sample of research title about pandemic

• Write my thesis
• Thesis writers
• Buy thesis papers
• Bachelor thesis
• Master's thesis
• Thesis editing services
• Thesis proofreading services
• Buy a thesis online
• Write my dissertation
• Dissertation proposal help
• Pay for dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help online
• Buy dissertation online
• Cheap dissertation
• Dissertation editing services
• Write my research paper
• Buy research paper online
• Pay for research paper
• Research paper help
• Order research paper
• Custom research paper
• Cheap research paper
• Research papers for sale
• Thesis subjects
• How It Works

100+ Best Research Titles About COVID-19 Examples

The covid-19 pandemic has been the most devastating thing to happen in humanity in the past decade or two. It caused global panic and changed people’s lives in multiple aspects. Therefore, it is the perfect research topic for high school, postgraduate, and undergraduate students.

Exciting Sample Research Title About Pandemic

Great quantitative research title about pandemic examples, great qualitative research title about pandemic examples, quantitative research title about covid-19 pandemic examples, quantitative research title about covid-19 vaccine samples, interesting quantitative research topics 2020, ten best research titles about covid-19, great thesis title about pandemic examples, exciting research title about business in pandemic samples, relevant research topics related to covid-19, attention-grabbing research title about vaccine of covid-19, the best topic for research about the pandemic on social media, ten incredible research topic about covid-19 vaccine in the philippines, an interesting list of research question examples about covid-19, the best research title about frontliners, the best research titles examples for highschool students about covid-19.

Academic research related to covid-19 would be perfect because of its relevance. Furthermore, it applies to any field of study thanks to the vast and immense impacts of the pandemic. For instance, business and finance students can research the effects of the covid-19 pandemic on the economy, while social science majors can discuss the various social results.

The pandemic research topics are a good path also because they are interesting. Additionally, research topic examples about covid-19 give you a great research opportunity because of the numerous materials. There are multiple topics you can consider, from the quantitative and qualitative research titles about covid 19 to the effects and reception of the vaccine, among others.

Ready for detailed quantitative and qualitative research topics ? Find a great research title about a covid-19 example from the samples below.

The impacts of the pandemic were and are still felt globally. So, this means that there are numerous creative directions you can pursue when choosing the perfect topic. Here are some research titles about the pandemic and argumentative essay topics :

• An exploration of the impacts of the pandemic on the global economy
• The covid-19 pandemic and the global recession: what is the link?
• The correlation between your country’s economy and its response to the pandemic
• The connection between kid’s immune system and their survival from the pandemic
• The impacts of the pandemic on third world countries
• A comparison of the effects of the pandemic on third and first-world countries
• A comparison of the response to the pandemic in Europe and America
• The role of the pandemic in the appreciation of the scientific research field
• An exploration of the long-term impacts of the pandemic on the education sector?
• What could global governments have done better to prevent the pandemic?

Quantitative research about the pandemic involves collecting and analyzing data. However, choosing a quantitative research topic is not easy since you must select a researchable one. An example of a quantitative research title about covid-19 may be a good start. So, let’s look at some quantitative research title examples about covid-19:

• How effective are detergents against germs during the pandemic?
• An exploration of coronavirus response and future preparedness against pandemics
• The global coronavirus pandemic: prevention and transmission of the virus
• A look into the ethical controversies during the pandemic
• A look into the effectiveness of the pandemic regulations
• The psychological effects of the pandemic’s control measures
• A link between intimate partner violence increase and the pandemic
• Impacts of the global pandemic on the sports sector
• The influences of the coronavirus pandemic on human relations
• The pandemic and its aftermath

A qualitative research title about covid-19 significantly depends on data collected from first-hand observations, interviews, recordings in natural settings, and case studies. So, qualitative social issues research topics are mostly non-numerical data. Find a qualitative research title about the pandemic from the samples below:

• How ethical are the covid-19 regulations?
• The rise of racist attacks during the coronavirus pandemic
• Racist attacks against the Asian community: what role did covid-19 pandemic play in this?
• Hoarding and selfish tendencies during the coronavirus pandemic
• The rise of the internet age during the coronavirus pandemic
• How streaming services have benefited from the covid-19 pandemic
• The role of pandemics and epidemics in promoting global change
• The rate of employee retention among local businesses during the covid-19 pandemic
• Companies that saw significant profits during the pandemic
• Controversial theories about the pandemic and the coronavirus

You can also find a quantitative research title about covid-19, specifically focusing on the pandemic and its resulting issues. In addition to a quantitative research topic during a pandemic, research topics for STEM students are also pretty interesting. Here are some research topics during the pandemic that you can write about:

• A link between the pandemic and employee retention rates in large corporations
• Global recovery from the pandemic
• The profoundly detrimental consequences of the covid-19 pandemic on the economy
• How the global economy can recover from the pandemic
• The long-term effects of the pandemic on the medical sector
• The correlation between a decrease in employees in the medical industry and the pandemic
• Mitigating the detrimental impacts of the pandemic on the education sector
• The link between the pandemic and increased mental health challenges
• The pandemic and depression: what is the link?
• An analysis of the death rates during the life cycle of the coronavirus pandemic

You can also explore various research topics related to the covid-19 vaccines. The vaccine has been a controversial topic to study from various angles. Here are some research topics about covid 19, especially about vaccines:

• The difference between the acceptance of the covid-19 vaccine in first and third-world countries
• The role of social media influencers in promoting covid-19 vaccines
• The controversies surrounding the covid-19 vaccine
• How effective is the covid-19 vaccines against the virus?
• An analysis of the covid-19 vaccination rates among conservative Americans?
• The adverse effects of the covid-19 vaccine
• An overview of the pros and cons of the covid-19 vaccines
• The rate of covid-19 vaccination in 2021 vs. 2022
• Covid-19 vaccine boosters: how many people go for the booster shots?
• What happens when you get covid-19 after the vaccination?

When choosing a research topic, always pick an interesting and relevant topic. Doing so will simplify your research, help with data collection, and make your paper enjoyable. Get a research title about covid 19 quantitative for 2020 from the list below:

• An analysis of the start of the covid-19 pandemic
• An overview of the source of the coronavirus
• Breaking down the myths about the coronavirus, its inception, and its impacts
• The link between the spike in opioid addiction and the pandemic
• The effects of the pandemic on essential social values
• Quarantine in third-world countries compared to first-world countries
• The rates of covid-19 infections and deaths in Africa
• Social barriers during and after the coronavirus pandemic
• Consumer Psychonomic during the covid-19 pandemic
• The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on a globalized economy

The covid-19 pandemic offers multiple incredible research topic ideas. Choosing the best research title about the coronavirus can be tricky. So, let’s look at some qualitative research title examples about covid-19:

• The covid-19 pandemic and what we can learn from it
• What can global governments take away from the covid-19 pandemic?
• An exploration of the impact of the coronavirus on the body
• A look at how a strong immune system fights the coronavirus
• Mental well-being during the coronavirus pandemic
• Covid-19: managerial accounting during the pandemic
• The positive impacts of the pandemic on the environment
• A compelling city planning approach during the pandemic
• Covid-19 and social values: what is the link
• American administration responses to the covid-19 pandemic

The pandemic is a great study area for a thesis. You can choose various directions for your thesis depending on your study area and interest. Whether it is a quantitative research title about the pandemic or an example of a qualitative research title about covid-19, the following research titles about covid 19 should come in handy:

• The coronavirus pandemic: changes in public spaces and hygiene
• Development Control Regulations as the perfect medium to navigate and fight the pandemic
• A revision of housing topologies after the pandemic
• The drastic effects of the pandemic on the public transformation system
• Workspace design changes after the pandemic
• The effects of the pandemic on productivity and company culture
• The concept of social distancing during the pandemic and its effectiveness
• Sanitization practices in public spaces and residential buildings during the pandemic
• Pedestrianization during the coronavirus pandemic
• Public transportation and its impacts during the covid-19 pandemic

The covid-19 pandemic affected multiple sectors. However, the business industry is arguably the most impacted area beside the medical sector. So, a research title about business during the pandemic is an excellent study focus. Find a research title for the pandemic specifically focused on business:

• The rate of business launches during the pandemic
• How online businesses benefited from the pandemic
• The pandemic and the business sector: the correlation
• An overview of successful companies launched during the pandemic
• The rate of business closures during the pandemic
• How did businesses survive the pandemic
• How Amazon took advantage of the pandemic to become a global giant
• Lessons businesses can take away from the pandemic and its impacts
• Business consumer retention and the pandemic
• Crisis preparedness: what businesses learned from the coronavirus pandemic

A research title about the pandemic can be a great idea if you want to study a relevant topic. However, the topic relevance will depend on your study area. Find a great topic for research this pandemic from the list below:

• A comprehensive reflection on the covid-19 pandemic
• Leadership and management during the coronavirus pandemic
• Economic factors and consequences of the covid-19 pandemic
• Religion and the coronavirus pandemic: what is the overview?
• The role of social media in spreading misinformation on the covid-19 pandemic
• The role of social media in promoting the covid-19 pandemic
• How streaming services and the internet helped maintain peoples’ sanity in the pandemic
• Misinformation handling during the coronavirus pandemic
• Job satisfaction levels during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021
• A controversial argument on the benefits of the pandemic

A research title about the vaccine of covid 19 can be controversial. However, it makes an excellent topic for intellectual study. Find the best title for research about the pandemic related to vaccines

• Mental health during the coronavirus pandemic and what to improve
• Conspiracy theories regarding the covid-19 pandemic
• Conservative views on the covid-19 vaccine in the Christian community
• Public health: the issue of the coronavirus pandemic between 2020 to 2022
• The changing health behaviors following the coronavirus pandemic situation
• The impacts of the pandemic on early childhood development the pandemic
• The pandemic generation: children born during the pandemic and their view of the world
• A comparison of the influenza pandemic and the covid-19 pandemic
• The effect of the pandemic on workers in the medical sector
• Stress and coping mechanisms for nurses and doctors during the covid-19 sector

You can find a thesis statement about social media or a great research title about covid 19 vaccine and other topics online. However, not every research title about covid is relevant or great for academic research. You need the best social media research topics . Find a fantastic title of research about covid from the list below:

• How social media helped mitigate the impacts of the pandemic
• The rise of TikTok during the pandemic
• Social media influence during the pandemic and the changes
• The positive changes in the view of the coronavirus pandemic on social media tendencies
• School closure during the coronavirus pandemic and the role of social media
• The role of social media in promoting mental well-being during the covid-19 pandemic
• Streaming services for the elderly during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic
• How did the pandemic lead to increased adverse effects of social media
• The American mental health population: the impacts of the covid-19 pandemic
• Business negotiation strategies during the covid-19 pandemic

Third-world countries like the Philippines are among the most impacted nations by the pandemic. So, cover the research title example quantitative or qualitative, depending on your preferred data collection and analysis techniques. Some pandemic research title examples about the Philippines are:

• The Philippines’ medical sector during the pandemic
• Mitigation measures by the Philippines government during the pandemic
• How the pandemic impacted the Philippines’ public sector
• The Philippines’ education sector after the pandemic
• Religion and the covid-19 pandemic: God’s existence in Covid-19 times
• Philippines’ public policies after the pandemic
• The Philippines food and beverage plan: the impacts of the pandemic
• Covid-19 vaccination rates in the Philippines’
• The psychological impacts of the pandemic on the Philippines society
• A survey on conditions of low-income households during the pandemic

Title research about the pandemic will earn you excellent grades because of the topic’s relevance and multiple study opportunities. However, the quality of the subject matters significantly. Find an example of a research title about covid-19 pandemic below:

• What has the world learned from the covid-19 pandemic?
• How has the pandemic influenced the public’s view of health?
• Why are there fewer medical employees after the pandemic?
• How did nurses and doctors survive overworking during the pandemic?
• Is there a link between the global recession and the pandemic?
• How did the WHO’s response to the pandemic help mitigate its impacts?
• What challenges did the WHO face while addressing the covid-19 pandemic?
• Should people continue getting covid-19 vaccinations in 2022?
• What is the correlation between the pandemic and the current state of global society?
• What is social solidarity during the pandemic?

The covid-19 pandemic front liners were among the most impacted by the pandemic. So, it would make sense to focus your study on the frontliners. Find an incredible sample of a research title during the pandemic here:

• Frontliners during the pandemic: how were they affected?
• An overview of front liner’s view of the pandemic
• A look into the covid-19 pandemic through the eyes of the pandemic
• School closures during the pandemic: the impacts on frontline families
• Effects of the pandemic on social relationships among frontliners
• Frontliners: how their families suffered from the pandemic
• Frontliner mental health and the pandemic: the correlation
• Getting back into conventional practices in the medical sector after the pandemic
• How frontline helped mitigate the risks of the pandemic
• The age of online learning before and after the pandemic

You do not have to be in college or university to focus your research on the pandemic. Even high school students can write research topics about the pandemic. Here are some sample research topics for high school students:

• Organizational risk management strategies after the pandemic
• Social solidarity and the pandemic: the link
• A link between the social response to plagues and the covid-19 pandemic
• Social changes after the covid-19 pandemic
• The covid-19 pandemic and the World History
• Healthcare management and quality during the covid-19 pandemic
• The covid-19 pandemic: The story of the 21 st -century pandemic
• Child abuse and the pandemic: a correlation
• The covid-19 pandemic: causes and solutions
• The reality of the covid-19 pandemic in the elder community

Reach Out for More Interesting Topics About the Covid-19 Pandemic

You deserve the best research titles for high school, postgraduate, and undergraduate studies. Now that you know the best research title about covid-19 to choose from, reach out to us for help with COVID-19 assignments, research papers, essays, thesis for bachelor degree and even more topic suggestions in this area.

Scientists now agree that the COVID pandemic is arguably the most annoying thing to happen in the 21 st century, making it an ideal focus area. It will go down in history as the most challenging time for the economy, environment, and human health.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 04 June 2021

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

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

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

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

16k Accesses

29 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Peer Review reports

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

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

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

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

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

Methodology

Research question.

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

Study design

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

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

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

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

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

Eligibility criteria

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

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

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

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

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

Information sources

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

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

Study selection

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

Data collection process

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

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

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

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

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

Quality assessment in individual reviews

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

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

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

Synthesis of results

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

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

Managing overlapping systematic reviews

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

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

PRISMA flow diagram

Characteristics of included reviews

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

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

Population and study designs

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

Systematic review findings

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

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of mortality

Clinical symptoms

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

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of fever

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of cough

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of dyspnea

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of fatigue or myalgia

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of headache

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of gastrointestinal disorders

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of sore throat

Diagnostic aspects

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

Therapeutic possibilities

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

Laboratory and radiological findings

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

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

Quality of evidence in individual systematic reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Availability of data and materials

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento & Milena Soriano Marcolino

Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento

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

Dónal P. O’Mathúna

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

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

Thilo Caspar von Groote

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

Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem

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

Ishanka Weerasekara

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

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

Ana Marusic, Irena Zakarija-Grkovic & Tina Poklepovic Pericic

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

Livia Puljak

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

Vinicius Tassoni Civile & Alvaro Nagib Atallah

Yorkville University, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

Santino Filoso

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

Nicola Luigi Bragazzi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Livia Puljak .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not required as data was based on published studies.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix 1..

Search strategies used in the study.

Additional file 2: Appendix 2.

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

Additional file 3: Appendix 3.

List of excluded studies, with reasons.

Additional file 4: Appendix 4.

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

Additional file 5: Appendix 5.

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

Additional file 6: Appendix 6.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 12 April 2020

Accepted : 19 May 2021

Published : 04 June 2021

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Coronavirus
• Evidence-based medicine
• Infectious diseases

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NATURE PODCAST
• 17 December 2020

Coronapod: The big COVID research papers of 2020

• Benjamin Thompson ,
• Noah Baker &
• Traci Watson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Benjamin Thompson, Noah Baker and Traci Watson discuss some of 2020's most significant coronavirus research papers.

In the final Coronapod of 2020, we dive into the scientific literature to reflect on the COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers have discovered so much about SARS-CoV-2 – information that has been vital for public health responses and the rapid development of effective vaccines. But we also look forward to 2021, and the critical questions that remain to be answered about the pandemic.

Papers discussed

A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019 - New England Journal of Medicine, 24 January

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China - The Lancet , 24 January

A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin - Nature , 3 February

A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China - Nature , 3 February

Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19 - Nature Medicine , 15 April

Spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the Icelandic Population - New England Journal of Medicine , 11 June

High SARS-CoV-2 Attack Rate Following Exposure at a Choir Practice — Skagit County, Washington, March 2020 - Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report , 15 August

Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks - Nature Medicine , 3 April

Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1 - New England Journal of Medicine , 13 April

Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period - Science , 22 May

Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe - Nature, 8 June

The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic - Nature , 8 June

Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis - The Lancet, 20 June

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19 - New England Journal of Medicine , 3 June

Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 - JAMA , 2 September

Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for greater than six months after infection - bioRxiv, 16 November

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Re-infection by a Phylogenetically Distinct Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Strain Confirmed by Whole Genome Sequencing - Clinical Infectious Diseases , 25 August

Nature’s COVID research updates – summarising key coronavirus papers as they appear

Never miss an episode: Subscribe to the Nature Podcast on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify or your favourite podcast app. Head here for the Nature Podcast RSS feed .

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03609-2

Related Articles

• Public health

US halts funding to controversial virus-hunting group: what researchers think

News 16 MAY 24

Imprinting of serum neutralizing antibodies by Wuhan-1 mRNA vaccines

Article 15 MAY 24

Computationally restoring the potency of a clinical antibody against Omicron

Article 08 MAY 24

Could bird flu in cows lead to a human outbreak? Slow response worries scientists

News 17 MAY 24

Neglecting sex and gender in research is a public-health risk

Comment 15 MAY 24

Interpersonal therapy can be an effective tool against the devastating effects of loneliness

Correspondence 14 MAY 24

Gut microbes linked to fatty diet drive tumour growth

Dual-action obesity drug rewires brain circuits for appetite

News & Views 15 MAY 24

Experimental obesity drug packs double punch to reduce weight

News 15 MAY 24

Senior Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Senior Postdoctoral Research Fellow required to lead exciting projects in Cancer Cell Cycle Biology and Cancer Epigenetics.

