To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Early in the SARS–CoV-2 pandemic, most jurisdictions implemented mandatory face covering policies across healthcare settings. This intervention, which lasted multiple years, was unprecedented in psychiatry. Masks may affect the delivery of mental healthcare, given its reliance on nuanced communication and establishing a therapeutic alliance.
Aims
This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the current literature concerning the impact of face masks in mental health settings beyond infection control and identify research gaps to guide future research and policy.
Method
Systematic searches were completed in the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and CINAHL databases on 14 August 2024. Articles were eligible if they described peer-reviewed empirical studies involving people with mental disorders or mental health clinicians that reported on impacts of face coverings.
Results
Twenty-eight studies were selected for inclusion, involving 5385 participants. There was considerable heterogeneity among studies. Negative effects of face masks were reported in 26 studies in at least one domain. Themes from the survey-based literature included face masks negatively affecting communication, the therapeutic relationship and overall assessment quality. Experimental studies using emotion recognition tasks showed that people with mental disorders were disadvantaged by masks when interpreting emotions from facial expressions. The most commonly studied population was people with autism spectrum disorder. Children and people with severe or acute mental illness were underrepresented. Only two studies expressly recruited psychiatrists.
Conclusions
Policy makers should be aware of adverse impacts of mask-wearing in mental health settings and consider these in evolving risk–benefit analyses. Further research is needed to establish the extent of impacts on population subgroups.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.