BJPsych open · 2025
Effects of face coverings on people and interactions in mental health settings: scoping review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Van Houtte Paul, Lamarche Félix, Every-Palmer Susanna
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, most jurisdictions implemented mandatory face covering policies across healthcare settings. This intervention, which lasted multiple years, was unprecedented in psychiatry. Masks may affect the delivery of mental healthcare, given its reliance on nuanced communication and establishing a therapeutic alliance.
AIMS: This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the current literature concerning the impact of face masks in mental health settings beyond infection control and identify research gaps to guide future research and policy.
METHOD: Systematic searches were completed in the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and CINAHL databases on 14 August 2024. Articles were eligible if they described peer-reviewed empirical studies involving people with mental disorders or mental health clinicians that reported on impacts of face coverings.
RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were selected for inclusion, involving 5385 participants. There was considerable heterogeneity among studies. Negative effects of face masks were reported in 26 studies in at least one domain. Themes from the survey-based literature included face masks negatively affecting communication, the therapeutic relationship and overall assessment quality. Experimental studies using emotion recognition tasks showed that people with mental disorders were disadvantaged by masks when interpreting emotions from facial expressions. The most commonly studied population was people with autism spectrum disorder. Children and people with severe or acute mental illness were underrepresented. Only two studies expressly recruited psychiatrists.
CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers should be aware of adverse impacts of mask-wearing in mental health settings and consider these in evolving risk-benefit analyses. Further research is needed to establish the extent of impacts on population subgroups.
AIMS: This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the current literature concerning the impact of face masks in mental health settings beyond infection control and identify research gaps to guide future research and policy.
METHOD: Systematic searches were completed in the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and CINAHL databases on 14 August 2024. Articles were eligible if they described peer-reviewed empirical studies involving people with mental disorders or mental health clinicians that reported on impacts of face coverings.
RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were selected for inclusion, involving 5385 participants. There was considerable heterogeneity among studies. Negative effects of face masks were reported in 26 studies in at least one domain. Themes from the survey-based literature included face masks negatively affecting communication, the therapeutic relationship and overall assessment quality. Experimental studies using emotion recognition tasks showed that people with mental disorders were disadvantaged by masks when interpreting emotions from facial expressions. The most commonly studied population was people with autism spectrum disorder. Children and people with severe or acute mental illness were underrepresented. Only two studies expressly recruited psychiatrists.
CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers should be aware of adverse impacts of mask-wearing in mental health settings and consider these in evolving risk-benefit analyses. Further research is needed to establish the extent of impacts on population subgroups.