You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

9 August 2025

Mental Health and Cognitive Outcomes in Patients Six Months After Testing Positive Compared with Matched Patients Testing Negative for COVID-19 in a Non-Hospitalized Sample: A Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Neuroscience Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 406-1919 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, ON K1H 1A2, Canada
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
3
Inflammation & Chronic Disease, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
4
Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 1145 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1Z 7K4, Canada
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2025, 22(8), 1249;https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22081249
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

We aimed to determine the mental health and cognitive outcomes at six months in people who had not been hospitalized with COVID-19 and who had tested positive or negative for COVID-19 in Eastern Ontario, Canada. Participants were matched 1:1 six months following their COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction test. X2, t-test, and Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted to compare self-report and observer-rated mental health and cognitive outcomes between the two groups. We also conducted an age and gender-adjusted logistic regression analysis to explore risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairment among those who had tested positive for COVID-19. A total of 324 participants were enrolled (n = 162 per arm). Overall, 40.7% of those in the COVID-positive group were men, with an average age of 37.9 (SD 13.2) years. In the COVID-negative group, 41.4% were men, with an average age of 36.7 (SD 12.8). There were no statistically significant differences in mental health outcomes between the groups. On cognitive testing, while 21% of the COVID-positive participants and 14% of the COVID-negative participants had scores indicating significant cognitive impairment, the difference between groups was not significant, though this warrants further investigation in future research. In non-hospitalized patients who have tested positive for COVID-19, there is no evidence of an increase in mental health disorders compared to people who tested negative. Any increases in mental health disorders during the pandemic may be the effect of social changes rather than an effect of the virus itself. The exception may be the cognitive changes in those who tested positive.

1. Introduction

In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) a global pandemic []. Previous pandemics have been associated with widespread recognition of their mental health consequences. In 1892, at the time of the “Russian Flu”, William Osler wrote this about influenza: “The depression of spirits following this disease is one of its most unpleasant and obstinate features” []. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the mental health consequences of severe coronavirus infection found 40 studies (35 in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome [SARS] and 5 in Middle East Respiratory Syndrome [MERS]) that reported ongoing psychiatric symptoms after the initial infection had resolved []. The meta-analysis found the point prevalence of mental disorders after the acute illness was 32.2% for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (95% CI 23.7–42.0%), 14.9% for depressive disorders (12.1–18.2), and 14.8% for anxiety disorders (11.1–19.4). Only one study examined cognitive function, which found that 15/45 patients (33%) reported a dysexecutive syndrome consisting of inattention, disorientation, or poorly organized movements in response to command []. About half of the studies were rated as low quality, with the main weaknesses being limited assessment of psychiatric disorders prior to infection and the absence of control groups [].
Currently, much of the research on the psychiatric and cognitive outcomes of COVID-19 infection has been in patients who have been hospitalized, despite more than 95% of cases never being admitted to hospital [,]. Some literature has explored the outcomes in non-hospitalized samples, though few studies have been conducted examining populations within Canada. A study published by Kang et al. (2024) used population-based data to show that psychological distress is negatively associated with cognitive performance, though this study primarily focused on older adults []. A systematic review of the neuropsychological and psychiatric sequelae after COVID-19 found 33 studies, with only 5 including non-hospitalized participants and 3 with any control group []. Individuals who were not hospitalized with COVID-19 had a prevalence of reported depression of 15.0 to 68.5%, anxiety of 14.0 to 55.2%, and PTSD of 7%. These figures were similar to those who required inpatient hospitalization. Risk factors included female sex, higher perceived stigma related to COVID-19, having a family member who tested positive for COVID-19, social isolation, medical morbidity, past psychiatric history, identifying as LGBQT+ and low socio-economic status (SES) [,]. Cognitive impairment was recorded in 15% to 40% of participants. The wide range in prevalence was attributed to the heterogeneity of the patient samples as well as different assessment methods and timeframes. A subsequent systematic review focused only on depression after COVID-19 and included eight studies, only two of which included a control group []. Clinically significant depression was found in 3 to 12% of participants. Nersesjan et al. (2022) found no difference in mental health outcomes at six months in hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to controls hospitalized for other reasons []. Cognitive outcomes were significantly worse in the COVID-19 population (absolute difference was small). A large retrospective cohort study using electronic health records found six-month incidence rates in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients of 13% for mood disorders, 17.5% for anxiety disorders, and 5.9% for substance use []. Cognitive outcomes were not assessed in this study, and there was no general population control group. Xie et al. (2022) used health service records to examine a cohort of US veterans who had evidence of COVID-19 infection and two control groups []. Of the COVID-19 cohort, 14% had been admitted to the hospital. They found that veterans infected with COVID-19 had higher rates of mental disorders than the control groups after a year. The population in this study was 90% male and mostly white, which limits its generalizability, and cognitive function was not systematically assessed. In addition, health service record studies are confounded by health-seeking behaviour and access to services, which may differ among those diagnosed with or without COVID-19; the unknown completeness of records; no validation of diagnosis; and little information on socioeconomic risk factors. A systematic review of cognitive impairment associated with COVID-19 found two studies in non-hospitalized patients with follow-up after 12 weeks, neither of which had a comparison group []. In studies that reported follow-up after 12 weeks, cognitive impairment was detected in 21 to 65% of people. A systematic review examining attention and memory after COVID-19, measured by neuropsychological tests, found that memory and attention may be affected as a result of infection and suggested controlled studies as a potential solution to better understand the effects of COVID-19 [].
The current literature primarily focuses on hospitalized cohorts and usually does not include comparison groups of those who tested negative for COVID-19. Studies published more recently that examine non-hospitalized samples focus more heavily on cognition and memory, with no reporting on mental health outcomes, and do not include a control group []. There have been few studies examining the outcomes of non-hospitalized Canadian populations. Not including control groups of uninfected individuals means that it is impossible to separate the effects of the virus from the stresses associated with the pandemic, such as gathering restrictions, workplace and school closures, disruption to services, and economic impacts. The primary aim of this study was to determine the mental health and cognitive outcomes at six months in people who had not been hospitalized with COVID-19 and who had tested positive and negative for COVID-19 in Eastern Ontario, Canada. We also wanted to assess any clinical, social, or demographic predictors of mental health and cognitive outcomes in these populations. The results of this study are reported according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

