Evaluating Mental Health Outcomes in COVID-19 ICU Survivors: A Scoping Review of Measurement Tools

Objective: The objective of this scoping review was to map the range of measurement tools used to study the prevalence of common mental health conditions in COVID-19 ICU survivors. Introduction: Increased rates of admission to and survivorship from intensive care units (ICUs) have been observed in recent years, particularly during the global pandemic. ICU patients are at a higher risk of developing depressive, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms. Due to the high burden of disease, an accurate understanding of long-term mental health challenges for this population is key. Unfortunately, there is significant variability in reported prevalence rates. Heterogeneity in measurement tools potentially contribute to this. Inclusion criteria: Studies were eligible if they (a) reported mental health outcomes of adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted to an ICU, (b) used standardised mental health outcome measures, and (3) were peer-reviewed. Methods: Searches were conducted in PubMed, PsycInfo, and Scopus. The initial search retrieved 1234 publications. After de-duplication and title and abstract screening, 72 full-text articles were examined for eligibility and 44 articles were excluded, leaving 28 eligible studies. Reference lists of the eligible studies were screened, and four other studies were added. 32 studies were ultimately included in this review. Results: Significant heterogeneity of measurement tools and clinical thresholds were observed. Only 6.25% of the studies compared changes in mental health outcomes to baseline measurements. Between five and nine unique measurement tools were used to study depression, anxiety, and PTSD, respectively. Studies were also observed to use up to 19 different thresholds to establish the prevalence of PTSD. Conclusions: The heterogeneity of measurement tools and thresholds continues to confound prevalence rate estimations of mental health complications post-ICU admission. Future research will benefit from consistency in the use of recommended outcome measures and the use of psychometrically comparable cut-off points between key measures.