- Open Access
Increase of depression among children and adolescents after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health volume 16, Article number: 109 (2022)
Research points to a high depression burden among youth during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, a lack of systematic evidence exists. We determine the change in depression symptoms among children and adolescents during COVID-19 compared to pre-pandemic baselines. By using country differences in pandemic-related restrictions and school closures in Europe as quasi-experimental design, we evaluate policy impacts on depression.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, following the PRISMA statement, we searched six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19) using a peer-reviewed search string up until March 18, 2022 with citation tracking and grey literature searches. No limitations regarding language and effect measures existed. We included studies that compared (1) general depression symptoms or (2) clinically relevant depression rates in children and adolescents (≤ 19 years) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The validated Oxford Stringency Index was used as indicator for pandemic-related restrictions. Screening for eligibility, extracting data from published reports and from unpublished data requested directly from study authors, assessing the study risk of bias and grading certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, were all done in duplicate. Data were pooled in a random-effects model. PROSPERO: CRD42022303714.
Of 7,422 nonduplicate records, 22 studies with data from 868,634 participants pre-pandemic and 807,480 during pandemic, met full inclusion criteria. For the comparison of depression symptoms before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, moderate certainty of evidence was observed for general depression symptoms (standardized mean difference, 0.21 [95%CI, 0.12–0.30]; I2 = 94%) and low certainty of evidence for clinically relevant depression rates (odds ratio, 1.36 [95%CI, 1.05–1.76]; I2 = 95%) for total population. Increase in general depression symptoms was higher for male adolescents, whereas increase in clinically relevant depression rates was higher for females. Effect estimates were significantly higher when pandemic-related restrictions were more stringent or school closure occurred.
An increase in depression symptoms occurred in a pre-pandemic vs. during-pandemic comparison within the COVID-19 pandemic, whereby pandemic-related restrictions (such as school closures) resulted in a considerable effect increase. Ensuring adequate supply of mental health recovery services and long-term monitoring is of high public health relevance.
Childhood and adolescence represent sensitive periods in development. Therefore, children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable to external influences and long-term health consequences - especially those related to mental health-can be perpetuated [1,2,3]. Even prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, depression and anxiety represented the greatest burden of disease among young people in Europe [2, 4], and depression was second in the top five causes of overall disease burden for youth in Europe , with more than 50% of these remaining into adulthood With the onset of the pandemic, European countries implemented a broad range of public health and social measures (PHSM)  with varying intensities to minimize infections. Mainly, PHSM focused on reductions of social contacts with major implications for the environment of children and adolescents, such as school and leisure facilities closing, decreased peer interactions, changes in the family system due to home office and quarantine orders [1, 6]. These PHSM have the potential to influence the depression distribution in youth significantly  and contribute to a widespread public health mental crisis in European youth .
Therefore, the ascertainment of pandemic-induced changes in depression distribution is of high public health relevance and was designated as a research priority . The number of studies conducted in Europe is constantly increasing, although the studies differ in their quality, measurement instruments and effect direction; so far, no study makes use of quasi-experimental designs to assess the variation in PHSM among European countries and their effects on youths’ depression. Moreover, a high-quality synthesis focusing on studies in Europe is still lacking. Thus, the aim of this systematic review is to identify, critically appraise, synthesize and assess the certainty of evidence regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on depression among children and adolescents in Europe compared to a pre-pandemic baseline and evaluate the relevance of the stringency of the measures.
Search strategy and selection criteria
This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42022303714), a review protocol was published , and the review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement [10, 11] (Additional file 1: Table S1).
We searched in six electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 [including pre-prints]) for published articles until March 18, 2022. In addition, we conducted forward citation tracking of all included studies, related systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as screened conference abstracts and websites of key organizations till April 16, 2022; more information is provided in Additional file 1: Table S2.
The search strategy combined search terms from three domains: (1) depression, (2) children and adolescents, and (3) COVID-19 (Additional file 1: Table S3). Database-specific search strings were developed using validated or recommended search filters [12,13,14]. The search strategy was peer reviewed according to the evidence-based checklist Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) .
Following the Population–Exposure–Comparison–Outcome framework  we defined the following inclusion criteria: (1) healthy children and adolescents ≤ 19 years, living in the WHO European region ; (2) outcome measured during COVID-19 pandemic; (3) reporting of a plausible pre-pandemic baseline; and (4) measurement of general depression symptoms or clinically relevant depression rates [39, 47]. We excluded studies of children and adolescents with preexisting psychiatric diagnoses. No limits regarding language and effect measures were imposed. Multiple publications drawing upon the same study population and providing the same measurement points during the pandemic were considered as one study. Studies conducted with the same study population with varying pandemic measurement points were considered individually.
Study selection followed a three-stage process: (1) import and automated deduplication of identified studies to EPPI reviewer software ; (2) screening of titles and abstracts; (3) screening of full texts; screenings were performed independently by two reviewers (HLW, ID) in which disagreements or uncertainty about eligibility were resolved through discussion.