Melbourne University, Melbourne (AU)

University of Melbourne & Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre

Overseas Talent, Embarking on a New Journey Together at Tianjin University

We cordially invite outstanding young individuals from overseas to apply for the Excellent Young Scientists Fund Program (Overseas).

Tianjin, China

Tianjin University (TJU)

Chair Professor Positions in the School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology

SPST seeks top Faculty scholars in Pharmaceutical Sciences.

Chair Professor Positions in the School of Precision Instruments and Optoelectronic Engineering

We are committed to accomplishing the mission of achieving a world-top-class engineering school.

Chair Professor Positions in the School of Mechanical Engineering

Aims to cultivate top talents, train a top-ranking faculty team, construct first-class disciplines and foster a favorable academic environment.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• For authors
• Browse by collection
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 10, Issue 12
• Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and well-being of communities: an exploratory qualitative study protocol
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0180-0213 Anam Shahil Feroz 1 , 2 ,
• Naureen Akber Ali 3 ,
• Noshaba Akber Ali 1 ,
• Ridah Feroz 4 ,
• Salima Nazim Meghani 1 ,
• Sarah Saleem 1
• 1 Community Health Sciences , Aga Khan University , Karachi , Pakistan
• 2 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation , University of Toronto , Toronto , Ontario , Canada
• 3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , Aga Khan University , Karachi , Pakistan
• 4 Aga Khan University Institute for Educational Development , Karachi , Pakistan
• Correspondence to Ms Anam Shahil Feroz; anam.sahyl{at}gmail.com

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly resulted in an increased level of anxiety and fear in communities in terms of disease management and infection spread. Due to fear and social stigma linked with COVID-19, many individuals in the community hide their disease and do not access healthcare facilities in a timely manner. In addition, with the widespread use of social media, rumours, myths and inaccurate information about the virus are spreading rapidly, leading to intensified irritability, fearfulness, insomnia, oppositional behaviours and somatic complaints. Considering the relevance of all these factors, we aim to explore the perceptions and attitudes of community members towards COVID-19 and its impact on their daily lives and mental well-being.

Methods and analysis This formative research will employ an exploratory qualitative research design using semistructured interviews and a purposive sampling approach. The data collection methods for this formative research will include indepth interviews with community members. The study will be conducted in the Karimabad Federal B Area and in the Garden (East and West) community settings in Karachi, Pakistan. The community members of these areas have been selected purposively for the interview. Study data will be analysed thematically using NVivo V.12 Plus software.

Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for this study has been obtained from the Aga Khan University Ethical Review Committee (2020-4825-10599). The results of the study will be disseminated to the scientific community and to the research subjects participating in the study. The findings will help us explore the perceptions and attitudes of different community members towards the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on their daily lives and mental well-being.

• mental health
• public health

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041641

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Strengths and limitations of this study

The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to last much longer than the physical health impact, and this study is positioned well to explore the perceptions and attitudes of community members towards the pandemic and its impact on their daily lives and mental well-being.

This study will guide the development of context-specific innovative mental health programmes to support communities in the future.

One limitation is that to minimise the risk of infection all study respondents will be interviewed online over Zoom and hence the authors will not have the opportunity to build rapport with the respondents or obtain non-verbal cues during interviews.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected almost 180 countries since it was first detected in Wuhan, China in December 2019. 1 2 The COVID-19 outbreak has been declared a public health emergency of international concern by the WHO. 3 The WHO estimates the global mortality to be about 3.4% 4 ; however, death rates vary between countries and across age groups. 5 In Pakistan, a total of 10 880 cases and 228 deaths due to COVID-19 infection have been reported to date. 6

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has not only incurred massive challenges to the global supply chains and healthcare systems but also has a detrimental effect on the overall health of individuals. 7 The pandemic has led to lockdowns and has created destructive impact on the societies at large. Most company employees, including daily wage workers, have been prohibited from going to their workplaces or have been asked to work from home, which has caused job-related insecurities and financial crises in the communities. 8 Educational institutions and training centres have also been closed, which resulted in children losing their routine of going to schools, studying and socialising with their peers. Delay in examinations is likewise a huge stressor for students. 8 Alongside this, parents have been struggling with creating a structured milieu for their children. 9 COVID-19 has hindered the normal routine life of every individual, be it children, teenagers, adults or the elderly. The crisis is engendering burden throughout populations and communities, particularly in developing countries such as Pakistan which face major challenges due to fragile healthcare systems and poor economic structures. 10

The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly resulted in an increased level of anxiety and fear in communities in terms of disease management and infection spread. 8 Further, the highly contagious nature of COVID-19 has also escalated confusion, fear and panic among community residents. Moreover, social distancing is often an unpleasant experience for community members and for patients as it adds to mental suffering, particularly in the local setting where get-togethers with friends and families are a major source of entertainment. 9 Recent studies also showed that individuals who are following social distancing rules experience loneliness, causing a substantial level of distress in the form of anxiety, stress, anger, misperception and post-traumatic stress symptoms. 8 11 Separation from family members, loss of autonomy, insecurity over disease status, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, frustration, stigma and boredom are all major stressors that can create drastic impact on an individual’s life. 11 Due to fear and social stigma linked with COVID-19, many individuals in the community hide their disease and do not access healthcare facilities in a timely manner. 12 With the widespread use of social media, 13 rumours, myths and inaccurate information about COVID-19 are also spreading rapidly, not only among adults but are also carried on to children, leading to intensified irritability, fearfulness, insomnia, oppositional behaviours and somatic complaints. 9 The psychological symptoms associated with COVID-19 at the community level are also manifested as anxiety-driven panic buying, resulting in exhaustion of resources from the market. 14 Some level of panic also dwells in the community due to the unavailability of essential protective equipment, particularly masks and sanitisers. 15 Similarly, mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, panic attacks, psychotic symptoms and even suicide, were reported during the early severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak. 16 17 COVID-19 is likely posing a similar risk throughout the world. 12

The fear of transmitting the disease or a family member falling ill is a probable mental function of human nature, but at some point the psychological fear of the disease generates more anxiety than the disease itself. Therefore, mental health problems are likely to increase among community residents during an epidemic situation. Considering the relevance of all these factors, we aim to explore the perceptions and attitudes towards COVID-19 among community residents and the impact of these perceptions and attitude on their daily lives and mental well-being.

Methods and analysis

Study design.

This study will employ an exploratory qualitative research design using semistructured interviews and a purposive sampling approach. The data collection methods for this formative research will include indepth interviews (IDIs) with community members. The IDIs aim to explore perceptions of community members towards COVID-19 and its impact on their mental well-being.

Study setting and study participants

The study will be conducted in two communities in Karachi City: Karimabad Federal B Area Block 3 Gulberg Town, and Garden East and Garden West. Karimabad is a neighbourhood in the Karachi Central District of Karachi, Pakistan, situated in the south of Gulberg Town bordering Liaquatabad, Gharibabad and Federal B Area. The population of this neighbourhood is predominantly Ismailis. People living here belong mostly to the middle class to the lower middle class. It is also known for its wholesale market of sports goods and stationery. Garden is an upmarket neighbourhood in the Karachi South District of Karachi, Pakistan, subdivided into two neighbourhoods: Garden East and Garden West. It is the residential area around the Karachi Zoological Gardens; hence, it is popularly known as the ‘Garden’ area. The population of Garden used to be primarily Ismailis and Goan Catholics but has seen an increasing number of Memons, Pashtuns and Baloch. These areas have been selected purposively because the few members of these communities are already known to one of the coinvestigators. The coinvestigator will serve as a gatekeeper for providing entrance to the community for the purpose of this study. Adult community members of different ages and both genders will be interviewed from both sites, as mentioned in table 1 . Interview participants will be selected following the eligibility criteria.

• View inline

Study participants for indepth interviews

IDIs with community members

We will conduct IDIs with community members to explore the perceptions and attitudes of community members towards COVID-19 and its effects on their daily lives and mental well-being. IDI participants will be identified via the community WhatsApp group, and will be invited for an interview via a WhatsApp message or email. Consent will be taken over email or WhatsApp before the interview begins, where they will agree that the interview can be audio-recorded and that written notes can be taken. The interviews will be conducted either in Urdu or in English language, and each interview will last around 40–50 min. Study participants will be assured that their information will remain confidential and that no identifying features will be mentioned on the transcript. The major themes will include a general discussion about participants’ knowledge and perceptions about the COVID-19 pandemic, perceptions on safety measures, and perceived challenges in the current situation and its impact on their mental well-being. We anticipate that 24–30 interviews will be conducted, but we will cease interviews once data saturation has been achieved. Data saturation is the point when no new themes emerge from the additional interviews. Data collection will occur concurrently with data analysis to determine data saturation point. The audio recordings will be transcribed by a transcriptionist within 24 hours of the interviews.

An interview guide for IDIs is shown in online supplemental annex 1 .

Supplemental material

Eligibility criteria.

The following are the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of study participants:

Inclusion criteria

Residents of Garden (East and West) and Karimabad Federal B Area of Karachi who have not contracted the disease.

Exclusion criteria

Those who refuse to participate in the study.

Those who have experienced COVID-19 and are undergoing treatment.

Those who are suspected for COVID-19 and have been isolated/quarantined.

Family members of COVID-19-positive cases.

Data collection procedure

A semistructured interview guide has been developed for community members. The initial questions on the guide will help to explore participants’ perceptions and attitudes towards COVID-19. Additional questions on the guide will assess the impact of these perceptions and attitude on the daily lives and mental health and well-being of community residents. All semistructured interviews will be conducted online via Zoom or WhatsApp. Interviews will be scheduled at the participant’s convenient day and time. Interviews are anticipated to begin on 1 December 2020.

Patient and public involvement

No patients were involved.

Data analysis

We will transcribe and translate collected data into English language by listening to the audio recordings in order to conduct a thematic analysis. NVivo V.12 Plus software will be used to import, organise and explore data for analysis. Two independent researchers will read the transcripts at various times to develop familiarity and clarification with the data. We will employ an iterative process which will help us to label data and generate new categories to identify emergent themes. The recorded text will be divided into shortened units and labelled as a ‘code’ without losing the main essence of the research study. Subsequently, codes will be analysed and merged into comparable categories. Lastly, the same categories will be grouped into subthemes and final themes. To ensure inter-rater reliability, two independent investigators will perform the coding, category creation and thematic analyses. Discrepancies between the two investigators will be resolved through consensus meetings to reduce researcher bias.

Ethics and dissemination

Study participants will be asked to provide informed, written consent prior to participation in the study. The informed consent form can be submitted by the participant via WhatsApp or email. Participants who are unable to write their names will be asked to provide a thumbprint to symbolise their consent to participate. Ethical approval for this study has been obtained from the Aga Khan University Ethical Review Committee (2020-4825-10599). The study results will be disseminated to the scientific community and to the research subjects participating in the study. The findings will help us explore the perceptions and attitudes of different community members towards the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on their daily lives and mental well-being.

The findings of this study will help us to explore the perceptions and attitudes towards the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the daily lives and mental well-being of individuals in the community. Besides, an indepth understanding of the needs of the community will be identified, which will help us develop context-specific innovative mental health programmes to support communities in the future. The study will provide insights into how communities are managing their lives under such a difficult situation.

• World Health Organization
• Nielsen-Saines K , et al
• Worldometer
• Ebrahim SH ,
• Gozzer E , et al
• Snoswell CL ,
• Harding LE , et al
• Nargis Asad
• van Weel C ,
• Qidwai W , et al
• Brooks SK ,
• Webster RK ,
• Smith LE , et al
• Tripathy S ,
• Kar SK , et al
• Schwartz J ,
• Maunder R ,

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

• Data supplement 1

ASF and NAA are joint first authors.

Contributors ASF and NAA conceived the study. ASF, NAA, RF, NA, SNM and SS contributed to the development of the study design and final protocols for sample selection and interviews. ASF and NAA contributed to writing the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the paper.

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Careers of Women in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2021)

Chapter: 8 major findings and research questions, 8 major findings and research questions, introduction.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in late 2019, created unprecedented global disruption and infused a significant level of uncertainty into the lives of individuals, both personally and professionally, around the world throughout 2020. The significant effect on vulnerable populations, such as essential workers and the elderly, is well documented, as is the devastating effect the COVID-19 pandemic had on the economy, particularly brick-and-mortar retail and hospitality and food services. Concurrently, the deaths of unarmed Black people at the hands of law enforcement officers created a heightened awareness of the persistence of structural injustices in U.S. society.

Against the backdrop of this public health crisis, economic upheaval, and amplified social consciousness, an ad hoc committee was appointed to review the potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in academic science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) during 2020. The committee’s work built on the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report Promising Practices for Addressing the Underrepresentation of Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine: Opening Doors (the Promising Practices report), which presents evidence-based recommendations to address the well-established structural barriers that impede the advancement of women in STEMM. However, the committee recognized that none of the actions identified in the Promising Practices report were conceived within the context of a pandemic, an economic downturn, or the emergence of national protests against structural racism. The representation and vitality of academic women in STEMM had already warranted national attention prior to these events, and the COVID-19

pandemic appeared to represent an additional risk to the fragile progress that women had made in some STEMM disciplines. Furthermore, the future will almost certainly hold additional, unforeseen disruptions, which underscores the importance of the committee’s work.

In times of stress, there is a risk that the divide will deepen between those who already have advantages and those who do not. In academia, senior and tenured academics are more likely to have an established reputation, a stable salary commitment, and power within the academic system. They are more likely, before the COVID-19 pandemic began, to have established professional networks, generated data that can be used to write papers, and achieved financial and job security. While those who have these advantages may benefit from a level of stability relative to others during stressful times, those who were previously systemically disadvantaged are more likely to experience additional strain and instability.

As this report has documented, during 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic had overall negative effects on women in academic STEMM in areas such productivity, boundary setting and boundary control, networking and community building, burnout rates, and mental well-being. The excessive expectations of caregiving that often fall on the shoulders of women cut across career timeline and rank (e.g., graduate student, postdoctoral scholar, non-tenure-track and other contingent faculty, tenure-track faculty), institution type, and scientific discipline. Although there have been opportunities for innovation and some potential shifts in expectations, increased caregiving demands associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, such as remote working, school closures, and childcare and eldercare, had disproportionately negative outcomes for women.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in STEMM during 2020 are understood better through an intentionally intersectional lens. Productivity, career, boundary setting, mental well-being, and health are all influenced by the ways in which social identities are defined and cultivated within social and power structures. Race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, academic career stage, appointment type, institution type, age, and disability status, among many other factors, can amplify or diminish the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic for a given person. For example, non-cisgender women may be forced to return to home environments where their gender identity is not accepted, increasing their stress and isolation, and decreasing their well-being. Women of Color had a higher likelihood of facing a COVID-19–related death in their family compared with their white, non-Hispanic colleagues. The full extent of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic for women of various social identities was not fully understood at the end of 2020.

Considering the relative paucity of women in many STEMM fields prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, women are more likely to experience academic isolation, including limited access to mentors, sponsors, and role models that share gender, racial, or ethnic identities. Combining this reality with the physical isolation stipulated by public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic,

women in STEMM were subject to increasing isolation within their fields, networks, and communities. Explicit attention to the early indicators of how the COVID-19 pandemic affected women in academic STEMM careers during 2020, as well as attention to crisis responses throughout history, may provide opportunities to mitigate some of the long-term effects and potentially develop a more resilient and equitable academic STEMM system.

MAJOR FINDINGS

Given the ongoing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not possible to fully understand the entirety of the short- or long-term implications of this global disruption on the careers of women in academic STEMM. Having gathered preliminary data and evidence available in 2020, the committee found that significant changes to women’s work-life boundaries and divisions of labor, careers, productivity, advancement, mentoring and networking relationships, and mental health and well-being have been observed. The following findings represent those aspects that the committee agreed have been substantiated by the preliminary data, evidence, and information gathered by the end of 2020. They are presented either as Established Research and Experiences from Previous Events or Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic during 2020 that parallel the topics as presented in the report.

Established Research and Experiences from Previous Events

___________________

1 This finding is primarily based on research on cisgender women and men.

Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic during 2020

Research questions.

While this report compiled much of the research, data, and evidence available in 2020 on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, future research is still needed to understand all the potential effects, especially any long-term implications. The research questions represent areas the committee identified for future research, rather than specific recommendations. They are presented in six categories that parallel the chapters of the report: Cross-Cutting Themes; Academic Productivity and Institutional Responses; Work-Life Boundaries and Gendered Divisions of Labor; Collaboration, Networking, and Professional Societies; Academic Leadership and Decision-Making; and Mental Health and Well-being. The committee hopes the report will be used as a basis for continued understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in its entirety and as a reference for mitigating impacts of future disruptions that affect women in academic STEMM. The committee also hopes that these research questions may enable academic STEMM to emerge from the pandemic era a stronger, more equitable place for women. Therefore, the committee identifies two types of research questions in each category; listed first are those questions aimed at understanding the impacts of the disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by those questions exploring the opportunities to help support the full participation of women in the future.

Cross-Cutting Themes

• What are the short- and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the career trajectories, job stability, and leadership roles of women, particularly of Black women and other Women of Color? How do these effects vary across institutional characteristics, 2 discipline, and career stage?

2 Institutional characteristics include different institutional types (e.g., research university, liberal arts college, community college), locales (e.g., urban, rural), missions (e.g., Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Asian American/Native American/Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities), and levels of resources.

• How did the confluence of structural racism, economic hardships, and environmental disruptions affect Women of Color during the COVID-19 pandemic? Specifically, how did the murder of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black citizens impact Black women academics’ safety, ability to be productive, and mental health?
• How has the inclusion of women in leadership and other roles in the academy influenced the ability of institutions to respond to the confluence of major social crises during the COVID-19 pandemic?
• How can institutions build on the involvement women had across STEMM disciplines during the COVID-19 pandemic to increase the participation of women in STEMM and/or elevate and support women in their current STEMM-related positions?
• How can institutions adapt, leverage, and learn from approaches developed during 2020 to attend to challenges experienced by Women of Color in STEMM in the future?