This study is a matched retrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized participants who tested positive or negative for COVID-19 at The Ottawa Hospital (Ottawa, Canada) between July 2020 and January 2021. During this time, The Ottawa Hospital operated a large community COVID-19 testing facility in the city. This study reports on outcomes at six months post-PCR testing.
All participants were identified by The Ottawa Hospital Performance Measurement team, who keep a comprehensive list of individuals who have completed a COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test and who consented to be contacted for research purposes. All PCR tests were completed in the context of clinical care and not as part of the current research study. At the time this study was conducted, the primary method for detecting COVID-19 in the general population in Ontario was through PCR testing, and this continues to be the gold standard for testing due to its sensitivity and accuracy []. COVID-19 test-positive patients were identified from the list of people tested for COVID at The Ottawa Hospital based on the following criteria: (1) age > 18; (2) positive PCR test within the previous six months; and (3) willingness to consent to the use of email to communicate with the study team. Exclusion criteria included hospitalization for COVID-19. COVID-positive patients were included in the study regardless of whether they were symptomatic at the time of their initial PCR test. Potential COVID test-negative participants were selected from the list of people tested for COVID at The Ottawa Hospital based on the following criteria: (1) age > 18; (2) negative PCR test; (3) willingness to consent to the use of email to communicate with the study team; and (4) matching one-to-one with COVID-positive patients by sex, age difference < 5 years, and PCR testing date within 30 days of the matched test-positive case.
Given that this study relies on patient-reported and clinician-rated outcomes not routinely collected as part of clinical care, participants from both the COVID-positive and matched COVID-negative groups were approached to complete informed consent procedures. If the matched COVID-negative patient declined to participate, another suitable COVID-negative patient was identified and approached. To ensure that COVID-negative participants had not contracted COVID-19 between their initial negative PCR test and their one study visit (six months post initial test), their negative status was re-assessed by study staff at enrollment by asking about their symptoms, positive rapid antigen test (RAT), or a subsequent PCR test. While RATs are not as accurate as PCR testing [], the likelihood of obtaining a false positive result is extremely low (0.05%) []. As such, it is unlikely that patients were mistakenly excluded from the COVID-19-negative group based on the results of their RAT. To account for the possibility of false negatives on a RAT, symptom inquiry was guided by public health criteria at the time, which included fever/chills, cough, shortness of breath, loss or reduction in sense of smell or taste; or if they had two or more of the following: sore throat, headache, runny nose/nasal congestion, extreme fatigue, muscle/joint pain, or gastrointestinal symptoms.
Ethics approval was obtained from the Ottawa Health Sciences Network Research Ethics Board (OHSN-REB; Approval: 20200713). Eligible participants provided verbal consent and confirmed their consent by electronic acknowledgement through the electronic data capturing system (EDCS), prior to the completion of the self-report questionnaires.

2.2. Study Visit

All study visits were conducted remotely by research staff at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. The single study visit occurred six months post-COVID-19 PCR test result and included a series of self-reports and observer-rated assessments to evaluate mental health and cognition. Upon study enrollment, participants completed a COVID-19 medical history form, which assessed their current COVID-19 status, and among those who had tested positive for COVID-19, it assessed when symptoms first began as well as their severity. Prior to the scheduled visit, participants completed self-report questionnaires to assess depression, anxiety, substance use, PTSD, and psychosis. If the participants met the definition of a case on the self-report scales, indicating the possible presence of a mental health disorder, a trained research assistant administered a complete diagnostic interview as appropriate. This is a standard and reliable approach used in comparative mental health research []. All participants completed the Mini-Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Assessment (M-ACE) [], which was administered virtually via video call with a delegated and trained research staff member, where audio and video were on for the duration of the assessment. For the clock drawing portion of this assessment, participants were observed drawing this on video and were asked to show the research staff their clock once it was complete.

