Psychological distress among people with probable COVID-19 infection: analysis of the UK Household Longitudinal Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Niedzwiedz CL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8134894 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundEvidence on associations between COVID-19 illness and mental health is mixed. We aimed to examine whether COVID-19 is associated with deterioration in mental health while considering pre-pandemic mental health, time since infection, subgroup differences, and confirmation of infection via self-reported test and serology data.MethodsWe obtained data from 11 UK longitudinal studies with repeated measures of mental health (psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and life satisfaction; mental health scales were standardised within each study across time) and COVID-19 status between April, 2020, and April, 2021. We included participants with information available on at least one mental health outcome measure and self-reported COVID-19 status (suspected or test-confirmed) during the pandemic, and a subset with serology-confirmed COVID-19. Furthermore, only participants who had available data on a minimum set of covariates, including age, sex, and pre-pandemic mental health were included. We investigated associations between having ever had COVID-19 and mental health outcomes using generalised estimating equations. We examined whether associations varied by age, sex, ethnicity, education, and pre-pandemic mental health, whether the strength of the association varied according to time since infection, and whether associations differed between self-reported versus confirmed (by test or serology) infection.FindingsBetween 21 Dec, 2021, and July 11, 2022, we analysed data from 54 442 participants (ranging from a minimum age of 16 years in one study to a maximum category of 90 years and older in another; including 33 200 [61·0%] women and 21 242 [39·0%] men) from 11 longitudinal UK studies. Of 40 819 participants with available ethnicity data, 36 802 (90·2%) were White. Pooled estimates of standardised differences in outcomes suggested associations between COVID-19 and subsequent psychological distress (0·10 [95% CI 0·06 to 0·13], I2=42·8%), depression (0·08 [0·05 to 0·10], I2=20·8%), anxiety (0·08 [0·05 to 0·10], I2=0·0%), and lower life satisfaction (-0·06 [-0·08 to -0·04], I2=29·2%). We found no evidence of interactions between COVID-19 and sex, education, ethnicity, or pre-pandemic mental health. Associations did not vary substantially between time since infection of less than 4 weeks, 4-12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks, and were present in all age groups, with some evidence of stronger effects in those aged 50 years and older. Participants who self-reported COVID-19 but had negative serology had worse mental health outcomes for all measures than those without COVID-19 based on serology and self-report. Participants who had positive serology but did not self-report COVID-19 did not show association with mental health outcomes.InterpretationSelf-reporting COVID-19 was longitudinally associated with deterioration in mental health and life satisfaction. Our findings emphasise the need for greater post-infection mental health service provision, given the substantial prevalence of COVID-19 in the UK and worldwide.FundingUK Medical Research Council and UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.
| S-EPMC9560745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundApproximately seven million people in the UK are engaged in informal caregiving. Informal caregivers are at risk of poorer mental and physical health. However, less is known about how the relationship between the informal caregiving and psychological distress changes over time. The aim of this study was to investigate longitudinal associations between the informal caregiving and psychological distress amongst UK men and women aged 16+.MethodsData were analysed from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS, n = 9368), a nationally representative study of UK households. Longitudinal linear mixed modelling was used to estimate associations between the longitudinal patterns of informal caregiving (non-caregiver/one episode of 1-2 years/intermittent caregiving/3+ years caregiving) and trajectories of psychological distress across seven waves of UKHLS data.ResultsInformal caregiving was not associated with psychological distress for men. Women engaged in long-term (⩾3 years) or intermittent caregiving had higher levels of psychological distress at the point of initiation, compared with women who were not caregivers throughout the study period (3+ years caregiver: regression coefficient 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.89; intermittent caregiver: regression coefficient 0.47, 95% CI 0.02-0.92). Trajectories of psychological distress changed little over time, suggesting a plateau effect for these caregiving women.ConclusionsWomen engaged in long-term or repeated shorter episodes of informal caregiving reported more symptoms of psychological distress than non-caregiving women. Given the increased risk of reporting psychological distress and the increasing importance of the informal care sector, the risk of poorer mental health of informal caregivers should be a priority for public health.
| S-EPMC6601356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdolescence is a critical period for social and emotional development. We sought to examine the impacts of Covid-19 and related social restrictions and school closures on adolescent mental health, particularly among disadvantaged, marginalised, and vulnerable groups.MethodsWe analysed four waves of data - 3 pre-Covid-19 (2016-2019) and 1 mid-Covid-19 (May-Aug 2020; n, 1074; 12-18 years old, >80% minority ethnic groups, 25% free school meals) from REACH (Resilience, Ethnicity, and AdolesCent Mental Health), an adolescent cohort based in inner-London, United Kingdom. Mental health was assessed using validated measures at each time point. We estimated temporal trends in mental distress and examined variations in changes in distress, pre- to mid-Covid-19, by social group, and by pre- and mid-pandemic risks.ResultsWe found no evidence of an overall increase in mental distress midpandemic (15.9%, 95% CI: 13.0, 19.4) compared with prepandemic (around 18%). However, there were variations in changes in mental distress by subgroups. There were modest variations by social group and by pre-Covid risks (e.g., a small increase in distress among girls (b [unstandardised beta coefficient] 0.42 [-0.19, 1.03]); a small decrease among boys (b - 0.59 [-1.37, 0.19]); p for interaction .007). The most notable variations were by midpandemic risks: that is, broadly, increases in distress among those reporting negative circumstances and impacts (e.g., in finances, housing, social support and relationships, and daily routines) and decreases in distress among those reporting positive impacts.ConclusionsWe found strong evidence that mental distress increased among young people who were most negatively impacted by Covid-19 and by related social restrictions during the first lockdown in the United Kingdom.