Academic Productivity and Institutional Responses

• How did the institutional responses (e.g., policies, practices) that were outlined in the Major Findings impact women faculty across institutional characteristics and disciplines?
• What are the short- and long-term effects of faculty evaluation practices and extension policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic on the productivity and career trajectories of members of the academic STEMM workforce by gender?
• What adaptations did women use during the transition to online and hybrid teaching modes? How did these techniques and adaptations vary as a function of career stage and institutional characteristics?
• What are examples of institutional changes implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that have the potential to reduce systemic barriers to participation and advancement that have historically been faced by academic women in STEMM, specifically Women of Color and other marginalized women in STEMM? How might positive institutional responses be leveraged to create a more resilient and responsive higher education ecosystem?
• How can or should funding arrangements be altered (e.g., changes in funding for research and/or mentorship programs) to support new ways of interaction for women in STEMM during times of disruption, such as the COVID-19 pandemic?

Work-Life Boundaries and Gendered Divisions of Labor

• How do different social identities (e.g., racial; socioeconomic status; culturally, ethnically, sexually, or gender diverse; immigration status; parents of young children and other caregivers; women without partners) influence the management of work-nonwork boundaries? How did this change during the COVID-19 pandemic?
• How have COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions affected progress toward reducing the gender gap in academic STEMM labor-force participation? How does this differ for Women of Color or women with caregiving responsibilities?
• How can institutions account for the unique challenges of women faculty with parenthood and caregiving responsibilities when developing effective and equitable policies, practices, or programs?
• How might insights gained about work-life boundaries during the COVID-19 pandemic inform how institutions develop and implement supportive resources (e.g., reductions in workload, on-site childcare, flexible working options)?

Collaboration, Networking, and Professional Societies

• What were the short- and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic-prompted switch from in-person conferences to virtual conferences on conference culture and climate, especially for women in STEMM?
• How will the increase in virtual conferences specifically affect women’s advancement and career trajectories? How will it affect women’s collaborations?
• How has the shift away from attending conferences and in-person networking changed longer-term mentoring and sponsoring relationships, particularly in terms of gender dynamics?
• How can institutions maximize the benefits of digitization and the increased use of technology observed during the COVID-19 pandemic to continue supporting women, especially marginalized women, by increasing accessibility, collaborations, mentorship, and learning?
• How can organizations that support, host, or facilitate online and virtual conferences and networking events (1) ensure open and fair access to participants who face different funding and time constraints; (2) foster virtual connections among peers, mentors, and sponsors; and (3) maintain an inclusive environment to scientists of all backgrounds?
• What policies, practices, or programs can be developed to help women in STEMM maintain a sense of support, structure, and stability during and after periods of disruption?

Academic Leadership and Decision-Making

• What specific interventions did colleges and universities initiate or prioritize to ensure that women were included in decision-making processes during responses to the COVID-19 pandemic?
• How effective were colleges and universities that prioritized equity-minded leadership, shared leadership, and crisis leadership styles at mitigating emerging and potential negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in their communities?
• What specific aspects of different leadership models translated to more effective strategies to advance women in STEMM, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic?
• How can examples of intentional inclusion of women in decision-making processes during the COVID-19 pandemic be leveraged to develop the engagement of women as leaders at all levels of academic institutions?
• What are potential “top-down” structural changes in academia that can be implemented to mitigate the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic or other disruptions?
• How can academic leadership, at all levels, more effectively support the mental health needs of women in STEMM?

Mental Health and Well-being

• What is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and institutional responses on the mental health and well-being of members of the academic STEMM workforce as a function of gender, race, and career stage?
• How are tools and diagnostic tests to measure aspects of wellbeing, including burnout and insomnia, used in academic settings? How does this change during times of increased stress, such as the COVID-19 pandemic?
• How might insights gained about mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic be used to inform preparedness for future disruptions?
• How can programs that focus on changes in biomarkers of stress and mood dysregulation, such as levels of sleep, activity, and texting patterns, be developed and implemented to better engage women in addressing their mental health?
• What are effective interventions to address the health of women academics in STEMM that specifically account for the effects of stress on women? What are effective interventions to mitigate the excessive levels of stress for Women of Color?

This page intentionally left blank.

The spring of 2020 marked a change in how almost everyone conducted their personal and professional lives, both within science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) and beyond. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted global scientific conferences and individual laboratories and required people to find space in their homes from which to work. It blurred the boundaries between work and non-work, infusing ambiguity into everyday activities. While adaptations that allowed people to connect became more common, the evidence available at the end of 2020 suggests that the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic endangered the engagement, experience, and retention of women in academic STEMM, and may roll back some of the achievement gains made by women in the academy to date.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Careers of Women in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine identifies, names, and documents how the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the careers of women in academic STEMM during the initial 9-month period since March 2020 and considers how these disruptions - both positive and negative - might shape future progress for women. This publication builds on the 2020 report Promising Practices for Addressing the Underrepresentation of Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine to develop a comprehensive understanding of the nuanced ways these disruptions have manifested. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Careers of Women in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will inform the academic community as it emerges from the pandemic to mitigate any long-term negative consequences for the continued advancement of women in the academic STEMM workforce and build on the adaptations and opportunities that have emerged.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Open access
• Published: 08 September 2020

Preparing for a pandemic: highlighting themes for research funding and practice—perspectives from the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R)

• Alice Norton 1 , 2 ,
• Louise Sigfrid 1 ,
• Adeniyi Aderoba 3 , 4 ,
• Naima Nasir 3 , 5 ,
• Peter G. Bannister 6 ,
• Shelui Collinson 7 ,
• James Lee 3 ,
• Geneviève Boily-Larouche 8 ,
• Josephine P. Golding 9 ,
• Evelyn Depoortere 10 ,
• Gail Carson 1 ,
• Barbara Kerstiëns 10 &
• Yazdan Yazdanpanah 11  

BMC Medicine volume  18 , Article number:  273 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

8021 Accesses

4 Citations

23 Altmetric

Metrics details

Peer Review reports

Funders and researchers around the world are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic at urgent speed, with greater effectiveness and collaboration than ever before. In the past 8 months, the global health research community has collectively generated and shared a huge amount of knowledge in particular into the clinical characterisation, behavioural insights, genetics, epidemiology, viral pathogenesis, clinical management and diagnosis of COVID-19. This is built on substantial prior preparation, with researchers, public health professionals, funders and multilateral bodies in this field having anticipated and prepared for a pandemic for many years. Further knowledge is needed however to control this pandemic and for safe easing of public health measures.

The Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) is an international network of global health funders and stakeholders formed in 2013 to ensure preparedness for a coordinated research response to epidemics and pandemics [ 1 ]. GloPID-R aims to address challenges to effective research in epidemics and pandemics, through both preparedness and response activities.

In December 2019, as part of its preparedness activities, GloPID-R convened a Frontiers meeting with their funded clinical trial networks and cohorts along with key stakeholders involved in emerging epidemic and pandemic preparedness and response globally. The aim was to identify how these groups might collaborate in delivering a coordinated research response in the event of an epidemic or pandemic. Now that we are in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to highlight and reflect on the recommendations identified by these participants, to inform the ongoing research funding and practice during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as preparedness for future outbreaks.

Preparedness themes for research funding and practice

Research cohorts are valuable tools for building pandemic research responses.

Active cohort studies have the potential to play a key role in emerging epidemic and pandemic research. Longitudinal cohorts generate a wealth of data from individual participants about clinical and laboratory outcomes, which allow for a better understanding of effect modifiers such as genetic factors, chronic disease, socio-demographic factors and long-term outcomes than is possible from other study designs. Established cohorts can also function as a broker between emerging disease researchers and the community addressing challenges to the acceptance of research [ 2 ].

There was a call for newly funded cohorts to be designed to be both usable and re-usable in the event of new emerging research questions.

Research capacity and activity mapping are essential to facilitate collaboration and improve targeting of resources

Improved mapping of both global research capacity and ongoing global research activities was identified as necessary to improve identification of opportunities for collaboration and ‘pivoting’ or ‘supplementing’ of ongoing research efforts in outbreaks and improve coordination as pandemics shift globally.

Research collaboration especially between clinical trial networks and cohorts is essential to improve research outcomes

Coordination, in particular across clinical trials and cohorts, is needed to make the most effective use of scarce resources to ensure that studies are not underpowered due to changes in infection rates in differing geographical areas.

Sustainability of funding and research capacity during inter-epidemic periods is key to ensure quality research can be initiated rapidly for epidemics and pandemics

Setting up completely new studies during epidemics and pandemics takes substantial time from the funding commitment, developing necessary infrastructure, research processes and approvals and most importantly trust within the community and leads to fragmentation. Therefore, it may be more efficient to build on large existing studies with baseline continuous research activities, which allow the recruitment of patients from the outset of an outbreak.

Strengthening local research capacity and working closely with governments, local and regional partners and communities to develop and lead national research plans are necessary to ensure critical activities.

Rapid research and funding systems and rapid data sharing are needed to facilitate knowledge generation to improve practice within epidemics and pandemics

Rapid mobilisation of research funds and resources, early engagement with ethics committees and staged approved ethical protocols, adaptive studies and trial designs were all identified as necessary steps to reduce the significant prior delays in initiating research activities in the epidemic response. Funders acknowledged that for many, current funding structures are often not flexible enough to allow quick pivoting or redirection of resources.

Rapid data sharing is needed to accelerate health benefits and outcomes, to facilitate timely dissemination of data to the public for action, and to prevent misinformation. The GloPID-R Data Sharing Roadmap [ 3 ] highlights the key steps to address to enable global data sharing, and the meeting highlighted the need to share emerging barriers and potential solutions in its implementation.

Ethics and social science need to be core to broader epidemic pandemic and research response activities

Ethics should be at the heart of decision-making and an opportunity for researchers to ensure that the optimal value is being obtained from the research for all stakeholders involved, including communities and individuals. Solutions to improve acceptance and uptake of research by healthcare workers and participants are also crucial along with the need for greater inclusion and translation to the practice of qualitative and social sciences studies in epidemics.

These six preparedness recommendations have already been mirrored and in many cases directly informed practice during the COVID-19 research response (see Table  1 ).

There is potential for further leveraging and global coordination of both existing cohorts and clinical trial networks to improve research quality and outcomes during epidemics and pandemics.

Timely, effective epidemic research to improve health outcomes can only be achieved if multidisciplinary research structures, regulatory functions, funding, partnerships and trust are built and maintained sustainably during inter-epidemic periods. Building sustainable research capacity and capability globally needs to be central to research on the COVID-19 pandemic and for future epidemics and pandemics. Sustainable active studies and multidisciplinary networks, with pre-approved protocols positioned strategically globally, need to build upon this.

Conclusions

Lessons learned from the COVID-19 research response need to be incorporated into a multidisciplinary framework to facilitate rapid, coordinated research funding and support structures for researchers, to provide an even faster and coordinated research response, avoiding redundancy. New funder principles for research in epidemics provide the first step toward this [ 7 ].

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Matthiessen L, et al. Coordinating funding in public health emergencies. Lancet. 2016;(2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30604-3 .

Sigfrid L, et al. Addressing political, economic, administrative, regulatory, logistical, ethical, and social challenges to clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics: a systematic review. Lancet. 2019;394(2).

Norton A, Pardinaz-Solis R & Carson G. 2019. GloPID-R Roadmap for data sharing in public health emergencies. Available from: https://www.glopid-r.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/glopid-r-roadmap-for-data-sharing.pdf .

UKCDR and GloPID-R COVID-19 Research Project Tracker, 2020, https://www.ukcdr.org.uk/funding-landscape/covid-19-research-project-tracker/ .

Principles for data sharing in public health emergencies. GloPID-R data sharing working group. London: Figshare; 2017. Available from: doi: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4733590 [cited 2020 Jul 07].

A Coordinated Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus. Available at: https://www.glopid-r.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/who-2019-novel-coronavirus-global-research-roadmap.pdf .

Norton A, Mphahlele J, Yazdanpanah Y, Piot P, Bayona MT. Strengthening the global effort on COVID-19 research. The Lancet. 2020;396(10248):375.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Meeting participants:

Adeniyi Aderoba (University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; University of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital, Ondo State, Nigeria); John Amuasi (ALERRT, Kumasi, Ghana); Amrish Baidjoe (EAN, RECON, London, UK); Peter Bannister (Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK); Genevieve Boily-Larouche (CIHR, Ottawa, Canada); Elaine Boylan (MRC, London, UK); Serge Breysse (GloPID-R, Paris, France); David Carr (Wellcome Trust, London, UK); Gail Carson (GloPID-R, Oxford, UK); Amol Chaudhari (CEPI, London, UK); Guy Cochrane (EMBL-EBI, Hinxton, UK); Shelui Collinson (NHS, London, UK); Chioma Dan-Nwafor (Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), Abuja, Nigeria); Xavier De Lamballerie (UVE, Marseille, France); Evelyn Depoortere (European Commission); Lennie Derde (REMAP-CAP, Utrecht, Netherlands); Eric Dortenzio (REACTing, Paris, France); Tamara Giles Vernick (Institut Pasteur, Paris, France); Nina Gobat (PREPARE, ECRAID, Oxford, UK); Josie Golding (Wellcome Trust, London, UK); Herman Goossens (PREPARE, ECRAID, Brussels, Belgium); Jean Marie Habarugira (EDCTP, Hague, Netherlands); Ana Maria Henao Restrepo (WHO, Geneva, Switzerland); David Heymann (LSHTM, London, UK); Elisabeth Higgs (NIH, HHS, USG, Bethesda, USA); Bruno Hoen (Institut Pasteur, Paris, France); William Hsiao (BCCDC PHL, Vancouver, Canada); Thomas Jaenisch (ReCoDID, Heidelberg, Germany); Nina Jamieson (ISARIC, Oxford, UK); Marie Jaspard (ALIMA, Paris, France); Barbara Kerstiëns (European Commission); Trudie Lang (TGHN, Oxford, UK); Joanne Langley (Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada); James Lee (ISARIC, Oxford, UK); Katherine Littler (WHO, Geneva, Switzerland); Dermot Maher (TDR, Geneva, Switzerland); Denis Malvy (Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France); Gustavo Matta (FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); Romans Matulevics (ISARIC, Oxford, UK); Laura Merson (IDDO, Oxford, UK); Shoji Miyagawa (AMED, Tokyo, Japan); Naima Nasir (University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; APIN-Supported HIV Treatment Centre, Jos University Teaching Hospital, Jos, Nigeria); Robert Newton (ALPHA, LSHTM, Entebbe, Uganda); Alice Norton (GloPID-R, Oxford, UK); Piero Olliaro (ISARIC, Oxford, UK); Hitoshi Oshitani (Tohoko University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan); Barbara Rath (PEDSIDEA, Vienna Vaccine Safety Initiative, Berlin, Germany); David Robertson (University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK); Cathy Roth (DFID, London, UK); Kathy Rowan (REMAP-CAP, London, UK); Nahoko Shindo (WHO, Geneva, Switzerland); Louise Sigfrid (ERGO, Oxford, UK); Stefanie Sowinski (European Commission); David Vaughn (BMGF, Seattle, USA); Richard Wilder (CEPI, London, UK); Annelies Wilder Smith (LSHTM, London, UK); Jimmy Whitworth (LSHTM, London, UK); Katharine Wright (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, UK); Yazdan Yazdanpanah (GloPID-R, Paris, France); and Lay-Myint Yoshida (Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan).

The GloPID-R Secretariat is funded through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement 643434.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

GloPID-R Secretariat, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Alice Norton, Louise Sigfrid & Gail Carson

UK Collaborative on Development Research, London, UK

Alice Norton

Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Adeniyi Aderoba, Naima Nasir & James Lee

University of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital, Ondo, Ondo State, Nigeria

Adeniyi Aderoba

APIN-Supported HIV Treatment Centre, Jos University Teaching Hospital, Jos, Nigeria

Naima Nasir

Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK

Peter G. Bannister

Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Shelui Collinson

Institute of Infection and Immunity Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Government of Canada, Ottawa, Canada

Geneviève Boily-Larouche

Wellcome, London, UK

Josephine P. Golding

European Commissions’ Directorate-General for Research & Innovation, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

Evelyn Depoortere & Barbara Kerstiëns

INSERM, Paris, France

Yazdan Yazdanpanah

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice Norton .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Norton, A., Sigfrid, L., Aderoba, A. et al. Preparing for a pandemic: highlighting themes for research funding and practice—perspectives from the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R). BMC Med 18 , 273 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01755-y

Download citation

Received : 30 July 2020

Accepted : 19 August 2020

Published : 08 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01755-y

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Preparedness
• Clinical trials
• Collaboration

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

11 Questions to Ask About COVID-19 Research

Debates have raged on social media, around dinner tables, on TV, and in Congress about the science of COVID-19. Is it really worse than the flu? How necessary are lockdowns? Do masks work to prevent infection? What kinds of masks work best? Is the new vaccine safe?

You might see friends, relatives, and coworkers offer competing answers, often brandishing studies or citing individual doctors and scientists to support their positions. With so much disagreement—and with such high stakes—how can we use science to make the best decisions?

Here at Greater Good , we cover research into social and emotional well-being, and we try to help people apply findings to their personal and professional lives. We are well aware that our business is a tricky one.

Summarizing scientific studies and distilling the key insights that people can apply to their lives isn’t just difficult for the obvious reasons, like understanding and then explaining formal science terms or rigorous empirical and analytic methods to non-specialists. It’s also the case that context gets lost when we translate findings into stories, tips, and tools, especially when we push it all through the nuance-squashing machine of the Internet. Many people rarely read past the headlines, which intrinsically aim to be relatable and provoke interest in as many people as possible. Because our articles can never be as comprehensive as the original studies, they almost always omit some crucial caveats, such as limitations acknowledged by the researchers. To get those, you need access to the studies themselves.

And it’s very common for findings and scientists to seem to contradict each other. For example, there were many contradictory findings and recommendations about the use of masks, especially at the beginning of the pandemic—though as we’ll discuss, it’s important to understand that a scientific consensus did emerge.