Two authors (HLW, ID) independently extracted data using piloted extraction forms. The following data were extracted from published reports and unpublished data requested from study authors: study information (first author, year of publication, country, study type), population and setting (sample size [% female], age), COVID-19 determinants (time point [month/year] of data measurement), pre-pandemic baseline (time point [month/year] of data measurement, link between population before and during pandemic), outcomes (type of outcome, diagnostic instrument, psychometric properties of the diagnostic instrument, symptom reporter). The primary outcomes were general depression symptoms and clinically relevant depression rates. General depression symptoms were defined as measurements of depression symptoms. This outcome summarizes various instruments measuring depressive symptoms in children and adolescents (e.g. Child Behavior Checklist, Patient Health Questionnaire, Hopkins Symptom Checklist), with no specific clinical cut-off. The data were usually reported as continuous measurement, data that were only available as dichotomous variables for general depression symptoms were transformed according to the recommended formula by Chinn . Because measurement instruments varied considerably, effect estimates were unified to standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), also recommend by the Cochrane Handbook for depression as an outcome measure . Medical classifications (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems reports) and measurement instruments with a clinical cut-off were summarized to clinically relevant depression rates which defined major depression; they were presented as a dichotomous effect estimate using odds ratios with a 95% CI. To allow comparison of the two effect measures (SMD and OR), we converted the total effect for general depression symptoms into OR using the Hasselblad and Hedges’ method . For all studies, we used the Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index  and the School Closure Index  as indicators for the COVID-19 PHSM impact. An Oxford Stringency Index > 60 was classified as ‘full lockdown’, 20–60 as ‘moderate lockdown’ and < 20 as ‘light restrictions’. A School Closure Index ≥ 2 was classified as ‘partial/full school closure’; further information is provided in Additional file 1: Methods.
We assessed risk of bias independently by three reviewers (HLW, LMP, ID) using the risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures . This instrument consists of seven items; we slightly adapted the tool by removing item number four (‘Bias due to departures from intended exposures’) due to lack of applicability to the question at hand. Detailed assessment criteria operationalizing the remaining six criteria are described in Additional file 1: Table S4. The assessment in each risk of bias item was summarized to an overall judgement for the whole study as low, moderate, serious or critical .
For meta-analysis, we grouped studies according to risk of bias assessment, aggregating low/moderate (= low) risk of bias studies and serious/critical (= high) risk of bias studies separately and in total to address substantial methodological heterogeneity and potential confounding. Pooled effect of the low-risk-of-bias studies was considered for further interpretation.
If multiple pre-pandemic time points exist, we used data at the latest possible time point to calculate effect estimates. Different subgroups were analysed: gender (female/male), age (0–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–19 years), country, Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index (> 60/ ≤ 60) , School Closure Index (≥ 2/ < 2)  and time of measurement (spring/summer 2020, autumn 2020, winter 2020/spring2021, summer 2021, autumn 2021). Effect estimates from combined scores of depression and anxiety were rejected from meta-analysis. When both parent and self-rated data were provided , we used the self-rated data. We conducted meta-analysis calculations in Review Manager 5.4.1  and R Studio 4.2.1  using the inverse-variance random-effects model with the ‘DerSimonian and Laird’ approach .
Heterogeneity was assessed visually and using Chi2 test and I2 index . We assumed substantial heterogeneity if I2 > 50%. To explain substantial heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses and meta-regression analyses (if ≥ 10 studies per examined variable) were performed . We investigated publication bias by visually interpreting funnel plots for signs of asymmetry  and statistically by calculating the Eggers’ test (if ≥ 10 studies) .
Certainty of evidence for each body of evidence was evaluated by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach . Five domains for downgrading and three domains for upgrading certainty of evidence are considered in GRADE; applied criteria are listed in Additional file 1: Table S5. GRADE finally specifies four levels of certainty of evidence for a body of evidence for each outcome: high, moderate, low and very low .
Electronic search retrieved 7420 nonduplicate records and 2 grey literature publications. A total of 51 full-text articles were retrieved, and 22 studies [21, 27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47] with 26 effect estimates met full inclusion criteria (Additional file 1: Fig. S1; exclusion reasons after full-text screening are described in Additional file 1: Table S6).
