 2 –restrictions on movement and travel . In contrast to the restrictions on contact with other people, the restrictions on movement and the closing of borders were perceived more negatively and posed bigger challenges for some people (especially those who used to do a lot of travelling). In this case, it was less clear why these regulations were introduced (especially travel restrictions within the country). Moreover, travel restrictions, particularly in the case of international travels, were associated with a limitation of civil liberties. The limitation (or complete ban) on travelling abroad in the Polish situation evoked additional connotations with the communist times, that is, with the fact that there was no freedom of movement for Polish citizens (associations with totalitarianism and dictatorship). Interestingly, the lack of acceptance of this restriction was also manifested by people who did not travel much. Thus, it was not just a question of restricting travelling abroad but more of restricting the potential opportunity (“even if I’m not planning on going anywhere, I know I still can”).

Limitations on travelling around the country were particularly negatively felt by families with children, where parents believe that regular exercise and outings are necessary for the proper development of their children. For parents, it was problematic to accept the prohibition of leaving the house and going to the playground (which remained closed until mid-May). Being outdoors was perceived as important for maintaining immunity (exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle), therefore, people could not understand the reason underlying this restriction and, as a consequence, often did not accept it.

I was really bothered by the very awareness that I can’t just jump in my car or get on a plane whenever I want and go wherever I want. It’s not something that I have to do on a daily basis but freedom of movement and travelling are very important for me. (14.2_M_55_Two adults and children)

Changes over time . The travel and movement limitations, although objectively less severe for most people, aroused much greater anger than the restrictions on social contact. This was probably due to a greater sense of misunderstanding as to why these rules were being introduced in the first place. Moreover, they were often communicated inconsistently and chaotically (e.g., a ban on entering forests was introduced while, at the same time, shopping malls remained open and masses were allowed to attend church services). This anger grew over time—from interview to interview, the respondents’ irritation and lack of acceptance of this was evident (culminating in the 3 rd -4 th stage of the study). The limitation of mobility was also often associated with negative consequences for both health and the economy. Many people are convinced that being in the open air (especially accompanied by physical activity) strengthens immunity, therefore, limiting such activity may have negative health consequences. Some respondents pointed out that restricting travelling, the use of hotels and restaurants, especially during the holiday season, will have serious consequences for the existence of the tourism industry.

I can’t say I completely agree with these limitations because it’s treating everything selectively. It’s like the shopping mall is closed, I can’t buy any shoes but I can go to a home improvement store and buy some wallpaper for myself. So I don’t see the difference between encountering people in a home improvement store and a shopping mall. (18.2_F_48_Two adults and children)

Ways of dealing . Since the restriction of movement and travel was more often associated with pleasure-related behaviors than with activities necessary for living, the compensations for these restrictions were usually also from the area of hedonistic behaviors. In the statements of our respondents, terms such as “indulging” or “rewarding oneself” appeared, and behaviors such as throwing small parties at home, buying better alcohol, sweets, and new clothes were observed. There were also increased shopping behaviors related to hobbies (sometimes hobbies that could not be pursued at the given time)–a kind of “post-pandemic” shopping spree (e.g., a new bike or new skis).

Again, the reaction to this restriction also depended on the level of fear of the COVID-19 disease. People who were more afraid of being infected accepted these restrictions more easily as it gave them the feeling that they were doing something constructive to protect themselves from the infection. Conversely, people with less fears and concerns were more likely to rebel and break these bans and guidelines.

Another way of dealing with this challenge was making plans for interesting travel destinations for the post-pandemic period. This was especially salient in respondents with an active lifestyle in the past and especially visible during the 5 th stage of the study.

Today was the first day when I went to the store (due to being in quarantine after returning from abroad). I spent loads of money but I normally would have never spent so much on myself. I bought sweets and confectionery for Easter time, some Easter chocolates, too. I thought I’d do some more baking so I also bought some ingredients to do this. (1.2_ F_25_single)

Challenge 3 –necessary change in active lifestyle . Many of the limitations related to COVID-19 were a challenge for people with an active lifestyle who would regularly go to the cinema, theater, and gym, use restaurants, and do a lot of travelling. For those people, the time of the COVID constraints has brought about huge changes in their lifestyle. Most of their activities were drastically restricted overnight and they suddenly became domesticated by force, especially when it was additionally accompanied by a transition to remote work.

Compulsory spending time at home also had serious consequences for people with school-aged children who had to confront themselves with the distance learning situation of their children. The second challenge for families with children was also finding (or helping find) activities for their children to do in their free time without leaving the house.

I would love to go to a restaurant somewhere. We order food from the restaurant at least once a week, but I’d love to go to the restaurant. Spending time there is a different way of functioning. It is enjoyable and that is what I miss. I would also go to the cinema, to the theater. (13.3_M_46_Two adults and child.)

Changes over time . The nuisance of restrictions connected to an active lifestyle depended on the level of restrictions in place at a given time and the extent to which a given activity could be replaced by an alternative. Moreover, the response to these restrictions depended more on the individual differences in lifestyle rather than on the stage of the interview (except for the very beginning, when the changes in lifestyle and everyday activities were very sudden).

I miss that these restaurants are not open . And it’s not even that I would like to eat something specific . It is in all of this that I miss such freedom the most . It bothers me that I have no freedom . And I am able to get used to it , I can cook at home , I can order from home . But I just wish I had a choice . (2 . 6_F_27_single ).

Ways of dealing . In the initial phase of the pandemic (March-April—stage 1–3 of the study), when most people were afraid of the coronavirus, the acceptance of the restrictions was high. At the same time, efforts were made to find activities that could replace existing ones. Going to the gym was replaced by online exercise, and going to the cinema or theater by intensive use of streaming platforms. In the subsequent stages of the study, however, the respondents’ fatigue with these “substitutes” was noticeable. It was then that more irritation and greater non-acceptance of certain restrictions began to appear. On the other hand, the changes or restrictions introduced during the later stages of the pandemic were less sudden than the initial ones, so they were often easier to get used to.

I bought a small bike and even before that we ordered some resistance bands to work out at home, which replace certain gym equipment and devices. […] I’m considering learning a language. From the other online things, my girlfriend is having yoga classes, for instance. (7.2_M_28_Couple, no children)

Challenge 4 –boredom , monotony . As has already been shown, for many people, the beginning of the pandemic was a huge change in lifestyle, an absence of activities, and a resulting slowdown. It was sometimes associated with a feeling of weariness, monotony, and even of boredom, especially for people who worked remotely, whose days began to be similar to each other and whose working time merged with free time, weekdays with the weekends, and free time could not be filled with previous activities.

In some way, boredom. I can’t concentrate on what I’m reading. I’m trying to motivate myself to do such things as learning a language because I have so much time on my hands, or to do exercises. I don’t have this balance that I’m actually doing something for myself, like reading, working out, but also that I’m meeting up with friends. This balance has gone, so I’ve started to get bored with many things. Yesterday I felt that I was bored and something should start happening. (…) After some time, this lack of events and meetings leads to such immense boredom. (1.5_F_25_single)

Changes over time . The feeling of monotony and boredom was especially visible in stage 1 and 2 of the study when the lockdown was most restrictive and people were knocked out of their daily routines. As the pandemic continued, boredom was often replaced by irritation in some, and by stagnation in others (visible in stages 3 and 4 of the study) while, at the same time, enthusiasm for taking up new activities was waning. As most people were realizing that the pandemic was not going to end any time soon, a gradual adaptation to the new lifestyle (slower and less active) and the special pandemic demands (especially seen in stage 5 and 6 of the study) could be observed.

But I see that people around me , in fact , both family and friends , are slowly beginning to prepare themselves for more frequent stays at home . So actually more remote work , maybe everything will not be closed and we will not be locked in four walls , but this tendency towards isolation or self-isolation , such a deliberate one , appears . I guess we are used to the fact that it has to be this way . (15 . 6_M_43_Two adults and child) .

Ways of dealing . The answer to the monotony of everyday life and to finding different ways of separating work from free time was to stick to certain rituals, such as “getting dressed for work”, even when work was only by a computer at home or, if possible, setting a fixed meal time when the whole family would gather together. For some, the time of the beginning of the pandemic was treated as an extra vacation. This was especially true of people who could not carry out their work during the time of the most severe restrictions (e.g., hairdressers and doctors). For them, provided that they believed that everything would return to normal and that they would soon go back to work, a “vacation mode” was activated wherein they would sleep longer, watch a lot of movies, read books, and generally do pleasant things for which they previously had no time and which they could now enjoy without feeling guilty. Another way of dealing with the monotony and transition to a slower lifestyle was taking up various activities for which there was no time before, such as baking bread at home and cooking fancy dishes.

I generally do have a set schedule. I begin work at eight. Well, and what’s changed is that I can get up last minute, switch the computer on and be practically making my breakfast and coffee during this time. I do some work and then print out some materials for my younger daughter. You know, I have work till four, I keep on going up to the computer and checking my emails. (19.1_F_39_Two adults and children)

Challenge 5 –uncertainty about the future . Despite the difficulties arising from the circumstances and limitations described above, it seems that psychologically, the greatest challenge during a pandemic is the uncertainty of what will happen next. There was a lot of contradictory information in the media that caused a sense of confusion and heightened the feeling of anxiety.