Given the complexities and ambiguities of the scientific endeavor, is it possible for a non-scientist to strike a balance between wholesale dismissal and uncritical belief? Are there red flags to look for when you read about a study on a site like Greater Good or hear about one on a Fox News program? If you do read an original source study, how should you, as a non-scientist, gauge its credibility?

Here are 11 questions you might ask when you read about the latest scientific findings about the pandemic, based on our own work here at Greater Good.

1. Did the study appear in a peer-reviewed journal?

In peer review, submitted articles are sent to other experts for detailed critical input that often must be addressed in a revision prior to being accepted and published. This remains one of the best ways we have for ascertaining the rigor of the study and rationale for its conclusions. Many scientists describe peer review as a truly humbling crucible. If a study didn’t go through this process, for whatever reason, it should be taken with a much bigger grain of salt. 

“When thinking about the coronavirus studies, it is important to note that things were happening so fast that in the beginning people were releasing non-peer reviewed, observational studies,” says Dr. Leif Hass, a family medicine doctor and hospitalist at Sutter Health’s Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, California. “This is what we typically do as hypothesis-generating but given the crisis, we started acting on them.”

In a confusing, time-pressed, fluid situation like the one COVID-19 presented, people without medical training have often been forced to simply defer to expertise in making individual and collective decisions, turning to culturally vetted institutions like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Is that wise? Read on.

2. Who conducted the study, and where did it appear?

“I try to listen to the opinion of people who are deep in the field being addressed and assess their response to the study at hand,” says Hass. “With the MRNA coronavirus vaccines, I heard Paul Offit from UPenn at a UCSF Grand Rounds talk about it. He literally wrote the book on vaccines. He reviewed what we know and gave the vaccine a big thumbs up. I was sold.”

From a scientific perspective, individual expertise and accomplishment matters—but so does institutional affiliation.

Why? Because institutions provide a framework for individual accountability as well as safety guidelines. At UC Berkeley, for example , research involving human subjects during COVID-19 must submit a Human Subjects Proposal Supplement Form , and follow a standard protocol and rigorous guidelines . Is this process perfect? No. It’s run by humans and humans are imperfect. However, the conclusions are far more reliable than opinions offered by someone’s favorite YouTuber .

Recommendations coming from institutions like the CDC should not be accepted uncritically. At the same time, however, all of us—including individuals sporting a “Ph.D.” or “M.D.” after their names—must be humble in the face of them. The CDC represents a formidable concentration of scientific talent and knowledge that dwarfs the perspective of any one individual. In a crisis like COVID-19, we need to defer to that expertise, at least conditionally.

“If we look at social media, things could look frightening,” says Hass. When hundreds of millions of people are vaccinated, millions of them will be afflicted anyway, in the course of life, by conditions like strokes, anaphylaxis, and Bell’s palsy. “We have to have faith that people collecting the data will let us know if we are seeing those things above the baseline rate.”

3. Who was studied, and where?

Animal experiments tell scientists a lot, but their applicability to our daily human lives will be limited. Similarly, if researchers only studied men, the conclusions might not be relevant to women, and vice versa.

Many psychology studies rely on WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) participants, mainly college students, which creates an in-built bias in the discipline’s conclusions. Historically, biomedical studies also bias toward gathering measures from white male study participants, which again, limits generalizability of findings. Does that mean you should dismiss Western science? Of course not. It’s just the equivalent of a “Caution,” “Yield,” or “Roadwork Ahead” sign on the road to understanding.

This applies to the coronavirus vaccines now being distributed and administered around the world. The vaccines will have side effects; all medicines do. Those side effects will be worse for some people than others, depending on their genetic inheritance, medical status, age, upbringing, current living conditions, and other factors.

For Hass, it amounts to this question: Will those side effects be worse, on balance, than COVID-19, for most people?

“When I hear that four in 100,000 [of people in the vaccine trials] had Bell’s palsy, I know that it would have been a heck of a lot worse if 100,000 people had COVID. Three hundred people would have died and many others been stuck with chronic health problems.”

4. How big was the sample?

In general, the more participants in a study, the more valid its results. That said, a large sample is sometimes impossible or even undesirable for certain kinds of studies. During COVID-19, limited time has constrained the sample sizes.

However, that acknowledged, it’s still the case that some studies have been much larger than others—and the sample sizes of the vaccine trials can still provide us with enough information to make informed decisions. Doctors and nurses on the front lines of COVID-19—who are now the very first people being injected with the vaccine—think in terms of “biological plausibility,” as Hass says.

Did the admittedly rushed FDA approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine make sense, given what we already know? Tens of thousands of doctors who have been grappling with COVID-19 are voting with their arms, in effect volunteering to be a sample for their patients. If they didn’t think the vaccine was safe, you can bet they’d resist it. When the vaccine becomes available to ordinary people, we’ll know a lot more about its effects than we do today, thanks to health care providers paving the way.

5. Did the researchers control for key differences, and do those differences apply to you?

Diversity or gender balance aren’t necessarily virtues in experimental research, though ideally a study sample is as representative of the overall population as possible. However, many studies use intentionally homogenous groups, because this allows the researchers to limit the number of different factors that might affect the result.

While good researchers try to compare apples to apples, and control for as many differences as possible in their analyses, running a study always involves trade-offs between what can be accomplished as a function of study design, and how generalizable the findings can be.

The Science of Happiness

What does it take to live a happier life? Learn research-tested strategies that you can put into practice today. Hosted by award-winning psychologist Dacher Keltner. Co-produced by PRX and UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

You also need to ask if the specific population studied even applies to you. For example, when one study found that cloth masks didn’t work in “high-risk situations,” it was sometimes used as evidence against mask mandates.

However, a look beyond the headlines revealed that the study was of health care workers treating COVID-19 patients, which is a vastly more dangerous situation than, say, going to the grocery store. Doctors who must intubate patients can end up being splattered with saliva. In that circumstance, one cloth mask won’t cut it. They also need an N95, a face shield, two layers of gloves, and two layers of gown. For the rest of us in ordinary life, masks do greatly reduce community spread, if as many people as possible are wearing them.

6. Was there a control group?

One of the first things to look for in methodology is whether the population tested was randomly selected, whether there was a control group, and whether people were randomly assigned to either group without knowing which one they were in. This is especially important if a study aims to suggest that a certain experience or treatment might actually cause a specific outcome, rather than just reporting a correlation between two variables (see next point).

For example, were some people randomly assigned a specific meditation practice while others engaged in a comparable activity or exercise? If the sample is large enough, randomized trials can produce solid conclusions. But, sometimes, a study will not have a control group because it’s ethically impossible. We can’t, for example, let sick people go untreated just to see what would happen. Biomedical research often makes use of standard “treatment as usual” or placebos in control groups. They also follow careful ethical guidelines to protect patients from both maltreatment and being deprived necessary treatment. When you’re reading about studies of masks, social distancing, and treatments during the COVID-19, you can partially gauge the reliability and validity of the study by first checking if it had a control group. If it didn’t, the findings should be taken as preliminary.

7. Did the researchers establish causality, correlation, dependence, or some other kind of relationship?

We often hear “Correlation is not causation” shouted as a kind of battle cry, to try to discredit a study. But correlation—the degree to which two or more measurements seem connected—is important, and can be a step toward eventually finding causation—that is, establishing a change in one variable directly triggers a change in another. Until then, however, there is no way to ascertain the direction of a correlational relationship (does A change B, or does B change A), or to eliminate the possibility that a third, unmeasured factor is behind the pattern of both variables without further analysis.

In the end, the important thing is to accurately identify the relationship. This has been crucial in understanding steps to counter the spread of COVID-19 like shelter-in-place orders. Just showing that greater compliance with shelter-in-place mandates was associated with lower hospitalization rates is not as conclusive as showing that one community that enacted shelter-in-place mandates had lower hospitalization rates than a different community of similar size and population density that elected not to do so.

We are not the first people to face an infection without understanding the relationships between factors that would lead to more of it. During the bubonic plague, cities would order rodents killed to control infection. They were onto something: Fleas that lived on rodents were indeed responsible. But then human cases would skyrocket.

Why? Because the fleas would migrate off the rodent corpses onto humans, which would worsen infection. Rodent control only reduces bubonic plague if it’s done proactively; once the outbreak starts, killing rats can actually make it worse. Similarly, we can’t jump to conclusions during the COVID-19 pandemic when we see correlations.

8. Are journalists and politicians, or even scientists, overstating the result?

Language that suggests a fact is “proven” by one study or which promotes one solution for all people is most likely overstating the case. Sweeping generalizations of any kind often indicate a lack of humility that should be a red flag to readers. A study may very well “suggest” a certain conclusion but it rarely, if ever, “proves” it.

This is why we use a lot of cautious, hedging language in Greater Good , like “might” or “implies.” This applies to COVID-19 as well. In fact, this understanding could save your life.

When President Trump touted the advantages of hydroxychloroquine as a way to prevent and treat COVID-19, he was dramatically overstating the results of one observational study. Later studies with control groups showed that it did not work—and, in fact, it didn’t work as a preventative for President Trump and others in the White House who contracted COVID-19. Most survived that outbreak, but hydroxychloroquine was not one of the treatments that saved their lives. This example demonstrates how misleading and even harmful overstated results can be, in a global pandemic.

9. Is there any conflict of interest suggested by the funding or the researchers’ affiliations?

A 2015 study found that you could drink lots of sugary beverages without fear of getting fat, as long as you exercised. The funder? Coca Cola, which eagerly promoted the results. This doesn’t mean the results are wrong. But it does suggest you should seek a second opinion : Has anyone else studied the effects of sugary drinks on obesity? What did they find?

It’s possible to take this insight too far. Conspiracy theorists have suggested that “Big Pharma” invented COVID-19 for the purpose of selling vaccines. Thus, we should not trust their own trials showing that the vaccine is safe and effective.

But, in addition to the fact that there is no compelling investigative evidence that pharmaceutical companies created the virus, we need to bear in mind that their trials didn’t unfold in a vacuum. Clinical trials were rigorously monitored and independently reviewed by third-party entities like the World Health Organization and government organizations around the world, like the FDA in the United States.

Does that completely eliminate any risk? Absolutely not. It does mean, however, that conflicts of interest are being very closely monitored by many, many expert eyes. This greatly reduces the probability and potential corruptive influence of conflicts of interest.

10. Do the authors reference preceding findings and original sources?

The scientific method is based on iterative progress, and grounded in coordinating discoveries over time. Researchers study what others have done and use prior findings to guide their own study approaches; every study builds on generations of precedent, and every scientist expects their own discoveries to be usurped by more sophisticated future work. In the study you are reading, do the researchers adequately describe and acknowledge earlier findings, or other key contributions from other fields or disciplines that inform aspects of the research, or the way that they interpret their results?

Greater Good’s Guide to Well-Being During Coronavirus

Practices, resources, and articles for individuals, parents, and educators facing COVID-19

This was crucial for the debates that have raged around mask mandates and social distancing. We already knew quite a bit about the efficacy of both in preventing infections, informed by centuries of practical experience and research.

When COVID-19 hit American shores, researchers and doctors did not question the necessity of masks in clinical settings. Here’s what we didn’t know: What kinds of masks would work best for the general public, who should wear them, when should we wear them, were there enough masks to go around, and could we get enough people to adopt best mask practices to make a difference in the specific context of COVID-19 ?

Over time, after a period of confusion and contradictory evidence, those questions have been answered . The very few studies that have suggested masks don’t work in stopping COVID-19 have almost all failed to account for other work on preventing the disease, and had results that simply didn’t hold up. Some were even retracted .

So, when someone shares a coronavirus study with you, it’s important to check the date. The implications of studies published early in the pandemic might be more limited and less conclusive than those published later, because the later studies could lean on and learn from previously published work. Which leads us to the next question you should ask in hearing about coronavirus research…

11. Do researchers, journalists, and politicians acknowledge limitations and entertain alternative explanations?

Is the study focused on only one side of the story or one interpretation of the data? Has it failed to consider or refute alternative explanations? Do they demonstrate awareness of which questions are answered and which aren’t by their methods? Do the journalists and politicians communicating the study know and understand these limitations?

When the Annals of Internal Medicine published a Danish study last month on the efficacy of cloth masks, some suggested that it showed masks “make no difference” against COVID-19.

The study was a good one by the standards spelled out in this article. The researchers and the journal were both credible, the study was randomized and controlled, and the sample size (4,862 people) was fairly large. Even better, the scientists went out of their way to acknowledge the limits of their work: “Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.”

Unfortunately, their scientific integrity was not reflected in the ways the study was used by some journalists, politicians, and people on social media. The study did not show that masks were useless. What it did show—and what it was designed to find out—was how much protection masks offered to the wearer under the conditions at the time in Denmark. In fact, the amount of protection for the wearer was not large, but that’s not the whole picture: We don’t wear masks mainly to protect ourselves, but to protect others from infection. Public-health recommendations have stressed that everyone needs to wear a mask to slow the spread of infection.

“We get vaccinated for the greater good, not just to protect ourselves ”

As the authors write in the paper, we need to look to other research to understand the context for their narrow results. In an editorial accompanying the paper in Annals of Internal Medicine , the editors argue that the results, together with existing data in support of masks, “should motivate widespread mask wearing to protect our communities and thereby ourselves.”

Something similar can be said of the new vaccine. “We get vaccinated for the greater good, not just to protect ourselves,” says Hass. “Being vaccinated prevents other people from getting sick. We get vaccinated for the more vulnerable in our community in addition for ourselves.”

Ultimately, the approach we should take to all new studies is a curious but skeptical one. We should take it all seriously and we should take it all with a grain of salt. You can judge a study against your experience, but you need to remember that your experience creates bias. You should try to cultivate humility, doubt, and patience. You might not always succeed; when you fail, try to admit fault and forgive yourself.

Above all, we need to try to remember that science is a process, and that conclusions always raise more questions for us to answer. That doesn’t mean we never have answers; we do. As the pandemic rages and the scientific process unfolds, we as individuals need to make the best decisions we can, with the information we have.

This article was revised and updated from a piece published by Greater Good in 2015, “ 10 Questions to Ask About Scientific Studies .”

About the Authors

Jeremy Adam Smith

Uc berkeley.

Jeremy Adam Smith edits the GGSC’s online magazine, Greater Good . He is also the author or coeditor of five books, including The Daddy Shift , Are We Born Racist? , and (most recently) The Gratitude Project: How the Science of Thankfulness Can Rewire Our Brains for Resilience, Optimism, and the Greater Good . Before joining the GGSC, Jeremy was a John S. Knight Journalism Fellow at Stanford University.

Emiliana R. Simon-Thomas

Emiliana R. Simon-Thomas, Ph.D. , is the science director of the Greater Good Science Center, where she directs the GGSC’s research fellowship program and serves as a co-instructor of its Science of Happiness and Science of Happiness at Work online courses.

You May Also Enjoy

How Does COVID-19 Affect Trust in Government?

How to Form a Pandemic Pod

Why Is COVID-19 Killing So Many Black Americans?

In a Pandemic, Elbow Touches Might Keep Us Going

How to Keep the Greater Good in Mind During the Coronavirus Outbreak

Why Your Sacrifices Matter During the Pandemic

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific research in the life sciences

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

Affiliation AXES, IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Lucca, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Chair of Systems Design D-MTEC, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

• Massimo Riccaboni, 
• Luca Verginer

• Published: February 9, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001
• Reader Comments

The COVID-19 outbreak has posed an unprecedented challenge to humanity and science. On the one side, public and private incentives have been put in place to promptly allocate resources toward research areas strictly related to the COVID-19 emergency. However, research in many fields not directly related to the pandemic has been displaced. In this paper, we assess the impact of COVID-19 on world scientific production in the life sciences and find indications that the usage of medical subject headings (MeSH) has changed following the outbreak. We estimate through a difference-in-differences approach the impact of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific production using the PubMed database (3.6 Million research papers). We find that COVID-19-related MeSH terms have experienced a 6.5 fold increase in output on average, while publications on unrelated MeSH terms dropped by 10 to 12%. The publication weighted impact has an even more pronounced negative effect (-16% to -19%). Moreover, COVID-19 has displaced clinical trial publications (-24%) and diverted grants from research areas not closely related to COVID-19. Note that since COVID-19 publications may have been fast-tracked, the sudden surge in COVID-19 publications might be driven by editorial policy.

Citation: Riccaboni M, Verginer L (2022) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific research in the life sciences. PLoS ONE 17(2): e0263001. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001

Editor: Florian Naudet, University of Rennes 1, FRANCE

Received: April 28, 2021; Accepted: January 10, 2022; Published: February 9, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Riccaboni, Verginer. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The processed data, instructions on how to process the raw PubMed dataset as well as all code are available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5121216 .

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

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

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has mobilized the world scientific community in 2020, especially in the life sciences [ 1 , 2 ]. In the first three months after the pandemic, the number of scientific papers about COVID-19 was fivefold the number of articles on H1N1 swine influenza [ 3 ]. Similarly, the number of clinical trials related to COVID-19 prophylaxis and treatments skyrocketed [ 4 ]. Thanks to the rapid mobilization of the world scientific community, COVID-19 vaccines have been developed in record time. Despite this undeniable success, there is a rising concern about the negative consequences of COVID-19 on clinical trial research, with many projects being postponed [ 5 – 7 ]. According to Evaluate Pharma, clinical trials were one of the pandemic’s first casualties, with a record number of 160 studies suspended for reasons related to COVID-19 in April 2020 [ 8 , 9 ] reporting a total of 1,200 trials suspended as of July 2020. As a consequence, clinical researchers have been impaired by reduced access to healthcare research infrastructures. Particularly, the COVID-19 outbreak took a tall on women and early-career scientists [ 10 – 13 ]. On a different ground, Shan and colleagues found that non-COVID-19-related articles decreased as COVID-19-related articles increased in top clinical research journals [ 14 ]. Fraser and coworker found that COVID-19 preprints received more attention and citations than non-COVID-19 preprints [ 1 ]. More recently, Hook and Porter have found some early evidence of ‘covidisation’ of academic research, with research grants and output diverted to COVID-19 research in 2020 [ 15 ]. How much should scientists switch their efforts toward SARS-CoV-2 prevention, treatment, or mitigation? There is a growing consensus that the current level of ‘covidisation’ of research can be wasteful [ 4 , 5 , 16 ].

