Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has had profound physical and mental health effects on populations around the world. Limited empirical research has used a gender-based lens to evaluate the mental health impacts of the pandemic, overlooking the impact of public health measures on marginalized groups, such as women, and the gender diverse community. This study used a gender-based analysis to determine the prevalence of psychosocial symptoms and substance use by age, ethnicity, income, rurality, education level, Indigenous status, and sexual orientation.
Participants in the study were recruited from previously established cohorts as a part of the COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Study of a Provincial Population-Based Cohort for Gender and Sex (RESPPONSE) study. Those who agreed to participate were asked to self-report symptoms of depression, anxiety, pandemic stress, loneliness, alcohol use, and cannabis use across five phases of the pandemic as well as retrospectively before the pandemic.
For all psychosocial outcomes, there was a significant effect of time with all five phases of the pandemic being associated with more psychosocial symptoms relative to pre-COVID levels (p < .0001). Gender was significantly associated with all outcomes (p < .0001) with men exhibiting lower scores (i.e., less symptoms) than women and gender diverse participants, and women exhibiting lower scores than the gender diverse group. Other significant predictors were age (younger populations experiencing more symptoms, p < .0001), ethnicity (Chinese/Taiwanese individuals experiencing less symptoms, p = .005), and Indigenous status (Indigenous individuals experiencing more symptoms, p < .0001). Alcohol use and cannabis use increased relative to pre-pandemic levels, and women reported a greater increase in cannabis use than men (p < .0001). Our findings highlight the need for policy makers and leaders to proactively consider gender when tailoring public health measures for future pandemics.
Introduction
In the first eighteen months of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, there have been over 150 million cases and over 3 million deaths attributable to the upper respiratory virus [1]. More specifically, Canada has reached a stark milestone of one million cases and over 20,000 deaths in a little over a year (May 2021) [2]. Although the physical health effects of the virus tend to dominate the literature and the media, it is well established that outbreaks, including the current pandemic, have significant impacts on the mental health of those involved. For example, healthcare workers and patients affected by previous outbreaks such as SARS-CoV-1 [3], H1N1 influenza [4], and Ebola [5] have poorer psychosocial outcomes during the onset of societal alarm.
Public health measures put in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic have had a negative impact on the mental health of peoples worldwide [6, 7]. Levels of depression [8], anxiety [8], loneliness [9], alcohol use [10, 11], and cannabis use [12] have all increased relative to pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, there is mounting evidence highlighting the secondary effects of public health measures on specific populations during the pandemic [13]. For example, younger populations [14] and those of lower income [14] have experienced disproportionate psychosocial outcomes because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
There is a growing realization that an intersectional lens needs to be applied to COVID-19 research, not only regarding biomedical outcomes, but for psychosocial outcomes as well [15]. Across North America, more efforts are being directed towards sex and gender research. Sex is defined as birth assignment and is usually established by genital anatomy at birth with female, male, and intersex as typical response options in queries about sex. Gender identity is defined as one’s personal feelings about being a woman, man, transgender, gender-diverse individual, or another expression of gender that does not align with that person’s birth assigned sex. When sex is considered in the context of psychosocial issues, it is well established that females are more likely to present symptoms of depression and anxiety outside of the pandemic [16] and have faced greater job losses than males during the COVID-19 pandemic [17]. Thus, it is not surprising that studies to date have found that females have reported more anxiety, depressive symptoms and post-traumatic stress symptoms relative to males during the COVID-19 pandemic [14,18–20]. Age also plays a large role in sex differences in the risk for neuropsychiatric disorders [21], but thus far the interaction between age and sex has received little attention with regards to how age may interact with sex and psychosocial outcomes throughout COVID-19.
