Dataset Information

The Psychosocial Impacts of COVID-19 on a Sample of Australian Adults: Cross-sectional Survey and Sentiment Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has had enormous impacts on people's lives, including disruptions to their normal ways of behaving, working, and interacting with others. Understanding and documenting these experiences is important to inform the ongoing response to COVID-19 and disaster preparedness efforts.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the psychosocial impacts of COVID-19 on a sample of Australian adults.

Methods

The data analyzed were derived from a larger cross-sectional survey of Australian adults that was administered during the month of May 2020. Participants (N=3483) were asked in which ways COVID-19 had most greatly impacted them; the responses produced a text data set containing 1 COVID-19 impact story for each participant, totaling 86,642 words. Participants also completed assessments of their sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, financial stress), level of concern related to COVID-19, personality trait profile, and satisfaction with life. Impact stories were analyzed using sentiment analysis and compared against the Theoretical Domains Framework to determine the most frequently impacted life domains. Finally, a multinomial regression analysis, stratified by participant sex, was conducted to identify the associations of psychological and demographic socializations with sentiment toward COVID-19.

Results

In total, 3483 participants completed the survey, the majority of whom were female (n=2793, 80.2%). Participants' impact stories were most commonly categorized as neutral (1544/3483, 44.3%), followed by negative (1136/3483, 32.6%) and positive (802/3483, 23.1%). The most frequently impacted life domains included behavioral regulation, environmental context and resources, social influences, and emotions, suggesting that the COVID-19 pandemic was impacting these areas of participants' lives the most. Finally, the regression results suggested that for women, lower satisfaction with life and higher financial stress were associated with increased likelihood of negative, rather than positive, sentiment (P<.001); however, the proportion of variance in the sentiment that was explained was very small (<5%).

Conclusions

Participant sentiment toward COVID-19 varied. High rates of neutral and negative sentiment were identified. Positive sentiment was identified but was not as common. Impacts to different areas of people's lives were identified, with a major emphasis on behavioral regulation and related domains such as social influences, environmental context and resources, and emotions. Findings may inform the development of mental health and social support resources and interventions to help alleviate the psychosocial consequences of disaster response measures.

SUBMITTER: Ryan J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8274677 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Guinea, like many other African countries, has been facing an unprecedented COVID-19 outbreak, since March 2020. In April 2020, Guinean National agency for health security recorded 1351 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 313 recoveries and 07 deaths. To address this health crisis, some drastic measures were implemented to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Those measures might potentially cause some psychological problems among Guineans. Thus, we conducted this study to assess the psychosocial impacts of COVID-19 in the Guinean population. We carried out an online cross-sectional survey among internet users in Guinea. A free e-survey platform was used, and questionnaires were sent to internet users. The study ran from May 1 through May 10 2020. Participation in the study was voluntary. Data collection was based on sociodemographic information and self-reported questionnaires: Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) for stress evaluation, Penn state worry questionnaire (PSWQ), and an adapted Social Psychological Measurements of COVID-19. A total of 280 participants took part in the study; responses from 5 participants were deleted because of incompleteness. The average age of participants was 28.9 [95% CI: 28.1;29.6]. Most of participants were male 65.5% [95% CI: 59.5%;71.1%]. Unemployed participants stood for 48.7% [95% CI: 42.7%;54.8%]. IES-R scale for stress evaluation yielded the following findings: 19.6% (mild), 5.23% (moderate) and 9.15% (severe); 82.8% and 17.2% of participants had respectively reported low and moderate worry. No significant statistical association was found between sociodemographic variables and traumatic events (IES-R and PSWQ). However, 82% of our participants had to cope with the negative impacts of COVID-19. Although there were few cases of traumatic events, negative impacts of COVID-19 on study participants deserve to be underlined. So, further investigations are necessary to identify and disentangle specific psychosocial problems in different Guinean socio-cultural contexts.