I’m less bothered about the changes that were put in place and more about this concern about what will happen in the future. Right now, it’s like there’s these mood swings. […] Based on what’s going on, this will somehow affect every one of us. And that’s what I’m afraid of. The fact that someone will not survive and I have no way of knowing who this could be—whether it will be me or anyone else, or my dad, if somehow the coronavirus will sneak its way into our home. I simply don’t know. I’m simply afraid of this. (10.1_F_55_Couple, no children)

Changes over time . In the first phase of the pandemic (interviews 1–3), most people felt a strong sense of not being in control of the situation and of their own lives. Not only did the consequences of the pandemic include a change in lifestyle but also, very often, the suspension of plans altogether. In addition, many people felt a strong fear of the future, about what would happen, and even a sense of threat to their own or their loved ones’ lives. Gradually (interview 4), alongside anxiety, anger began to emerge about not knowing what would happen next. At the beginning of the summer (stage 5 of the study), most people had a hope of the pandemic soon ending. It was a period of easing restrictions and of opening up the economy. Life was starting to look more and more like it did before the pandemic, fleetingly giving an illusion that the end of the pandemic was “in sight” and the vision of a return to normal life. Unfortunately, autumn showed that more waves of the pandemic were approaching. In the interviews of the 6 th stage of the study, we could see more and more confusion and uncertainty, a loss of hope, and often a manifestation of disagreement with the restrictions that were introduced.

This is making me sad and angry. More angry, in fact. […] I don’t know what I should do. Up until now, there was nothing like this. Up until now, I was pretty certain of what I was doing in all the decisions I was making. (14.4_M_55_Two adults and children)

Ways of dealing . People reacted differently to the described feeling of insecurity. In order to reduce the emerging fears, some people searched (sometimes even compulsively) for any information that could help them “take control” of the situation. These people searched various sources, for example, information on the number of infected persons and the number of deaths. This knowledge gave them the illusion of control and helped them to somewhat reduce the anxiety evoked by the pandemic. The behavior of this group was often accompanied by very strict adherence to all guidelines and restrictions (e.g., frequent hand sanitization, wearing a face mask, and avoiding contact with others). This behavior increased the sense of control over the situation in these people.

A completely opposite strategy to reducing the feeling of uncertainty which we also observed in some respondents was cutting off information in the media about the scale of the disease and the resulting restrictions. These people, unable to keep up with the changing information and often inconsistent messages, in order to maintain cognitive coherence tried to cut off the media as much as possible, assuming that even if something really significant had happened, they would still find out.

I want to keep up to date with the current affairs. Even if it is an hour a day. How is the pandemic situation developing—is it increasing or decreasing. There’s a bit of propaganda there because I know that when they’re saying that they have the situation under control, they can’t control it anyway. Anyhow, it still has a somewhat calming effect that it’s dying down over here and that things aren’t that bad. And, apart from this, I listen to the news concerning restrictions, what we can and can’t do. (3.1_F_54_single)

Discussion and conclusions

The results of our study showed that the five greatest challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic are: limitations of direct contact with people, restrictions on movement and travel, change in active lifestyle, boredom and monotony, and finally uncertainty about the future. As we can see the spectrum of problems resulting from the pandemic is very wide and some of them have an impact on everyday functioning and lifestyle, some other influence psychological functioning and well-being. Moreover, different people deal with these problems differently and different changes in everyday life are challenging for them. The first challenge of the pandemic COVID-19 problem is the consequence of the limitation of direct contact with others. This regulation has very strong psychological consequences in the sense of loneliness and lack of closeness. Initially, people tried to deal with this limitation through the use of internet communicators. It turned out, however, that this form of contact for the majority of people was definitely insufficient and feelings of deprivation quickly increased. As much data from psychological literature shows, contact with others can have great psychological healing properties [e.g., 29 ]. The need for closeness is a natural need in times of crisis and catastrophes [ 30 ]. Unfortunately, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the ability to meet this need was severely limited by regulations. This led to many people having serious problems with maintaining a good psychological condition.

Another troubling limitation found in our study were the restrictions on movement and travel, and the associated restrictions of most activities, which caused a huge change in lifestyle for many people. As shown in previous studies, travel and diverse leisure activities are important predictors of greater well-being [ 36 ]. Moreover, COVID-19 pandemic movement restrictions may be perceived by some people as a threat to human rights [ 37 ], which can contribute to people’s reluctance to accept lockdown rules.

The problem with accepting these restrictions was also related to the lack of understanding of the reasons behind them. Just as the limitation in contact with other people seemed understandable, the limitations related to physical activity and mobility were less so. Because of these limitations many people lost a sense of understanding of the rules and restrictions being imposed. Inconsistent communication in the media—called by some researchers the ‘infodemic’ [ 18 ], as well as discordant recommendations in different countries, causing an increasing sense of confusion in people.

Another huge challenge posed by the current pandemic is the feeling of uncertainty about the future. This feeling is caused by constant changes in the rules concerning daily functioning during the pandemic and what is prohibited and what is allowed. People lose their sense of being in control of the situation. From the psychological point of view, a long-lasting experience of lack of control can cause so-called learned helplessness, a permanent feeling of having no influence over the situation and no possibility of changing it [ 38 ], which can even result in depression and lower mental and physical wellbeing [ 39 ]. Control over live and the feeling that people have an influence on what happens in their lives is one of the basic rules of crisis situation resilience [ 30 ]. Unfortunately, also in this area, people have huge deficits caused by the pandemic. The obtained results are coherent with previous studies regarding the strategies harnessed to cope with the pandemic [e.g., 5 , 10 , 28 , 33 ]. For example, some studies showed that seeking social support is one of the most common strategies used to deal with the coronavirus pandemic [ 33 , 40 ]. Other ways to deal with this situation include distraction, active coping, and a positive appraisal of the situation [ 41 ]. Furthermore, research has shown that simple coping behaviors such as a healthy diet, not reading too much COVID-19 news, following a daily routine, and spending time outdoors may be protective factors against anxiety and depressive symptoms in times of the coronavirus pandemic [ 41 ].

This study showed that the acceptance of various limitations, and especially the feeling of discomfort associated with them, depended on the person’s earlier lifestyle. The more active and socializing a person was, the more restrictions were burdensome for him/her. The second factor, more of a psychological nature, was the fear of developing COVID-19. In this case, people who were more afraid of getting sick were more likely to submit to the imposed restrictions that, paradoxically, did not reduce their anxiety, and sometimes even heightened it.

Limitations of the study.

While the study shows interesting results, it also has some limitations. The purpose of the study was primarily to capture the first response to problems resulting from a pandemic, and as such its design is not ideal. First, the study participants are not diverse as much as would be desirable. They are mostly college-educated and relatively well off, which may influence how they perceive the pandemic situation. Furthermore, the recruitment was done by searching among the further acquaintances of the people involved in the study, so there is a risk that all the people interviewed come from a similar background. It would be necessary to conduct a study that also describes the reaction of people who are already in a more difficult life situation before the pandemic starts.

Moreover, it would also be worthwhile to pay attention to the interviewers themselves. All of the moderators were female, and although gender effects on the quality of the interviews and differences between the establishment of relationships between women and men were not observed during the debriefing process, the topic of gender effects on the results of qualitative research is frequently addressed in the literature [ 42 , 43 ]. Although the researchers approached the process with reflexivity and self-criticism at all stages, it would have seemed important to involve male moderators in the study to capture any differences in relationship dynamics.

Practical implications.

The study presented has many practical implications. Decision-makers in the state can analyze the COVID-19 pandemic crisis in a way that avoids a critical situation involving other infectious diseases in the future. The results of our study showing the most disruptive effects of the pandemic on people can serve as a basis for developing strategies to deal with the effects of the crisis so that it does not translate into a deterioration of the public’s mental health in the future.

The results of our study can also provide guidance on how to communicate information about restrictions in the future so that they are accepted and respected (for example by giving rational explanations of the reasons for introducing particular restrictions). In addition, the results of our study can also be a source of guidance on how to deal with the limitations that may arise in a recurrent COVID-19 pandemic, as well as other emergencies that could come.

The analysis of the results showed that the COVID-19 pandemic, and especially the lockdown periods, are a particular challenge for many people due to reduced social contact. On the other hand, it is social contacts that are at the same time a way of a smoother transition of crises. This knowledge should prompt decision-makers to devise ways to ensure pandemic safety without drastically limiting social contacts and to create solutions that give people a sense of control (instead of depriving it of). Providing such solutions can reduce the psychological problems associated with a pandemic and help people to cope better with it.

Conclusions

As more and more is said about the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic may not end soon and that we are likely to face more waves of this disease and related lockdowns, it is very important to understand how the different restrictions are perceived, what difficulties they cause and what are the biggest challenges resulting from them. For example, an important element of accepting the restrictions is understanding their sources, i.e., what they result from, what they are supposed to prevent, and what consequences they have for the fight against the pandemic. Moreover, we observed that the more incomprehensible the order was, the more it provoked to break it. This means that not only medical treatment is extremely important in an effective fight against a pandemic, but also appropriate communication.

The results of our study showed also that certain restrictions cause emotional deficits (e.g., loneliness, loss of sense of control) and, consequently, may cause serious problems with psychological functioning. From this perspective, it seems extremely important to understand which restrictions are causing emotional problems and how they can be dealt with in order to reduce the psychological discomfort associated with them.