Against this background, in this paper, we investigate if the COVID-19 pandemic has induced a shift in biomedical publications toward COVID-19-related scientific production. The objective of the study is to show that scientific articles listing covid-related Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) when compared against covid-unrelated MeSH have been partially displaced. Specifically, we look at several indicators of scientific production in the life sciences before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) number of papers published, (2) impact factor weighted number of papers, (3) opens access, (4) number of publications related to clinical trials, (5) number of papers listing grants, (6) number of papers listing grants existing before the pandemic. Through a natural experiment approach, we analyze the impact of the pandemic on scientific production in the life sciences. We consider COVID-19 an unexpected and unprecedented exogenous source of variation with heterogeneous effects across biomedical research fields (i.e., MeSH terms).

Based on the difference in difference results, we document the displacement effect that the pandemic has had on several aspects of scientific publishing. The overall picture that emerges from this analysis is that there has been a profound realignment of priorities and research efforts. This shift has displaced biomedical research in fields not related to COVID-19.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. First, we describe the data and our measure of relatedness to COVID-19. Next, we illustrate the difference-in-differences specification we rely on to identify the impact of the pandemic on scientific output. In the results section, we present the results of the difference-in-differences and network analyses. We document the sudden shift in publications, grants and trials towards COVID-19-related MeSH terms. Finally, we discuss the findings and highlight several policy implications.

Materials and methods

The present analysis is based primarily on PubMed and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terminology. This data is used to estimate the effect of the start of the COVID 19 pandemic via a difference in difference approach. This section is structured as follows. We first introduce the data and then the econometric methodology. This analysis is not based on a pre-registered protocol.

Selection of biomedical publications.

We rely on PubMed, a repository with more than 34 million biomedical citations, for the analysis. Specifically, we analyze the daily updated files up to 31/06/2021, extracting all publications of type ‘Journal Article’. For the principal analysis, we consider 3,638,584 papers published from January 2019 to December 2020. We also analyze 11,122,017 papers published from 2010 onwards to identify the earliest usage of a grant and infer if it was new in 2020. We use the SCImago journal ranking statistics to compute the impact factor weighted number (IFWN) of papers in a given field of research. To assign the publication date, we use the ‘electronically published’ dates and, if missing, the ‘print published’ dates.

Medical subject headings.

We rely on the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terminology to approximate narrowly defined biomedical research fields. This terminology is a curated medical vocabulary, which is manually added to papers in the PubMed corpus. The fact that MeSH terms are manually annotated makes this terminology ideal for classification purposes. However, there is a delay between publication and annotation, on the order of several months. To address this delay and have the most recent classification, we search for all 28 425 MeSH terms using PubMed’s ESearch utility and classify paper by the results. The specific API endpoint is https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esearch.fcgi , the relevant scripts are available with the code. For example, we assign the term ‘Ageusia’ (MeSH ID D000370) to all papers listed in the results of the ESearch API. We apply this method to the whole period (January 2019—December 2020) and obtain a mapping from papers to the MeSH terms. For every MeSH term, we keep track of the year they have been established. For instance, COVID-19 terms were established in 2020 (see Table 1 ): in January 2020, the WHO recommended 2019-nCoV and 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease as provisional names for the virus and disease. The WHO issued the official terms COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 at the beginning of February 2020. By manually annotating publications, all publications referring to COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 since January 2020 have been labelled with the related MeSH terms. Other MeSH terms related to COVID-19, such as coronavirus, for instance, have been established years before the pandemic (see Table 2 ). We proxy MeSH term usage via search terms using the PubMed EUtilities API; this means that we are not using the hand-labelled MeSH terms but rather the PubMed search results. This means that the accuracy of the MeSH term we assign to a given paper is not perfect. In practice, this means that we have assigned more MeSH terms to a given term than a human annotator would have.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.t001

The list contains only terms with at least 100 publications in 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.t002

Clinical trials and publication types.

We classify publications using PubMed’s ‘PublicationType’ field in the XML baseline files (There are 187 publication types, see https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/pubtypes.html ). We consider a publication to be related to a clinical trial if it lists any of the following descriptors:

• D016430: Clinical Trial
• D017426: Clinical Trial, Phase I
• D017427: Clinical Trial, Phase II
• D017428: Clinical Trial, Phase III
• D017429: Clinical Trial, Phase IV
• D018848: Controlled Clinical Trial
• D065007: Pragmatic Clinical Trial
• D000076362: Adaptive Clinical Trial
• D000077522: Clinical Trial, Veterinary

In our analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on publications related to clinical trials, we only consider MeSH terms that are associated at least once with a clinical trial publication over the two years. We apply this restriction to filter out MeSH terms that are very unlikely to be relevant for clinical trial types of research.

Open access.

We proxy the availability of a journal article to the public, i.e., open access, if it is available from PubMed Central. PubMed Central archives full-text journal articles and provides free access to the public. Note that the copyright license may vary across participating publishers. However, the text of the paper is for all effects and purposes freely available without requiring subscriptions or special affiliation.

We infer if a publication has been funded by checking if it lists any grants. We classify grants as either ‘old’, i.e. existed before 2019, or ‘new’, i.e. first observed afterwards. To do so, we collect all grant IDs for 11,122,017 papers from 2010 on-wards and record their first appearance. This procedure is an indirect inference of the year the grant has been granted. The basic assumption is that if a grant number has not been listed in any publication since 2010, it is very likely a new grant. Specifically, an old grant is a grant listed since 2019 observed at least once from 2010 to 2018.

Note that this procedure is only approximate and has a few shortcomings. Mistyped grant numbers (e.g. ‘1234-M JPN’ and ‘1234-M-JPN’) could appear as new grants, even though they existed before, or new grants might be classified as old grants if they have a common ID (e.g. ‘Grant 1’). Unfortunately, there is no central repository of grant numbers and the associated metadata; however, there are plans to assign DOI numbers to grants to alleviate this problem (See https://gitlab.com/crossref/open_funder_registry for the project).

Impact factor weighted publication numbers (IFWN).

In our analysis, we consider two measures of scientific output. First, we simply count the number of publications by MeSH term. However, since journals vary considerably in terms of impact factor, we also weigh the number of publications by the impact factor of the venue (e.g., journal) where it was published. Specifically, we use the SCImago journal ranking statistics to weigh a paper by the impact factor of the journal it appears in. We use the ‘citation per document in the past two years’ for 45,230 ISSNs. Note that a journal may and often has more than one ISSN, i.e., one for the printed edition and one for the online edition. SCImago applies the same score for a venue across linked ISSNs.

For the impact factor weighted number (IFWN) of publication per MeSH terms, this means that all publications are replaced by the impact score of the journal they appear in and summed up.

COVID-19-relatedness.

To measure how closely related to COVID-19 is a MeSH term, we introduce an index of relatedness to COVID-19. First, we identify the focal COVID-19 terms, which appeared in the literature in 2020 (see Table 1 ). Next, for all other pre-existing MeSH terms, we measure how closely related to COVID-19 they end up being.

Our aim is to show that MeSH terms that existed before and are related have experienced a sudden increase in the number of (impact factor weighted) papers.

Intuitively we can read this measure as: what is the probability in 2020 that a COVID-19 MeSH term is present given that we chose a paper with MeSH term i ? For example, given that in 2020 we choose a paper dealing with “Ageusia” (i.e., Complete or severe loss of the subjective sense of taste), there is a 96% probability that this paper also lists COVID-19, see Table 1 .

Note that a paper listing a related MeSH term does not imply that that paper is doing COVID-19 research, but it implies that one of the MeSH terms listed is often used in COVID-19 research.

In sum, in our analysis, we use the following variables:

• Papers: Number of papers by MeSH term;
• Impact: Impact factor weighted number of papers by MeSH term;
• PMC: Papers listed in PubMed central by MeSH term, as a measure of Open Access publications;
• Trials: number of publications of type “Clinical Trial” by MeSH term;
• Grants: number of papers with at least one grant by MeSH term;
• Old Grants: number of papers listing a grant that has been observed between 2010 and 2018, by MeSH term;

Difference-in-differences

The difference-in-differences (DiD) method is an econometric technique to imitate an experimental research design from observation data, sometimes referred to as a quasi-experimental setup. In a randomized controlled trial, subjects are randomly assigned either to the treated or the control group. Analogously, in this natural experiment, we assume that medical subject headings (MeSH) have been randomly assigned to be either treated (related) or not treated (unrelated) by the pandemic crisis.

Before the COVID, for a future health crisis, the set of potentially impacted medical knowledge was not predictable since it depended on the specifics of the emergency. For instance, ageusia (loss of taste), a medical concept existing since 1991, became known to be a specific symptom of COVID-19 only after the pandemic.

Specifically, we exploit the COVID-19 as an unpredictable and exogenous shock that has deeply affected the publication priorities for biomedical scientific production, as compared to the situation before the pandemic. In this setting, COVID-19 is the treatment, and the identification of this new human coronavirus is the event. We claim that treated MeSH terms, i.e., MeSH terms related to COVID-19, have experienced a sudden increase in terms of scientific production and attention. In contrast, research on untreated MeSH terms, i.e., MeSH terms not related to COVID-19, has been displaced by COVID-19. Our analysis compares the scientific output of COVID-19 related and unrelated MeSH terms before and after January 2020.

In our case, some of the terms turn out to be related to COVID-19 in 2020, whereas most of the MeSH terms are not closely related to COVID-19.

Thus β 1 identifies the overall effect on the control group after the event, β 2 the difference across treated and control groups before the event (i.e. the first difference in DiD) and finally the effect on the treated group after the event, net of the first difference, β 3 . This last parameter identifies the treatment effect on the treated group netting out the pre-treatment difference.

For the DiD to have a causal interpretation, it must be noted that pre-event, the trends of the two groups should be parallel, i.e., the common trend assumption (CTA) must be satisfied. We will show that the CTA holds in the results section.

To specify the DiD model, we need to define a period before and after the event and assign a treatment status or level of exposure to each term.

Before and after.

The pre-treatment period is defined as January 2019 to December 2019. The post-treatment period is defined as the months from January 2020 to December 2020. We argue that the state of biomedical research was similar in those two years, apart from the effect of the pandemic.

Treatment status and exposure.

The treatment is determined by the COVID-19 relatedness index σ i introduced earlier. Specifically, this number indicates the likelihood that COVID-19 will be a listed MeSH term, given that we observe the focal MeSH term i . To show that the effect becomes even stronger the closer related the subject is, and for ease of interpretation, we also discretize the relatedness value into three levels of treatment. Namely, we group MeSH terms with a σ between, 0% to 20%, 20% to 80% and 80% to 100%. The choice of alternative grouping strategies does not significantly affect our results. Results for alternative thresholds of relatedness can be computed using the available source code. We complement the dichotomized analysis by using the treatment intensity (relatedness measure σ ) to show that the result persists.

Panel regression.

In this work, we estimate a random effects panel regression where the units of analysis are 28 318 biomedical research fields (i.e. MeSH terms) observed over time before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The time resolution is at the monthly level, meaning that for each MeSH term, we have 24 observations from January 2019 to December 2020.

The outcome variable Y it identifies the outcome at time t (i.e., month), for MeSH term i . As before, P t identifies the period with P t = 0 if the month is before January 2020 and P t = 1 if it is on or after this date. In (3) , the treatment level is measure by the relatedness to COVID-19 ( σ i ), where again the γ 1 identifies pre-trend (constant) differences and δ 1 the overall effect.

In total, we estimate six coefficients. As before, the δ l coefficient identifies the DiD effect.

Verifying the Common Trend Assumption (CTA).

We show that the CTA holds for this model by comparing the pre-event trends of the control group to the treated groups (COVID-19 related MeSH terms). Namely, we show that the pre-event trends of the control group are the same as the pre-event trends of the treated group.

Co-occurrence analysis

To investigate if the pandemic has caused a reconfiguration of research priorities, we look at the MeSH term co-occurrence network. Precisely, we extract the co-occurrence network of all 28,318 MeSH terms as they appear in the 3.3 million papers. We considered the co-occurrence networks of 2018, 2019 and 2020. Each node represents a MeSH term in these networks, and a link between them indicates that they have been observed at least once together. The weight of the edge between the MeSH terms is given by the number of times those terms have been jointly observed in the same publications.

Medical language is hugely complicated, and this simple representation does not capture the intricacies, subtle nuances and, in fact, meaning of the terms. Therefore, we do not claim that we can identify how the actual usage of MeSH terms has changed from this object, but rather that it has. Nevertheless, the co-occurrence graph captures rudimentary relations between concepts. We argue that absent a shock to the system, their basic usage patterns, change in importance (within the network) would essentially be the same from year to year. However, if we find that the importance of terms changes more than expected in 2020, it stands to reason that there have been some significant changes.

To show that that MeSH usage has been affected, we compute for each term in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 their PageRank centrality [ 17 ]. The PageRank centrality tells us how likely a random walker traversing a network would be found at a given node if she follows the weights of the empirical edges (i.e., co-usage probability). Specifically, for the case of the MeSH co-occurrence network, this number represents how often an annotator at the National Library of Medicine would assign that MeSH term following the observed general usage patterns. It is a simplistic measure to capture the complexities of biomedical research. Nevertheless, it captures far-reaching interdependence across MeSH terms as the measure uses the whole network to determine the centrality of every MeSH term. A sudden change in the rankings and thus the position of MeSH terms in this network suggests that a given research subject has risen as it is used more often with other important MeSH terms (or vice versa).

We then compare the growth for each MeSH i term in g i (2019), i.e. before the the COVID-19 pandemic, with the growth after the event ( g i (2020)).

Publication growth

Changes in output and COVID-19 relatedness

Before we show the regression results, we provide descriptive evidence that publications from 2019 to 2020 have drastically increased. By showing that this growth correlates strongly with a MeSH term’s COVID-19 relatedness ( σ ), we demonstrate that (1) σ captures an essential aspect of the growth dynamics and (2) highlight the meteoric rise of highly related terms.

We look at the year over year growth in the number of the impact weighted number of publications per MeSH term from 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 as defined in the methods section.

Fig 1 shows the yearly growth of the impact weighted number of publications per MeSH term. By comparing the growth of the number of publications from the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, we find that the impact factor weighted number of publications has increased by up to a factor of 100 compared to the previous year for Betacoronavirus, one of the most closely related to COVID-19 MeSH term.

Each dot represents, a MeSH term. The y axis (growth) is in symmetric log scale. The x axis shows the COVID-19 relatedness, σ . Note that the position of the dots on the x-axis is the same in the two plots. Below: MeSH term importance gain (PageRank) and their COVID-19 relatedness.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.g001

Fig 1 , first row, reveals how strongly correlated the growth in the IFWN of publication is to the term’s COVID-19 relatedness. For instance, we see that the term ‘Betacoronavirus’ skyrocketed from 2019 to 2020, which is expected given that SARS-CoV-2 is a species of the genus. Conversely, the term ‘Alphacoronavirus’ has not experienced any growth given that it is twin a genus of the Coronaviridae family, but SARS-CoV-2 is not one of its species. Note also the fast growth in the number of publications dealing with ‘Quarantine’. Moreover, MeSH terms that grew significantly from 2018 to 2019 and were not closely related to COVID-19, like ‘Vaping’, slowed down in 2020. From the graph, the picture emerges that publication growth is correlated with COVID-19 relatedness σ and that the growth for less related terms slowed down.

To show that the usage pattern of MeSH terms has changed following the pandemic, we compute the PageRank centrality using graph-tool [ 18 ] as discussed in the Methods section.

Fig 1 , second row, shows the change in the PageRank centrality of the MeSH terms after the pandemic (2019 to 2020, right plot) and before (2018 to 2019, left plot). If there were no change in the general usage pattern, we would expect the variance in PageRank changes to be narrow across the two periods, see (left plot). However, PageRank scores changed significantly more from 2019 to 2020 than from 2018 to 2019, suggesting that there has been a reconfiguration of the network.

To further support this argument, we carry out a DiD regression analysis.

Common trends assumption

As discussed in the Methods section, we need to show that the CTA assumption holds for the DiD to be defined appropriately. We do this by estimating for each month the number of publications and comparing it across treatment groups. This exercise also serves the purpose of a placebo test. By assuming that each month could have potentially been the event’s timing (i.e., the outbreak), we show that January 2020 is the most likely timing of the event. The regression table, as noted earlier, contains over 70 estimated coefficients, hence for ease of reading, we will only show the predicted outcome per month by group (see Fig 2 ). The full regression table with all coefficients is available in the S1 Table .

The y axis is in log scale. The dashed vertical line identifies January 2020. The dashed horizontal line shows the publications in January 2019 for the 0–20% group before the event. This line highlights that the drop happens after the event. The bands around the lines indicate the 95% confidence interval of the predicted values. The results are the output of the Stata margins command.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.g002

Fig 2 shows the predicted number per outcome variable obtained from the panel regression model. These predictions correspond to the predicted value per relatedness group using the regression parameters estimated via the linear panel regression. The bands around the curves are the 95% confidence intervals.

All outcome measures depict a similar trend per month. Before the event (i.e., January 2020), there is a common trend across all groups. In contrast, after the event, we observe a sudden rise for the outcomes of the COVID-19 related treated groups (green and red lines) and a decline in the outcomes for the unrelated group (blue line). Therefore, we can conclude that the CTA assumption holds.

Regression results

Table 3 shows the DiD regression results (see Eq (3) ) for the selected outcome measures: number of publications (Papers), impact factor weighted number of publications (Impact), open access (OA) publications, clinical trial related publications, and publications with existing grants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.t003

Table 3 shows results for the discrete treatment level version of the DiD model (see Eq (4) ).

Note that the outcome variable is in natural log scale; hence to get the effect of the independent variable, we need to exponentiate the coefficient. For values close to 0, the effect is well approximated by the percentage change of that magnitude.