| S-EPMC9114888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a range of negative social and economic effects that may contribute to a rise in mental health problems. In this observational population-based study, we examined longitudinal changes in the prevalence of mental health problems from before to during the COVID-19 crisis and identified subgroups that are psychologically vulnerable during the pandemic.Methods: Participants (N = 14 393; observations = 48 486) were adults drawn from wave 9 (2017-2019) of the nationally representative United Kingdom Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) and followed-up across three waves of assessment in April, May, and June 2020. Mental health problems were assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12).Results: The population prevalence of mental health problems (GHQ-12 score ?3) increased by 13.5 percentage points from 24.3% in 2017-2019 to 37.8% in April 2020 and remained elevated in May (34.7%) and June (31.9%) 2020. All sociodemographic groups examined showed statistically significant increases in mental health problems in April 2020. The increase was largest among those aged 18-34 years (18.6 percentage points, 95% CI 14.3-22.9%), followed by females and high-income and education groups. Levels of mental health problems subsequently declined between April and June 2020 but remained significantly above pre-COVID-19 levels. Additional analyses showed that the rise in mental health problems observed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic was unlikely to be due to seasonality or year-to-year variation.Conclusions: This study suggests that a pronounced and prolonged deterioration in mental health occurred as the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in the UK between April and June 2020.
| S-EPMC7737138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe how men and women divided childcare and housework demands during the height of the first Covid-19 lockdown in the UK, and whether these divisions were associated with worsening mental health during the pandemic.BackgroundSchool closures and homeworking during the Covid-19 crisis have resulted in an immediate increase in unpaid care work, which draws new attention to gender inequality in divisions of unpaid care work.MethodsData come from the wave 9 (2017-19) of Understanding Society and the following April (n = 15,426) and May (n = 14,150) waves of Understanding Society Covid-19 study. Psychological distress was measured using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) at both before and during the lockdown, and unpaid care work was measured during the lockdown. Linear regression models were used.ResultsWomen spent much more time on unpaid care work than men during lockdown, and it was more likely to be the mother than the father who reduced working hours or changed employment schedules due to increased time on childcare. Women who spent long hours on housework and childcare were more likely to report increased levels of psychological distress. Working parents who adapted their work patterns increased more psychological distress than those who did not. This association was much stronger if he or she was the only member in the household who adapted their work patterns, or if she was a lone mother. Fathers increased more psychological distress if they reduced work hours but she did not, compared to neither reducing work hours.ConclusionThere are continued gender inequalities in divisions of unpaid care work. Juggling home working with homeschooling and childcare as well as extra housework is likely to lead to poor mental health for people with families, particularly for lone mothers.
| S-EPMC7932161 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to evaluate the major life changes that Italian people experienced after one year of the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed the psychological and physical impact of COVID-19 within one year of the pandemic situation, and its possible correlation with the positive COVID-19 trend in the Italian region. We invited Italian people to complete a cross-sectional, online survey within a three-week period from 14 March to 4 April 2021. The survey collected data on the participants' stress and physical levels, attitude, perceived control, norms, personal and professional backgrounds, and place of stay in the last year. We used Student's t-test and the software package GRETL for Windows to assess the association between the study outcome variables and the explanatory variables (stress, attitude, perceived control, and norms). All participants who declared a level of physical stress in their answer suffered from psychological stress, but not vice versa. The result to be highlighted is that this level of stress was found more in women and in the age range of 21-45 years.
| S-EPMC8656865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite numerous efforts to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, there are few longitudinal studies that examine the change in the burden of psychological distress over time and its associated factors, especially in developing countries.ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study was to assess the levels of psychological distress at two time points during the COVID-19 outbreak based on a representative community sample in Chile. The secondary aim was to identify groups that are more vulnerable to psychological distress during the pandemic.MethodsA nationally representative, longitudinal telephone survey of Chilean adults was conducted. This study analyses panel data from two waves in 2020: May 30 to June 10 and September 15 to October 9. A total of 823 people participated in both surveys. Changes in mental health outcomes (anxiety and depressive symptoms) were assessed, estimating the effect of demographic characteristics, psychosocial and economic factors, household conditions, and health status.ResultsThere was a significant increase in psychological distress (PHQ-4 ≥ 6) between Waves 1 (22.6%) and 2 (27.0%), especially among younger participants. Overall, the results of this study show that being female, living in or near the capital, living in overcrowded households and having a perceived lack of space in the home, loneliness or perceived social isolation, and having received mental health treatment within the last year are significantly associated with psychological distress over time (p < 0.05).ConclusionThis study highlights the need to implement psychosocial programs to protect people's psychological well-being, as well as social policies to improve household living conditions and levels of social connectedness during the COVID-19 outbreak.