Supporting information

S1 table. a full description of the changes occurring in poland at the time of the study..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258133.s001

S2 Table. Characteristics of study participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258133.s002

S1 Dataset. Transcriptions from the interviews.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258133.s003

1. JHU CSEE. COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University. 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 1]. https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19#covid-19-data-repository-by-the-center-for-systems-science-and-engineering-csse-at-johns-hopkins-university .
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar
5. Gerhold L. COVID-19: Risk perception and coping strategies. Results from a survey in Germany. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. 2020 Mar 25.
6. Nowakowska K. Rok z koronawirusem: Od paniki, przez luz, do fatalizmu. [A year with coronavirus—from panic through chill to fatalism]. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna [Internet]. 2021 Mar 4 [cited 2021 Jun 1]. https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/wiadomosci/kraj/artykuly/8111858,szczepienia-maseczki-rok-z-koronawirusem-zycie-codzienne.html
11. Fernandes N. Economic effects of coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) on the world economy. IESE Business School Working Paper No. WP-1240-E. 2020 Mar 23.
15. ARC. Praca z domu w polskim wydaniu—badanie na zlecenie Gumtree.pl we współpracy z Randstat Polska [The Polish way of working from home—a study commissioned by Gumtree.pl in collaboration with Randstat Polska]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 1]. https://www.randstad.pl/strefa-pracownika/centrum-prasowe/badanie-gumtreepl-we-wspolpracy-z-randstad-potrafimy-sie-zorganizowac-choc-czasem-lubimy-sobie-poprzeszkadzac-praca-z-domu-w-polskim-wydaniu/
16. Sierpowska, I. O edukacji w czasie pandemii [On Education during pandemic]. Centrum Prasowe SWPS [Internet]. 2020 Sep 8. [cited 2021 Jun 1]. https://www.swps.pl/centrum-prasowe/informacje-prasowe/22390-o-edukacji-w-czasie-pandemii-2?dt=1622540060078
17. Polish Academy of Sciences. Understanding COVID-19. Report by the COVID-19 team at the President of the Polish Academy of Sciences. 2020 Sep 14. [Cited 2021 Jun 1]. https://informacje.pan.pl/images/2020/opracowanie-covid19-14-09-2020/ZrozumiecCovid19_opracowanie_PAN.pdf
25. Brown, K. The pandemic is not a natural disaster. The New Yorker [Internet]. 2020 Apr 13 [cited 2021 Jun 1]. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-pandemic-is-not-a-natural-disaster .
34. Maison D. Qualitative marketing research. Understanding consumer behaviour. London: Routledge; 2019.
36. Argyle M. Causes and correlates of happiness. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N, editors. Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1999. p. 353–373.

Secondary School

Thesis statement for covid 19 pandemic

IT IS GOO D QU ESTION

Explanation:

Strategies in the control of an outbreak are screening, containment (or suppression), and mitigation. screening is done with a device such as a thermometer to detect the elevated body temperature associated with fevers caused by the coronavirus.[185] containment is undertaken in the early stages of the outbreak and aims to trace and isolate those infected as, well as introduce other measures to stop the disease from spreading. when it is no longer possible to contain the disease, efforts then move to the mitigation stage: measures are taken to slow the spread and mitigate its effects on the healthcare system and society. a combination of both containment and mitigation measures may be undertaken at the same time.[186] suppression requires more extreme measures so as to reverse the pandemic by reducing the basic reproduction number to less than 1.[187], please mark me brainliest.

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created a global health crisis that has had a deep impact on the way we perceive our world and our everyday lives. Not only the rate of contagion and patterns of transmission threatens our sense of agency, but the safety measures put in place to contain

New questions in English

Fact sheets
Facts in pictures
Publications
Questions and answers
Tools and toolkits
HIV and AIDS
Hypertension
Mental disorders
Top 10 causes of death
All countries
Eastern Mediterranean
South-East Asia
Western Pacific
Data by country
Country presence
Country strengthening
Country cooperation strategies
News releases
Feature stories
Press conferences
Commentaries
Photo library
Afghanistan
Cholera
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
Greater Horn of Africa
Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
Disease Outbreak News
Situation reports
Weekly Epidemiological Record
Surveillance
Health emergency appeal
International Health Regulations
Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
Classifications
Data collections
Global Health Estimates
Mortality Database
Sustainable Development Goals
Health Inequality Monitor
Global Progress
Data collection tools
Global Health Observatory
Insights and visualizations
COVID excess deaths
World Health Statistics
Partnerships
Committees and advisory groups
Collaborating centres
Technical teams
Organizational structure
Initiatives
General Programme of Work
WHO Academy
Investment case
WHO Foundation
External audit
Financial statements
Internal audit and investigations
Programme Budget
Results reports
Governing bodies
World Health Assembly
Executive Board
Member States Portal
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) /

Global research on coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

Section navigation.

WHO COVID-19 Solidarity Therapeutics Trial
"Solidarity II" global serologic study for COVID-19
Accelerating a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine
Solidarity Trial Vaccines

WHO is bringing the world’s scientists and global health professionals together to accelerate the research and development process, and develop new norms and standards to contain the spread of the coronavirus pandemic and help care for those affected.

The R&D Blueprint has been activated to accelerate diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for this novel coronavirus.

The solidarity of all countries will be essential to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 health products.

WHO COVID-19 Research Database

The WHO COVID-19 Research Database was a resource created in response to the Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). It contained citations with abstracts to scientific articles, reports, books, preprints, and clinical trials on COVID-19 and related literature. The WHO Covid-19 Research Database was maintained by the WHO Library & Digital Information Networks and was funded by COVID-19 emergency funds. The database was built by BIREME, the Specialized Center of PAHO/AMRO. Its content spanned the time period March 2020 to June 2023. It has now been archived, and no longer searchable since January 2024.

Deakin Home
Student news
StudentConnect
Help and contact us

COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all aspects of our lives is well known.

Victoria experienced six lockdowns between March 2020 and October 2021 that collectively totalled 262 days. Deakin University sought to mitigate this impact on the research by higher degree by research students in various ways, including providing priority access to laboratories and support to pivot research projects. Not all impact on research could be mitigated with direct and indirect effects of limited domestic and international travel, closed university campuses and restricted in-person access to human research participants.

Within this context, you have the option of describing the impact of COVID-19 on your research and how you modified your topic, methods and data collection due to COVID-19 restrictions. The COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement aims to provide the examiners with a clearer understanding of how the research was affected and shaped due to COVID-19 disruptions.

A COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement is not required and you may submit your thesis for examination without reference to the COVID-19 pandemic. Should you wish to submit your thesis with a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement, do so only under the advice of your supervisory panel.

Please note that you may opt to include a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement for examination and remove it from your library copy but you cannot do the reverse. A COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement cannot be included in your library copy if it wasn’t included in the examination copy.

Content of a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement

Following is some examples and advice of what and what not to include in your COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement.

How your planned research activities such as topic, research question, methods and data collection and/or the scope of your research were disrupted or changed due the pandemic. For instance: inability to conduct fieldwork or face-to-face research; access to facilities such as labs, archives or other working spaces; inability to collect or analyse data due to travel restrictions.
How the research was shaped by the disruption: the actions or decisions taken to mitigate the disruption; new focus; revised research questions or development; pivoting or adjusting the research project.
Any other relevant factors relating to the impact of the COVID-19 disruption on your research.
Ensure that you do not infer that your thesis is of a lower standard due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Your COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement should not address any effect on your personal circumstances.

Format of a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement

You may choose to include the statement as an upfront additional page in your thesis and/or address the impact within the content of the thesis.

If placed as a separate page at the beginning of your thesis, it should be no more than 600 words.

We encourage you to discuss with your supervisor the format of a COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement that best fits your thesis and impact on your research.

We use cookies to improve your experience. You consent to the use of our cookies if you proceed. Visit our Privacy policy for more information.

EDITORIAL article

Editorial: coronavirus disease (covid-19): the impact and role of mass media during the pandemic.

$\nPatrícia Arriaga$

1 Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Iscte-University Institute of Lisbon, CIS-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal
2 Department of Psychology and Social Work, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden
3 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical School and University Hospital, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Editorial on the Research Topic Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): The Impact and Role of Mass Media During the Pandemic

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created a global health crisis that had a deep impact on the way we perceive our world and our everyday lives. Not only has the rate of contagion and patterns of transmission threatened our sense of agency, but the safety measures to contain the spread of the virus also required social and physical distancing, preventing us from finding solace in the company of others. Within this context, we launched our Research Topic on March 27th, 2020, and invited researchers to address the Impact and Role of Mass Media During the Pandemic on our lives at individual and social levels.

Despite all the hardships, disruption, and uncertainty brought by the pandemic, we received diverse and insightful manuscript proposals. Frontiers in Psychology published 15 articles, involving 61 authors from 8 countries, which were included in distinct specialized sections, including Health Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology, Emotion Science, and Organizational Psychology. Despite the diversity of this collective endeavor, the contributions fall into four areas of research: (1) the use of media in public health communication; (2) the diffusion of false information; (3) the compliance with the health recommendations; and (4) how media use relates to mental health and well-being.

A first line of research includes contributions examining the use of media in public health communication. Drawing on media messages used in previous health crises, such as Ebola and Zika, Hauer and Sood describe how health organizations use media. They offer a set of recommendations for COVID-19 related media messages, including the importance of message framing, interactive public forums with up-to-date information, and an honest communication about what is known and unknown about the pandemic and the virus. Following a content analysis approach, Parvin et al. studied the representations of COVID-19 in the opinion section of five Asian e-newspapers. The authors identified eight main issues (health and drugs, preparedness and awareness, social welfare and humanity, governance and institutions, the environment and wildlife, politics, innovation and technology, and the economy) and examined how e-newspapers from these countries attributed different weights to these issues and how this relates to the countries' cultural specificity. Raccanello et al. show how the internet can be a platform to disseminate a public campaign devised to inform adults about coping strategies that could help children and teenagers deal with the challenges of the pandemic. The authors examined the dissemination of the program through the analysis of website traffic, showing that in the 40 days following publication, the website reached 6,090 visits.