Project description:BackgroundEffective COVID-19 vaccines have been available since early 2021 yet many Americans refuse or delayed uptake. As of mid-2022, still around 30% of US adults remain unvaccinated against COVID-19. The majority (81%) of these unvaccinated adults say they will "definitely not" be getting the COVID-19 vaccine. Understanding the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake is critical to reducing death and illness from the virus, as well as to inform future vaccine efforts, such as the more recent bivalent (omicron) booster.ObjectiveThis study aimed to expand our understanding of psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We focus on both COVID-19-specific factors, such as COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, as well as more global personality attributes such as dogmatism, reactance, gender roles, political beliefs, and religiosity.MethodsWe conducted a web-based survey in mid-2021 of a representative sample of 1376 adults measuring both COVID-19-specific beliefs and attitudes, as well as global personality attributes. COVID-19 vaccination status is reported at 3 levels: vaccinated; unvaccinated-may-get-it; unvaccinated-hard-no.ResultsOur analyses focused on the correlation of COVID-19 vaccination status with 10 psychosocial attributes: COVID-19-specific conspiracy theory beliefs; COVID-19 vaccine misinformation; COVID-19-related Rapture beliefs; general antivaccination beliefs; trait reactance; trait dogmatism; belief in 2020 election fraud; belief in a QAnon conspiracy; health care system distrust; and identification with traditional gender roles. We used a multivariate analysis of covariance to examine mean differences across vaccine status groups for each of the correlates while holding constant the effects of age, gender, race, income, education, political party, and Evangelicalism. Across the 10 psychosocial correlates, several different response scales were used. To allow for comparison of effects across correlates, measures of effect size were computed by converting correlates to z scores and then examining adjusted mean differences in z scores between the groups. We found that all 10 psychosocial variables were significantly associated with vaccination status. After general antivaccination beliefs, COVID-19 misinformation beliefs and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs had the largest effect on vaccine uptake.ConclusionsThe association of these psychosocial factors with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may help explain why vaccine uptake has not shifted much among the unvaccinated-hard-no group since vaccines became available. These findings deepen our understanding of those who remain resistant to getting vaccinated and can guide more effective tailored communications to reach them. Health communication professionals may apply lessons learned from countering related beliefs and personality attributes around issues such as climate change and other forms of vaccine hesitancy. For example, using motivational interviewing strategies that are equipped to handle resistance and provide correct information in a delicate manner that avoids reactance.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Relatively little knowledge is available to date about health literacy among the general population in Europe. It is important to gain insights into health literacy competences among the general population, as this might contribute to more effective health promotion and help clarify socio-economic disparities in health. This paper is part of the European Health Literacy Survey (HLS-EU). It aims to add to the body of theoretical knowledge about health literacy by measuring perceived difficulties with health information in various domains of health, looking at a number of competences. The definition and measure of health literacy is still topic of debate and hardly any instruments are available that are applicable for the general population. The objectives were to obtain an initial measure of health literacy in a sample of the general population in the Netherlands and to relate this measure to education, income, perceived social status, age, and sex. METHODS: The HLS-EU questionnaire was administered face-to-face in a sample of 925 Dutch adults, during July 2011. Perceived difficulties with the health literacy competences for accessing, understanding, appraising and applying information were measured within the domains of healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion. Multiple linear regression analyses were applied to explore the associations between health literacy competences and education, income, perceived social status, age, and sex. RESULTS: Perceived difficulties with health information and their association with demographic and socio-economic variables vary according to the competence and health domain addressed. Having a low level of education or a low perceived social status or being male were consistently found to be significantly related to relatively low health literacy scores, mainly for accessing and understanding health information. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived difficulties with health information vary between competences and domains of health. Health literacy competences are associated with indicators of socio-economic position and with the domain in which health information is provided.

Project description:BackgroundThe gold standard management of aortic dissection, a life-threatening condition, includes multidisciplinary approaches. Although mental distress following aortic dissection is common, evidence-based psychosocial interventions for aortic dissection survivors are lacking.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to identify the perceived psychosocial needs of aortic dissection survivors by surveying patients, their relatives, and health professionals to inform the development of such interventions.MethodsThis study used a cross-sectional survey and collected responses from 41 participants (27 patients with aortic dissection, 8 relatives of patients with aortic dissection, and 6 health professionals) on key topics, types of interventions, best timing, anticipated success, and the intended effects and side effects of psychosocial interventions after aortic dissection.ResultsThe principal intervention topics were "changes in everyday life" (28/41, 68%, 95% CI 54.5%-82.9%), "anxiety" (25/41, 61%, 95% CI 46.2%-76.2%), "uncertainty" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 42.9%-73.2%), "tension/distress" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 43.9%-73.8%), and "trust in the body" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35.9%-67.5%). The most commonly indicated intervention types were "family/relative therapy" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-65.9%) and "anxiety treatment" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-67.5%). The most recommended intervention timing was "during inpatient rehabilitation" (26/41, 63%, 95% CI 47.6%-77.5%) followed by "shortly after inpatient rehabilitation" (20/41, 49%, 95% CI 32.4%-65%). More than 95% (39/41) of respondents anticipated a benefit from psychosocial interventions following aortic dissection dissection, expecting a probable improvement in 68.6% (95% CI 61.4%-76.2%) of aortic dissection survivors, a worse outcome for 5% (95% CI 2.9%-7.9%), and that 6% (95% CI 1.8%-10.4%) would have negative side effects due to such interventions.ConclusionsOur findings highlight a substantial need for psychosocial interventions in aortic dissection survivors and indicate that such interventions would be a success. They provide a basis for the development and evaluation of interventions as part of state-of-the-art aortic dissection management.