2.3. Outcomes

An overview of outcome measures and assessment tools administered can be found in Table 1. More detailed information about each assessment, including its psychometric properties, can be found in Supplemental Table S1. The primary outcomes were the proportions of cases of depression, anxiety, PTSD, substance use, cognitive impairment, and low quality of life. Depression was measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9) [,] and the subsequent Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) [,] with scores of 10 or higher and 9 or higher, respectively, indicating depression. Anxiety was measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) [], followed by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) [] with scores of 10 or higher and 8 or higher, respectively, indicating anxiety. PTSD was measured with the Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5) [] with a score of 3 indicating further screening with the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) []. Alcohol and substance use were evaluated with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) [], the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10) [], and followed by the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Interview Screening Test (ASSIST) [] if potentially hazardous behaviours were identified. Potential psychosis was evaluated using the Psychosis Screening Questionnaire [] and subsequent Modified Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales (PSYRATS)—Beliefs & Voices Hearing Rating Scale []. Lastly, cognitive impairment was evaluated using the M-ACE with a score of 25 or below indicating cognitive impairment []. Participants in this study were not specifically assessed for long COVID, as at the time this study was conducted, nothing was known about persistent-COVID symptoms.
Table 1. Overview of outcome measures.
Secondary outcomes were severity of fatigue [], sleep disturbance [], mental well-being [], loneliness [], suicidal thoughts and behaviour [], and change in work status.
Outcome predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers were collected and are described in Supplementary Table S2. We collected information on demographics, medical and psychiatric history, COVID-19 symptoms in the cases, adverse childhood event scores [], current mental health treatment, and social support [].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Demographic characteristics and health rating scale scores are presented as mean (SD) for continuous variables and expressed as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Primary analyses compared COVID-positive with matched COVID-negative participants. To compare differences in mental health and cognitive outcomes between COVID-positive and COVID-negative (matched sample), we conducted conditional Poisson regressions with robust standard errors to account for matching. Where continuous outcome measures are significantly skewed (skewness greater than 1 or less than −1), we also present medians and quartiles for descriptive analyses. Efforts were made to complete the study visit six months after PCR testing, with a median follow-up time of 6.6 months, quartiles 6.4–6.8. In addition, we conducted non-matched sub-analyses within the COVID-19 test-positive population, using age- and sex-adjusted logistic regression analysis to explore risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairment.
All statistical tests were two-sided, and an alpha of 0.05 was considered statistically significant unless otherwise stated.

2.5. Missingness

Baseline and follow-up data were largely complete, although some observations were missing. We used a complete case analysis as missingness was low and did not exceed 8% on any variable. We noted sample sizes for complete cases when missingness was present.

2.6. Sample Size

We based the sample size calculation on the point prevalence of PTSD, as this was the most common disorder reported after SARS and MERS infections, at a rate of 32.2% (95% CI 23.7–42.0;) at 33 months []. Given that we were examining a non-hospitalized cohort at six months, we assumed a point prevalence of PTSD of 28% among those who tested positive []. In Canada, the general population point prevalence of PTSD is about 10% []. In the COVID-negative group, we assumed that the rate of PTSD would increase by 50% to 15% as a result of the general stress of the pandemic. To have 80% power to detect a difference of 13% between the positive and negative groups requires 156 people in each group, or a total of 312 people.