In both specifications we see that the least related group, drops in the number of publications between 10% and 13%, respectively (first row of Tables 3 and 4 , exp(−0.102) ≈ 0.87). In line with our expectations, the increase in the number of papers published by MeSH term is positively affected by the relatedness to COVID-19. In the discrete model (row 2), we note that the number of documents with MeSH terms with a COVID-19 relatedness between 20 and 80% grows by 18% and highly related terms by a factor of approximately 6.6 (exp(1.88)). The same general pattern can be observed for the impact weighted publication number, i.e., Model (2). Note, however, that the drop in the impact factor weighted output is more significant, reaching -19% for COVID-19 unrelated publications, and related publications growing by a factor of 8.7. This difference suggests that there might be a bias to publish papers on COVID-19 related subjects in high impact factor journals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.t004

By looking at the number of open access publications (PMC), we note that the least related group has not been affected negatively by the pandemic. However, the number of COVID-19 related publications has drastically increased for the most COVID-19 related group by a factor of 6.2. Note that the substantial increase in the number of papers available through open access is in large part due to journal and editorial policies to make preferentially COVID research immediately available to the public.

Regarding the number of clinical trial publications, we note that the least related group has been affected negatively, with the number of publications on clinical trials dropping by a staggering 24%. At the same time, publications on clinical trials for COVID-19-related MeSH have increased by a factor of 2.1. Note, however, that the effect on clinical trials is not significant in the continuous regression. The discrepancy across Tables 3 and 4 highlights that, especially for trials, the effect is not linear, where only the publications on clinical trials closely related to COVID-19 experiencing a boost.

It has been reported [ 19 ] that while the number of clinical trials registered to treat or prevent COVID-19 has surged with 179 new registrations in the second week of April 2020 alone. Only a few of these have led to publishable results in the 12 months since [ 20 ]. On the other hand, we find that clinical trial publications, considering related MeSH (but not COVID-19 directly), have had significant growth from the beginning of the pandemic. These results are not contradictory. Indeed counting the number of clinical trial publications listing the exact COVID-19 MeSH term (D000086382), we find 212 publications. While this might seem like a small number, consider that in 2020 only 8,485 publications were classified as clinical trials; thus, targeted trials still made up 2.5% of all clinical trials in 2020 . So while one might doubt the effectiveness of these research efforts, it is still the case that by sheer number, they represent a significant proportion of all publications on clinical trials in 2020. Moreover, COVID-19 specific Clinical trial publications in 2020, being a delayed signal of the actual trials, are a lower bound estimate on the true number of such clinical trials being conducted. This is because COVID-19 studies could only have commenced in 2020, whereas other studies had a head start. Thus our reported estimates are conservative, meaning that the true effect on actual clinical trials is likely larger, not smaller.

Research funding, as proxied by the number of publications with grants, follows a similar pattern, but notably, COVID-19-related MeSH terms list the same proportion of grants established before 2019 as other unrelated MeSH terms, suggesting that grants which were not designated for COVID-19 research have been used to support COVID-19 related research. Overall, the number of publications listing a grant has dropped. Note that this should be because the number of publications overall in the unrelated group has dropped. However, we note that the drop in publications is 10% while the decline in publications with at least one grant is 15%. This difference suggests that publications listing grants, which should have more funding, are disproportionately COVID-19 related papers. To further investigate this aspect, we look at whether the grant was old (pre-2019) or appeared for the first time in or after 2019. It stands to reason that an old grant (pre-2019) would not have been granted for a project dealing with the pandemic. Hence we would expect that COVID-19 related MeSH terms to have a lower proportion of old grants than the unrelated group. In models (6) in Table 4 we show that the number of old grants for the unrelated group drops by 13%. At the same time, the number of papers listing old grants (i.e., pre-2019) among the most related group increased by a factor of 3.1. Overall, these results suggest that COVID-19 related research has been funded largely by pre-existing grants, even though a specific mandate tied to the grants for this use is unlikely.

The scientific community has swiftly reallocated research efforts to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, mobilizing knowledge across disciplines to find innovative solutions in record time. We document this both in terms of changing trends in the biomedical scientific output and the usage of MeSH terms by the scientific community. The flip side of this sudden and energetic prioritization of effort to fight COVID-19 has been a sudden contraction of scientific production in other relevant research areas. All in all, we find strong support to the hypotheses that the COVID-19 crisis has induced a sudden increase of research output in COVID-19 related areas of biomedical research. Conversely, research in areas not related to COVID-19 has experienced a significant drop in overall publishing rates and funding.

Our paper contributes to the literature on the impact of COVID-19 on scientific research: we corroborate previous findings about the surge of COVID-19 related publications [ 1 – 3 ], partially displacing research in COVID-19 unrelated fields of research [ 4 , 14 ], particularly research related to clinical trials [ 5 – 7 ]. The drop in trial research might have severe consequences for patients affected by life-threatening diseases since it will delay access to new and better treatments. We also confirm the impact of COVID-19 on open access publication output [ 1 ]; also, this is milder than traditional outlets. On top of this, we provide more robust evidence on the impact weighted effect of COVID-19 and grant financed research, highlighting the strong displacement effect of COVID-19 on the allocation of financial resources [ 15 ]. We document a substantial change in the usage patterns of MeSH terms, suggesting that there has been a reconfiguration in the way research terms are being combined. MeSH terms highly related to COVID-19 were peripheral in the MeSH usage networks before the pandemic but have become central since 2020. We conclude that the usage patterns have changed, with COVID-19 related MeSH terms occupying a much more prominent role in 2020 than they did in the previous years.

We also contribute to the literature by estimating the effect of COVID-19 on biomedical research in a natural experiment framework, isolating the specific effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the biomedical scientific landscape. This is crucial to identify areas of public intervention to sustain areas of biomedical research which have been neglected during the COVID-19 crisis. Moreover, the exploratory analysis on the changes in usage patterns of MeSH terms, points to an increase in the importance of covid-related topics in the broader biomedical research landscape.

Our results provide compelling evidence that research related to COVID-19 has indeed displaced scientific production in other biomedical fields of research not related to COVID-19, with a significant drop in (impact weighted) scientific output related to non-COVID-19 and a marked reduction of financial support for publications not related to COVID-19 [ 4 , 5 , 16 ]. The displacement effect is persistent to the end of 2020. As vaccination progresses, we highlight the urgent need for science policy to re-balance support for research activity that was put on pause because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We find that COVID-19 dramatically impacted clinical research. Reactivation of clinical trials activities that have been postponed or suspended for reasons related to COVID-19 is a priority that should be considered in the national vaccination plans. Moreover, since grants have been diverted and financial incentives have been targeted to sustain COVID-19 research leading to an excessive entry in COVID-19-related clinical trials and the ‘covidisation’ of research, there is a need to reorient incentives to basic research and otherwise neglected or temporally abandoned areas of biomedical research. Without dedicated support in the recovery plans for neglected research of the COVID-19 era, there is a risk that more medical needs will be unmet in the future, possibly exacerbating the shortage of scientific research for orphan and neglected diseases, which do not belong to COVID-19-related research areas.

Limitations

Our empirical approach has some limits. First, we proxy MeSH term usage via search terms using the PubMed EUtilities API. This means that the accuracy of the MeSH term we assign to a given paper is not fully validated. More time is needed for the completion of manually annotated MeSH terms. Second, the timing of publication is not the moment the research has been carried out. There is a lead time between inception, analysis, write-up, review, revision, and final publication. This delay varies across disciplines. Nevertheless, given that the surge in publications happens around the alleged event date, January 2020, we are confident that the publication date is a reasonable yet imperfect estimate of the timing of the research. Third, several journals have publicly declared to fast-track COVID-19 research. This discrepancy in the speed of publication of COVID-19 related research and other research could affect our results. Specifically, a surge or displacement could be overestimated due to a lag in the publication of COVID-19 unrelated research. We alleviate this bias by estimating the effect considering a considerable time after the event (January 2020 to December 2020). Forth, on the one hand, clinical Trials may lead to multiple publications. Therefore we might overestimate the impact of COVID-19 on the number of clinical trials. On the other hand, COVID-19 publications on clinical trials lag behind, so the number of papers related COVID-19 trials is likely underestimated. Therefore, we note that the focus of this paper is scientific publications on clinical trials rather than on actual clinical trials. Fifth, regarding grants, unfortunately, there is no unique centralized repository mapping grant numbers to years, so we have to proxy old grants with grants that appeared in publications from 2010 to 2018. Besides, grant numbers are free-form entries, meaning that PubMed has no validation step to disambiguate or verify that the grant number has been entered correctly. This has the effect of classifying a grant as new even though it has appeared under a different name. We mitigate this problem by using a long period to collect grant numbers and catch many spellings of the same grant, thereby reducing the likelihood of miss-identifying a grant as new when it existed before. Still, unless unique identifiers are widely used, there is no way to verify this.

So far, there is no conclusive evidence on whether entry into COVID-19 has been excessive. However, there is a growing consensus that COVID-19 has displaced, at least temporally, scientific research in COVID-19 unrelated biomedical research areas. Even though it is certainly expected that more attention will be devoted to the emergency during a pandemic, the displacement of biomedical research in other fields is concerning. Future research is needed to investigate the long-run structural consequences of the COVID-19 crisis on biomedical research.

Supporting information

S1 table. common trend assumption (cta) regression table..

Full regression table with all controls and interactions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.s001

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 8. Brown A, Edwin E, Fagg J. Evaluate Pharma 2021 Preview; 2020. https://www.evaluate.com/thought-leadership/vantage/evaluate-vantage-2021-preview .
• 15. Hook D, Porter S. The COVID Brain Drain; 2020. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/covid-brain-drain-scientific-research .
• 17. Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T. The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Stanford InfoLab; 1999.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Conducting research during the COVID-19 pandemic

The highly contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has affected every aspect of medical practice and has all but ceased clinical, translational and basic science research. Pregnant women appear to be similarly affected by the virus as non-pregnant adults. As obstetricians, not only do we have a duty to care for pregnant women and their fetuses, but to continue to conduct research, inclusive of that which would guide us in delivering care during a pandemic. Conducting such research has its challenges. The objective of this chapter is to review the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on ongoing and new pregnancy research during the pandemic, describe the challenges encountered and summarize the key strategies necessary for a successful research environment.

Introduction

The first case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus −2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported in the United States on January 19th 2020. 1 Since then, the highly contagious SARS-CoV-2 has affected every aspect of how we practice medicine and conduct research. Pregnant women appear to be equally affected by SARS-CoV-2 as compared to the non-pregnant general population, 2 , 3 however, there are additional challenges unique to pregnancy. Pregnant women have an ongoing need to present to medical facilities for prenatal care, which introduces challenges, such as the need to adequately time and space the frequency of prenatal visits. With data showing that many of these women are asymptomatic upon presentation for delivery, screening and testing at the time of presentation to labor and delivery and the postpartum period becomes necessary to protect the neonate, other patients and healthcare professionals. 2 , 4 As obstetricians, we have a duty to care for pregnant women and their fetuses, but also to conduct research to guide us on how to deliver care.

Impact of the pandemic on ongoing clinical research

Many academic medical centers across the United States have paused clinical research to (i) eliminate non-essential contact to protect study participants and research staff, (ii) to shift focus to SARS-CoV-2 related research, (iii) to adapt to necessary changes in the hospital operations necessary to accommodate safe clinical care.

Research personnel

With the increasing pressure of the pandemic on the healthcare system, there have been widespread changes to workflow. Research personnel have been reallocated to other assignments. For example, research nurses functioning as support staff, on labor and delivery and the postpartum units has considerably alleviated pressure on the clinical staff allowing them to respond to the increased demands of sicker patients. COVID-19 infection among staff will also limit the research workforce. Our research department has 20 research nurses, staff and coordinators. During the months of March and April, 9 research employees (45%) were redeployed to labor and delivery and the postpartum units, 3 (15%) were already working remotely and continued to do so, 3 (15%) could not be considered for redeployment due to logistical administrative reasons, 2 (10%) could not be redeployed for other reasons and 3 (15%) continued to work on essential research studies.

Research staff will also be concerned about their risk of exposure during in-person visits. Although this risk is hard to quantify it can be reduced by reducing research only visits or scheduling them via video conference. When this is not feasible, it is important to provide the best and most transparent information possible. Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) is mandatory to help address some of these concerns. 5 During times of personal protective equipment shortages, research staff may need to limit activities that require PPE use.

At some institutions, medical students and residents have taken on a more prominent role in screening, consenting and enrolling research participants; tasks generally conducted by research personnel. 6 For example, for high priority research for public health concerns such as SARS-CoV-2, residents may perform essential in-person research activities in the absence of research personnel. However, consideration should be given to the unique skills provided by experienced research coordinators and the potential impact their replacement with less research-skilled house staff may have on studies.

Research participants

The institutional review boards have posed the fundamental question of whether research visits or their components change the risk-benefit ratio for study subjects, from that initially considered in the informed consent. 5 This consideration helps principal investigators re-evaluate the balance between the risks of SARS-CoV2 exposure to the risk of delaying or discontinuing study interventions. In an international cross sectional survey, Gobat et al. reported that there was strong public support for pandemic relevant clinical research initiatives. On a patient level basis, trust in the treating physicians and health care system are an important consideration for subjects when making the decision to participate in a research study. 7 This trust is maximized when research participants in ongoing clinical trials are prospectively informed of changes in protocols due to SARS-CoV2 such as paused, remote, or delayed study visits.

Telehealth visits

As COVID-19 continues to spread travel restrictions, city lockdowns and stay at home orders have been implemented to a varying degree across the United States and internationally. As clinicians decrease the number of in person visits, the number of research visits and study assessments also become limited making remote study visits with telemedicine crucial to maintaining contact with research subjects during the pandemic. 8 FDA guidance issued in March 2020 allows for research visits to be conducted by telephone or video contact when feasible and allows researchers to implement the change without prior approval but rather with post implementation notification to the IRB. In some protocols, research study drug can be mailed to participants instead of in-person dispensing. 9

Clinical trials

The SARS-CoV2 pandemic has had a major impact on clinical trials. The initial response was to defer all start up activities for new trials and to suspend recruitment to existing trials. 10 This response inevitably led to multiple concerns. First, participants who may have potentially benefitted from a particular study arm lost the opportunity to do so. Second, follow up visits on already randomized subjects were interrupted. Third, the halt in research activity undoubtedly led to a loss of investigator revenue. In order to mitigate some of the concerns, a different approach was undertaken. There was a shift in the resources available to focus on continuing care for patients already in trials, especially if there was benefit from the treatment. 11 The risk – benefit ratio determination was made initially by the Principle Investigator and approved by Institutional Review Boards.

Basic science research

Basic scientists faced their own unique challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even in the face of institutional shut downs, scientists could not stop attending to their laboratories. Animal models, which are essential to basic science research, need to be fed and cared for, breeding lines must continue and cell cultures need to be maintained. In order to continue to conduct research, multiple strategies have been employed: i. Researchers are now scheduled to work in shifts in order to promote social distancing, ii. Non-essential experiments were stopped, iii. Strategies to conserve research supplies, which could become scarce during a pandemic, were employed. 12

COVID-19 research in pregnancy

In the early 1990s, significant efforts by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were made to include a larger proportion of women especially pregnant women in clinical trials. 13 However, currently, there are over 2100 clinical trials underway to understand and treat COVID-19), of which only 42 trials are being conducted in pregnancy, 14 i.e. less than 2% of current COVID-19 trials include pregnant women.

Planning research in pregnant women requires a thoughtful process. During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, pregnant women were included in the vaccine trial, after safety and efficacy was confirmed in the general population. Pregnant women in their second and third trimester were included, avoiding the first trimester in an effort to minimize theoretical teratogenic risks. 15 During the 2014 Ebola virus epidemic, pregnant women were excluded from all vaccine and therapeutic trials denying them any potential benefit. 16 Even though pregnancy is a time for caution, it is imperative to include and advocate for pregnant women in clinical trials in order to allow them to receive potential benefits while being able to safely study the risks, with safety being the unique stoppage criteria for pregnancy.

Data Safety and Monitoring Committees should review and advise any protocol changes to allow the continuation of research in pregnancy during COVID-19 pandemic, while ensuring safety of participants and researchers.

Challenges of conducting research during a pandemic

Numerous considerations arose when conducting research during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first and foremost, was the responsibility of the involved institutions to share their initial experience with the community. To accomplish this, time is of the essence. There needs to be a balance between wanting to be the “first to press” with making sure that sufficient experience has been accrued to avoid transmission of incorrect information. This is best accomplished by developing a plan that progresses from initial alerts to the community and evolves into reports describing in more detail the spectrum of the disorder and its response to treatments. Case reports and results from small case series need to be published rapidly in order to disseminate basic information necessary for initial care.

With COVID-19, initial observations were hindered by lack of adequate screening with only symptomatic pregnant patients being sampled. Observations following patient encounters in which patients that were asymptomatic at presentation to labor and delivery who later became symptomatic exposing health care workers helped appropriately define the subject group and led to the initial publication leading to universal testing of all laboring women.

Universal testing of pregnant women presenting to labor and delivery provided important clinical information, 4 for the care of the mother and baby, protected the health care workers, but also helped in categorization of patients for future research. Strictly including subjects with varying symptoms or only those with positive or negative nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and excluding “persons under investigation” would hinder any retrospective precision in defining the clinical groups that may be described in larger cohorts or entered into a trial. Ideally, diagnostic samples should be saved since infectious diseases like SARS-CoV2 may require evolving confirmatory laboratory testing. Since all clinical research must undergo appropriate monitoring, researchers should efficiently collaborate with the institutional review boards in the approval process for performing studies. This requires changes in regular policies allowing for flexibility in the review process. FDA Guidance should be adopted to expedite review of high priority research. 9 When the research involves collection of patient samples and the risk to the patient is negligible, a deferred consent model may be considered under which collection of samples may take place in time sensitive cases and consent obtained after the collection [18]. Consenting by telephone or video contact should be encouraged. Lastly, consolidating research efforts between investigators working in the same locale avoids inefficiently duplicating work efforts and forms a collaborative network where results may be achieved faster. This is particularly important in research involving pregnant woman since many disease specialists are not familiar with pregnancy related physiology, terminology, or study procedures.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been by far the greatest challenge of the century that the field of medicine has had to face. Both the clinical and research aspect of medicine have been deeply affected. Multiple strategies have been deployed to address the knowledge gaps on the effects of COVID-19 on pregnancy, however more needs to be done to include pregnant women in clinical trials. Researchers should consult with experts in obstetrics from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society of Maternal fetal Medicine prior to excluding pregnant women from clinical trials and depriving them of the opportunity to be proven candidates for treatment.