In addition to the paucity of sex-based analyses, studies examining psychosocial outcomes from the standpoint of participants’ self-identified gender are few. Most of the research on gender and the COVID-19 pandemic have compared responses between women and men, while ignoring the experiences of individuals who experience gender on a spectrum, beyond the binary classification of man and woman. A recent cross-sectional survey by Hawke et al. [22] found that despite no clear significant differences in mental health between cisgender, transgender and gender diverse youth before the pandemic, those identifying as gender diverse were two times more likely to report experiencing mental health challenges relative to the cisgender group during COVID-19. These findings were associated with an unmet need for mental health and substance use services. However, this study was limited to those aged 14-28, thereby reducing the generalizability of the findings to the larger population. To our knowledge, no studies have taken a gender-based approach to assess the prevalence of mental health sequelae of COVID-19 pandemic control measures across a general population sample. Given the current data as well as previous findings on the poor mental health outcomes of gender diverse individuals [23], focused empirical attention on this population is critical.
Other social determinants of health (SDoH), including education, ethnicity, and income, impact physical and mental health outcomes [24] and have shaped the risk and consequences of COVID-19 in communities across North America [25]. Additionally, minority stress theory has posited that those who are part of more than one marginalized societal group may experience even greater health disparities [26]. Given this, it is crucial to not only explore the impact of the SDoH on health outcomes, but also how these factors interact with each other and with gender to influence mental health. A year and a half into the pandemic, gaps in research exploring these intersections remain. Our study presents a unique opportunity to explore the sex and gendered effects associated with the unintended consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many governments have tailored public health interventions throughout the pandemic based on infection incidence and hospitalization rates, resulting in a series of lockdowns (and prescribed regulations), followed by periods of relaxed restrictions, which have generated defined “phases” of the pandemic. While it is now widely known that lockdowns impact mental health [27], little research has explored mental health across these different “phases” of the pandemic.
We examined the prevalence of psychosocial outcomes by sex, gender, age, ethnicity, income, education, rurality, and sexual orientation as well as how these characteristics may interact with each other to impact the mental health of a large cohort of the general population in British Columbia (BC) across different phases of the pandemic. First, we examined the prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, and loneliness based on previous findings reporting that these outcomes have been impacted by the pandemic, and secondly, we measured the associations of these psychosocial variables with increased alcohol and cannabis consumption. We predicted that these four psychosocial domains would be more symptomatic in women and gender diverse individuals than in men and that this would be influenced by age, ethnicity, and income. We also hypothesized that during phases of increased social restriction psychosocial symptoms would increase.
Materials and Methods
Participant Recruitment and Study Design
Participants, aged 25-69 years, were invited to participate in this study from previously established cohorts from the XXXXX (information blinded for peer review), representing both general and priority populations of BC who had consented to being contacted for future research [28]. Participants were stratified into nine five-year age strata, and using a SARS-CoV-2 population seroprevalence of 2% (±1, 95% CI), the target recruitment for each stratum was 750. The seroprevalence statistic was used to target recruitment for analyses in a separate manuscript.
Those identified as potentially eligible from the established cohorts (Index Participants) were sent an email invitation to participate via an online survey. To improve the representativeness of the study sample, Index Participants were asked to pass the invitation on to one household member who identified as a different gender as the respondent (Household Participants). All potential participants were sent up to three email reminders to participate in the study. The inclusion criteria were: current residents of BC, aged 25-69, any gender, and able and willing to fill out the online survey in English. Ethics approval was obtained from the XXXXXXX Research Ethics board (information blinded for peer review). Survey responses were collected anonymously, with the exception of three-digit postal codes, which were used to determine rurality for analyses.
After two months of data collection from existing research cohorts, recruitment was expanded to include participants who were not from previous cohorts, as well as public recruitment through the REACH BC platform, social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter and Instagram), posts on the XXXX website and engagement of community groups and other stakeholders to facilitate recruitment. All respondents in the study were invited to enter a draw to win a $100 e-gift card for completing the survey. Recruitment was continued until a target of n = 750 was reached for each of the nine age-based strata, with the exception of the 25-29 year age group. Recruitment was open from August 20, 2020 – March 1, 2021.
Survey Design and Measures
The survey was tested for face validity, pilot tested, and a final version was designed using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) [29]. While the survey consisted of multiple modules, this study focuses solely on the outcomes from the psychosocial module, which included questions about mental health outcomes such as depression, anxiety, stress, loneliness, alcohol use, and cannabis use.