Study characteristics are presented in the Table 1. Of the 22 studies, five were from Germany [29, 38, 41, 42, 46], four from Norway [30, 34, 40, 47] and the United Kingdom [21, 27, 37, 45], two from Italy [31, 33], Iceland [35, 44], Netherlands [36, 39], Switzerland [28, 32] and one from Israel . The majority were conducted in spring/summer 2020 (17 effects), followed by winter 2020/spring 2021 (five effects) and autumn 2020 (four effects). From the included studies, 21 (95%) [21, 27,28,29,30,31,32, 34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47] provided data for children and adolescents over 11 years and seven (32%) for children and adolescents under 11 years [28, 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 46]. In total, data were included from 868,634 participants pre-pandemic and 807,480 participants during pandemic. Outcome measures differentiated between general depression symptoms (63,744 pre-pandemic and 116,858 during pandemic) and clinically relevant depression rates (743,736 pre-pandemic and 751,776 during pandemic). In 15 studies, measurement time point was classified as ‘full lockdown’ (Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index > 60) [21, 27,28,29, 31, 33, 36,37,38,39, 41,42,43, 45, 47], and in 11 studies, schools were partially or fully closed (School Closure Index ≥ 2) [21, 27, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 45]. Additional unpublished data were provided by 16 studies [21, 27, 29,30,31,32,33, 36, 38,39,40,41,42, 45,46,47] (in particular, gender and age-stratified data). All effect estimates of the included studies are summarized in Additional file 1: Table S7. Risk of bias was moderate in 11 studies [29, 30, 32, 38,39,40, 42,43,44, 46, 47], serious in nine [21, 27, 33,34,35,36,37, 41, 45] and critical in two [28, 31]; detailed information is provided in Additional file 1: Table S8 and in Additional file 1: Fig. S2 (traffic light plots) and Additional file 1: Fig. S3 (weighted bar plots).
Meta-analysis of general depression symptoms
For general depression symptoms, 17 studies [21, 27, 29,30,31,32, 35,36,37, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45, 47] were pooled and certainty of evidence was graded as ‘moderate’ (Table 2; further information in Additional file 1: Table S9). Total change effects of general depression symptoms before and during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed in statistical pooling of nine low-risk-of-bias studies [29, 30, 32, 39, 40, 42,43,44, 47] with 11 effect estimates a SMD of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.30, I2 = 94%; Fig. 1) respectively a converted OR of 1.46 (95% CI, 1.24 to 1.72; Table 2). Comparisons of gender-stratified analysis in seven low-risk-of-bias studies [29, 30, 32, 39, 40, 42, 47] with nine measurements yielded an increase for both females (SMD, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.31, I2 = 88%]; Additional file 1: Fig. S4) and males (SMD, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.37, I2 = 93%]; Additional file 1: Fig. S5). An age-stratified comparison of effect changes for general depression symptoms before and during the COVID-19 pandemic with low-risk-of-bias studies was possible only for the age categories 11–15 years and 16–19 years. The age category 11–15 years included six low-risk-of-bias studies [32, 39, 40, 42, 44, 47] with 8 effect estimates and yielded for the total population a SMD of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.16 to 0.27, I2 = 73%; Additional file 1: Fig. S6), effect estimates were also significant for both female and male children and adolescents in low-risk-of-bias studies (Additional file 1: Figs. S7 and S8). The age category 16–19 years contained six low-risk-of-bias studies [29, 30, 39, 42, 44, 47] with eight effect estimates and yielded a SMD of 0.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.27, I2 = 96%; Additional file 1: Fig. S9) for the total population; also, effect estimate for males was significant (SMD, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.41], I2 = 86%; Additional file 1: Fig. S10), but not for females (Additional file 1: Fig. S11). The consideration of different pandemic restriction levels in the meta-analysis of nine low-risk-of-bias studies [29, 30, 32, 39, 40, 42,43,44, 47] showed for every restriction level (Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index > 60 vs ≤ 60, School Closure Index ≥ 2 vs < 2) a significant increase (Fig. 3). A ‘full lockdown’ (Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index > 60: SMD, 0.30 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.47, I2 = 97%; Fig. 3) and ‘partial/full closed schools’ (School Closure Index ≥ 2 SMD, 0.31 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.46, I2 = 88%; Fig. 3) resulted in higher effect estimates for total population and also for female and male children and adolescents. Thereby, effect estimates for male children and adolescents were higher (data not shown). An analysis of effects by time of occurrence showed after a strong increase at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (spring/summer 2020) a flattening over time (Additional file 1: Fig. S12). In effect pooling for countries, the highest effect estimate was determined for the Netherlands (SMD, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.63], I2 = 21%; Additional file 1: Fig. S13) and the lowest for Norway (SMD, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.05 to 0.13], I2 = 28%; Additional file 1: Fig. S13). Pooling-effect estimates of Germany, Iceland and United Kingdom were not significant.
Meta-analysis of clinically relevant depression rates
For the comparison of change effects before and during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding clinically relevant depression rates, five studies [29, 30, 38, 41, 46] were pooled and certainty of evidence was graded as ‘low’ (Table 2; further information in Additional file 1: Table S9). Total change yielded in four low-risk-of-bias studies [29, 30, 38, 46] an OR of 1.36 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.76, I2 = 95%; Fig. 2). Clinically relevant depression rates increased in females in low-risk-of-bias studies significantly (OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.97], I2 = 95%; Additional file 1: Fig. S14), but not for males (Additional file 1: Fig. S15). Data from Witte et al.  also reported stationary care in 2021 among females of 10–14 years with an OR of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.39; Additional file 1: Table S7) and of 15–17 years with an OR of 1.43 (95% CI, 1.30 to 1.57; Additional file 1: Table S7). Further subgroup analyses were not possible.