317 COVID-19 & Pandemic Essay Topics for Students

Although in May 2023, COVID-19 was declared to no longer be a public health emergency, it is still a global threat. We suggest a list of pandemic essay topics you can explore. In this collection of COVID-19 essay examples for students, we cover various dimensions of the pandemic, from origins to management and effects.

🦠 TOP 7 COVID-19 Essay Topics for Students

🏆 best pandemic essay topics, 🎓 interesting covid-19 essay topics for students, 👍 covid-19 essay examples for students, 💡 simple titles for covid-19 essay, 📌 more examples of covid-19 essays, ❓ pandemic research questions, ✍️ pandemic essay topics for college, 🔎 essay ideas on pandemic.

• Reflection on the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Singapore Airlines’ Strategic Plan During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Digital Technologies During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Leadership Approaches During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Zoom Video Communications During Covid-19 Pandemics
• Cancel Culture Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Online Learning During the Pandemic
• The Black Plague vs. the COVID-19 Pandemic The documentary History of the Black Death recounts a global pandemic during the Middle Ages that can somewhat be equated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Social Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic Social conflicts play a significant role in the structure of society and have a decisive effect on all spheres of life of an individual and society as a whole.
• Transactional Model of Stress and Coping and the Effect of the Pandemic on Nurses’ Well-being Naturally, health care is one of the sectors, which was affected the most by the pandemic. Nurses play a pivotal role in this system, being the cornerstone of health care service delivery.
• Walmart Digitalization in the Post-Pandemic Era At this moment, Walmart has to deal with technological advancement, customers’ interest in digitalization as a post-pandemic outcome, and unpredictable competitors’ moves.
• Social Institutions: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic The purpose of this paper is to identify how the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the problems of various social institutions, such as the economy and education.
• Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Air Canada The current project is going to discuss the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Air Canada and provide a PESTEL analysis of the organization.
• The Covid-19 Pandemic Impact on the Family Dynamic The problem threatened children’s mental and physical health, further exacerbated by inadequate access to welfare for those living in poverty.
• Mental Health and COVID-19 Pandemic The Covid-19 pandemic is one of the biggest global challenges in the last 50 years. The virus has affected world economies, health, societal cohesion, and daily life.
• Pre-pandemic and Pandemic Consumer Behavior The pandemic of COVID-19 has had a noticeable influence on consumer behavior around the globe that will most probably be long-term.
• Social Changes After the Coronavirus Pandemic The global coronavirus pandemic is rapidly changing the economic, behavioural, and social aspects of people’s lives.
• Job Losses as a Result of the Pandemic Macroeconomics examines the performance of the economy in general, as such, the issue of job losses demonstrates how the economy of countries was affected by Covid-19.
• Multinational Companies in a Post-Pandemic World As MNCs are major employers, it is important to determine their prospects to operate in the post-pandemic world of 2022.
• The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Standard Chartered Bank This paper will explore the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on the Standard Chartered bank, the development of technology, and its influence on human resource management.
• Tourism Industry During the Pandemic This paper assesses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the supply and demand of tourism activities and consumer behavior.
• Post-Pandemic Work Environment The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way people approach work because the majority of companies had to transition to remote work.
• Tourism Sustainability After COVID-19 Pandemic This essay will discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the sustainability sector of the tourism industry.
• The Covid-19 Pandemic’s Influence on Socialization The recent COVID-19 pandemic has represented the topic of secondary socialization, unearthed the true extent of financial and social inequality across the world.
• COVID-19 Pandemic: Businesses Negotiation Strategies The use of negotiation strategies can help businesses to reduce losses and service interruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, thus offering a significant competitive advantage.
• Leadership and Management During COVID-19 Pandemic The current leadership framework that lifts a substantial amount of responsibility from the staff might help them feel relieved, yet will reduce the efficacy of their performance.
• Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic on the Global Economy The paper is aimed to overview the Coronavirus pandemic’s characteristics and analyze the outcomes of the disease outbreak within major economic spheres.
• Consumer Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic The pandemic has affected consumers’ purchasing behaviour. People have been spending less money on items such as clothes, jewelry, shoes, electronic gadgets, and games.
• The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic The year 2019 will forever be engraved in many people’s hearts as the time when a virus known as the COVID-19 invaded almost all the sectors, thereby disrupting daily activities.
• Pandemics in History Black Death, smallpox, Spanish flu were one of the most lethal and impactful pandemics. This paper describes the origin of these three outbreaks and analyses social consequences.
• The Rental Housing Market Challenges During the COVID Pandemic The policy of freezing the rental price and setting the bar for a monthly fee, as in a German city, can significantly improve the situation in Istanbul.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Social Impact The authors of the article examine the impact of COVID-19 on the psychological and social conditions of the population.
• Extraversion & Social Connectedness for Life Satisfaction During the Pandemic This laboratory report critically examines the effects of strict isolation and social distancing on perceptions of self-satisfaction.
• Existence of God in Times of Covid-19 Pandemic This paper examines whether God exists or not and goes further to describe His true nature using the ongoing coronavirus disease of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Social Barriers During the COVID-19 Pandemic This paper will focus on the discussion of the socio-economic barriers and changes to improve the structure of health care.
• The Covid-19 Pandemic Analysis Coronavirus, or Covid-19, is a contagious virus that began in December 2019. It causes an infection on the upper throat, sinuses, and nose.
• Pandemic Effects on Churches and Families Both churches and families appreciate those moments when they can be together, as it is often taken for granted pre-Covid 19.
• COVID-19 Pandemic and New Parenthood This paper aims to explain the impact of COVID-19 on the breastfeeding process, the psychological well-being of new mothers, and the type of support necessary.
• Government Responses and Expectations During the Influenza Pandemic of 1918-1919
• The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History
• Preparing Your Finances for a Bird Flu Pandemic
• Teachers’ Emotion and Identity Work During a Pandemic
• Disease Risk and Fertility: Evidence From the HIV/Aids Pandemic
• Disruptive Innovation Can Prevent the Next Pandemic
• Potential Bird Flu Pandemic
• Mental Health and Coping in the Shadow of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Israeli Case
• Bank Integration and Systemic Risk: Panacea or Pandemic
• HIV/Aids Pandemic and Women
• Child Abuse: The Pandemic
• Could Avian Flu A(H5N1) Become a Pandemic
• Novel Criteria for When and How to Exit a COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown
• Nepal Flu Pandemic: Causes and Solutions
• Vaccine Prioritization for Effective Pandemic Response
• COVID-19 and the Brazilian Reality: The Role of Favelas in Combating the Pandemic
• Choosing Between Adaptation and Prevention With an Increasing Probability of a Pandemic
• Relationship Between World War I and the Influenza Pandemic
• Hazard Prevention, Death and Dignity During COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy
• The Possible Macroeconomic Impact on the UK of an Influenza Pandemic
• Dehumanization During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Emotional, Behavioral, and Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Modeling Influenza Pandemic and Planning Food Distribution
• Pandemic, Quarantine, and Psychological Time
• Stigma and Discrimination During COVID-19 Pandemic
• Solid Organ Transplantation During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Psychological and Behavioral Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Greece
• Spasticity Treatment During COVID-19 Pandemic
• Mortality From the Influenza Pandemic of 1918-19 in Indonesia
• Preparing Your Business for a Bird Flu Pandemic
• Combating Ebola and Marburg Outbreaks Compared to the COVID-19 Pandemic Treatments for the Zaire Ebola virus and vaccines for COVID-19 have been developed. In combating these epidemics, governments must acquire the required resources.
• The Covid-19 Pandemic Impact on Business The pandemic significantly negatively influenced society and the global economy. The pandemic had a massive influence on economics, enterprises, and labor supply.
• The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Oceania It is necessary to analyze exactly how the pandemic affected the remote states of the Pacific Ocean and the fisheries in particular.
• “And the Band Played On” During the AIDS Pandemic The movie “And the Band Played On” touches on different prevalent issues during the AIDS pandemic that affected the world in the 1980s.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on the Airline Industry The main objective of the paper was to provide evidence-based coverage of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on airline operations around the world.
• Relation Between the COVID-19 Pandemic and Depression The paper is to share an insight into the detrimental effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of thousands of people and provide advice on how to reduce its impact.
• Tourism and Sustainable Development During the COVID-19 Pandemic It is expected that tourism-related businesses will be fighting insolvency in the next few years because of the adverse effect COVID-19 has had on the sector.
• COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on Hospitals The novel coronavirus has impacted hospitals and healthcare facilities, leading to increased strain on limited available resources and increased outpatient visitations.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic: Economic Impacts This paper aims to find the economic impacts of the coronavirus by exploring current financial status in the United States and around the world.
• The Covid-19 Pandemic of 2019-2021 The work exhibits the major aspects concerning COVID-19: its history and discovery, structure, symptoms and the effects on mental health, social impact, and prevention.
• Children and the COVID-19 Pandemic The paper provides information about those influences of the coronavirus pandemic and school districts’ closures that most people are unaware of.
• Managerial Accounting in the COVID-19 Pandemic Any company or an organization with a dream of succeeding in the world of business should consider managerial accounting as a critical element of propelling its objectives.
• Ethical Controversies During COVID-19 Pandemic Regulations The paper discusses the ethical controversies involving USAA and Shake Shack from moral and economic points of view.
• Effects of the Pandemic on Organizational Culture Adaptability The COVID-19 outbreak and its consequences led to the necessity to adjust to new working conditions and make corporate culture more flexible.
• Hotel Brands in the Post-Pandemic Era Strong hotel brands are fitter for the recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic and have more opportunities to attract new consumers and keep loyal ones.
• Organizational Culture After the COVID-19 Pandemic The paper provides a collection of summaries or excerpts from various research papers on the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on corporate culture.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on the US This paper discusses some of the social, economic, and psychological impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States of America.
• The Malaysian Workforce After the COVID-19 Pandemic This essay discusses the employee health and well-being issue prevalent among the Malaysian workforce after the COVID-19 pandemic in detail.
• The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Housing Market in Singapore Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused various economies around the globe to fumble and struggle, the housing market in Singapore tends to remain healthy.
• Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Human Well-Being The COVID-19 pandemic taught people to appreciate their social ties and health more and helped them reconsider the impact of social isolation on human well-being.
• Domestic Violence During COVID-19 Pandemic The paper reviews the articles: “Home is not always a haven: The domestic violence crisis amid the COVID-19 pandemic”, “Interpersonal violence during COVID-19 quarantine.”
• Food and Beverage Plan: The COVID-19 Pandemic Influence The COVID-19 pandemic has affected many social spheres. The food and beverage industry is still in the conditions of many restraints and limitations.
• Effects of the Pandemic on Early Childhood Education and Children The pandemic has placed early childhood education at serious risk. The closing of learning institutions that provide young children with education is a threat to their potential growth.
• Public Health: The Issue of HIV/AIDS Pandemic The public is involved in the prevention of HIV through the enhancement of public awareness. Advertisements that show prevention measures should be made for the public.
• The Sports Industry During the Covid-19 Pandemic This article provides a literature review on the financial pressures and constraints faced by the sports industry as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
• Airline Labor Relations During the COVID-19 Pandemic This essay explores the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on airline labor relations, with labor unions’ functions and factors that increase the need for an effective workforce.
• Pandemics and Epidemics that Changed the World This discussion focuses on the period between 1492 and 2020 to understand how some of the unexpected pandemics and epidemics in the West triggered unprecedented changes.
• Impact of COVID-19 Pandemics on the Environment The spread of the COVID-19 and the contingency prevention measures harm the environment, and it is urgent to solve problems like the growing volume of waste.
• The Effect of Global Pandemic on the Role of Sports in Our Lives The pandemic has changed the way I view sports and their meaning in people’s lives, and I no longer view sports as primal for people.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic: Human Response The most adequate and effective human response to COVID-19 is launching public information campaigns that contribute to most individuals’ understanding of the situation.
• Government-Funded Assistance Before and After Pandemic Social welfare and national insurance programs are the primary forms of public support aid in the United States. Incentives from social programs are associated with low salaries.
• The Effectiveness of the US in Response COVID-19 Pandemic The paper discusses the effectiveness of the US in response COVID-19 pandemic, the lessons learned from COVID-19, and whether the CDC played its role.
• Police Brutality During COVID-19 Pandemic In the United States, there has been a perceived and observed police injustice towards minority communities, especially Blacks.
• Risk Communication in Pandemic Prevention Effective structuring of risk communication in a way that the citizens get all relevant information about a disease outbreak can prevent a pandemic in the future.
• Economic Systems During the Pandemic Government-mandated national lockdowns restrict COVID-19 propagation and negatively affect the economy. Employees were unable to work during the shutdown.
• How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Changed the Human Resource Landscape The paper states that the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the human resources landscape, such as staffing, working patterns, and workplaces globally.
• Healthcare Costs Affected by the COVID-19 Pandemic In all over the world, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a dramatic growth of national healthcare spending as the prevention and treatment required the implementation of new measures.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic: Public Health Policy The COVID-19 pandemic has caused numerous health challenges and made it vital for healthcare professionals and policymakers to introduce new effective measures.
• COVID-19: Considerations for Children and Families During the Pandemic
• Risk and Protective Factors in the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Psychosocial Support for Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Community Strategy For Pandemic Influenza
• Combating the Pandemic COVID-19: Clinical Trials, Therapies, and Perspectives
• Disease and Fertility: Evidence From the 1918 Influenza Pandemic in Sweden
• Pharmaceutical Patents and the HIV/Aids Pandemic
• Gender-based Violence During COVID-19 Pandemic
• Physical Fitness and Exercise During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Pandemic Perspective: Commonalities Between COVID-19 and Cardio-oncology
• The Successes and Failures of the Initial COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Romania
• Food Safety During and After the Era of COVID-19 Pandemic
• Spanish Flu 1918 Pandemic
• Fighting Strategies Against the Novel Coronavirus Pandemic: Impact on Global Economy
• Diabetes the 132 Billion Dollar Pandemic
• Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic: The Role of Printing Media in Asian Countries
• Spanish Flu Global Pandemic
• Federal Reserve System Vigilant for Flu Pandemic
• Ethics and Preparedness Planning for an Influenza Pandemic
• Cancer Patient Management Challenges During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Gaussian Doubling Times and Reproduction Factors of the COVID-19 Pandemic Disease
• Revisiting the Global Overfat Pandemic
• The COVID-19 Pandemic and Intelligence Communication in the United States
• Pregnancy During the Global COVID-19 Pandemic
• What Caused the Aids Pandemic?
• Radiation-induced Lymphopenia Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Exercise Frequency and Subjective Well-Being During COVID-19 Pandemic
• Challenges for Drug Repurposing in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era
• Flexible Teaching and Learning Modalities in Undergraduate Science Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic
• The Great Influenza Pandemic Was the Worse Pandemic That Occurs During the First World War
• The COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient Care Problem The essay discusses the COVID-19 pandemic patient care problem and its effect on the hospital’s budget and the role of a nurse leader in mitigating the effects.
• Decision-Making in Nursing: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic This paper deals with the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the ability of nurses to make sound decisions as to the wellbeing of patients in clinical settings.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic: Role of Leisure The COVID-19 pandemic has presented numerous health challenges, and leisure activities have played a significant role in combatting it.
• Managing Incremental Healthcare Costs in a Post Pandemic World India’s burgeoning medical tourism industry offers affordable, high-quality healthcare services and wellness options, attracting global visitors.
• Childhood Obesity During the COVID-19 Pandemic While the COVID-19 pandemic elicited one of the worst prevalences of childhood obesity, determining its extent was a problem due to the lockdown.
• Changes in Demand and Supply During the Coronavirus Pandemic The paper explains that government measures to regulate prices, namely the creation of price ceilings, created shortages of essential and personal care products.
• Parenting in a Pandemic: Tips to Keep the Calm at Home The article ​“Parenting in a Pandemic: Tips to Keep the Calm at Home” provides a set of recommendations for parents regarding managing children’s behaviors during the pandemic.
• Leadership Response to COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak The paper presents a healthcare leadership response plan to the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. It identifies the issue’s urgency and the importance of effective leadership.
• MD Properties’ Project Evaluation During the COVID-19 Pandemic The purpose of the report was to evaluate the project implemented by MD Properties in 2021 to adapt to help operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Effects Women Have Faced During the COVID-19 Pandemic Globally The essay discusses the challenges women face in maintaining their economic security, juggling caregiving responsibilities, and coping with job losses and business closures.
• Social Changes Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic The COVID-2019 pandemic has affected all areas of society, and from the experience gained, people should draw the appropriate conclusions in order to avoid this in the future.
• Discussion: Supply Chain Management and Pandemic Although the author was aware of the devastating impact of COVID-19 on the global supply chain, Ellyatt (2021) provides a more in-depth insight into this problem.
• Coronavirus Pandemic in Context of Existentialism Once humans can consider coronavirus from an existential viewpoint, they may take it easier, accepting the situation and not being overly nervous.
• Nutrition: Obesity Pandemic and Genetic Code The environment in which we access the food we consume has changed. Unhealthy foods are cheaper, and there is no motivation to eat healthily.
• Domestic Violence in Melbourne: Impact of Unemployment Due to Pandemic Restrictions The purpose of this paper is to analyze to what extent does unemployment due to pandemic restrictions impact domestic violence against women in Melbourne.
• The Role of Digitalization in Supporting SMEs During the COVID-19 Pandemic This article analyzes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on SMEs and retailers, focusing on the organizational culture of retail businesses and their responses to the crisis.
• Policy Brief: Access to Education After the Pandemic The After-Hours Academy is a business that aims to provide learners from underserved communities with resources to improve their online education.
• The US Government Pandemic Initiatives In order to address the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments worldwide, including in the United States, designed special initiatives to help companies.
• The 1918 Pandemic Representation The 1918 pandemic caused by the flu influenza led to the death of more than 50 million people and was believed to be one of the tremendous diseases in history.
• Struggles Families Encounter During Pandemic Since late 2019, the coronavirus pandemic has expanded far and quickly, wreaking havoc on countless families worldwide.
• The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Intimate Partner Violence in the US The safety measures implemented by the U.S. government in order to prevent the spread of coronavirus resulted in increased intimate partner violence in the country.
• The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Sibling Violence The problem of domestic abuse has been extensively studied by researchers worldwide, and one of the main forms of the phenomenon is sibling violence.
• Stress in Pregnant Women Due to COVID-19 Pandemic Pregnancy is a particularly crucial time for the mental health of a woman. The high levels of stress have been linked to exposure to the pandemic.
• Issues of Working With People During the Pandemic Communication is essential when de-escalating a crisis. It is critical that they feel understood, so they need to pay close attention to them.
• “Pandemics Are Not War” by Wilkinson: Article Review In her article “Pandemics are not war,” Wilkinson writes about the use of war as a metaphor for pandemics. She argues that it is unfair to view pandemics as a force of terror.
• How the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Changing the Economy World Health Organization characterized the illness as a pandemic on 11th March 2020, resulting in 3 million cases and the demise of 207,973 people.
• Air Canada: History, Profit, Pandemic, and Future Air Canada delivers not only people but also cargo all over the world, but, unfortunately, it took a full two years for the company to adapt to the pandemic.
• Utilitarianism and PR During the Pandemic The principle of utilitarianism in the PR sphere contradicts the modern ethical paradigm because it cannot fully provide the ability to make decisions.
• Vaccination Issue Concerning the COVID-19 Pandemic This paper discusses the current vaccination issue concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. Large numbers of patients worldwide refuse vaccines.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Black Plaque This paper discusses the social, economic, and political factors contributing to COVID-19 in the domestic and international spheres and connects COVID-19 and the Black Plague.
• Modeling the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic Coronavirus has taken a substantial toll on people worldwide. Being only a year after the eruption of the virus from Wuhan, its effects have been felt globally.
• Addressing Economic Inequality: The Pandemic Challenge Economic inequality continues to be relevant to modern society, with the full range of human rights being available only to the wealthy minority.
• Pandemic Coverage: Omicron Issues The news media provided trustworthy information surrounding pandemic-related developments that had transpired but proved inefficient in making prognoses.
• Economic Inequality and Pandemic Challenge The most vulnerable populations were affected by the coronavirus pandemic because they often could not access economic and public health resources to meet their needs.
• Influenza (H2N1) vs. COVID-19 Pandemic COVID-19 and H2N1 pandemic has impacted the lives of many people. Both pandemics have some similarities and differences, and each has a particular significance.
• The Issue of the Opioid Pandemic in the USA The efforts at addressing the issue of an opioid pandemic have been quite numerous, yet the results that they have yielded cannot be described as stellar.
• COVID-19 Pandemic: Social Media Response by the American Government Using social media to address the public on COVID-19, President Biden and his vice have developed a seven-point plan to help combat the pandemic.
• Pandemic Challenge and Economic Inequality The coronavirus pandemic has presented two significant challenges for American society: public health and economic crises.
• Could Avian Flu AH5N1 Become a Pandemic?
• Does the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Call for a New Model of Older People Care?
• How Can the COVID-19 Pandemic Lead To Positive Changes in Urology Residency?
• How Should HIV/Aids Pandemic Be Addressed?
• What Is the Potential for Avian Influenza to Cause Another Worldwide Pandemic?
• What Is the Impact of Pandemic COVID-19 on Education in India?
• What Are the Regulatory Challenges for Drug Repurposing During the COVID-19 Pandemic?
• What Were the Successes and Failures of the Initial COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Romania?
• Why Obesity Is the New Global Pandemic of 21st Century?
• What Is the Possible Macroeconomic Impact on the UK of an Influenza Pandemic?
• How Financial Markets Lived Under the Global Pandemic of COVID-19?
• What Are the Measures of Ecology and Economics for Pandemic Prevention?
• Are Women Publishing Less During the Pandemic?
• What Is the Impact of COVID-19’s Pandemic on the Economy of Indonesia?
• Which Interventions Work Best in a Pandemic?
• Why Community Participation Is Crucial in a Pandemic?
• How to Prepare Business for a Post-pandemic World?
• What Are the Strategies for Mitigating an Influenza Pandemic?
• What Are the Origins of HIV and the Aids Pandemic?
• How to Predict and Prevent the Next Pandemic Zoonosis?
• How Did COVID‐19 Pandemic Show Cricial Cybersecurity Issues?
• What Are the Best Practices for Implementing Remote Learning During a Pandemic?
• What Were the Ecological Consequences of a Pandemic?
• How to Manage the Effectiveness of E-Commerce Platforms in a Pandemic?
• What Are the Internal and External Effects of Social Distancing in a Pandemic?
• The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the International Trading The coronavirus pandemic has created new tough barriers to globalization and trade: the shutdown of production and the borders of leading countries and economic groups.
• Production and Growth During the Pandemic: A Case of U.S. Manufacturing By recognizing the factors that shape the production process, U.S. manufacturers have managed to continue delivering solid performance despite the effects of the coronavirus.
• Virtual Visit to Louvre During Covid-19 Pandemic Louvre is a famous museum, with millions of visitors each year. The museum has a virtual tour, which is a treat in the period of COVID-related restrictions.
• Planning in a Post-Pandemic World With the need for new, stricter health regulations in the workplace for a safer internal environment in the office come limitations on the number of persons of staff present.
• Pandemic in Seurat’s “A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of la Grande Jatte” The current paper includes reflecting on the pandemic through the lens of Seurat’s “A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte”.
• Police Killing Black People in a Pandemic Police violence as a network of brutal measures is sponsored by the government that gives the police officers permission to treat black people with disdain.
• Racial Discrimination in the Industry of Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic This research, done in an industry that produces face masks, provides a clear image of racism during the coronavirus pandemic period.
• American Pandemics From Columbus to Coronavirus The decisions made by previous generations of Americans during epidemics led to the development of structural racism and class segregation.
• Pandemic-Related Changes in Consumer Behavior The COVID-19 pandemic has affected consumer behavior around the globe so considerably that new trends have emerged that are mostly based on seeking stability.
• United States Economy’s Outlook After Pandemic The United States has shown signs of a rebound after the Covid-19 pandemic through the rising GDP and the low unemployment rates witnessed in the country.
• Pandemic’s Impact on Mental Health & Substance and Alcohol Abuse While substance use disorder can impose mental health challenges on those who consume drugs, COVID-19 affects the psychology of all humankind.
• The US Stock Market Affected by the COVID-19 Pandemic Despite the terrible effects that the coronavirus has had on the stock market in the United States, it is clear that the country has gained a great deal from the adverse effects.
• COVID-19 Pandemic in Media: Agenda Setting Theory For the analysis, the currently gaining attention theory about the laboratory origin of the virus was chosen, as well as its coverage in authoritative publications.
• The H3N2 Virus Pandemics of 1968 The H3N2 virus contained two genes derived from the six genes from the A(H2N2) virus, associated with the 1957 H2N2 pandemic.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic and Labor Market Dynamics The labor market dynamics of the COVID-19 recession in the United States are studied using a search-and-matching model incorporating temporary unemployment.
• Recovery the Post Pandemic World The paper briefly explains what sort of recovery the post-pandemic world will likely experience and how Ireland is positioned to cope or change tact.
• Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the African American Communities This paper analyzes how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the economic aspect of the African American communities. A female and two males were interviewed.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Effects Worldwide Covid-19 has remained a threat in many countries in the last two years. Numerous restrictions and precautions have been implemented in various nations.
• COVID-19 and Playing Sports During a Pandemic The review focuses on three significant sports areas under the conditions of a pandemic: health, commercialism, and structural aspects.
• COVID-19 Pandemic and Valuable Cargo The COVID-19 pandemic has played a significant role in changing logistics, with the supply chain playing a more critical role than ever before.
• Telehealth in the Pandemic: Benefits & Limitations Despite the benefits of telehealth during the pandemic period, the older population still has reservations about the suitability and efficacy of such technologies in the long run.
• Review of “For Millions, the Pandemic Is Far From Over” Article The article by Doheny, presented by the reputable healthcare source Medscape, examines the challenges of immunocompromised Americans.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Society COVID-19 has disrupted daily life and slowed the global economy. In addition, thousands of people have been affected by this pandemic, and are either sick or dying.
• Older Adults Surviving the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Mental Health Benefits of Physical Activity The aim of this paper is to identify the effect of physical activity on mental health among older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Virtual Teams’ Adaptation to the Conditions of the COVID-19 Pandemic Virtual teams’ adaptation to the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic happened through forced utilization of technology to establish effective communication.
• The Dabbawalas and the COVID-19 Pandemic The global COVID-19 pandemic cannot go unnoticed for the dabbawalas, which is a system of lunchbox delivery and return services for India’s employees.
• Global Pandemic of COVID-19 From an Epidemiological Perspective The epidemiological perspective of the COVID-19 pandemic requires studying the statistical data for identifying patterns that could be addressed or eliminated.
• Supply Chain Management Challenges Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic The increasing number of suppliers and business continuity risks must be considered to find relevant solutions to the Kuwaiti supply chain management problem.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on Australia This work will focus on discussing some of the considerations necessary for the Australian business to start its operation in a new market environment during COVID-19.
• Long-Term Changes in Information Technology During the Pandemic of COVID-19 The outbreak of the COVID-19 in China is not only destructing the global economy but it can also have a positive effect on the development of the IT industry.
• Covid-19 Pandemic-Related Macroeconomic Issues COVID-19 fueled many macroeconomic issues. The first is high inflation which increased the living costs and pressure on low-income earners.
• Texas Judiciary During the COVID-19 Pandemic The current paper indicates that the main issues faced by the Texas justice system and state judges are caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
• The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Brought Us Too Close Together The resources presented in the articles depict a new reality where violence and riots occur due to a depressed populace who can’t stand any injustice.
• Consumer Behavior: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic Consumers come out of COVID-19 with very different habits, and the main challenge for businesses, both small and large, is to find an approach in the new environment.
• Observing Harmony in Our Life During Covid-19 Pandemic During the pandemic, there have been many reasons to reflect upon the essence of the never-ending sequence of challenges that form the sequence of our lives.
• How the Corona Virus-19 Pandemic Affected Society This paper discusses the Corona Virus-19 effect on society’s stratification and social classes, politics, families and marriages, and problems in education that students faced.
• Healthcare Policy Influences: COVID-19 Pandemic The research indicates that the impactful aspect of the economy of a nation became the most prominent during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Built Environment and Pandemics Healthy built environments have services and resources that contribute to the physical, mental, and social wellbeing of the people who occupy it.
• Hate Crimes Against Asian Americans During the Pandemic
• The Sphere of Leadership: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Hand Sanitizers in COVID-19 Pandemic: Pros and Cons
• The Story of Sam, OCD, and the COVID Pandemic
• Parents and Children’s E-Safety Education During the Pandemic
• Arguments Against Masks During Pandemic and Personal Freedom
• White and Black People in USA During COVID-19 Pandemic
• Psychological Effects COVID-19 Pandemic Leading to Hospital Nursing Shortage
• Poor Staff Management During the Pandemic
• Economic Predictions on Recovery After COVID-19 Pandemic Shock
• Healthcare for Underserved Communities During Covid-19 Pandemic
• Preparing a Child for School During COVID Pandemic
• Restaurant Business During The Pandemic
• US Actions Concerning COVID-19 Pandemic
• The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Businesses
• Can Coronavirus Pandemic Lead to World War III?
• Poor Management & Care Quality During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• The COVID-19 Pandemic in US and World History
• Comparison of How Communities React to Plagues and COVID-19 Pandemic
• Social Solidarity During the Pandemic
• The COVID-19 Pandemic Organizational Risk Management Strategies
• Global Society: Before and After The Coronavirus Pandemic
• Autoethnography: The COVID-19 Pandemic
• COVID-19 Pandemic: Preparing a Presentation
• VA Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Expansion and Impact
• Mental Health During the Pandemic: Research Design, Steps, and Approach
• Physical Activity Impact on Psychological Health During COVID-19 Pandemic
• Public Policy Meeting: “VA Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic”
• Durkheim: Pandemic and Functionalism
• How Can Irish Funeral Traditions Help the Bereaved People Cope with Losses during the Pandemic?
• Covid-19 Pandemic and Mental Health of American Population
• Key Takeaways from the Coronavirus Pandemic
• Racial Inequalities in the Context of Pandemic Vaccination
• Healthcare Rationing During a Pandemic
• Pandemics & Biothreats and Governmental Responses
• Labor Market Developments During the Covid-19 Pandemic
• Influenza Pandemic Outbreak Analysis
• Streaming Service for the Elderly During the COVID-19 Pandemic

