Prevalence of Anxiety in University Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review

There is a dearth of evidence synthesis on the prevalence of anxiety among university students even though the risk of psychological disorders among this population is quite high. We conducted a quantitative systematic review to estimate the global prevalence of anxiety among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic search for cross-sectional studies on PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO, using PRISMA guidelines, was conducted from September 2020 to February 2021. A total of 36 studies were included, using a random-effects model to calculate the pooled proportion of anxiety. A meta-analysis of the prevalence estimate of anxiety yielded a summary prevalence of 41% (95% CI = 0.34–0.49), with statistically significant evidence of between-study heterogeneity (Q = 80801.97, I2 = 100%, p ≤ 0.0001). A subgroup analysis reported anxiety prevalence in Asia as 33% (95% CI:0.25–0.43), the prevalence of anxiety in Europe as 51% (95% CI: 0.44–0.59), and the highest prevalence of anxiety in the USA as 56% (95% CI: 0.44–0.67). A subgroup gender-based analysis reported the prevalence of anxiety in females as 43% (95% CI:0.29–0.58) compared to males with an anxiety prevalence of 39% (95% CI:0.29–0.50). University students seem to have a high prevalence of anxiety, indicating an increased mental health burden during this pandemic.

Plant Responses to Changing Water Supply and Availability in High Elevation Ecosystems: A Quantitative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Climate change is expected to lead to changes to the amount, frequency, intensity, and timing of precipitation and subsequent water supply and its availability to plants in mountain regions worldwide. This is likely to affect plant growth and physiological performance, with subsequent effects to the functioning of many important high-elevation ecosystems. We conducted a quantitative systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of altered water supply on plants from high elevation ecosystems. We found a clear negative response of plants to decreases in water supply (mean Hedges’ g = −0.75, 95% confidence intervals: −1.09 to −0.41), and a neutral response to increases in water supply (mean Hedges’ g = 0.10, 95% confidence intervals: 0.43 to 0.62). Responses to decreases in water supply appear to be related to the magnitude of change in water supply, plant growth form, and to the measured response attribute. Changes to precipitation and water supply are likely to have important consequences for plant growth in high elevation ecosystems, with vegetation change more likely be triggered by reductions than increases in growing season precipitation. High elevation ecosystems that experience future reductions in growing-season precipitation are likely to exhibit plant responses such as reduced growth and higher allocation of carbohydrates to roots.

The Effectiveness of De-Escalation Techniques as Compared to Physical Restraint/Seclusion on Inpatient Psychiatric Units: A Quantitative Systematic Review

BackgroundRestraint and seclusion were considered a form of treatment but consistently has led to physical and mental injuries to staff and patients. De-escalation has been viewed as a safer option. Understanding which intervention yields decreased injuries, aggression and violence will guide policy and inform practice.ObjectivesTo identify which intervention leads to decreased physical and psychological injury to patients and staff.MethodsThe frequency of physical injuries to patients and staff from aggressive patients; frequency of psychological injuries to patients and staff from violent, aggressive incidents; frequency of violence, agitation and aggression; competence of staff at managing aggression and violence were evaluated.ResultsFourteen studies were included in this review. There are many forms of de-escalation. Studies where techniques were taught to staff, the intervention was effective in decreasing injury in approximately half the studies. De-escalation techniques taught to patients decreased injury in 100% of the studies included in this review.ConclusionConsensus on which intervention works best could not be reached, nor is there overwhelming evidence for a particular type of de-escalation better suited for decreasing aggression and violence. Caution should be exercised when choosing a de-escalation technique for implementation in institutions due to lack of regulating agencies that inform practice and standards. In addition, the literature lacks best practices for de-escalation techniques backed by evidence. Restraint and seclusion should be used as a last resort due to inherent risk associated with the intervention.