Heterogeneity, publication bias and sensitivity analysis
For each association, meta-analysis was stratified by low vs. high risk-of-bias studies (Figs. 1, 2, 3 and Additional file 1: Figs. S4–S11, S13–S15). Heterogeneity was in part substantial (I2 > 50%). In meta-regression analyses, the covariate ‘symptom reporter’ (b = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.08 to 1.10; p = 0.03) acts as a moderator in total population. For low-risk-of-bias studies, the meta-regression analysis revealed the covariates ‘month start data collection’ (b = − 0.01; 95% CI, − 0.02 to − 0.00; p = 0.04), ‘School Closure Index’ (b = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.34; p = 0.0002) and ‘country’ (Netherlands: b = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.42; p = 0.004; Norway: b = − 0.14; 95% CI, − 0.25 to − 0.02; p = 0.02). All moderator analyses are presented in the Additional file 1: Tables S10-S17. Sensitivity analyses were performed by comparison of (1) cohort vs. cross-sectional studies, (2) converted vs. unconverted effect estimates and (3) adjusted vs. unadjusted effect estimates for all studies and low-risk-of-bias studies. Except for a notable change in the comparison of adjusted and unadjusted values, no divergent results were observed (Additional file 1: Table S18). In total, the (contour-enhanced) funnel plots were not asymmetrical (Additional file 1: Figs. S16–S21). Also, Eggers’ test was not significant, neither for total population nor for female and male population in any age category (Additional file 1: Table S19).
To our knowledge, this is the first review that systematically reviewed the evidence regarding changes to depression among children and adolescents in Europe after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pooled effect estimates of low-risk-of-bias studies-comparing effects before and during the COVID-19 pandemic-revealed a significant increase of general depression symptoms for total, female and male children and adolescents; thereby, increase for male adolescents was higher, in particular for the age category 16–19 years. The comparison between countries revealed a dose–response-relationship in that estimates for general depression symptoms were significantly higher when PHSM were more stringent or school closure (partial) occurred. Certainty of evidence for general depression symptoms was graded as ‘moderate’. Furthermore, an increase in clinically relevant depression rates could be shown for total and female children and adolescents, graded as ‘low’ regarding certainty of evidence.
PHSM implemented in the European region have affected both the activities and the settings that are of major relevance to the youth mental health. Previously, children and adolescents have been found to be particularly vulnerable to the unintended effects of quarantine and isolation, especially with regards to depression symptoms [48, 49], which can last up to nine years after exposure . Besides, almost 76 million school children in Europe  have been affected by full or partial school closures and other PHSM implemented in the school setting. This, lead to remarkable reduction in social contacts with peers, a disruption of daily routines, and an increase in loneliness, which appear to have major effects on the pathogenesis of depression in youths [1, 51, 52]. Our review supports previous findings by showing an increase for general depression symptoms in children and adolescents when PHSM were more rigorous and schools were closed or partially closed. Whereas the pandemic might have also been a stressor due to illness, loss of relatives and economic burdens, this paper proves the impact of social distancing policies on depression.
Our analyses indicates an increase of depression for total children and adolescents, as well as in gender and age-related subgroups (except for female adolescents of 16–19 years), which is in line with other high-quality systematic reviews [51, 53]. However, in our pooled analyses, the increase was higher among males and highest for male adolescents aged 16–19 years, which seem to contrast with previous studies [2, 51, 53]. Possible explanations for the different gender tendencies could be that the COVID-19 pandemic affects depression pathogenesis in varying gender-dependent ways related to contextual conditions: Male children and adolescents had, in comparison to female children and adolescents, lower pre-pandemic depression scores  and thus had the potential to experience higher increases, whilst females already had located higher depression levels [2, 53]. Whereas the increase in general depression symptoms for female children and adolescents is less, clinically relevant depression rates rose for them considerably. Also, a further later increase in female youth can be supposed as the report of Witte et al.  described a high rise in inpatient depression care for female adolescents aged 15–17 years in 2021. This is supported by other studies reporting a sharp decline in access to health care facilities at the beginning of the pandemic [54, 55].
While previous global analyses have shown an increase of depressive symptoms over the course of the pandemic , depression seemed to slightly flatten in the general European context for the youth population. However, for this association a country moderation can be assumed; the meta-regression analysis highlighted the countries of the Netherlands (positive estimate) and Norway (negative estimate) as potential covariates. Norway utilized lower PHSM and less frequent school closures  in the COVID-19 pandemic than other countries. Also, two Norwegian studies [30, 47] collected data at a later time point (winter 2020/spring 2021), and the pooled effect estimate for this time frame might be minimized by this.