3. Results

We recruited a total of 162 COVID-19 test-positive participants and 162 matched COVID-19 test-negative participants between 8 January 2021, and 27 April 2022, who had their initial COVID-19 PCR test between July 2020 and March 2021. The current paper reports on one visit that occurred six months post-COVID-19 test. A total of 1492 potentially eligible cases were identified, and 1426 were contacted. Overall, 964 potentially eligible participants did not answer the phone when recruitment attempts were made. Per our institutional ethical guidelines, we did not attempt to contact anyone more than three times. Seven individuals had out-of-date contact information, so we were unable to reach them. Of 284 participants who were not interested in participating, reasons for noninterest included personal time constraints (n = 29), mental health or burnout (n = 5), distrust in research overall (n = 1), language barrier (n = 1), and already involved in clinical trials and were asked by their other research study team not to participate in any other research (n = 2). The rest of those uninterested (n = 246) did not wish to provide a reason. Two individuals were hospitalized for COVID and were ineligible for the study. We enrolled 169 cases, and 162 cases completed the survey, with a response rate of 11.4%.
Further, 2413 matched potentially eligible controls were identified after cases completed the survey, and 1522 were contacted before matched recruitment was complete. Of potentially eligible control participants, 1026 did not answer the phone when recruitment attempts were made. Of 243 who were not interested in participating, reasons for non-interest included personal time constraints (n = 36), mental health (n = 5), and the rest of those uninterested (n = 202) did not wish to provide a reason. Two controls had tested positive at the time of contact and were ineligible, and eight had out-of-date contact information and were unable to be contacted. We enrolled 243 controls, with 162 completing the survey, with a response rate of 10.6%. A flow diagram to further illustrate this process is in the Supplemental File (Figure S1).
The demographic and clinical characteristics of the two groups are provided in Table 2. The mean age of positive participants was 37.9 years (SD 13.2), and 66/162 (40.7%) were male sex, and the negative participants had a mean age of 36.7 years (SD 12.8), with 67/162 (41.4%) being male sex. In both groups, participants were mostly married or in a common-law relationship, working full-time, with a post-secondary education. There were no significant differences between the two groups in age, sex, housing status, education, employment, income, the proportion of health care workers, or adverse childhood event scores. There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants who self-identified as being Black, Indigenous, or a Person of Color (BIPOC), with 24.1% (39/162) identifying as BIPOC in the COVID-19 test-positive group compared to 9.3% in the COVID-19-negative group (15/162) (p < 0.001). COVID-19 test-positive participants were also significantly less likely to have a psychiatric history (30/162 [18.6%] vs. 48/162 [29.6%] (p < 0.02)), including previous psychiatric or addiction outpatient treatment, a current diagnosis, a history of a suicide attempt, or a family history of mental health problems. In the COVID-19 test-positive participants, 16/162 (10.3%) reported no COVID-19 symptoms at the time of their positive test, 95/162 (73.1%) reported a loss of smell, and 31/162 (26.1%) reported confusion or disorientation. Residual COVID-19 symptoms were present six months post-PCR in 40/162 (25.2%) of the cases.
Table 2. Participant characteristics.
The mental health and cognitive outcomes at baseline are outlined in Table 3. One COVID-positive participant screened positive for psychosis. There were no statistically significant differences in mental health or cognitive outcomes between the COVID-positive and COVID-negative groups. The COVID-negative group was significantly more likely to report problems with pain or discomfort on the EQ-5D-5L compared to the COVID-positive participants, but there was no significant difference in the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score. The COVID-negative population scored significantly higher on the AUDIT, although there was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of participants with hazardous drinking. On cognitive testing, 31/146 (21.2%) of the COVID-positive participants and 20/145 (13.8%) of the COVID-negative participants scored below the cutoff for likely cognitive impairment.
Table 3. Mental health and cognitive outcomes at six months.
To account for the significantly higher proportion of COVID-19 test-negative participants with a psychiatric history, we did two further analyses, which are reported in Supplemental Table S3. First, we completed both a standard and logistic regression analysis of continuous outcomes adjusted for age, psychiatric history (a composite of positive psychiatric history, a current psychiatric diagnosis, current psychotherapy or counselling, and a history of a suicide attempt), and health care worker status. This confirmed the significant difference in scores on the AUDIT with no other statistically significant differences. We also compared COVID-test-positive and COVID-test-negative participants without a psychiatric history (Supplemental Table S4). Again, this confirmed the statistically significant difference in AUDIT scores with no other differences significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Within the COVID-positive group, we examined which variables were associated with mental health and cognitive outcomes (Table 4). We completed a logistic regression analysis and a standard regression analysis adjusted for age and gender for caseness and scores, respectively, on the PHQ-9, the GAD-7, and the M-ACE. This showed that a previous psychiatric history, household low income (below CAD 50,000 a year), and adverse childhood events were associated with the mental health outcomes but not with cognitive impairment. Low income was associated with cognitive impairment. Identifying as belonging to a BIPOC population was not significantly associated with any mental health or cognitive outcomes.
Table 4. Predictors of mental health and cognitive outcomes within COVID-19-positive participants (logistic and standard regression analyses).