A second related line of research that drew the concern of researchers was the diffusion of false information about COVID-19 through the media. Lobato et al. examined the role of distinct individual differences (political orientation, social dominance orientation, traditionalism, conspiracy ideation, attitudes about science) on the willingness to share misinformation about COVID-19 over social media. The misinformation topics varied between the severity and spread of COVID-19, treatment and prevention, conspiracy theories, and miscellaneous unverifiable claims. Their results from 296 adult participants (Mage = 36.23; 117 women) suggest two different profiles. One indicating that those reporting more liberal positions and lower social dominance were less willing to share conspiracy misinformation. The other profile indicated that participants scoring high on social dominance and low in traditionalism were more willing to share both conspiracy and other miscellaneous claims, but less willing to share misinformation about the severity and spread of COVID-19. Their findings can have relevant contributions for the identification of specific individual profiles related to the widespread of distinct types of misinformation. Dhanani and Franz examined a sample of 1,141 adults (Mage = 44.66; 46.9% female, 74.7% White ethnic identity) living in the United States in March 2020. The authors examined how media consumption and information source were related to knowledge about COVID-19, the endorsement of misinformation about COVID-19, and prejudice toward Asian Americans. Higher levels of trust in informational sources such as public health organizations (e.g., Center for Disease Control) was associated with greater knowledge, lower endorsement of misinformation, and less prejudice toward Asian Americans. Media source was associated with distinct levels of knowledge, willingness to endorsement misinformation and prejudice toward American Asians, with social media use (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) being related with a lower knowledge about COVID-19, higher endorsement of misinformation, and stronger prejudice toward Asian Americans.

A third line of research addressed the factors that could contribute to compliance with the health recommendations to avoid the spread of the disease. Vai et al. studied early pre-lockdown risk perceptions about COVID-19 and the trust in media sources among 2,223 Italians (Mage = 36.4, 69.2% female). They found that the perceived usefulness of the containment measures (e.g., social distancing) was related to threat perception and efficacy beliefs. Lower threat perception was associated with less perception of utility of the containment measures. Although most participants considered themselves and others capable of taking preventive measures, they saw the measures as generally ineffective. Participants acknowledged using the internet as their main source of information and considered health organizations' websites as the most trustworthy source. Albeit frequently used, social media was in general considered an unreliable source of information. Tomczyk et al. studied knowledge about preventive behaviors, risk perception, stigmatizing attitudes (support for discrimination and blame), and sociodemographic data (e.g., age, gender, country of origin, education level, region, persons per household) as predictors of compliance with the behavioral recommendations among 157 Germans, (age range: 18–77 years, 80% female). Low compliance was associated with male gender, younger age, and lower public stigma. Regarding stigmatizing attitudes, the authors only found a relation between support for discrimination (i.e., support for compulsory measures) and higher intention to comply with recommendations. Mahmood et al. studied the relation between social media use, risk perception, preventive behaviors, and self-efficacy in a sample of 310 Pakistani adults (54.2% female). The authors found social media use to be positively related to self-efficacy and perceived threat, which were both positively related to preventive behaviors (e.g., hand hygiene, social distancing). Information credibility was also related to compliance with health recommendations. Lep et al. examined the relationship between information source perceived credibility and trust, and participants' levels of self-protective behavior among 1,718 Slovenians (age range: 18–81 years, 81.7% female). The authors found that scientists, general practitioners (family doctors), and the National Institute of Public Health were perceived as the more credible source of information, while social media and government officials received the lowest ratings. Perceived information credibility was found to be associated with lower levels of negative emotional responses (e.g., nervousness, helplessness) and a higher level of observance of self-protective measures (e.g., hand washing). Siebenhaar et al. also studied the link between compliance, distress by information, and information avoidance. They examined the online survey responses of 1,059 adults living in Germany (Mage = 39.53, 79.4% female). Their results suggested that distress by information could lead to higher compliance with preventive measures. Distress by information was also associated with higher information avoidance, which in turn is related to less compliance. Gantiva et al. studied the effectiveness of different messages regarding the intentions toward self-care behaviors, perceived efficacy to motivate self-care behaviors in others, perceived risk, and perceived message strength, in a sample of 319 Colombians (age range: 18–60 years, 69.9% female). Their experiment included the manipulation of message framing (gain vs. loss) and message content (economy vs. health). Participants judged gain-frame health related messages to be stronger and more effective in changing self-behavior, whereas loss-framed health messages resulted in increased perceived risk. Rahn et al. offer a comparative view of compliance and risk perception, examining three hazard types: COVID-19 pandemic, violent acts, and severe weather. With a sample of 403 Germans (age range: 18–89 years, 72% female), they studied how age, gender, previous hazard experience and different components of risk appraisal (perceived severity, anticipated negative emotions, anticipatory worry, and risk perception) were related to the intention to comply with behavioral recommendations. They found that higher age predicted compliance with health recommendations to prevent COVID-19, anticipatory worry predicted compliance with warning messages regarding violent acts, and women complied more often with severe weather recommendations than men.

A fourth line of research examined media use, mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gabbiadini et al. addressed the use of digital technology (e.g., voice/video calls, online games, watching movies in party mode) to stay connected with others during lockdown. Participants, 465 Italians (age range: 18–73 years, 348 female), reported more perceived social support associated with the use of these digital technologies, which in turn was associated with fewer feelings of loneliness, boredom, anger, and higher sense of belongingness. Muñiz-Velázquez et al. compared the media habits of 249 Spanish adults (Mage = 42.06, 53.8% female) before and during confinement. They compared the type of media consumed (e.g., watching TV series, listening to radio, watching news) and found the increased consumption of TV and social networking sites during confinement to be negatively associated with reported level of happiness. People who reported higher levels of well-being also reported watching less TV and less use of social networking sites. Majeed et al. , on the other hand, examined the relation between problematic social media use, fear of COVID-19, depression, and mindfulness. Their study, involving 267 Pakistani adults (90 female), suggested trait mindfulness had a buffer effect, reducing the impact of problematic media use and fear of COVID-19 on depression.

Taken together, these findings highlight how using different frames for mass media gives a more expansive view of its positive and negative roles, but also showcase the major concerns in the context of a pandemic crisis. As limitations we highlight the use of cross-sectional designs in most studies, not allowing to establish true inferences of causal relationships. The outcome of some studies may also be limited by the unbalanced number of female and male participants, by the non-probability sampling method used, and by the restricted time frame in which the research occurred. Nevertheless, we are confident that all the selected studies in our Research Topic bring important and enduring contributions to the understanding of how media, individual differences, and social factors intertwine to shape our lives, which can also be useful to guide public policies during these challenging times.

Author Contributions

PA: conceptualization, writing the original draft, funding acquisition, writing—review, and editing. FE: conceptualization, writing—review, and editing. MP: writing—review and editing. NP: conceptualization, writing the original draft, writing—review, and editing. All authors approved the submitted version.

PA and NP received partial support to work on this Research Topic through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) with reference to the project PTDC/CCI-INF/29234/2017. MP contribution was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG, PA847/22-1 and PA847/25-1). The authors are independent of the funders.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to all the authors who proposed their work, all the researchers who reviewed the submissions to this Research Topic, and to Rob Richards for proofreading the Editorial manuscript.

Keywords: COVID-19, coronavirus disease, mass media, health communication, prevention, intervention, social behavioral changes

Citation: Arriaga P, Esteves F, Pavlova MA and Piçarra N (2021) Editorial: Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): The Impact and Role of Mass Media During the Pandemic. Front. Psychol. 12:729238. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.729238

Received: 22 June 2021; Accepted: 30 July 2021; Published: 23 August 2021.

Edited and reviewed by: Eduard Brandstätter , Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria

Copyright © 2021 Arriaga, Esteves, Pavlova and Piçarra. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Patrícia Arriaga, patricia.arriaga@iscte-iul.pt

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

I Thought We’d Learned Nothing From the Pandemic. I Wasn’t Seeing the Full Picture

M y first home had a back door that opened to a concrete patio with a giant crack down the middle. When my sister and I played, I made sure to stay on the same side of the divide as her, just in case. The 1988 film The Land Before Time was one of the first movies I ever saw, and the image of the earth splintering into pieces planted its roots in my brain. I believed that, even in my own backyard, I could easily become the tiny Triceratops separated from her family, on the other side of the chasm, as everything crumbled into chaos.

Some 30 years later, I marvel at the eerie, unexpected ways that cartoonish nightmare came to life – not just for me and my family, but for all of us. The landscape was already covered in fissures well before COVID-19 made its way across the planet, but the pandemic applied pressure, and the cracks broke wide open, separating us from each other physically and ideologically. Under the weight of the crisis, we scattered and landed on such different patches of earth we could barely see each other’s faces, even when we squinted. We disagreed viciously with each other, about how to respond, but also about what was true.

Recently, someone asked me if we’ve learned anything from the pandemic, and my first thought was a flat no. Nothing. There was a time when I thought it would be the very thing to draw us together and catapult us – as a capital “S” Society – into a kinder future. It’s surreal to remember those early days when people rallied together, sewing masks for health care workers during critical shortages and gathering on balconies in cities from Dallas to New York City to clap and sing songs like “Yellow Submarine.” It felt like a giant lightning bolt shot across the sky, and for one breath, we all saw something that had been hidden in the dark – the inherent vulnerability in being human or maybe our inescapable connectedness .

More from TIME

Read More: The Family Time the Pandemic Stole

But it turns out, it was just a flash. The goodwill vanished as quickly as it appeared. A couple of years later, people feel lied to, abandoned, and all on their own. I’ve felt my own curiosity shrinking, my willingness to reach out waning , my ability to keep my hands open dwindling. I look out across the landscape and see selfishness and rage, burnt earth and so many dead bodies. Game over. We lost. And if we’ve already lost, why try?

Still, the question kept nagging me. I wondered, am I seeing the full picture? What happens when we focus not on the collective society but at one face, one story at a time? I’m not asking for a bow to minimize the suffering – a pretty flourish to put on top and make the whole thing “worth it.” Yuck. That’s not what we need. But I wondered about deep, quiet growth. The kind we feel in our bodies, relationships, homes, places of work, neighborhoods.