As a consequence, to these different trends within countries-and our results on depression increases in specific age group-children and adolescents of the cohorts 2001–2010 (aged 11–19 in the years 2020–2021) should be monitored in particular for the next years. The monitoring should include in- and outpatient treatment by child and adolescent psychiatrists, child and adolescent psychotherapists, mental health services, and child protection services. Since these professionals were understaffed at the onset of the pandemic  and the demand for depression treatment is increasing during the COVID-19 pandemic, policy makers should considerably strengthen the resources . Early screening and adequate diagnostic procedures are of utmost importance allowing to implement stepped care approaches. On an early intervention or indicated prevention level teachers and school social workers should be sensitized on increased depression risks and their characteristics. Thus, patients with urgently needed inpatient treatment e.g. suicidal patients could be discovered at an early stage and referred to protective treatment. Patients and families that need counseling can be reached with online therapies etc. Until now we lack studies on the effect of online outpatient treatment during phases of school closures. In many places in Europe these treatment alternatives have been quickly implemented . But it was impossible to study the effects of these changes in the treatment setting in real head to head comparison studies. Although many care providers tried their best to maintain treatment relationships with online approaches we have to assume that these setting changes could be less effective than usual psychotherapy. With growing waiting lists in the services an increasing number of patients in need could not be served in a timely manner. Not addressing depressive symptoms at young age is strongly associated with recurrent depression in later life [58, 59] and other mental disorders, such as anxiety symptoms  and sleep disturbances , and an increased risk for suicide attempts and completion . To mitigate depression effects during the COVID-19 pandemic in children and adolescents, studies have also highlighted some protective determinants, including a positive parent–child communication , robust family structures , social contacts to peers , physical activity  and green time . These determinants need to be supported e.g. by family support and counseling services.
A research gap is evident for countries in Eastern Europe, children ≤ 11 years and socioeconomic subgroups (e.g. social status, education, financial resources). Future studies should use broad longitudinal population samples with pre-pandemic baselines and representativeness for their respective country if possible, validated instruments for depression measuring with a verified cut-off for clinically relevant symptoms, detailed statistical analysis with subgroup stratification for at least gender and age and an appropriate handling of confounders. Also, quasi-experimental designs should be used to highlight PHSM-related differences for depression development in children and adolescents.
Strengths and limitations
This review largely adheres to the methodological recommendation of the Cochrane Handbook . This include searches conducted in multiple databases, independent screening and risk of bias assessments, literature search (including pre-prints, grey literature and conference abstracts) with a peer-reviewed search strategy, retrieval of unpublished data, risk of bias assessment using a validated tool and using the GRADE approach.
This review has limitations. First, the majority of included studies fails to control for potential confounders, which is why we had to downgrade for risk of bias in GRADE. Second, instruments used for assessing depression varied greatly; we tried to limit the impact by calculating SMD and OR as standard effect estimates. Third, more subgroup analyses were not possible. Fourth, high heterogeneity within the meta-analyses (I2 > 50%) existed, a part that could be explained by meta-regression analyses. Fifth, the studies included in this review only covered a limited time frame. Sixth, the Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index and School Closure Index represent proxies regarding PHSM and school closures that might be imprecise.
This meta-analysis shows an increase in general depression symptoms and clinically relevant depression rates for European children and adolescents compared to pre-pandemic baselines, whereas the increase in general depression symptoms was higher for male adolescents and clinically relevant depression rates were higher for females. Also, rigorous PHSM and school closures resulted in a higher effect increase for general depression symptoms. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a long-term monitoring of depression and other internalizing symptoms among children and adolescents, particularly those cohorts affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, for the coming decades. As depression leads to participation deficits and increases the risk for suicidality, the long-term effects of the observed changes have to be (clinically) addressed by early intervention and indicated prevention measures. PHSM affected children and adolescents should be weighed with the most careful consideration and scientific expertise, as they can contribute to a worsening of child and adolescent mental health.
Availability of data and materials
All data are included in the manuscript and appendix.
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
Public health and social measures
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews
Standardized mean difference
Fegert JM, Vitiello B, Plener PL, Clemens V. Challenges and burden of the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for child and adolescent mental health: a narrative review to highlight clinical and research needs in the acute phase and the long return to normality. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2020;14:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-020-00329-3.
Castelpietra G, Knudsen AKS, Agardh EE, Armocida B, Beghi M, Iburg KM, et al. The burden of mental disorders, substance use disorders and self-harm among young people in Europe, 1990–2019: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2022;16: 100341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100341.
Malhotra S, Sahoo S. Antecedents of depression in children and adolescents. Ind Psychiatry J. 2018;27:11–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/ipj.ipj_29_17.
UNICEF. The state of the world's children: on my mind. Promoting, protecting and caring. Regional brief: Europe. 2021. https://www.unicef.org/eu/reports/state-worlds-children-2021. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.
World Health Organization. Tracking public health and social measures: a global database. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/phsm. Accessed 21 Sep 2022.
Hale T, Angrist N, Goldszmidt R, Kira B, Petherick A, Phillips T, et al. A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker). Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5:529–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8.
Health TLP. COVID-19: from a PHEIC to a public mental health crisis? Lancet Public Health. 2020;5: e414. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30165-1.