Demographic information was collected from all respondents including age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, Indigenous status, income, education level, if the participant was currently a student and rurality by postal code. Sex referred specifically to the sex assigned at birth and included the option of male, female or intersex. Gender referred to the respondent’s current gender identity and included the options man, woman, or another option grouping non-binary, transgender, GenderQueer, agender or any other similar identity together. Sexual orientation options included asexual, bisexual, demisexual, gay/lesbian, heterosexual, or pansexual. Participants were given the option to identify as the following ethnicities: White, Chinese/Taiwanese, Black (African, Caribbean, or Other), South Asian (e.g., Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Punjabi, and Sri Lankan), and several other ethnicities who were analyzed an “Other” category. Indigenous status was assessed separately from ethnicity. Self-reporting of Indigenous status provided participants the option to identify as First Nation, Metis, Inuit, non-status First Nations, other Indigenous or not Indigenous, and they were then asked about Two Spirit identity. Rurality was determined based on three-digit postal codes and were classified into one of the follow categories: census metropolitan area, strong metropolitan influence zone, moderate metropolitan zone, or weak to no metropolitan influence zone.
Although the survey was completed at only one cross-sectional time point, some of the questions asked participants to refer to different periods of time: pre-pandemic (before March 2020) as well as across five different phases of the pandemic in BC. In the first version of the survey, Phase 1 lasted from mid-March 2020 to mid-May 2020, Phase 2 lasted from mid-May 2020 to mid-June 2020, and Phase 3 lasted from mid-June 2020 until the end of November 2020. At the end of November 2020, the survey was amended to include Phases 4 and 5, as well as modified dates for Phases 2 and 3 (mid-May to end of August 2020; denoted by Phase 2/3_2). Phase 4 lasted from September 2020 to the end of October 2020 and Phase 5 lasted from November 2020 to the date our survey closed (March 1, 2021). We have included a Supplemental Table that explains the public health recommendations in more detail, through every phase of the pandemic in BC.
Depression
Depression was measured across the phases of the pandemic using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). The PHQ-9 questionnaire was used to measure self-reported symptoms of depression on a Likert scale from zero (not at all) to three (nearly everyday). Scores for this questionnaire range from 0-27 with a score of 0-4 indicating minimal depression, 5-14 indicating mild to moderate depression and 15-27 indicating moderately severe to severe depression [30]. The PHQ-9 has been validated across age and gender, as well as among diverse populations [30, 31]. Internal consistency across data collection and Cronbach’s alpha for the PHQ-9 in the current sample was very good at α = 0.848.
Anxiety
Anxiety was measured across the phases of the pandemic using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder questionnaire (GAD-7). The GAD-7 was provided to respondents to self-report feelings of anxiety on a Likert scale from zero (not at all) to three (nearly everyday). Scores for this questionnaire range from 0-21 with scores above 10 indicating a clinical diagnosis for anxiety [32]. The GAD-7 has been validated in the general population and is frequently used in primary care settings to screen for anxiety symptoms[33]. Internal consistency across data collection and Cronbach’s alpha for the GAD-7 questionnaire in the current sample was very good at α = 0.889.
Pandemic Stress
General pandemic stress was measured across the phases of the pandemic using the CoRonavIruS Health Impact Survey (CRISIS) V0.3. This survey was developed and validated early in the COVID-19 pandemic to provide a general measure of mental distress and resilience [34]. Participants were asked to self-report feelings of stress on a Likert scale from one (not at all) to five (extremely). Scores for this questionnaire range from 10-50 with higher scores indicating greater COVID-related stress. Internal consistency across data collection and Cronbach’s alpha for CRISIS in the current sample was very good at α = 0.882.
Loneliness
Loneliness was also measured across the phases of the pandemic where respondents were asked to self-report feelings of loneliness on a Likert scale from one (not lonely at all) to five (extremely lonely). Previous studies have found loneliness to be positively correlated with both PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores [35] and to be a significant predictor of suicide [36, 37].
Alcohol Use
Change in alcohol use was asked for all post-COVID time points (i.e., Has your consumption of alcohol changed since March 2020?). Change in alcohol use was defined as “none” (which included no alcohol use, decreased alcohol use, and same alcohol use) vs. increased alcohol use. Therefore, a single, non-time-varying alcohol change variable was created and used in a longitudinal model with time.