Like a walkie-talkie message sent to my allies on the ground, I posted a call on my Instagram. What do you see? What do you hear? What feels possible? Is there life out here? Sprouting up among the rubble? I heard human voices calling back – reports of life, personal and specific. I heard one story at a time – stories of grief and distrust, fury and disappointment. Also gratitude. Discovery. Determination.

Among the most prevalent were the stories of self-revelation. Almost as if machines were given the chance to live as humans, people described blossoming into fuller selves. They listened to their bodies’ cues, recognized their desires and comforts, tuned into their gut instincts, and honored the intuition they hadn’t realized belonged to them. Alex, a writer and fellow disabled parent, found the freedom to explore a fuller version of herself in the privacy the pandemic provided. “The way I dress, the way I love, and the way I carry myself have both shrunk and expanded,” she shared. “I don’t love myself very well with an audience.” Without the daily ritual of trying to pass as “normal” in public, Tamar, a queer mom in the Netherlands, realized she’s autistic. “I think the pandemic helped me to recognize the mask,” she wrote. “Not that unmasking is easy now. But at least I know it’s there.” In a time of widespread suffering that none of us could solve on our own, many tended to our internal wounds and misalignments, large and small, and found clarity.

Read More: A Tool for Staying Grounded in This Era of Constant Uncertainty

I wonder if this flourishing of self-awareness is at least partially responsible for the life alterations people pursued. The pandemic broke open our personal notions of work and pushed us to reevaluate things like time and money. Lucy, a disabled writer in the U.K., made the hard decision to leave her job as a journalist covering Westminster to write freelance about her beloved disability community. “This work feels important in a way nothing else has ever felt,” she wrote. “I don’t think I’d have realized this was what I should be doing without the pandemic.” And she wasn’t alone – many people changed jobs , moved, learned new skills and hobbies, became politically engaged.

Perhaps more than any other shifts, people described a significant reassessment of their relationships. They set boundaries, said no, had challenging conversations. They also reconnected, fell in love, and learned to trust. Jeanne, a quilter in Indiana, got to know relatives she wouldn’t have connected with if lockdowns hadn’t prompted weekly family Zooms. “We are all over the map as regards to our belief systems,” she emphasized, “but it is possible to love people you don’t see eye to eye with on every issue.” Anna, an anti-violence advocate in Maine, learned she could trust her new marriage: “Life was not a honeymoon. But we still chose to turn to each other with kindness and curiosity.” So many bonds forged and broken, strengthened and strained.

Instead of relying on default relationships or institutional structures, widespread recalibrations allowed for going off script and fortifying smaller communities. Mara from Idyllwild, Calif., described the tangible plan for care enacted in her town. “We started a mutual-aid group at the beginning of the pandemic,” she wrote, “and it grew so quickly before we knew it we were feeding 400 of the 4000 residents.” She didn’t pretend the conditions were ideal. In fact, she expressed immense frustration with our collective response to the pandemic. Even so, the local group rallied and continues to offer assistance to their community with help from donations and volunteers (many of whom were originally on the receiving end of support). “I’ve learned that people thrive when they feel their connection to others,” she wrote. Clare, a teacher from the U.K., voiced similar conviction as she described a giant scarf she’s woven out of ribbons, each representing a single person. The scarf is “a collection of stories, moments and wisdom we are sharing with each other,” she wrote. It now stretches well over 1,000 feet.

A few hours into reading the comments, I lay back on my bed, phone held against my chest. The room was quiet, but my internal world was lighting up with firefly flickers. What felt different? Surely part of it was receiving personal accounts of deep-rooted growth. And also, there was something to the mere act of asking and listening. Maybe it connected me to humans before battle cries. Maybe it was the chance to be in conversation with others who were also trying to understand – what is happening to us? Underneath it all, an undeniable thread remained; I saw people peering into the mess and narrating their findings onto the shared frequency. Every comment was like a flare into the sky. I’m here! And if the sky is full of flares, we aren’t alone.

I recognized my own pandemic discoveries – some minor, others massive. Like washing off thick eyeliner and mascara every night is more effort than it’s worth; I can transform the mundane into the magical with a bedsheet, a movie projector, and twinkle lights; my paralyzed body can mother an infant in ways I’d never seen modeled for me. I remembered disappointing, bewildering conversations within my own family of origin and our imperfect attempts to remain close while also seeing things so differently. I realized that every time I get the weekly invite to my virtual “Find the Mumsies” call, with a tiny group of moms living hundreds of miles apart, I’m being welcomed into a pocket of unexpected community. Even though we’ve never been in one room all together, I’ve felt an uncommon kind of solace in their now-familiar faces.

Hope is a slippery thing. I desperately want to hold onto it, but everywhere I look there are real, weighty reasons to despair. The pandemic marks a stretch on the timeline that tangles with a teetering democracy, a deteriorating planet , the loss of human rights that once felt unshakable . When the world is falling apart Land Before Time style, it can feel trite, sniffing out the beauty – useless, firing off flares to anyone looking for signs of life. But, while I’m under no delusions that if we just keep trudging forward we’ll find our own oasis of waterfalls and grassy meadows glistening in the sunshine beneath a heavenly chorus, I wonder if trivializing small acts of beauty, connection, and hope actually cuts us off from resources essential to our survival. The group of abandoned dinosaurs were keeping each other alive and making each other laugh well before they made it to their fantasy ending.

Read More: How Ice Cream Became My Own Personal Act of Resistance

After the monarch butterfly went on the endangered-species list, my friend and fellow writer Hannah Soyer sent me wildflower seeds to plant in my yard. A simple act of big hope – that I will actually plant them, that they will grow, that a monarch butterfly will receive nourishment from whatever blossoms are able to push their way through the dirt. There are so many ways that could fail. But maybe the outcome wasn’t exactly the point. Maybe hope is the dogged insistence – the stubborn defiance – to continue cultivating moments of beauty regardless. There is value in the planting apart from the harvest.

I can’t point out a single collective lesson from the pandemic. It’s hard to see any great “we.” Still, I see the faces in my moms’ group, making pancakes for their kids and popping on between strings of meetings while we try to figure out how to raise these small people in this chaotic world. I think of my friends on Instagram tending to the selves they discovered when no one was watching and the scarf of ribbons stretching the length of more than three football fields. I remember my family of three, holding hands on the way up the ramp to the library. These bits of growth and rings of support might not be loud or right on the surface, but that’s not the same thing as nothing. If we only cared about the bottom-line defeats or sweeping successes of the big picture, we’d never plant flowers at all.

More Must-Reads from TIME

Melinda French Gates Is Going It Alone
Lai Ching-te Is Standing His Ground
Do Less. It’s Good for You
There's Something Different About Will Smith
What Animal Studies Are Revealing About Their Minds—and Ours
What a Hospice Nurse Wants You to Know About Death
15 LGBTQ+ Books to Read for Pride
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Share full article

Supported by

current events

12 Ideas for Writing Through the Pandemic With The New York Times

A dozen writing projects — including journals, poems, comics and more — for students to try at home.

By Natalie Proulx

The coronavirus has transformed life as we know it. Schools are closed, we’re confined to our homes and the future feels very uncertain. Why write at a time like this?

For one, we are living through history. Future historians may look back on the journals, essays and art that ordinary people are creating now to tell the story of life during the coronavirus.

But writing can also be deeply therapeutic. It can be a way to express our fears, hopes and joys. It can help us make sense of the world and our place in it.

Plus, even though school buildings are shuttered, that doesn’t mean learning has stopped. Writing can help us reflect on what’s happening in our lives and form new ideas.

We want to help inspire your writing about the coronavirus while you learn from home. Below, we offer 12 projects for students, all based on pieces from The New York Times, including personal narrative essays, editorials, comic strips and podcasts. Each project features a Times text and prompts to inspire your writing, as well as related resources from The Learning Network to help you develop your craft. Some also offer opportunities to get your work published in The Times, on The Learning Network or elsewhere.

We know this list isn’t nearly complete. If you have ideas for other pandemic-related writing projects, please suggest them in the comments.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Open synthesis and the coronavirus pandemic in 2020

Neal r. haddaway.

a Stockholm Environment Institute, Linnégatan 87D, Stockholm, Sweden

b African Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

c The SEI Centre of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, Stockholm, Sweden

d Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany

Elie A. Akl

e Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

f Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HE&I), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

g The Global Evidence Synthesis Initiative (GESI) Secretariat, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

Matthew J. Page

h School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Vivian A. Welch

i Bruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

j Campbell Collaboration, Oslo, Norway

k School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa

Ciara Keenan

l Campbell UK and Ireland, Belfast, UK

m Centre for Evidence and Social Innovation, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK

Tamara Lotfi

Associated data.

• Open Science principles are vital for ensuring reproducibility, trust, and legacy.
• Evidence synthesis is a vital means of summarizing research for decision-making.
• Open Synthesis is the application of Open Science principles to evidence synthesis.
• Open approaches to planning, conducting, and reporting synthesis have many benefits.
• We call on the evidence synthesis community to embrace Open Synthesis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic of 2020 has caused high levels of mortality and continues to threaten the lives of the global population [ 1 ]. The pandemic has amounted to a “once in a lifetime” event for humanity and has affected it across its different sectors of existence: health, education, economy, environment, etc. The pandemic continues to threaten job prospects for millions of people and has resulted in widespread economic turmoil [ 2 ]. It has also led to the cancellation of numerous conferences (e.g., [ 3 ]) and research fieldwork and closed offices across the globe.