Holmes EA, O’Connor RC, Perry VH, Tracey I, Wessely S, Arseneault L, et al. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7:547–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1.
Ludwig-Walz H, Dannheim I, Pfandenhauer LM, Fegert JM, Bujard M. Depression and anxiety among children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: a systematic review protocol. Res Square. 2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1638547/v2.
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: version 6.3; 2022. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Leclercq E, Leeflang MMG, van Dalen EC, Kremer LCM. Validation of search filters for identifying pediatric studies in PubMed. J Pediatr. 2013;162:629-634.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.09.012.
Lazarus JV, Palayew A, Rasmussen LN, Andersen TH, Nicholson J, Norgaard O. Searching PubMed to retrieve publications on the COVID-19 pandemic: comparative analysis of search strings. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22: e23449. https://doi.org/10.2196/23449.
Glanville J, Lefebvre C, Wright K. ISSG search filter resource York (UK): The InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group 2019. https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home. Accessed 18 May 2022.
McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021.
Morgan RL, Whaley P, Thayer KA, Schünemann HJ. Identifying the PECO: a framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes. Environ Int. 2018;121:1027–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.015.
WHO Regional Office for Europe. Countries. 2022. https://www.euro.who.int/en/countries. Accessed 18 May 2022.
Thomas J, Graziosi S, Brunton J, Ghouze Z, O'Driscoll P, Bond M. EPPI-Reviewer: advanced software for systematic reviews, maps and evidence synthesis.: EPPI-Centre Software. London: UCL Social Research Institute; 2020.
Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2000;19:3127–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:22%3C3127::AID-SIM784%3E3.0.CO;2-M.
Morgan RL, Thayer KA, Santesso N, Holloway AC, Blain R, Eftim SE, et al. A risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures: a users’ guide to its application in the context of GRADE. Environ Int. 2019;122:168–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.11.004.
Wright N, Hill J, Sharp H, Pickles A. Interplay between long-term vulnerability and new risk: young adolescent and maternal mental health immediately before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. JCPP Adv. 2021;1: e12008. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcv2.12008.
The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]; 2020.
RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Boston: RStudio Team; 2022.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
Schünemann HJ, Cuello C, Akl EA, Mustafa RA, Meerpohl JJ, Thayer K, et al. GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:105–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.012.
Bignardi G, Dalmaijer ES, Anwyl-Irvine AL, Smith TA, Siugzdaite R, Uh S, Astle DE. Longitudinal increases in childhood depression symptoms during the COVID-19 lockdown. Arch Dis Child. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-320372.
Borbás R, Fehlbaum LV, Dimanova P, Negri A, Arudchelvam J, Schnider CB, Raschle NM. Mental well-being during the first months of COVID-19 in adults and children: behavioral evidence and neural precursors. Sci Rep. 2021;11:17595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96852-0.
Bujard M, den Driesch E von, Kerstin R, Laß I, Thönnissen C, Schumann A, Schneider N. Belastungen von Kindern, Jugendlichen und Eltern in der Corona-Pandemie: BiB.Bevölkerungs.Studien 2/2021. Wiesbaden: Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung; 2021.
Burdzovic Andreas J, Brunborg GS. Self-reported mental and physical health among Norwegian adolescents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4: e2121934. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.21934.
Crescentini C, Feruglio S, Matiz A, Paschetto A, Vidal E, Cogo P, Fabbro F. Stuck outside and inside: an exploratory study on the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak on Italian parents and children’s internalizing symptoms. Front Psychol. 2020;11: 586074. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586074.
Ertanir B, Kassis W, Garrote A. Longitudinal changes in Swiss adolescent’s mental health outcomes from before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312734.
Frigerio A, Nettuno F, Nazzari S. Maternal mood moderates the trajectory of emotional and behavioural problems from pre- to during the COVID-19 lockdown in preschool children. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01925-0.
Hafstad GS, Sætren SS, Wentzel-Larsen T, Augusti E-M. Adolescents’ symptoms of anxiety and depression before and during the COVID-19 outbreak—a prospective population-based study of teenagers in Norway. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021;5: 100093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100093.
Halldorsdottir T, Thorisdottir IE, Meyers CCA, Asgeirsdottir BB, Kristjansson AL, Valdimarsdottir HB, et al. Adolescent well-being amid the COVID-19 pandemic: are girls struggling more than boys? JCPP Adv. 2021;1: e12027. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.12027.
Janssen LHC, Kullberg M-LJ, Verkuil B, van Zwieten N, Wever MCM, van Houtum LAEM, et al. Does the COVID-19 pandemic impact parents’ and adolescents’ well-being? An EMA-study on daily affect and parenting. PLoS ONE. 2020;15: e0240962. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240962.
Knowles G, Gayer-Anderson C, Turner A, Dorn L, Lam J, Davis S, et al. COVID-19, social restrictions, and mental distress among young people: a UK longitudinal, population-based study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13586.