Cannabis Use
Change in cannabis use was asked for all post-COVID time points (Has your consumption of cannabis changed since March 2020?). As with alcohol, change in cannabis use was defined as “none” (which included no cannabis use, decreased cannabis use, and same cannabis use) vs. increased cannabis use. A single, non-time-varying cannabis change variable was created and used in a longitudinal model with time.
Statistical Analyses
Analyses were carried out using R v.4.0.3. Longitudinal analyses of psychosocial outcomes across the pandemic control phases were conducted using mixed-effects linear regression models with individual and household IDs as random effects. This allows for correlations among individuals in the same household, and separately, correlations over time among responses within the same individual. We included pairwise interactions to assess non-additive effects between pandemic phase, sex, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, income, and Indigenous status. Significance was assessed using likelihood-ratio tests, and interactions were removed from the models if non-significant at p < .05. Post-hoc pairwise tests were conducted to further explore main or interaction effects with Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
To explore associations between increase in alcohol and cannabis use with sex/gender and other demographic variables we used mixed-effects logistic regressions with household ID as a random effect. We also examined increase in alcohol and cannabis use and psychosocial outcomes across the phases as described above. Interactions and post-hoc tests were handled as above. Missing data were excluded from analyses.
Results
Survey Participants
Between August 2020 and March 2021, 16,056 survey invites were emailed to prospective Index Participants and 1,872 participants were recruited from the public, for a total of 17,928 prospective participants. Of these participants, a total of 5,415 responded to the invitation to participate in the study and met the analysis inclusion criteria (Fig 1). Of these participants, 1,434 forwarded the survey invitation to a household member of a different sex or gender and we received 661 participants via this method. The present analyses includes the 6,076 Index and Household participants who completed psychosocial measures of anxiety, depression, stress, and loneliness.
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
A total of 6,426 individuals responded to the question about sex; there were n = 820 males (12.7%) and n = 5,606 females (87.1%). A total of 6,076 responded to the question about gender; including men (n = 750; 12.3%), women (n = 5,254; 86.4%), and gender diverse (n = 72; 1.2%) individuals. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the sample by gender.
Effect of Pandemic Phase, Age, Ethnicity and Gender and Sex on Psychosocial Outcomes
Controlling for household income, we found no significant interactions between age and gender, age and sex, age and ethnicity or rurality on any of the psychosocial measures. For all psychosocial outcomes, there was a significant relationship with pandemic phase (all p < .0001, Table 2), with the greatest increases in psychosocial symptoms in Phase 1 compared to pre-COVID. The scores in all subsequent phases remained significantly higher (i.e., more symptoms) than in the pre-COVID phase across all outcomes (Fig 2A-D, Table 2). Gender was significantly associated with all outcomes (all p < .0001, Fig 2A-D, Table 2), and pairwise comparisons showed that men had lower scores than both women and gender-diverse participants, while women had lower scores than the gender-diverse participants. Age was significantly negatively associated with all the outcomes, with older participants having lower scores on average (i.e., fewer psychosocial symptoms) (p < .0001, Table 2). Finally, there was a significant relationship between ethnicity and all outcomes (GAD-7 and PHQ-9 p < .0001, CRISIS and Loneliness p = .005, Table 2), with scores lower in Chinese/Taiwanese participants compared to the White, South Asian, and Other ethnicity participants. When sex was included in the model in place of gender, there were no differences to the findings, indicting the overlap in our participants self-reported sex and gender. Given our intention to explore outcomes separately for gender-diverse individuals, all subsequent analyses were done by gender (not sex).
Psychosocial Outcomes by Indigenous Status
Controlling for household income, there was no significant interaction between Indigenous status and age or gender. There was a significant interaction between Indigenous status and time for all four psychosocial outcomes (p < .0001, Table 2) and follow-up post-hoc pairwise tests suggest that at all time points except pre-COVID, those who identified as Indigenous had significantly higher GAD-7, PHQ-9, CRISIS, and loneliness scores (i.e., more symptoms) than those who did not identify as Indigenous.