🌶️ Hot Pandemic Ideas to Write about

• Picnics Become Popular Around the Globe During Pandemics
• School Closure During Influenza Pandemic
• Influenza Pandemic Outbreak Overview
• Changing Health Behavior in Current Pandemic Situation
• The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Community of Charleston, South Carolina
• Mental Health Buring a COVID-19 Pandemic
• Is the Pandemic Beneficial?: Argument with an Opossum
• Job Satisfaction Levels During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Christianity and the COVID-19 Pandemic
• COVID-19 Pandemic: Economic Factors and Consequences
• Florida Administration’s Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic
• The COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Social Values
• City Planning and Pandemics: Efficient Approach
• COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on the Environment
• Nature Relatedness and Well-Being during COVID-19 Pandemic
• COVID-19 Pandemic: What We Can Learn From the Past?
• COVID-19 Pandemic and a Globalized Economy
• Psychonomics of Consumers During the covid19 Pandemic
• How the Pandemic Has Worsened Opioid Addition
• The Impact of the Worldwide COVID-19 Pandemic on Essential Social Values
• Project Management in Healthcare During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Ethical Perspective on Pandemics
• Mitigating the Impact of the Novel Coronavirus Pandemic
• Covid-19 Pandemic Effect on the Economy
• The Company’s Exit from the Crisis in a Pandemic
• Employees Retention During COVID-19 Pandemic
• Streaming Service and Elderly During COVID-19 Pandemic
• Hoarding and Opportunistic Behavior during COVID-19 Pandemics
• Racist Assaults Against Asians and Coronavirus Pandemic
• Australian Freight Companies’ Ethics During the COVID-19 Pandemics
• Pandemic and Its Aftermath Impact
• Budgetary Change: Unstable Situation Due to the Pandemic
• City Planning and Pandemic: Efficient Approach
• Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Human Relations
• Intimate Partner Violence in the Australian Media During the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Psychological Effects of Pandemic Control Measures
• Global Pandemic Issues: Prevention of Infection and Transmission of COVID-19
• “Senate HELP Hearing on Coronavirus Responses and Future Pandemic Preparedness”: An Overview
• The Coronavirus Pandemic: Detergents Against the Germs
• AIDS Pandemic: Impact on Human Health
• Negative Impact of the 2020 COVID Pandemic on World Industries
• 2009 H1N1 Flu Pandemic, Vaccination and Rates

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, March 1). 317 COVID-19 & Pandemic Essay Topics for Students. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/pandemic-essay-topics/

"317 COVID-19 & Pandemic Essay Topics for Students." StudyCorgi , 1 Mar. 2022, studycorgi.com/ideas/pandemic-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '317 COVID-19 & Pandemic Essay Topics for Students'. 1 March.

1. StudyCorgi . "317 COVID-19 & Pandemic Essay Topics for Students." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/pandemic-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "317 COVID-19 & Pandemic Essay Topics for Students." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/pandemic-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "317 COVID-19 & Pandemic Essay Topics for Students." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/pandemic-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Pandemic were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on January 22, 2024 .

Frontiers | Science News

• Science News

Research Topics

Back to school: research topics on education during covid-19.

What does school look like in the second year of the pandemic? Explore our Research Topics spanning from the digital transformation of education and school feeding programs to children's development in the home learning environment and educational leadership during the Covid-19 crisis.

Research Topics:

Well-Being of School Teachers in Their Work Environment

Closure and Reopening of Schools and Universities During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Prevention and Control Measures, Support Strategies for Vulnerable Students and Psychosocial Needs

Learning in times of COVID-19: Students’, Families’, and Educators’ Perspectives

Covid-19 and Beyond: From (Forced) Remote Teaching and Learning to ‘The New Normal’ in Higher Education

Equitable School Resource Allocation Under a Pandemic and Economic Recession

Digital Transformation of Education in the Covid-19 Process and its Psychological Effects on Children

Children's Competencies Development in the Home Learning Environment

Cultural Changes in Instructional Practices Due to Covid-19

Covid-19: School and Community Feeding Programs for Children and Young People

Subjective Well-being in Online and Mixed Educational Settings

COVID-19 and the Educational Response: New Educational and Social Realities

Education Leadership and the COVID-19 Crisis

Higher Education Dropout After COVID-19: New Strategies to Optimize Success

Promoting Motor Development in Children in the COVID-19 era: Science and Applications

COVID-19: Mid- and Long-Term Educational and Psychological Consequences for Students and Educators

Post related info

September 21, 2021

Frontiers Communications

Post categories, related subjects, research topics, related content.

Back to school: article collections to get you ready for the new academic year

Rachel Parker – They are the answer

Top 10 Research Topics from 2021

Latest posts.

Screen time not the main factor making parent-child interactions worse, study finds

A devastating fire 2,200 years ago preserved a moment of life and war in Iron Age Spain — right down to a single gold earring

Frontiers institutional partnerships update – spring 2024

Mariana Fuentes - Changing the currency of conservation

Five Research Topics exploring the science of mental health