As the scientific community grapples to respond to the massive and rapidly evolving crisis, the volume of research literature that has been published in relation to the outbreak has expanded rapidly ( Figure 1 ). Simultaneously, efforts to synthesize this growing evidence base have begun, both through ongoing traditional approaches to independent systematic reviews (e.g., [ 4 , 5 ]), and through both rapid and living systematic reviews (e.g., https://covidrapidreviews.cochrane.org/search/site ). Rapid systematic reviews provide in a timely way the evidence needed to inform policy making under urgent circumstances. On the other hand, living systematic reviews ensure that any evidence synthesis is up to date with the latest evidence (e.g., by the L.OVE team at Epistemonikos).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is gr1_lrg.jpg

Proliferation of publications on COVID-19 found in PubMed on 5th June 2020 with creation dates in 2020 [corresponding to week 23] (all fields search for (“COVID-19″ OR “nCoV” OR ″2019 novel coronavirus” OR ″2019-nCoV” OR “SARS-CoV-2″) AND research). A total of 19,260 hits were identified. Data and code were freely accessible from https://github.com/nealhaddaway/COVID19/ . Week of 2020 calculated based on PubMed creation date. Records lacking creation date were excluded.

As the volume of evidence increases and decision makers and scientists struggle to grapple with the rapidly expanding evidence base, many research groups are volunteering to support these efforts by using online collaborative tools and virtual workspaces, in an effort to support continued working during challenging times, and also to help identify, map, and synthesize research as it emerges.

This work faces a suite of challenges because of the often closed nature of science. The major challenges are the duplication of efforts (leading to research waste), the inefficiency in conducting research, and missing the opportunity to address important questions. Open science principles present an opportunity to address these challenges in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. They would also ensure that the research in the field is more collaborative, transparent, and rigorous. This article argues for, and illustrates how, to apply the principles of Open Science to the field of evidence synthesis, a concept we refer to as Open Synthesis [ 6 ]. We use the COVID-19 pandemic as a case in point to highlight the potential significant benefits of Openness to the research, policy, and practice communities.

1. Evidence synthesis

Evidence synthesis is the name for research methodologies that involve identifying, collating, appraising, and summarizing a body of research evidence using tried and tested systematic and robust literature review methods: i.e., systematic reviews and systematic maps [ 7 ]. Systematic reviews are now widely used in the field of health care as a “gold standard” for summarizing evidence to provide support for decision-making in policy and practice, through a variety of knowledge translation products and practice guidelines [ 8 ].

However, systematic reviewers face challenges as a result of an often closed academic system; research can be difficult to find and download without access to expensive bibliographic databases [ 9 ]; primary research articles and the systematic reviews that synthesize them are hidden behind paywalls [ 10 , 11 ]; reporting of methods used in trials and syntheses is often deficient to some degree, hampering verification and learning about methodology [ 12 ]; research data are often not made public, particularly when produced by organizations with commercial interests, such as pharmaceutical companies [ 13 ]; analytical code is rarely shared and statistical methods can be hard to verify [ 14 ], and educational materials to train the next generation of evidence synthesists are often not made public [ 15 ].

2. Open Science

Open Science has central premises relating to accessibility and the collaborative nature of knowledge creation and the knowledge itself [ 16 ]. These principles (see Table 1 ) include concepts such as open access (unrestricted availability of research publications,11) and open data (freely accessible research data used in analyses; [ 17 ]) that together support efficient, transparent, and rigorous research.

Table 1

Main concepts within Open Science [translated and adapted from OpenScienceASAP; http://openscienceasap.org/open-science ]

Concept	Definition
Open data	Freely available research data
Open source	Use and production of freely accessible software and hardware
Open methodology	Documentation of methods for a research process as far as possible
Open peer review	Transparent and traceable quality assurance through open peer review
Open access	Publish research articles in an accessible manner, making them useable and accessible for all
Open educational resources	Free and accessible materials for education and university teaching

There are various definitions of Open Science, ranging from relatively simple classifications of “data, analysis, publications, and comments” [ 18 ] to somewhat more elaborate frameworks (see Table 1 ), all the way to complex hierarchical conceptual models [ 19 ]. Although these classifications differ in their complexity, they each attempt to cover all aspects of research processes from initiation to communication.

3. Open Synthesis

Some of the problems with traditional approaches to evidence synthesis described above (access to data, methods, publications, etc.) can be and indeed are being mitigated by applying these Open Science principles to evidence synthesis; the result has been termed Open Synthesis [ 6 ]. Open Synthesis was first proposed to apply Open Access, Open Data, Open Source and Open Methodology to evidence synthesis, with the possible addition of Open Education. We propose a finer resolution based on more complex taxonomies (e.g., [ 19 ]).

We suggest that such Open Synthesis would support the transfer of knowledge from primary research to decision support tools and evidence portals (e.g., the Teaching and Learning Toolkit), particularly during humanitarian crises; for example, Evidence Aid hosts a freely accessible evidence repository that holds summaries of COVID-19 relevant evidence ( https://www.evidenceaid.org/coronavirus-covid-19-evidence-collection/ ) [ 20 ]. Many Open Synthesis resources have been developed and assembled in an effort to facilitate access to the novel evidence base emerging in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. These examples are (understandably) almost exclusively related to the field of health, but the evidence base will become increasingly multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral as research focus spreads to include the societal and environmental impacts of the outbreak and subsequent social policies, such as widescale lockdowns. The key components of Open Synthesis are described in Figure 2 , and examples are given below.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is gr2_lrg.jpg

Provisional core principles of Open Synthesis. This is the subject of discussion by an international, interdisciplinary Open Synthesis Working Group ( https://opensynthesis.github.io ) that aims to define and describe pathways toward more Open evidence synthesis.

3.1. Open collaboration

The COVID-19 evidence map of emerging literature produced by the Meta-Evidence blog was open to interested collaborators (before the project was discontinued because of considerable overlap with several other projects) and involved substantial efforts to translate and extract information from literature written in Chinese. The synthesizing group under COVID Evidence Network to support Decision makers (COVID-END; https://www.mcmasterforum.org/networks/covid-end/working-groups/synthesizing ) supports efforts to synthesize the evidence that already exists in ways that are more coordinated and efficient and that balance quality and timeliness. Cochrane's COVID Rapid Reviews repository provides space for Open Collaboration by connecting authors interested in addressing the same rapid review question that were submitted by the public.

3.2. Open discovery

To enable free (i.e., not paywalled) searching for relevant evidence, various efforts are seeking to build “living” bibliographies and databases of research on COVID-19. For example, the CORD19 database (MIT); the COVID-19 living systematic map (EPPI center); Cochrane's COVID-19 Study Register; the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's live map of COVID-19 evidence. Similarly, the McMaster GRADE Center is collaborating with the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and others to map recommendations relevant to COVID-19 and make them publicly available (including the strength and certainty of supporting evidence) [ 21 ].

3.3. Open methods

Efforts exist to ensure that evidence syntheses use transparent and well reported methods to improve repeatability and usability. For example, the systematic review registry PROSPERO has provided a link to already registered reviews of human and animal studies relevant to COVID-19.

3.4. Open data

Freely accessible data (including those extracted and generated within the process of conducting a systematic review) are being made available for reuse and analysis. From evidence syntheses, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 collection archives data extracted from within reviews in a publicly accessible database ( https://www.epistemonikos.cl/all-about-covid-19/ ).

3.5. Open source

Freely useable and adaptable tools for analysis and visualization have been made available online to support the conduct and communication of COVID-19 relevant research, for example, corona-cli (code for analyzing and visualizing data on the outbreak); the EviAtlas tool for mapping the geographical spread of evidence on COVID-19 [ 22 ].

3.6. Open code

Many researchers routinely publish the analytic code to accompany their research (e.g., R script for statistical analyses), although to date this practice is not common in the syntheses we have examined; perhaps because this is challenging where reviewers have not made use of code-driven software, and code does not readily exist (e.g., for reviews conducted using RevMan software). However, some examples of Open Code in primary research include code to webscrape COVID data from Worldometers and epidemiological modeling code for COVID.

3.7. Open access

Several publishers and journals have made COVID-19 relevant research articles and evidence syntheses freely accessible, including the Cochrane COVID-19 evidence collection and several Elsevier journals including Journal of Clinical Epidemiology and The Lancet ( https://www.elsevier.com/connect/coronavirus-information-center ). Systematic reviewers can facilitate Open Access by ensuring their reviews are freely accessible (e.g., by publishing in open access journals or depositing preprints or postprints in publicly accessible repositories) but also by facilitating access to the primary research synthesized in their reviews (e.g., by providing DOIs for the full texts of their included studies).

3.8. Open peer review:

Although most journals do not currently publish peer review reports and revisions of systematic reviews, some resources exist to support this, including the Outbreak Science Rapid PREReview for prepublication peer review.

3.9. Open education

Various freely accessible training resources (e.g., courses, webinars, and handbooks) exist for evidence synthesis methodology, including #ESTraining provided by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence and Stockholm Environment Institute and webinars provided by the Global Evidence Synthesis Initiative.

3.10. Open interests

Systematic reviews have been shown to suffer from poor reporting of funding, role of funders, and conflicts of interest in general [ 23 ]. Open Interests calls for individuals to transparently declare possible financial and nonfinancial interests—ideally, this would be performed by all parties involved in the conduct and publication of systematic reviews (including educators, engaged stakeholders, review authors, advisory group members, peer reviewers, editors, and publishers); these should be updated regularly. In practical terms, this could either be a declaration at the point of publication (e.g., review publications, educational materials, or peer review comments) or via a freely accessible central database of interests. At present, no Open Interests initiative exists.

3.10.1. Challenges of implementing Open Synthesis and their relation to Open Science criticisms

Although no criticisms have been fielded against Open Synthesis yet, some researchers have raised concerns about Open Science. We have described some of these in Table 2 . These concerns either relate to openness itself as a practice or the application and enforcement of Open Science within current institutions and incentive structures.