4. Discussion

There have been a wide range of estimates of the impact of COVID-19 infection on mental health and cognitive outcomes. Most of these estimates come from unmatched studies of hospitalized COVID-19 patients []. Using a matched non-hospitalized cohort who tested negative for COVID-19, considers the psychological impact of the wider pandemic, such as gathering restrictions, disruption to services, economic impacts, reduced socialization, employment impacts, and uncertainty over the future. This study helps to isolate the specific effect of the COVID-19 virus on mental health outcomes. We found no statistically significant differences in mental health outcomes between the two groups, even after controlling for the higher rate of past psychiatric disorders in the COVID-19-negative group. This finding is consistent with the research by Nersesjan et al. [], which, like this study, used a COVID-19-negative group matched for age and sex but looked at hospitalized COVID-19 patients. That study found similar rates of mental disorders in both groups at six months after symptom onset. Our estimates of the prevalence of mental health disorders are generally at the lower end of previous figures. This could be the effect of using standardized interviews to confirm diagnoses and not relying on self-report rating scales such as the PHQ-9, which have a high false positive rate []. There was a non-significant but higher prevalence of harmful alcohol use in the COVID-19 negative group, although the absolute difference is small. We also found no significant difference in cognitive outcomes, although about 21% of the COVID-19 test-positive group were below the threshold for likely cognitive impairment at 6 months compared to 14% in the test-negative group.
The sample contains a lower percentage of men at 41% compared to 46% who tested positive for COVID-19 in Ottawa, although the ages are similar, with a median age of 35 years in the nearly 75,000 who have tested positive as of June 2022 []. The focus on non-hospitalized patients is a strength of this article, as most people (71,901 out of 74,446, 96.5%) who tested positive in Ottawa were not admitted to hospital []. The strength of this study is the retrospective design and 1:1 matching with a COVID-negative group. The two groups were tested at the same time, experiencing similar degrees of restrictive measures in Eastern Ontario. This means that people who were COVID-19 negative and those who tested positive were exposed to comparable experiences affecting well-being during this period, apart from testing positive for COVID-19, any associated illness, and the subsequent self-isolation.
This study has several limitations. First, the COVID-19-negative group had a higher rate of reported prior psychiatric disorders compared to the COVID-19 test-positive group. A possible reason for this is that, despite sex and age matching, those with mental health struggles may have self-selected into the study, though we attempted to control for this in the analysis. It is possible that this bias resulted in fewer differences between the COVID-positive and COVID-negative groups. Second, as we matched for age and sex in this study, this may occlude important age- or sex-based differences in experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic; for example, a recent United Nations report highlights that women, girls, and gender-diverse people have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic []. Third, this study only collected data at six months post-PCR test and not at the point of infection. As such, we could not assess differences between the initial test and the six-month time point. This could be a consideration for future study design. Fourth, due to limits and changes to PCR testing throughout the study and unknown proportions of asymptomatic infection, it is possible that some COVID-19-negative participants had experienced an infection. We have attempted to control for this by screening at entry to verify multiple testing methods and experience of common symptoms to exclude potential positive cases from the negative group. Fifth, due to the pandemic, many assessments for this study were completed virtually with participants, which may raise validity concerns. This may have especially impacted the cognitive testing in this study, completed using the M-ACE, as it is possible that participants who performed poorly remotely would have received higher scores had the tool been completed in-person (as is the standardized means of administration). It should also be noted that the M-ACE is a cognitive screening tool and, while psychometric properties are robust, may not be as accurate as a thorough neuropsychological evaluation. As such, any increase in cognitive impairment would need to be confirmed through a complete neuropsychological exam. However, the higher proportion of cognitive impairment in the COVID-positive group, though not statistically significant, warrants further consideration for future research. Additionally, rates of possible cognitive impairment are elevated in the COVID-negative group given the demographics of the sample. It is possible that the M-ACE is over-estimating possible cognitive impairment in the control group, and, if this is the case, it is likely that rates in the COVID-positive group could be elevated as well. However, it is also possible that these rates of possible cognitive impairment are reflective of a prolonged state of acute stress and isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. This would be consistent with the existing literature on the relationship between chronic stress and cognitive functioning [,]. Given that we did not complete comprehensive neuropsychological evaluations in this study, it is not possible to definitively determine the cause of these elevated rates of potential cognitive impairment. This is a fruitful avenue for future research. Sixth, the low response rate in both the COVID-19-positive and -negative groups possibly limits the representativeness of the sample, which may affect the generalizability of these findings and could impact the internal validity between group comparisons. Seventh, it is possible that elevated rates in mental health disorders are reflective of the impact of social distancing and other public measures implemented to curb the spread of COVID-19. Finally, this study may have been underpowered to detect clinically important differences in mental health and cognitive outcomes. However, the greatest difference in proportions of people with mental disorders in favour of the COVID-19 group was 7.5%, which suggests that large differences in the prevalence of mental disorders were unlikely to be missed.
This study has important implications for emergency preparedness for future health crises. Since the declaration of COVID-19 as a public health emergency in March 2020, numerous reports have highlighted that emergency response plans were ill-equipped to manage such a large-scale and severe health crisis, with governments criticized for not implementing lessons learned during both the SARS and H1N1 pandemics [,]. This is especially true for recommendations intended to curb the mental health impacts of these crises [,]. A 2021 WHO report detailing key insights from the COVID-19 pandemic once again highlighted the importance of early provision of mental health and psychosocial supports in health emergencies, especially for high-risk groups, including children, students, health care workers, and the elderly []. This study provides support for these guidelines. The results of this study provide nuance to this recommendation, emphasizing that these supports must not only address the impacts of the virus itself but also the mental health load of emergency health measures, including social distancing, lockdowns, and quarantine, a point further supported by emerging evidence from one study indicating that social and psychological effects of the pandemic may also have biological effects []. This is especially relevant given the ongoing burden of long COVID. Recognizing the resilience and vulnerabilities within community settings allows for more targeted interventions and resource allocations, fostering more proactive strategies that extend beyond clinical contexts. Navigating the overlap of infectious disease and mental health, the insights gained from this study may contribute to a foundation for comprehensive planning, ensuring a more adaptable approach to mental well-being in future public health crises.