Kostev K, Weber K, Riedel-Heller S, von Vultée C, Bohlken J. Increase in depression and anxiety disorder diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic in children and adolescents followed in pediatric practices in Germany. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01924-1.
Luijten MAJ, van Muilekom MM, Teela L, Polderman TJC, Terwee CB, Zijlmans J, et al. The impact of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic on mental and social health of children and adolescents. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:2795–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02861-x.
Myhr A, Naper LR, Samarawickrema I, Vesterbekkmo RK. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on mental well-being of Norwegian adolescents during the first wave-socioeconomic position and gender differences. Front Public Health. 2021;9: 717747. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.717747.
Rau L-M, Grothus S, Sommer A, Grochowska K, Claus BB, Zernikow B, Wager J. Chronic pain in schoolchildren and its association with psychological wellbeing before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Adolesc Health. 2021;69:721–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.07.027.
Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Devine J, Gilbert M, Reiss F, Barkmann C, et al. Child and adolescent mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: results of the three-wave longitudinal COPSY study. SSRN J. 2022. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4024489.
Shoshani A, Kor A. The mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents: risk and protective factors. Psychol Trauma. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001188.
Thorisdottir IE, Asgeirsdottir BB, Kristjansson AL, Valdimarsdottir HB, JonsdottirTolgyes EM, Sigfusson J, et al. Depressive symptoms, mental wellbeing, and substance use among adolescents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iceland: a longitudinal, population-based study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8:663–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00156-5.
Widnall E, Winstone L, Plackett R, Adams EA, Haworth CMA, Mars B, Kidger J. Impact of school and peer connectedness on adolescent mental health and well-being outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal panel survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116768.
Witte J, Zeitler A, Hasemann L. Krankenhausversorgung von Kindern und Jugendlichen während der Pandemie: Fokus: Psychische Erkrankungen. Bielefeld; 2022.
von Soest T, Kozák M, Rodríguez-Cano R, Fluit DH, Cortés-García L, Ulset VS, et al. Adolescents’ psychosocial well-being one year after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway. Nat Hum Behav. 2022;6:217–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01255-w.
Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, Rubin GJ. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet. 2020;395:912–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8.
Loades ME, Chatburn E, Higson-Sweeney N, Reynolds S, Shafran R, Brigden A, et al. Rapid systematic review: the impact of social isolation and loneliness on the mental health of children and adolescents in the context of COVID-19. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59:1218-1239.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.05.009.
Eurostat. Almost 76 million pupils and students enrolled in the EU. 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/de/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20210427-1.
Viner R, Russell S, Saulle R, Croker H, Stansfield C, Packer J, et al. School closures during social lockdown and mental health, health behaviors, and well-being among children and adolescents during the first COVID-19 wave: a systematic review. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176:400–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.5840.
Kratzer S, Pfadenhauer LM, Biallas RL, Featherstone R, Klinger C, Movsisyan A, et al. Unintended consequences of measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;6: CD015397. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015397.
Racine N, McArthur BA, Cooke JE, Eirich R, Zhu J, Madigan S. Global prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents during COVID-19: a meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175:1142–50. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2482.
Sheridan DC, Cloutier R, Johnson K, Marshall R. Where have all the emergency paediatric mental health patients gone during COVID-19? Acta Paediatr. 2021;110:598–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15537.
Ougrin D. Debate: emergency mental health presentations of young people during the COVID-19 lockdown. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2020;25:171–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12411.
Fegert JM, Kehoe LA, ÇuhadarogluÇetin F, Doyle M, Eliez S, Hebebrand J, et al. Next generation Europe: a recovery plan for children, adolescents and their families : for the time after the pandemic, we need a vision and investments for the future. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021;30:991–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01767-w.
Bernheim D, Keller F, Fegert JM, Sukale T. Akzeptanz der Videotherapie an einer Ausbildungsambulanz für Verhaltenstherapie für Kinder und Jugendliche in Zeiten der Corona-Pandemie. Nervenheilkunde. 2021;40:341–7. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1402-4788.
Viswanathan M, Wallace I, Middleton JC, Kennedy SM, McKeeman J, Hudson K, et al. Screening for depression, anxiety, and suicide risk in children and adolescents: an evidence review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.16310.
Lahey BB. Why are children who exhibit psychopathology at high risk for psychopathology and dysfunction in adulthood? JAMA Psychiat. 2015;72:865–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0798.
Shek DTL, Chai W, Tan L. The relationship between anxiety and depression under the pandemic: the role of life meaning. Front Psychol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1059330.
Marino C, Andrade B, Campisi SC, Wong M, Zhao H, Jing X, et al. Association between disturbed sleep and depression in children and youths: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4: e212373. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2373.
Panchal U, Salazar de Pablo G, Franco M, Moreno C, Parellada M, Arango C, Fusar-Poli P. The impact of COVID-19 lockdown on child and adolescent mental health: systematic review. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01856-w.
