Dimitris et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(6):980-986) outline how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has, with mixed results, put epidemiology under the spotlight. While epidemiologic theory and methods have been critical in many successes, the ongoing global death toll from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the sometimes chaotic public messaging underscore that epidemiology as a field has room for improvement. Here, we use examples from psychiatric epidemiologic studies conducted during the COVID-19 era to reflect on errors driven by overlooking specific major methodological advances of modern epidemiology. We focus on: 1) use of nonrepresentative sampling in online surveys, which limits the potential knowledge to be gained from descriptive studies and amplifies collider stratification bias in causal studies; and 2) failure to acknowledge multiple versions of exposures (e.g., lockdown, school closure) and differences in prevalence of effect measure modifiers across contexts, which causes violations of the consistency assumption and lack of effect transportability. We finish by highlighting: 1) the heterogeneity of psychiatric epidemiologic results during the pandemic across place and sociodemographic groups and over time; 2) the importance of following the foundational advancements of modern epidemiology even in emergency settings; and 3) the need to limit the role of political agendas in cherry-picking and reporting epidemiologic evidence.
Keywords: COVID-19; epidemiologic methods; mental health; psychiatry.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.