Table 2

Concerns relating to Open Science and their applicability to and mitigation within Open Synthesis

Concern relating to Open Science	Description of the concern	Applicability to Open Synthesis	Potential mitigations for Open Synthesis
Exacerbation of power imbalance and inequality or exclusion of minorities [ ]	Open Science practices applied within the current incentive structures and institutions can exacerbate power imbalance and inequality, particularly adversely affecting minorities and the vulnerable or oppressed	Highly applicable to evidence syntheses, just as with primary research.	Open Synthesis principles can be endorsed rather than enforced to avoid penalizing vulnerable researchers who may struggle to be Open. Structures can be put in place to support minorities and vulnerable researchers (e.g., publication fee waivers for low- and middle-income researchers [ ], mentoring in Open practices).
Risk of misuse [ ]	Open Data and Code may be reused or reanalyzed incorrectly, potentially for nefarious reasons	Although some data in syntheses are in the public domain, some data from unpublished studies or unpublished outcomes obtained from authors are not available in the public domain. Furthermore, the calculation of effect sizes may use assumptions that affect the estimates calculated.	Ensure full methodological transparency to avoid misunderstandings, including annotation of analytic or statistical code and any assumptions. Adequate reference and easy linkage to the original data source should be provided for clarity.
Risk of public misunderstanding (e.g., [ ])	Detailed language and nuance of data may be misunderstood by lay people, nonspecialists, or those who did not collect the data	Systematic reviews are typically not intended to be a means of communication with the public (plain language summaries instead). The risk is not higher for Open Synthesis relative to standard synthesis.	Synthesis methods must be detailed enough and follow standard language to allow full understanding.
Potential to be overwhelmed by information [ ]	Publication of large volumes of data or information may make it difficult to find important details within/across studies	Information is typically more structured across evidence syntheses than primary research because they use a common methodological framework.	Standardized reporting templates could be built to support or facilitate metadata formatting so that information is readily found and understood. Reviewers could provide different versions with different levels of detail for different audiences (e.g., Plain language summary for the lay public).
Fear of repercussions if mistakes are unearthed after publication [ ]	Authors may fear that they could be subjected to persecution if mistakes are identified in their methods after publication and so may prefer to keep data and analyses private	There is potential for error in the identification, selection, appraisal, and analysis of studies included in systematic reviews	Reviewers should be incentivized to admit errors and supported when these occur. Institutional punitive measures for publishing corrections or retractions should first examine the reasons behind the action, avoiding blanket punishments and acknowledge authors who act ethically and responsibly, while promoting and rewarding Open behaviors. Open Synthesis should be reframed as an opportunity to validate findings as opposed to detecting mistakes.
Publication of data leads to “research parasitism” [ ]	Some researchers feel that reuse of data or methods by others is an unfair practice and that authors alone should retain exclusive rights	Cochrane, the Campbell Collaboration and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence allow review teams the right to lead updates to their reviews for a fixed period. Data collected and used in an evidence synthesis is typically already in the public domain, anyway.	Raise awareness of the benefits in legacy and impact of research resulting from reuse of data. Ensure those reusing data provide appropriate and full acknowledgment of data sources. Reconsider rules for academic credit, reward, and promotion.
Belief that low quality science will proliferate [ ]	[Specifically referring to Open Peer Review and preprints] some argue that a lack of traditional peer review for preprints removes the gatekeeping that ensures research validity, and low-quality research will become common	Preprints are, in part, a response to a lack of immediate Open Access and closed peer review. They are not an integral part of Open Science but rather an extension of it. Current institutions and incentive structures may not be sufficient to prevent low quality evidence syntheses from being published, but this is also the case for those that are traditionally peer reviewed.	Make use of opportunities for Open Peer Review that complement and strengthen preprints (i.e., postpublication peer review;,31). Raise awareness and establish standard communication practices for understanding preprints within the communications community (i.e., journalists and institutional communications officers). Ensure preprints follow standards for conducting and reporting evidence synthesis (e.g., PRISMA and ROSES)
Increased resources needed to attain Openness [ , ]	Ensuring that data and information are made fully Open may require resources (time and funding) that are not readily available to all	The large amounts of data potentially produced within a systematic review project could require considerable resources to clean and annotate if not planned from the outset, particularly for analytic code. Open Collaboration could require considerable time to manage if roles and tasks are not carefully predefined.	Openness can be achieved for the most part by using cost-free alternatives (e.g., self-archiving to avoid publication fees and the use of free data repositories) and by incentivizing and institutionalizing Open and transparent practices from an early career stage (e.g., good code annotation practices). However, this point is not trivial and highlights the need for careful planning across all aspects of Open Synthesis; planning can significantly reduce resource requirements. Standardizing methods and processes and tools used to abstract and store data could assist in this process [ ]
Risk of “platform capitalism” (i.e., commercialization of public data) [ ]	The free availability of data permits the development of subscription-based/pay-to-use services (e.g., ) that aim to provide additional services using public data (e.g., analytics) and platforms that may exploit or disadvantage certain groups of people (e.g., by charging for a service that is otherwise already free elsewhere)	Grass roots and no-cost alternatives to these services are often available but awareness of free-to-use services is vital to avoid entrapment by commercial enterprises (e.g., paying a publisher to access an article that is already Open Access).	Noncommercial use Creative Commons licenses may help restrict/prevent commercial use of Open Data (e.g., CC BY-NC 3.0), but they are not without criticism, for example, that Creative Commons licenses are based on copyright law that is overly restrictive to academic collaborations [ ].
Need to maintain confidentiality [ , ]	Research subjects are typically provided anonymity that may mean publication of raw data is not feasible or safe	Evidence syntheses often make use of summary data not disaggregated at the level of individual participants, and for these reviews this may not be an issue. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses, however, may not be able to publish data openly.	For IPD meta-analyses, the requirements for Open Data may need to be relaxed or adapted in some contexts to ensure anonymity can be maintained. For example, data on request repositories for individual patient data exist [ ]. Standardized ethical practices could be established where needed for IPD meta-analysis.
Institutional barriers including career incentives that reward closed practices [ ]	Career incentives in academic typically and historically center around publication in high-impact journals that are prohibitively expensive to publish Open Access. Recruitment and promotion in academia typically also do not reward or acknowledge Open practices. Institutions may not understand/accept the desire to be Open	Systematic reviewers often work within institutions established around primary research practices, so the same incentives apply. Organizations primarily focusing on evidence synthesis may already have Open practices.	Incentive structures are likely to change over time as Open Science practices become more common, but authorities must take a stand to support researchers who are likely to be disadvantaged by being more Open (e.g., early career researchers).

In addition, there are risks associated with some of the practices that may be facilitated by Open Synthesis, for example, 1) living systematic reviews may involve repeated incremental rerunning of meta-analyses, leading to increased chances of false positive that need to be accounted for (e.g., [ 40 ]); 2) updates may need to account for changes in best practice in risk of bias assessments as novel methods become available, potentially involving reassessment of studies identified in the original review.

These are not problems with Open Synthesis but rather important issues that should be addressed when planning incentives and infrastructure in support of Open Syntheses. However, a pathway to Open systematic reviews and systematic maps will involve many steps and a diverse array of different actions; these changes should not be expected overnight, and there is a need for detailed discussion about implications and pitfalls. That said, it is generally accepted that the advantages of Open Science outweigh the disadvantages [ 41 ].

3.10.2. Open Synthesis and current systematic review traditions

At present, some of these Open Synthesis practices are enforced or encouraged by review coordinating bodies. Cochrane reviews can be made immediately Open Access at the point of publication for a fee (payable by authors) or made free after a 12 month period (otherwise requiring subscription to access, green Open Access). Cochrane does not yet require systematic review–extracted data to be made public [ 42 ]. While methods in Cochrane reviews are typically well-reported thanks to the Methodological Expectations for Cochrane Intervention Reviews reporting standards [ 43 ], the “raw” data extracted from primary studies within a review are not typically included. All Campbell Collaboration reviews are published in their Open Access journal. Transparent and Open Methods are required by the Methodological Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews. Open Data and Code are in the vision for the future of the journal [ 44 ]. For both organizations, review protocols are published online and time-stamped before work commences, as should be performed with all systematic reviews and maps (e.g., in PROSPERO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, or published in a suitable journal).

3.10.3. Ways forward

Adopting truly Open evidence synthesis approaches has the potential to globalize research, break down barriers to data sharing and collaboration, and mitigate inequality in knowledge availability (e.g., a large body of Chinese coronavirus trials was recently translated and mapped by researchers from Lanzhou University). Open synthesis also supports either living systematic reviews or intermittent updates; it is agnostic toward the framework chosen to update reviews. Importantly, it emphasizes the need to facilitate updates however that may occur.

Moreover, Open Synthesis of evidence will provide guideline developers with faster and better access to the synthesis methods, findings, conflict of interest information, and other elements necessary for guideline development, and subsequently, improve the quality and efficiency of guideline development.

Achieving the optimal impact of Open Synthesis requires the consideration of other principles. Of outmost importance is to respond to the knowledge needs of decision makers by adopting valid prioritisty setting approaches. Similarly, it has to feed into knowledge translation tools that are appropriate to the target decision makers. In addition, it should build on emerging concepts, such as Evidence Synthesis 2.0 [ 33 ], to ensure the efficiency of the process and appropriateness of the output.

We encourage adoption of these principles across all disciplines to meet the social, legal, ethical, and economic challenges of the global COVID-19 pandemic, such as supporting home-based education for children out of school; mitigating social impacts of isolation; responding to the increased risk and severity of domestic violence, global food insecurity, or the implications of social lockdowns on environmental recovery from long-term anthropogenic disturbance and climate change.

We call for increasing application of Open Science and Open Synthesis principles across disciplines both within and beyond the COVID-19 epidemic to support evidence production, synthesis, and evidence-informed policy. By embracing Open Synthesis, evidence synthesis communities from all disciplines can maximize the efficiency, impact, and legacy of systematic reviews and better support decision-making, particularly in global crises such as the current COVID-19 pandemic, establishing a more resilient and collaborative future in the event of similar global challenges.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Neal R. Haddaway: Conceptualization, Data curation. Elie A. Akl: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Matthew J. Page: Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Vivian A. Welch: Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Ciara Keenan: Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Tamara Lotfi: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.