Psychosocial Outcomes by Sexual Orientation
Across all outcomes, the non-heterosexual group (which included asexual, bisexual, demisexual, gay/lesbian, pansexual, and other) had significantly more psychosocial symptoms than the heterosexual group for all phases, and the magnitude of the difference between the groups was largest in Phase 1 of the pandemic.
Associations between Psychosocial Outcomes and Alcohol by Gender
A total of 23.3% of the sample reported an increase in alcohol use. Increased alcohol use was negatively associated with age (p < .001, Table 3), with older participants having lower odds of increased alcohol use. There was no significant difference among genders in the odds of increased alcohol use, but there was a trend of increasing odds as household income increased. Additionally, those residing in census metropolitan areas were found to have increased their alcohol use relative to those outside of these dense urban areas (p = .03, Table 3).
Controlling for household income, and across all psychosocial outcomes, there was no interaction between gender and increased alcohol use, suggesting that the differences among genders in these psychosocial variables was the same between those who did and did not increase alcohol use since the start of the pandemic (Table 4). There was a significant interaction between increased alcohol use and pandemic phase (all p < .0001, Table 4). Pairwise tests indicated that at all phases, with the exception of pre-COVID, those who reported increased alcohol use had significantly more psychosocial symptoms on all measures (p < .0001, Table 4).
Associations between Psychosocial Outcomes and Cannabis Use by Gender
A total of 5.9% of the sample reported an increase in cannabis use since the start of the pandemic. Increased cannabis use was negatively associated with age (p <.001, Table 3), with older participants having lower odds of increased use. There was a significant relationship with gender (p = .02, Table 3, Fig 3), where women had a significantly higher odds of increased cannabis use compared to men, and there was no significant difference between men and gender diverse, and women and gender diverse groups .
Controlling for household income, there was a significant interaction between change in cannabis use and pandemic phase (p < .0001 for GAD-7, PHQ-9, and CRISIS, p = .04 for Loneliness, Table 5). Post-hoc pairwise tests suggest that across all phases, including pre-COVID, those who increased cannabis use had significantly higher anxiety, more depressive symptoms, and higher COVID-stress scores than those who did not have increased cannabis use. Loneliness scores were significantly higher across all phases of the pandemic for those who increased cannabis use compared to those who did not. There was no interaction between gender and increased cannabis use for GAD-7, PHQ-9, or CRISIS scores. However, there was a significant interaction between gender and increased cannabis use on Loneliness (p = .008, Table 5). For both men and women, those who increased cannabis use had higher loneliness scores than those who did not have increased cannabis use. Conversely, among the gender-diverse participants, there was no difference in loneliness between those who increased cannabis, and those who did not.
Discussion
This large Canadian study recruited 6,076 women, men, and gender diverse people across the province of British Columbia. Our main findings indicated that age, sex, gender, ethnicity, Indigenous status, sexual orientation, and phase of the pandemic have distinct effects on psychosocial outcomes. Across outcomes, women had more psychosocial symptoms than men, regardless of their age or ethnicity, while the gender diverse group (n = 72) had even more symptoms than women. An analysis by sex revealed the same findings as for gender, except that the gender diverse group was now absorbed into one of the two binary categories and obscuring their findings.
Our results highlight the greater negative outcomes on all psychosocial variables in gender diverse individuals, which would have been obscured in an analysis by sex alone and adds to the literature highlighting the value in analyzing data by gender. It is important to underscore that being a woman was a significant factor that determined higher anxiety, depression, stress, and loneliness - a finding mirrored in the literature across all continents [38, 39]. Given that women and gender diverse individuals are more likely to be diagnosed with mood disorders or score lower on mood surveys outside of a pandemic [16,40,41], it is not surprising that these populations are experiencing mental health inequities during COVID-19. However, our results should be interpreted with some caution as our gender-diverse cohort accounted for only 1% of the sample. Nonetheless, our results are striking and consistent with many other studies focused on gender using larger cohorts [42, 43].