5. Conclusions

In summary, in non-hospitalized patients who have tested positive for COVID-19, there is no evidence of an increase in mental health disorders compared to people who tested negative for COVID-19. One possible hypothesis for this is that increases in mental health disorders during the pandemic may be attributable to social changes rather than an effect of the virus itself; however, future research focused on social changes, such as changes in the availability of outreach services, is needed to further assess this. The exception may be the cognitive changes in those who tested positive for COVID-19, though further research is needed to better understand the changes and potential impact on cognition. The results of this study may help to bolster planning activities in preparation for subsequent pandemic emergencies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph22081249/s1, Table S1: Outcome Measures; Table S2: Predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers; Table S3: Comparison of mean differences in continuous outcomes and regression-adjusted differences; Table S4: Comparison of mean difference in continuous outcomes and regression-adjusted differences-only in participants without psychiatric diagnoses; Figure S1: Participant flow diagram.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.H., D.W.C., I.C., M.K. and H.O.; methodology, S.H., N.E.E., I.C., M.K. and H.O.; software, D.C.; formal analysis, S.H. and D.C.; investigation, B.W., N.E.E., C.A. and E.H.; resources, N.E.E.; data curation, B.W., D.C. and S.H.; writing—original draft preparation, B.W. and S.H.; writing—review and editing, B.W., N.E.E., C.A., E.H., D.C., D.W.C., I.C., M.K., H.O., S.E.M. and S.H.; visualization, D.C. and S.H.; supervision, B.W., N.E.E. and S.H.; project administration, B.W., N.E.E. and S.H.; funding acquisition, S.H., N.E.E., D.W.C. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, grant number MS3-173104. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ottawa Health Sciences Network Research Ethics Board (OHSN-REB; protocol 20200713, approval date: 1 November 2021).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to privacy reasons.

Acknowledgments

The study team would also like to recognize and thank Jamie Brisson for his contributions to this project.

Conflicts of Interest

M.K. has consulting or speaking fees, unrelated to this trial or intervention, from HLS, Janssen, Otsuka, Lundbeck in last 2 years. M.K. has received research funding from TOHAMO and MOH Innovation fund unrelated to this trial. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ASSISTAlcohol, Smoking, Substance Interview Screening Test
AUDITAlcohol Use Disorders Identification Test
BIPOCBlack, Indigenous or a Person of Color
BMIBody Mass Index
CAPS-5Clinician Administered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Scale for DSM-5
COVID-19Novel coronavirus
C-SSRSColumbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale
DAST-10Drug Abuse Screening Test
ECDSElectronic Data Capturing System
EQ-5D-5LEuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level
FASFatigue Assessment Scale
GAD-7Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item
HAM-AHamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety
IQRInterquartile Range
M-ACEMini-Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Assessment
MADRSMontgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale
MERSMiddle East Respiratory Syndrome
OHSN-REBOttawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board
PC-PTSD-5Primary Care Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Screen for DSM-5
PCRPolymerase Chain Reaction
PHQ-9Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item
PSQPsychosis Screening Questionnaire
PSQIPittsburgh Sleep Quality Index
PSY-RATSModified Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales
PTSDPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
RATRapid Antigen Test
SARSSevere Acute Respiratory Syndrome
SDStandard Deviation
SESSocio-Economic Status
SLSShort Loneliness Scale
STROBEStrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
VASVisual Analogue Scale
WEMWBSWarwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale
WHOWorld Health Organization