| S-EPMC8907540 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to potential adverse effects on the mental health status of a wide range of people. This study aimed to identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among general population in Hong Kong. Psychological distress was assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; level of fear was evaluated using the Fear of COVID-19 scale; and coping strategies were assessed using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify key factors associated with these mental health variables. Of the 555 participants, 53.9% experienced moderate to very high levels of psychological distress, 31.2% experienced a high level of fear of COVID-19, and 58.6% showed moderate to high resilient coping. Multivariable logistic regression indicated that living with family members, current alcohol consumption, and higher level of fear were associated with higher levels of psychological distress; perceived stress due to a change in employment condition, being a frontline worker, experiencing 'moderate to very high' distress, and healthcare service use to overcome the COVID-19 related stress in past 6 months were associated with a higher level of fear; and perceived better mental health status was associated with a moderate to high resilient coping. This study identified key factors associated with distress, fear and coping strategies during the pandemic in Hong Kong. Mental health support strategies should be provided continuously to prevent the mental impact of the pandemic from turning into long-term illness.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-02338-7.
| S-EPMC8527280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPre-COVID-19 research highlighted the nursing profession worldwide as being at high risk from symptoms of burnout, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and suicide. The World Health Organization declared a pandemic on 11th March 2020 due to the sustained risk of further global spread of COVID-19. The high healthcare burden associated with COVID-19 has increased nurses' trauma and workload, thereby exacerbating pressure on an already strained workforce and causing additional psychological distress for staff.ObjectivesThe Impact of COVID-19 on Nurses (ICON) interview study examined the impacts of the pandemic on frontline nursing staff's psychosocial and emotional wellbeing.DesignLongitudinal qualitative interview study.SettingsNurses who had completed time 1 and 2 of the ICON survey were sampled to include a range of UK work settings including acute, primary and community care and care homes. Interviewees were purposively sampled for maximum variation to cover a broad range of personal and professional factors, and experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, including redeployment.MethodsNurses participated in qualitative in-depth narrative interviews after the first wave of COVID-19 in July 2020 (n = 27) and again at the beginning of the second wave in December 2020 (n = 25) via video and audio platform software. Rigorous qualitative narrative analysis was undertaken both cross-sectionally (within wave) and longitudinally (cross wave) to explore issues of consistency and change.ResultsThe terms moral distress, compassion fatigue, burnout and PTSD describe the emotional states reported by the majority of interviewees leading many to consider leaving the profession. Causes of this identified included care delivery challenges; insufficient staff and training; PPE challenges and frustrations. Four themes were identified: (1) 'Deathscapes' and impoverished care (2) Systemic challenges and self-preservation (3) Emotional exhaustion and (4) (Un)helpful support.ConclusionsNurses have been deeply affected by what they have experienced and report being forever altered with the impacts of COVID-19 persisting and deeply felt. There is an urgent need to tackle stigma to create a psychologically safe working environment and for a national COVID-19 nursing workforce recovery strategy to help restore nurse's well-being and demonstrate a valuing of the nursing workforce and therefore support retention.
| S-EPMC8976696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly altered the routine of life and caused unanticipated changes resulting in severe psychological responses and mental health crisis. The study aimed to identify psycho-social factors that predicted distress among Indian population during the spread of novel Coronavirus.MethodAn online survey was conducted to assess the predictors of distress. A global logistic regression model was built, by identifying significant factors from individual logistic regression models built on various groups of independent variables. The prediction capability of the model was compared with the random forest classifier.ResultsThe respondents (N = 1060) who are more likely to be distressed, are in the age group of 21-35 years, are females (OR = 1.425), those working on site (OR = 1.592), have pre-existing medical conditions (OR = 1.682), do not have health insurance policy covering COVID-19 (OR = 1.884), have perceived seriousness of COVID-19 (OR = 1.239), have lack of trust in government (OR = 1.246) and whose basic needs' fulfillment are unsatisfactory (OR = 1.592). The ones who are less likely to be distressed, have higher social support and psychological capital. Random forest classifier correctly classified 2.3% and 17.1% of people under lower and higher distress respectively, with respect to logistic regression.ConclusionsThis study confirms the prevalence of high distress experienced by Indians at the time of COVID-19 and provides pragmatic implications for psychological health at macro and micro levels during an epidemiological crisis.
| S-EPMC8336880 | biostudies-literature