Dataset Information

Worry and mental health in the Covid-19 pandemic: vulnerability factors in the general Norwegian population.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is an urgent need for knowledge about the mental health consequences of the ongoing pandemic. The aim of this study was to identify vulnerability factors for psychological distress and reduced life satisfaction in the general population. Furthermore, we aimed to assess the role of COVID-related worries for psychological distress and life satisfaction.

Methods

A presumed representative sample for the Norwegian population (n = 1041, response rate = 39.9%) responded to a web-survey in May 2020. The participants were asked about potential vulnerability factors including increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19 (underlying illness, older age), socioeconomic disadvantage (living alone, unemployment, economic problems), and pre-existing mental health vulnerability (recent exposure to violence, previous mental health challenges). Additional measures included COVID-related worry, psychological distress, and life satisfaction.

Results

More than one out of four reported current psychological distress over the threshold for clinically significant symptoms. Socioeconomic disadvantages, including living alone and pre-existing economic challenges, and pre-existing mental health vulnerabilities, including recent exposure to violence and previous mental health problems, were associated with a higher level of psychological distress and a lower level of life satisfaction. A higher level of COVID-related worry was significantly associated with a higher level of psychological distress, and a lower level of life satisfaction, even when adjusting for all the vulnerability factors.

Conclusion

This study identified several vulnerability factors for mental health problems in the pandemic. Individuals recently exposed to violence and individuals with pre-existing mental health problems are at particular risk. Worrying about the consequences of the pandemic contributes negatively to current mental health. However, worry cannot explain the excess distress in vulnerable groups. Future research should focus on how COVID-related strains contribute to mental health problems for vulnerable groups.

SUBMITTER: Blix I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8127278 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMental health problems among older people are large public health concerns but often go unrecognized and undertreated. During COVID - 19 several restrictions regarding social contacts were launched, primarily for the old. The objective of this study is to investigate which factors that had the main negative affect on mental health in the older population during the pandemic.MethodA cross-sectional cohort study set in Swedish primary care during the pandemic years 2021-2022. The population constitutes of 70-80-years-old, N = 260. Instruments used are Geriatric depression scale 20 (GDS20); Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), and Perceived stress scale 10 (PSS10). Sociodemography and risk factors are explored. Outcome measures are factors independently associated with decreased mental health. Analyses were performed for the group as a whole and with logistic regression models comparing individuals who stated they were mentally affected by the pandemic to individuals who stated they were not.ResultsParticipants who stated they were mentally affected by the COVID - 19 pandemic reported significantly higher levels of anxiety (p < 0.001), depression (p < 0.001), and stress (p = 0.026) compared to those who stated they were not mentally affected. Explanatory regression models of up to 50% showed that following factors were prominent among individuals who reported a decline in their mental health due to the COVID - 19 pandemic (n = 24); impaired social life (OR 20.29, p < 0.001, CI 4.53-90.81), change in physical activity (OR 5.28, p = 0.01, CI 1.49-18.72), perceived family situation (OR 31.90, p = 0,007, CI 2,53-402.42), mild/moderate and high anxiety (OR 4.94, p = 0.034, CI 1.13-21.60, OR 7.96, p = 0.035, CI 1.16-54.53 respectively), and female gender (OR 6.52, p = 0.029, CI 1.22-34.92).ConclusionAnxiety, family situation, social life and change in physical activity were the main factors influencing the 70-80-years-old's self-perceived mental health during the COVID - 19 pandemic. Long-term effects of social restrictions on mental health in the older population need to be further investigated.