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19. 11 March 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 (accessed on 7 July 2022).
  2. Osler, W. Principles and Practice of Medicine, 1st ed.; D. Appleton and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1892; pp. 88–89. [Google Scholar]
  3. Rogers, J.P.; Chesney, E.; Oliver, D.; Pollak, T.; McGuire, P.; Fusar-Poli, P.; Zandi, M.; Lewis, G.; David, A. Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, 611–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Helms, J.; Kremer, S.; Merdji, H.; Clere-Jehl, R.; Schenck, M.; Kummerlen, C.; Collange, O.; Boulay, C.; Fafi-Kremer, S.; Ohana, M.; et al. Neurologic Features in Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 2268–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Menachemi, N.; Dixon, B.E.; Wools-Kaloustian, K.K.; Constantin, T.Y.; Halverson, P.K. How Many SARS-CoV-2-Infected People Require Hospitalization? Using Random Sample Testing to Better Inform Preparedness Efforts. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 2021, 27, 246–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ottawa Public Health. COVID-19 Dashboard. 2022. Available online: https://www.ottawapublichealth.ca/en/reports-research-and-statistics/covid19-dashboard.aspx (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  7. Kang, W. Psychological distress mediates the associations between neighborhood social cohesion (NSC) and cognitive performance in older adults. Curr. Psychol. 2024, 43, 7144–7152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vanderlind, W.M.; Rabinovitz, B.B.; Miao, I.Y.; Oberlin, L.E.; Bueno-Castellano, C.; Fridman, C.; Jaywant, A.; Kanellopoulos, D. A systematic review of neuropsychological and psychiatric sequalae of COVID-19: Implications for treatment. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2021, 34, 420–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Einvik, G.; Dammen, T.; Ghanima, W.; Heir, T.; Stavem, K. Prevalence and risk factors for post-traumatic stress in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Salerno, J.; Williams, N.D.; Gattamorta, K.A. LGBTQ populations: Psychologically vulnerable communities in the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy 2020, 12 (Suppl. 1), S239–S242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Renaud-Charest, O.; Lui, L.M.W.; Eskander, S.; Ceban, F.; Ho, R.; Di Vicenzo, J.D.; Rosenblat, J.D.; Lee, Y.; Subramaniapillai, M.; McIntyre, R.S. Onset and frequency of depression in post-COVID-19 syndrome: A systematic review. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2021, 144, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Nersesjan, V.; Fonsmark, L.; Christensen, R.H.B.; Amiri, M.; Merie, C.; Lebech, A.M.; Katzenstein, T.; Bang, L.E.; Kjaergaard, J.; Kondziella, D.; et al. Neuropsychiatric and cognitive outcomes in patients 6 months after COVID-19 requiring hospitalization compared with matched control patients hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness. JAMA Psychiatry 2022, 79, 486–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Taquet, M.; Geddes, J.R.; Husain, M.; Luciano, S.; Harrison, P.J. 6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study using electronic health records. Lancet Psychiatry 2021, 8, 416–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xie, Y.; Xu, E.; Bowe, B.; Ziyad, A.A. Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Velichkovsky, B.B.; Razvaliaeva, A.Y.; Khlebnikova, A.A.; Manukyan, P.A.; Kasatkin, V.N.; Barmin, A.V. Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinically relevant executive functions tests performance after COVID-19. Behav. Neurol. 2023, 2023, 1094267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jacot de Alcântara, I.; Nuber-Champier, A.; Voruz, P.; Cionca, A.; Assal, F.; Péron, J.A. Cognitive deficits in the acute phase of COVID-19: A review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tavares-Júnior, J.W.L.; de Souza, A.C.C.; Borges, J.W.P.; Oliveira, D.N.; Siqueira-Neto, J.I.; Sobreira-Neto, M.A.; Braga-Neto, P. COVID-19 associated cognitive impairment: A systematic review. Cortex 2022, 152, 77–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Von Elm, E.; Egger, M.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007, 335, 806–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Filchakova, O.; Dossym, D.; Ilyas, A.; Kuanysheva, T.; Abdizhamil, A.; Bukasov, R. Review of COVID-19 testing and diagnostic methods. Talanta 2022, 244, 123409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kritikos, A.; Caruana, G.; Brouillet, R.; Miroz, J.P.; Abed-Maillard, S.; Stieger, G.; Opta, O.; Croxatto, A.; Vollenweider, P.; Bart, P.A.; et al. Sensitivity of rapid antigen testing and rt-pcr performed on nasopharyngeal swabs versus saliva samples in covid-19 hospitalized patients: Results of a prospective comparative trial (RESTART). Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Gans, J.S.; Goldfarb, A.; Agrawal, A.K.; Sennik, S.; Stein, J.; Rosella, L. False-positive results in rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2. JAMA 2021, 327, 485–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Walker, R.; Morris, D.W.; Greer, T.L.; Trivedi, M.H. Research staff training in a multisite randomized clinical trial: Methods and recommendations from the stimulant reduction intervention using dosed exercise (STRIDE) trial. Addict. Res. Theory 2014, 22, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Miranda, D.D.C.; Brucki, S.M.D.; Yassuda, M.S. The mini-addenbrooke’s cognitive examination (M-ACE) as a brief cognitive screening instrument in mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s disease. Dement. Neuropsychol. 2018, 12, 368–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kroenke, K.; Spitzer, R.L. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr. Ann. 2002, 32, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wittkampf, K.A.; Naeije, L.; Schene, A.H.; Huyser, J.; van Weert, H.C. Diagnostic accuracy of the mood module of the Patient Health Questionnaire: A systematic review. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 2007, 29, 388–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Müller, M.J.; Himmerich, H.; Kienzle, B.; Szegedi, A. Differentiating moderate and severe depression using the Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale (MADRS). J. Affect Disord. 2003, 77, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hermens, M.L.M.; Adèr, H.J.; van Hout, H.P.J.; Terluin, B.; van Dyck, R.; de Haan, M. Administering the MADRS by telephone or face-to-face: A validity study. Ann. Gen. Psychiatry 2006, 5, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Spitzer, R.L.; Kroenke, K.; Williams, J.B.W.; Löwe, B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006, 166, 1092–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Matza, L.S.; Morlock, R.; Sexton, C.; Malley, K.; Feltner, D. Identifying HAM-A cutoffs for mild, moderate, and severe generalized anxiety disorder. