Quantifying the mental health burden of the most severe covid-19 restrictions: A natural experiment

Abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic, and the restrictions required to halt spread of the infection, are associated with increased population burden of moderate to severe symptoms of depression and anxiety. The aim was to quantify the mental health burden of the most severe COVID-19 related restrictions. Methods A natural experiment in which differences between Australian states and territories in the severity of restrictions for pandemic control, divided the population. People in Victoria experienced the most severe, and people in all other states and territories less severe or negligible restrictions. Data were collected in national, anonymously completed, online surveys (in April and in July / August 2020) of adults in Australia. Outcomes were, in the previous fortnight, experiencing clinically significant depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire 9 score ≥10); or symptoms of generalised anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder Scale 7 score ≥10). Results In total, 23,749 eligible respondents contributed complete data. There were no differences in the population burden of mental health problems between Victoria and the other states and territories at Survey One. By Survey Two prevalence rates of clinically significant depressive (Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 1.96; 95% CI 1.62; 2.37) and anxiety (aOR 1.87; 95%CI 1.53; 2.29) symptoms were substantially and significantly higher in Victoria than in other states and territories. Limitations Online surveys are less accessible to some groups of people. The data are self-report and not diagnostic. Conclusions The most severe COVID-19 restrictions are associated with near double the population prevalence of moderate to severe depressive and generalised anxiety symptoms.

Predictors of Mental Health Status among Quarantined COVID-19 Patients in Saudi Arabia

“…Although a quarantine period is a time-tested strategy to control the spread of infection, it has also been known to elicit harmful psychological impacts among complying people, even in the absence of a pandemic, since individuals are forced to isolate themselves from the society and abruptly change their way of life for the collective good [7,27]. Many large-scale observational studies have also pointed out the negative consequences of quarantine and isolation measures during COVID-19 in both the general and vulnerable population [28][29][30][31], as well as its direct association with the severity of COVID-19 restriction [32]. These previous observations are also reflected in the present study.…”

“…The 7-item Insomnia Severity Index (ISI; range, 0-28) was used to assess and categorized ISI into the following categories: normal (0-7), subthreshold (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14), moderate (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21), and severe (22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28) insomnia [23]. The last part of the questionnaire was the 22-item Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R; range, 0-88) and was recorded as normal (0-8), mild (9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25), moderate (26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)…”

COVID-19, Economic Impact, Mental Health, and Coping Behaviors: A Conceptual Framework and Future Research Directions

“…Personality traits and psychological conditions play an important role in the formation of mental health. Fisher et al (2021) suggested that depressed and anxious psychological states during the epidemic were associated with diminished energy, functional efficiency, optimism, creativity, engagement, and the ability to focus and solve problems, all of which are necessary for social and economic participation. During the pandemic, those with low collective self-esteem, low responsibility, and low openness to experience have higher levels of economic anxiety, as do those with high levels of neuroticism, perceived vulnerability to illness, and attribution from large group activities ( Mann et al, 2020 ).…”

Evaluating How Mental Health Changed in Australia through the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from the ‘Taking the Pulse of the Nation’ (TTPN) Survey

“…A number of longitudinal cohort studies underway prior to 2020 have collected data during the pandemic, providing measures from the same individuals before and during the pandemic, e.g., [ 4 , 5 ]. Other studies have recruited participants during the pandemic, via online/social media methods, media advertising, random-telephone calling, or from existing panels established by market research companies to be broadly representative of the population, e.g., [ 6 , 7 , 8 ].…”