Project description:ObjectivesMental health problems significantly increased worldwide during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. At the early stage of the outbreak, the government of Bangladesh imposed lockdown and quarantine approaches to prevent the spread of the virus, which impacted people's daily life and health. The COVID-19 pandemic has also affected people's economic status, healthcare facilities and other lifestyle factors in Bangladesh. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health among the Bangladeshi population.MethodsWe conducted an online cross-sectional survey among 672 Bangladeshi people aged between 15 and 65 years all over the country from 15 April to 10 May 2020. After obtaining electronic consent, we conducted a survey assessing people's sociodemographic profiles and psychometric measures. We used The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale-8, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index to assess loneliness, depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance, respectively.ResultsThe prevalence of loneliness, depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance was estimated at 71% (mild: 32%, moderate: 29%, severe: 10%), 38% (mild: 24%, moderate: 11%, severe: 3%), 64% (mild: 30%, moderate: 17%, severe: 17%) and 73% (mild: 50%, moderate: 18%, severe: 5%), respectively. In Bangladesh, the key factors associated with poor mental health during COVID-19 were female sex, unemployment, being a student, obesity and living without a family. The present study also identified statistically significant interrelationships among the measured mental health issues.ConclusionsA large portion of respondents reported mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh. The present study suggests longitudinal assessments of mental health among Bangladeshi people to determine the gravity of this issue during and after the pandemic. Appropriate supportive programmes and interventional approaches would address mental health problems in Bangladesh during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral risk factors for anxious-depressive symptomatology during the COVID-19 pandemic have been established. However, few studies have examined the relationship between personality traits, hardiness, and such symptomatology during the pandemic. These constructs might serve as risk- and/or protective factors for such mental distress through the pandemic.MethodsA sample of 5783 Norwegians responded to a survey at two time points within the first year of the pandemic. The first data collection was in April 2020 (T1) and the second in December 2020 (T2). Measures included the Ten-Item Personality-Inventory, the Revised Norwegian Dispositional Resilience Scale, and the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale. Analyses were performed using Pearson's correlations, multiple linear regression, and a moderation analysis.ResultsAnxious-depressive symptomatology in early phases (T1) of the pandemic was the strongest predictor for the presence of such symptomatology 9 months after the outbreak (T2). Personality and hardiness correlated significantly with mental distress at T1 and T2. Personality traits explained 5% variance in symptoms when controlling for age, gender, solitary living, negative economic impact, and mental distress at baseline. Higher neuroticism predicted higher mental distress, whereas higher conscientiousness and extraversion predicted less mental distress. Hardiness did not explain variance in outcome beyond personality traits. Hardiness did not significantly moderate the relationship between neuroticism and mental distress.ConclusionIndividuals with high levels of neuroticism had greater difficulties adapting to the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and were more prone to mental distress. Contrastingly, higher conscientiousness and extraversion may have served as protective factors for mental distress during the pandemic. The current findings might aid identification of vulnerable individuals and groups. Consequently, preventive interventions could be offered to those who need it the most.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic imposed an acute, sharp rise in the use of video consultations (VCs) by general practitioners (GPs) in Norway.ObjectiveThis study aims to document GPs' experiences with the large-scale uptake of VCs in the natural experiment context of the pandemic.MethodsA nationwide, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among Norwegian GPs during the pandemic lockdown (April 14-May 3, 2020). Each respondent was asked to evaluate up to 10 VCs. Basic demographic characteristics of the GPs and their practices were collected. The associations between GPs' perceived suitability of the VCs, the nature of the patients' main problems, prior knowledge of the patients (relational continuity), and follow-up of previously presented problems (episodic continuity) were explored using descriptive statistics, diagrams, and chi-square tests.ResultsIn total, 1237 GPs (26% of the target group) responded to the survey. Among these, 1000 GPs offered VCs, and 855 GPs evaluated a total of 3484 VCs. Most GPs who offered VCs (1000/1237; 81%) had no experience with VCs before the pandemic. Overall, 51% (1766/3476) of the evaluated VCs were considered to have similar or even better suitability to assess the main reason for contact, compared to face-to-face consultations. In the presence of relational continuity, VCs were considered equal to or better than face-to-face consultations in 57% (1011/1785) of cases, as opposed to 32% (87/274) when the patient was unknown. The suitability rate for follow-up consultations (episodic continuity) was 61% (1165/1919), compared to 35% (544/1556) for new patient problems. Suitability varied considerably across clinical contact reasons. VCs were found most suitable for anxiety and life stress, depression, and administrative purposes, as well as for longstanding or complex problems that normally require multiple follow-up consultations. The GPs estimate that they will conduct about 20% of their consultations by video in a future, nonpandemic setting.ConclusionsOur study of VCs performed in general practice during the pandemic lockdown indicates a clear future role for VCs in nonpandemic settings. The strong and consistent association between continuity of care and GPs' perceptions of the suitability of VCs is a new and important finding with considerable relevance for future primary health care planning.