Glynn LM, Davis EP, Luby JL, Baram TZ, Sandman CA. A predictable home environment may protect child mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Neurobiol Stress. 2021;14: 100291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ynstr.2020.100291.
Espinoza G, Hernandez HL. Adolescent loneliness, stress and depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: the protective role of friends. Infant Child Dev. 2022;31: e2305. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2305.
Wolf S, Seiffer B, Zeibig J-M, Welkerling J, Brokmeier L, Atrott B, et al. Is physical activity associated with less depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic? A rapid systematic review. Sports Med. 2021;51:1771–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01468-z.
Camerini A-L, Albanese E, Marciano L. The impact of screen time and green time on mental health in children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Comput Hum Behav Rep. 2022;7: 100204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100204.
We acknowledge Dr Sabrina Schlesinger (Head Research Group Systematic Reviews; German Diabetic Center) for her peer review of the search strategy according to the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) Evidence-Based Checklist.
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication
PD Dr Martin Bujard (last five years): Research funding from European Union and BMBF (German Ministry of Education and Research). Travel grants and honoraria from universities, federal and state parliaments, federal and state ministries, Evangelical-Lutheran Church, Federal Agency for Civic Education. Consultant for BMFSFJ (Federal Ministry of Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth). Every grant and every honorarium was declared to the law office of the Federal Institute for Population Research (BiB). Prof Dr Jörg M. Fegert (last five years): Research funding from European Union, BMG (Federal Ministry of Health), BMBF (Federal Ministry of Education and Research), BMFSFJ (Federal Ministry of Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth), DFG (German Research Foundation), G-BA Innovation Fund, State Ministries of Baden-Württemberg and Saarland, State Foundation Baden-Württemberg, Porticus Foundation, Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Württemberg. Travel grants, honoraria, sponsorship for conferences and medical educational purposes from APK, Adenauer- and Ebertstiftung, Deutschlandfunk, DFG, DJI, DKSB, Infectopharm, med update, UNICEF, professional associations, universities and federal and state ministries. Consultant for APK, federal and state ministries. No industry-sponsored lecture series, no shareholdings, no participation in pharmaceutical companies. Every grant and every honorarium was declared to the law office of the University Hospital Ulm. No other disclosures were reported.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Additional file 1: Table S1.
PRISMA item checklist for systematic reviews (need modification after review). Table S2. Searched congresses and websites of key organizations. Table S3. Search Strategy. Table S4. Criteria for assessing Risk of Bias (RoB) using the RoB instrument for non-randomized studies of exposure. Table S5. Criteria for grading evidence according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Table S6. Reasons for exclusion of studies from the systematic literature search, after screening for title and abstract. Table S7. Summary of effect estimates. Table S8. Summary of details on risk of bias (RoB) assessment in included studies. Table S9. Evidence profile for grading evidence according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Table S10. Moderator analysis for total sample with categorical moderators. Table S11. Moderator analysis for total sample of low risk of bias studies with categorical moderators. Table S12. Moderator analysis for total sample with continuous moderators. Table S13. Moderator analysis for total sample of low risk of bias with continuous moderators. Table S14. Moderator analysis for female subsample with categorical moderators. Table S15. Moderator analysis for female subsample with continuous moderators. Table S16. Moderator analysis for male subsample with categorical moderators. Table S17. Moderator analysis for male subsample with continuous moderators. Table S18. Sensitivity analysis. Table S19. Eggers’ test. Figure S1. PRISMA Flow Chart. Figure S2. Traffic light plots of the domain-level judgements for each individual result. Figure S3. Weighted bar plots of the distribution of risk of bias judgements within each bias domain. Figure S4. Forest Plot of Changes in Female General Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S5. Forest Plot of Changes in Male General Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S6. Forest Plot of Changes in Total (11-15 years) General Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S7. Forest Plot of Changes in Female (11-15 years) General Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S8. Forest Plot of Changes in Male (11-15 years) General Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S9. Forest Plot of Changes in Total (16-19 years) General Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S10. Forest Plot of Changes in Male (16-19 years) General Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S11. Forest Plot of Changes in Female (16-19 years) General Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S12. Plot of change effects (standardized mean differences and 95% confidence interval) from low RoB studies on a time axis. Figure S13. Forest Plot of Country Changes in General Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S14. Forest Plot of Changes in Female Clinically Relevant Depression Rates Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S15. Forest Plot of Changes in Male Clinically Relevant Depression Rates Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S16. Funnel Plot of Changes in Total General Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S17. Funnel Plot of Changes in Female General Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S18. Funnel Plot of Changes in Male General Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S19. Funnel Plot of Changes in Total Clinically Relevant Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S20. Funnel Plot of Changes in Female Clinically Relevant Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Figure S21. Funnel Plot of Changes in Male Clinically Relevant Depression Symptoms Comparing Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic. Methods. Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index and the School Closure Index.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Ludwig-Walz, H., Dannheim, I., Pfadenhauer, L.M. et al. Increase of depression among children and adolescents after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 16, 109 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-022-00546-y
- Systematic review