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2010, 19, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Prins, A.; Bovin, M.J.; Smolenski, D.J.; Marx, B.P.; Kimerling, R.; Jenkins-Guarnieri, M.A.; Kaloupek, D.G.; Schnurr, P.P.; Kaiser, A.P.; Leyva, Y.E.; et al. The Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5): Development and evaluation within a veteran primary care sample. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2016, 31, 1206–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Weathers, F.W.; Bovin, M.J.; Lee, D.J.; Sloan, D.M.; Schnurr, P.P.; Kaloupek, D.G.; Keane, T.M.; Marx, B.P. The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5): Development and initial psychometric evaluation in military veterans. Psychol. Assess. 2018, 30, 383–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Carey, K.B.; Carey, M.P.; Chandra, P.S. Psychometric evaluation of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and Short Drug Abuse Screening Test with psychiatric patients in India. J. Clin. Psychiatry 2003, 64, 767–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Skinner, H.A. The drug abuse screening test. Addict. Behav. 1982, 7, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Humeniuk, R.; Ali, R.; WHO ASSIST Phase II Study Group. Validation of the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) and Pilot Brief Intervention. Geneva. 2006; 6p. Available online: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/43504/924159439X_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 30 January 2023).
  35. Bebbington, P.; Nayani, T. The psychosis screening questionnaire. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 1995, 5, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
  36. Haddock, G.; McCarron, J.; Tarrier, N.; Faragher, E.B. Scales to measure dimensions of hallucinations and delusions: The psychotic symptom rating scales (PSYRATS). Psychol. Med. 1999, 29, 879–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hsieh, S.; McGrory, S.; Leslie, F.; Dawson, K.; Ahmed, S.; Butler, C.R.; Rowe, J.B.; Mioshi, E.; Hodges, J.R. The mini-addenbrooke’s cognitive examination: A new assessment tool for dementia. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 2015, 39, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Michielsen, H.J.; De Vries, J.; Van Heck, G.L. Psychometric qualities of a brief self-rated fatigue measure: The Fatigue Assessment Scale. J. Psychosom. Res. 2003, 54, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Buysse Charles FReynolds Ill, D.J.; Monk, T.H.; Berman, S.R.; Kupfer, D.J. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res. 1989, 28, 193–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Tennant, R.; Hiller, L.; Fishwick, R.; Platt, S.; Joseph, S.; Weich, S.; Parkinson, J.; Secker, J.; Stewart-Brown, S. The Warwick-Dinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2007, 5, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Hughes, M.E.; Waite, L.J.; Hawkley, L.C.; Cacioppo, J.T. A short scale for Measuring Loneliness in large surveys. Res. Aging. 2004, 26, 655–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. The Columbia Lighthouse Project/Center for Suicide Risk Assessment. The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS): Supporting Evidence. 2022. Available online: https://cssrs.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSSRS_Supporting-Evidence_Book_2022.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2023).
  43. Felitti, V.J.; Anda, R.F.; Nordenberg, D.; Williamson, D.F.; Spitz, A.M.; Edwards, V.; Koss, M.P.; Marks, J.S. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 1998, 14, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kocalevent, R.D.; Berg, L.; Beutel, M.E.; Hinz, A.; Zenger, m.; Härter, M.; Nater, U.; Brähler, E. Social support in the general population: Standardization of the Oslo Social Support Scale (OSSS-3). BMC Psychol. 2018, 6, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Van Ameringen, M.; Mancini, C.; Patterson, B.; Boyle, M.H. Post-traumatic stress disorder in Canada. CNS Neurosci. Ther. 2008, 14, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Volker, D.; Zijlstra-Vlasveld, M.C.; Brouwers, E.P.M.; Homans, W.A.; Emons, W.H.; Van der Feltz-Cornelis, C.M. Validation of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for Major Depressive Disorder in the occupational health setting. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2016, 26, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. United Nations. Policy Brief: The Impact of COVID-19 on Women 2020. Available online: https://unsdg.un.org/resources/policy-brief-impact-covid-19-women (accessed on 30 January 2023).
  48. Marin, M.-F.; Lord, C.; Andrews, J.; Juster, R.-P.; Sindi, S.; Arsenault-Lapierre, G.; Fiocco, A.J.; Lupien, S.J. Chronic stress, cognitive functioning and Mental Health. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 2011, 96, 583–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Marakushyn, D.I.; Bulynina, O.D.; Isaieva, I.M.; Karmazina, I.S.; Maslova, N.M. Impact of stress on emotional health and cognitive function. Med. Sci. Ukr. 2024, 20, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Office of the Auditor General Province of New Brunswick. Report of the Auditor General of New Brunswick. 2023. Available online: https://www.agnb-vgnb.ca/en/report-of-the-auditor-general (accessed on 15 January 2024).
  51. Possamai, M. A Time of Fear: How Canada Failed Our Health Care Workers and Mismanaged COVID-19. 2020. Available online: https://www.atimeoffear.com/s/a_time_of_fear_possamai_final_book_digital_comp.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  52. Disaster Mental Health (DMH) Subcommittee of the National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB). Summary of the September 25, 2009 Recommendations to the NBSB on Disaster Mental Health and the H1N1 Influenza Pandemic. 2009. Available online: https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/boards/nbsb/meetings/Documents/nbsb-dmhsbcm-h1n1recs.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  53. Mohammadi-Nejad, A.R.; Craig, M.; Cox, E.F.; Chen, X.; Jenkins, R.G.; Francis, S.; Sotiropoulos, S.N.; Auer, D.P. Accelerated brain ageing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 6411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Generators of Inequality and Inequity Affecting Dental Patient Safety: A Grounded Theory Approach
Previous
Effectiveness of Technology-Based Interventions in Promoting Lung Cancer Screening Uptake and Decision-Making Among Patients
Next