Our study also benefited from examining the effects of other intersectional sociodemographic variables, such as age, to determine how they might play a role in the effect of sex and gender on mental health. Across all the psychosocial measures, younger participants were more likely to have anxiety, depression, pandemic stress, and loneliness, irrespective of their gender. These findings are consistent with others in smaller cohort studies that indicated younger ages were associated with higher scores (i.e., more psychosocial symptoms) on psychosocial variables [44]. There may be several reasons for these findings such as restricted social engagements, barriers to employment, and living conditions. Lockdowns across the globe have resulted in restricted social gatherings, closing of restaurants, bars and clubs, as well as recreational sporting activities (gyms, sports clubs, exercise classes, yoga and dance). In addition, younger adults are more likely to either live on their own, or with unrelated roommates and have greater perceived lack of social support. Indeed, findings from a larger cohort in China found that greater loneliness was associated not only with younger age (16-29) but also in unmarried individuals [36]. Physical activity is another important factor as a large survey across fourteen countries found that decreased physical activity during restrictions and lockdowns, as well as high physical activity pre-pandemic, were associated with poorer mental health scores [45]. Other studies have also noted that suicide and suicidal ideation have increased during the pandemic in younger adults [46], related partially to job losses. Taken together, the underlying reasons for this significant effect of age are of great importance and require further study.
In addition to age, ethnicity was associated with psychosocial outcomes with Chinese/Taiwanese participants reporting significantly lower scores (i.e., fewer psychosocial symptoms) on anxiety, depression, pandemic stress, and loneliness. These data are consistent with findings from other studies, such as a survey of more than 46,000 Canadians which found that Chinese individuals were less likely to report symptoms consistent with moderate to severe generalized anxiety disorder than other visible minority groups during the COVID-19 pandemic [47]. Several studies of the Canadian Community Health Survey also show that the prevalence of mental disorders is lower among Asian or Chinese immigrants [48]. However, it is important that we interpret these findings with a consideration for how culture may affect the experience of mental well-being and distress. Culture has previously emerged as a major factor explaining differences in mental health consultation between Chinese and non-Chinese Canadian ethnic groups [48]. There is stigma in traditional Chinese culture around mental health problems and treatment, and prioritization of collective harmony over individual emotions [48]. The negative characterization of psychosocial experiences within Chinese cultural groups may affect disclosure of mental health issues and influence how individuals respond to questions about their mental health. For instance, when restricting analyses to only those at moderate to high risk for depression, Chinese Canadians were less likely to consult mental health services than non-Chinese Canadians in BC [48]. Similar findings have been demonstrated internationally [49]. In terms of the validity of these measures among Chinese/Taiwanese populations, the PHQ-9 has been validated for diagnosing major depressive disorder across major ethnic groups (African American, Chinese American, Latino, non-Hispanic White), suggesting that it can be used without adjustment in diverse populations [50]. On the other hand, while the feasibility, psychometric structure and construct validity of CRISIS, our measure of stress, was demonstrated in population-based assessments with broad coverage with respect to race, further work is required to assess CRISIS in different racial/ethnic groups [34]. Additionally, the GAD-7 was developed and validated among a primarily white sample, leaving open the possibility of a measurement bias [51], although it was concluded to be a reliable measure across some cultural groups [51, 52]. In sum, our findings suggest that our Chinese/Taiwanese sample experienced fewer psychosocial symptoms throughout the pandemic relative to other groups.
We found that those who self-identified as Indigenous had significantly worse psychosocial symptoms than non-Indigenous participants across all four scales for all phases of the pandemic in BC. Importantly, there was no difference in psychosocial outcomes between Indigenous and non-indigenous groups pre-COVID, which underscores the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on this community. While investigations on the mental health impacts on Indigenous peoples during the COVID-19 pandemic have been limited, our results are consistent with the available data. For example, other data from Australia (Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander) [53] as well as Canada [54] showed more psychosocial symptoms among Indigenous respondents during the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of interaction between Indigenous status and gender suggests that the higher psychosocial symptoms occur regardless of Indigenous persons’ gender. This stands in contrast to another study finding that Indigenous women were particularly impacted by mental health issues (severe generalized anxiety, worse mental health, and stress) during COVID-19 [54]. Future studies should explore the extent to which variables such as rurality (which can contribute to barriers accessing care) and income may account for these higher rates of psychological symptoms among Indigenous communities [44].