Declarations of interest: NRH and TL are the coordinators of the Open Synthesis Working Group, a voluntary collaboration of stakeholders interested in the application of Open Science principles in evidence synthesis conduct and publication.

Funding: This work was produced in part as a result of funding from FORTE, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (2018-01619).

Author’s contributions: NRH and TL developed the concept for the manuscript. NRH drafted the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript prior to submission.

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.032 .

Supplementary data

The Essex website uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are consenting to their use. Please visit our cookie policy to find out which cookies we use and why. View cookie policy.

Thesis Submission Guidance: COVID-19 Impact Statement

In response to the impact of the global pandemic, we’re giving you the option to include a statement at the start of your thesis which outlines the effects that COVID-19 may have had on the research that you have undertaken towards your doctoral degree.

The inclusion of a statement is to facilitate the reader’s awareness, both now and in the future, that the pandemic may have had an effect on the scope, direction and presentation of the research.

The academic standards and quality threshold for the award remains unchanged. Where statements are included, you should be reassured that this is not evidencing a lack of original research or intellectual rigour.

If you decide to include one such statement, it should appear on the first page of the thesis, after the cover page, and be titled ‘Impact of COVID-19’. The statement should not exceed 1000 words and will not count towards the total thesis word count.

Examples of potential areas for consideration and comment when developing your impact statement are below. However, you should discuss the content of the statement with your supervisor before submission:

Details on how disruption caused by COVID-19 has impacted the research (for example, an inability to conduct face to face research, an inability to collect/analyse data as a result of travel constraints, or restricted access to labs or other working spaces).
A description of how the planned work would have fitted within the thesis narrative (e.g., through method development, expansion of analytical skills or advancement of hypotheses).
A summary of any decisions / actions taken to mitigate for any work or data collection/analyses that were prevented by COVID-19.
Highlighting new research questions and developments, emphasising the work that has been undertaken in pivoting or adjusting the project.

You are reminded of the public nature of the published thesis and the longevity of any such included statements about the impact of the pandemic. You are advised to take a cautious approach as to the insertion of any personal information in these statements.

For enquiries contact your Student Services Hub
University of Essex
Wivenhoe Park
Colchester CO4 3SQ
Accessibility
Privacy and Cookie Policy

IMAGES

≫ Nationalism and Covid-19 Pandemic Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
UN/DESA Policy Brief #85: Impact of COVID-19: perspective from
Protecting and mobilizing youth in COVID-19 responses
IJERPH
≫ Setting Up Homeworking Radiology Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic Free
"COVID-19 PR Reflection" by Madeline Dingle

VIDEO

Teaching class how to write thesis statement
Lec 2... How to write Thesis Statement
Thesis Statement| English Essay by Dr Arif Javid
How to attempt a literary essay for CSS||structure of Essay||Boys will be Boys outline
Where to write thesis statement in CSS English Essay CSS 2025
Thesis: How to write Thesis Statement of an Essay

COMMENTS

Activity 2. Directions: Write a THESIS STATEMENT on the ...
Directions: Write a THESIS STATEMENT on the following topics. 1. DISTANCE LEARNING MODALITY 2. COVID-19 PANDEMIC - - 27406864. answered • expert verified Activity 2. Directions: Write a THESIS STATEMENT on the following topics. ... Get the Brainly App Download iOS App
How to Write About Coronavirus in a College Essay
Students can choose to write a full-length college essay on the coronavirus or summarize their experience in a shorter form. To help students explain how the pandemic affected them, The Common App ...
Paragraph Writing on Covid 19
A health thesis statement might explore the pandemic's effects on mental health. The tone is informative and serious. This paragraph highlights the comprehensive response to COVID-19. Checkout → Free Paragraph Writer Tool. Short Paragraph on Covid-19. Covid-19 is a global pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus.
Persuasive Essay About Covid19
Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19. Here are the steps to help you write a persuasive essay on this topic, along with an example essay: Step 1: Choose a Specific Thesis Statement. Your thesis statement should clearly state your position on a specific aspect of COVID-19. It should be debatable and clear. For example:
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic
The spread of the "Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus 2" (SARS-CoV-2), the causal agent of COVID-19, was characterized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020 and has triggered an international public health emergency [].The numbers of confirmed cases and deaths due to COVID-19 are rapidly escalating, counting in millions [], causing massive economic strain ...
Paragraph Writing on Covid 19
Paragraph Writing on Covid-19 in 100 Words. Coronavirus is an infectious disease and is commonly called Covid-19. It affects the human respiratory system causing difficulty in breathing. It is a contagious disease and has been spreading across the world like wildfire. The virus was first identified in 2019 in Wuhan, China.
Covid 19 Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
Here are some essay topic ideas related to Covid-19: 1. The impact of Covid-19 on mental health: Discuss how the pandemic has affected individuals' mental well-being and explore potential solutions for addressing mental health challenges during this time. 2.
PDF The Impact of Covid-19 on Student Experiences and Expectations ...
This paper attempts to shed light on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on college students. First, we describe and quantify the causal e ects of the COVID-19 outbreak on a wide set of students' out-comes/expectations. In particular, we analyze enrollment and graduation decisions, academic performance,
PDF Writing COVID-19 into your thesis
The structure of a doctoral thesis and Covid-19 In this document we attempt to guide you through the usual chapters in a thesis and suggest how the pandemic might be referenced within them. We have listed the purpose of each chapter and considered how you may acknowledge the shaping influence of Covid-19. While this information has
Writing about COVID-19 in a college essay GreatSchools.org
The student or a family member had COVID-19 or suffered other illnesses due to confinement during the pandemic. The student suffered from a lack of internet access and other online learning challenges. Students who dealt with problems registering for or taking standardized tests and AP exams. Jeff Schiffman of the Tulane University admissions ...
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over and could yet evolve in unanticipated ways, but one of its most important lessons is already clear: preparation and early execution are essential in ...
The challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the way ...
The conducted qualitative research was aimed at capturing the biggest challenges related to the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The interviews were carried out in March-June (five stages of the research) and in October (the 6th stage of the research). A total of 115 in-depth individual interviews were conducted online with 20 respondents, in 6 stages. The results of the analysis showed ...
thesis statement for covid 19 pandemic
Thesis statement for covid 19 pandemic Get the answers you need, now! ananthan11062002 ... Underline the verbs and encircle the nouns after writing. . Identify the adjectival clause in the sentence below. ... Choose the correct verb to complete the following sentence: Either two nickels or one dime _____ in the parking meter. A. Work B. Works C ...
An Analysis of The Covid-19 Pandemic on The Students at The University
As of March 2022, the United States has experienced 79.6 million cases of. COVID-19, and of those cases, 968,839, or 1.2%, resulted in death (Elflein, 2022). The South Dakota Department of Health recorded its first case of COVID-19 in South. Dakota on March 30, 2020 (Haskins, 2020).
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): The Impact and Role of Mass Media
The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created a global health crisis that has had a deep impact on the way we perceive our world and our everyday lives. Not only the rate of contagion and patterns of transmission threatens our sense of agency, but the safety measures put in place to contain the spread of the virus also require social distancing by refraining from doing what ...
Global research on coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
Global research on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) WHO is bringing the world's scientists and global health professionals together to accelerate the research and development process, and develop new norms and standards to contain the spread of the coronavirus pandemic and help care for those affected. The R&D Blueprint has been activated to ...
COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement
COVID-19 Thesis Impact Statement. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all aspects of our lives is well known. Victoria experienced six lockdowns between March 2020 and October 2021 that collectively totalled 262 days. Deakin University sought to mitigate this impact on the research by higher degree by research students in various ways ...
Frontiers
They offer a set of recommendations for COVID-19 related media messages, including the importance of message framing, interactive public forums with up-to-date information, and an honest communication about what is known and unknown about the pandemic and the virus. Following a content analysis approach, Parvin et al. studied the ...
What We Learned About Ourselves During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Alex, a writer and fellow disabled parent, found the freedom to explore a fuller version of herself in the privacy the pandemic provided. "The way I dress, the way I love, and the way I carry ...
12 Ideas for Writing Through the Pandemic With The New York Times
We want to help inspire your writing about the coronavirus while you learn from home. Below, we offer 12 projects for students, all based on pieces from The New York Times, including personal ...
PDF Thesis Impact Statement: COVID-19
research and their thesis in order to comply with restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and public health emergency measures. SGS recommends writing an COVID-19 Impact Statement that can be sent to examiners (as a separate document from your thesis) so they can understand how your thesis has been forced to change.
Open synthesis and the coronavirus pandemic in 2020
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic of 2020 has caused high levels of mortality and continues to threaten the lives of the global population [ 1 ]. The pandemic has amounted to a "once in a lifetime" event for humanity and has affected it across its different sectors of existence: health, education, economy, environment, etc.
PDF Pandemic Economics: a Case Study of The Economic Effects of Covid-19
An Abstract of the Thesis of. Lucy Hudson for the degree of Bachelor of Science in the Department of Economics to be taken June 2021. Title: Pandemic Economics: A Case Study of the Economic Effects of COVID-19 Mitigation Strategies in the United States and the European Union. Approved: Assistant Professor Keaton Miller, Ph.D.
Thesis Submission Guidance: COVID-19 Impact Statement
You may include a statement in your thesis outlining the effects that COVID-19 may have had on the research that you have undertaken towards your doctoral degree. ... You are reminded of the public nature of the published thesis and the longevity of any such included statements about the impact of the pandemic. You are advised to take a ...