New Zealand’s early response to the novel coronavirus pandemic included a strict lockdown which eliminated community transmission of COVID-19. However, this success was not without cost, both economic and social. In our study, we examined the psychological wellbeing of New Zealanders during the COVID-19 lockdown when restrictions reduced social contact, limited recreation opportunities, and resulted in job losses and financial insecurity. We conducted an online panel survey of a demographically representative sample of 2010 adult New Zealanders in April 2020. The survey contained three standardised measures–the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), the GAD-7, and the Well-Being Index (WHO-5)–as well as questions designed specifically to measure family violence, suicidal ideation, and alcohol consumption. It also included items assessing positive aspects of the lockdown. Thirty percent of respondents reported moderate to severe psychological distress (K10), 16% moderate to high levels of anxiety, and 39% low wellbeing; well above baseline measures. Poorer outcomes were seen among young people and those who had lost jobs or had less work, those with poor health status, and who had past diagnoses of mental illness. Suicidal ideation was reported by 6%, with 2% reporting making plans for suicide and 2% reporting suicide attempts. Suicidality was highest in those aged 18–34. Just under 10% of participants had directly experienced some form of family harm over the lockdown period. However, not all consequences of the lockdown were negative, with 62% reporting ‘silver linings’, which included enjoying working from home, spending more time with family, and a quieter, less polluted environment. New Zealand’s lockdown successfully eliminated COVID-19 from the community, but our results show this achievement brought a significant psychological toll. Although much of the debate about lockdown measures has focused on their economic effects, our findings emphasise the need to pay equal attention to their effects on psychological wellbeing.

BackgroundNatural disasters are increasing in frequency and severity. They cause widespread hardship and are associated with detrimental effects on mental health.AimsOur aim is to provide the best estimate of the effects of natural disasters on mental health through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the rates of psychological distress and psychiatric disorder after natural disasters.MethodThis systematic review and meta-analysis is limited to studies that met predetermined quality criteria. We required included studies to make comparisons with pre-disaster or non-disaster exposed controls, and sample representative populations. Key studies were identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO from 1980 to 3 March 2017. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for studies that reported key outcomes with appropriate statistics.ResultsForty-one studies were identified by the literature search, of which 27 contributed to the meta-analyses. Continuous measures of psychological distress were increased after natural disasters (combined standardised mean difference 0.63, 95% CI 0.27–0.98, P = 0.005). Psychiatric disorders were also increased (combined odds ratio 1.84, 95% CI 1.43–2.38, P < 0.001). Rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression were significantly increased after disasters. Findings for anxiety and alcohol misuse/dependence were not significant. High rates of heterogeneity suggest that disaster-specific factors and, to a lesser degree, methodological factors contribute to the variance between studies.ConclusionsIncreased rates of psychological distress and psychiatric disorders follow natural disasters. High levels of heterogeneity between studies suggest that disaster variables and post-disaster response have the potential to mitigate adverse effects.Declaration of interestNone.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant disruption, distress, and loss of life around the world. While negative health, economic, and social consequences are being extensively studied, there has been less research on the resilience and post-traumatic growth that people show in the face of adversity. We investigated New Zealanders’ experiences of benefit-finding during the COVID-19 pandemic and analysed qualitative responses to a survey examining mental well-being during the New Zealand lockdown. A total of 1175 of 2010 eligible participants responded to an open-ended question probing ‘silver linings’ (i.e., positive aspects) they may have experienced during this period. We analysed these qualitative responses using a thematic analysis approach. Two thirds of participants identified silver linings from the lockdown and we developed two overarching themes: Surviving (coping well, meeting basic needs, and maintaining health) and thriving (self-development, reflection, and growth). Assessing positive as well as negative consequences of the pandemic provides more nuanced insights into the impact that New Zealand’s response had on mental well-being.

ObjectivesTo compare psychological outcomes, experiences and sources of stress over the COVID-19 lockdown in New Zealand in essential workers (healthcare and ‘other’ essential workers) with that of workers in nonessential work roles.DesignOnline cross-sectional survey.SettingConducted in New Zealand over level 4 lockdown in April/May 2020.ParticipantsFindings from employed participants (2495) are included in this report; 381 healthcare workers, 649 ‘other’ essential workers and 1465 nonessential workers.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMeasures included psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7)), well-being (WHO-5), alcohol use, subjective experiences and sources of stress. Differences between work categories were quantified as risk ratios or χ2 tests.ResultsAfter controlling for confounders that differed between groups of essential and nonessential workers, those in healthcare and those in ‘other’ essential work were at 71% (95% CI 1.29 to 2.27) and 59% (95% CI 1.25 to 2.02) greater risk respectively, of moderate levels of anxiety (GAD-7 ≥10), than those in nonessential work. Those in healthcare were at 19% (95% CI 1.02 to 1.39) greater risk of poor well-being (WHO-5 <13). There was no evidence of differences across work roles in risk for psychological distress (K10 ≥12) or increased alcohol use. Healthcare and ‘other’ essential workers reported increased workload (p<0.001) and less uncertainty about finances and employment than those in nonessential work (p<0.001). Healthcare and nonessential workers reported decreased social contact. No difference by work category in health concerns was reported; 15% had concerns about participants’ own health and 33% about other people’s health.ConclusionsDuring the pandemic lockdown, essential workers (those in healthcare and those providing ‘other’ essential work) were at increased risk of anxiety compared with those in nonessential work, with those in healthcare also being at increased risk of poor well-being. This highlights the need to recognise the challenges this vital workforce face in pandemics.

Short-term increases in dispensing were only observed for the classes of anxiolytics and sedatives/hypnotics. No sustained changes in dispensing occurred. These findings suggest that long-term detrimental effects on the mental health of the Canterbury population were either not present or have not resulted in increased prescribing of psychotropic medication.