Findings on the relationship between anxiety, depression, pandemic stress, and loneliness, with increased alcohol and cannabis use, align with previous studies [12]. Given the poorer self-reported mental health among younger populations, it was not surprising to observe an increase in alcohol and cannabis use among this group, which suggests that alcohol use may be a form of coping for younger persons. We cannot attribute directionality to this association, nor eliminate the possibility that increased alcohol and cannabis use may be contributing to the increased psychosocial symptoms observed among younger populations during the pandemic. The lack of a gender difference in alcohol use increases contrasts with a previous American study [55] which found that females had increased their alcohol use compared to males. In contrast, we saw a gender effect on increased cannabis use, which was expressed by women, but not by men or gender diverse persons. In recent surveys, 28% of British Columbians had engaged in cannabis use in the past twelve months, compared to the Canadian average of 11%, suggesting that British Columbians are more likely to engage in cannabis use, and therefore may be more likely to use cannabis as a form of coping [56, 57]. Although cannabis use has been associated with male typicality and may go against gender norms typical to women [58], it may be that the social isolation and a lack of gatherings erased these social norms and facilitated women’s more active engagement in additional cannabis use, relative to pre-pandemic levels.
As predicted, psychosocial symptoms worsened over the course of the pandemic, with some of the worst scores observed early on, aligning with previous studies that found a higher prevalence of mental health disorders during the initial COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020 [59, 60]. Phase 2 and 3 of COVID restrictions in BC were characterized by an easing of restrictions, permitting outdoor gatherings and small social events, and the summer season. This loosening of public health measures was associated with a slight improvement in mental health, more than likely due to an increase in perceived social support and optimism regarding the state of the pandemic. Mental health outcomes were worsened in Phases 4 and 5 as BC entered wave 2 of the pandemic and public health orders tightened once again. It is important to note the average PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores did not meet the criteria for clinical depression or anxiety, but that these levels increased relative to pre-pandemic levels as well as over time.
Strengths and Limitations
Our study benefitted from a large, population-based sample size, and, despite known mental health disparities by gender, as far as we are aware, was one of the few that sought to explore findings from a gender lens by including gender-diverse groups as well, given known mental health disparities by gender [17]. That said, our sample size for gender diverse individuals was still limited [17]. Future studies should further investigate mental health in the gender diverse community during the COVID-19 pandemic with a focus on people of all ages, in contrast to previous studies [22]. Another limitation of the present study was the retrospective, cross-sectional nature of the survey, where participants completed the survey at only one time point, and were asked to retrospectively recall their mood and anxiety during different time points. This may have increased the likelihood of recall bias and reducing our capacity to examine causality and directionality of poor mental health outcomes. Finally, this study was confined to the general population of BC and therefore results may only be generalizable to the Canadian population, and populations with similar demographics to the present study.
Implications
Our study has important implications for public health policy. These findings illustrate that government policies and interventions for future pandemics should place on emphasis on young adults, low-income populations, women, Indigenous, and gender diverse communities. Additionally, our study was one of the first to measure mental health outcomes across different phases of the pandemic, directly examining the effect of increased public health measures on mental health. At the time of writing, the vaccine rollout is well underway in BC with experts predicting an end to the pandemic in the months ahead, however, it is unclear whether mental health will return to pre-pandemic levels, or when life will return to “normal.” Moving forward, policy makers and leaders need to consider our findings when planning future public health measures. In future pandemics, the mental health of marginalized populations needs to be considered proactively. As vaccination efforts continue and case counts fall, it will also be critical to monitor the health status of these populations to ensure that they are not left behind. Additionally, for future pandemics and outbreaks, mobilizing resources to these communities early on can aid in mitigating these inequities from the beginning, rather than as an afterthought.
Data Availability
All data in the manuscript is available and contained with the documents submitted. There are no additional links.
Supplemental Information
S1 Table. Public health measures during different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia. Measures listed are not exhaustive.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Falla Jin and Shanlea Gordon (both at the BC Children’s Research Institute) for their assistance with data collection.