Abstract
Importance How population mental health has evolved across the COVID-19 pandemic under varied lockdown measures is poorly understood, with impacts on health inequalities unclear.
Objective We investigated changes in mental health and sociodemographic inequalities from before and across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in 11 longitudinal studies.
Design, Setting and Participants Data from 11 UK longitudinal population-based studies with pre-pandemic measures of psychological distress were jointly analysed and estimates pooled. Multi-level regression was used to examine changes in psychological distress from pre-pandemic to during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Exposures Trends in the prevalence of poor mental health were assessed pre-pandemic (TP0) and at three pandemic time periods: initial lockdown (TP1, Mar-June 20); easing of restrictions (TP2, July-Oct 20); and a subsequent lockdown (TP3, Nov 20-Mar 21). We stratified analyses by sex, ethnicity, education, age, and UK country.
Main Outcomes and Measures Psychological distress was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire 12 (GHQ-12), Kessler-6, 9-item Malaise Inventory, Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ), Patient Health Questionnaire-8 and 9 (PHQ-8/9), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Centre for Epidemiological Studies – Depression (CES-D), across different studies.
Results In total, 49,993 adult participants (61.2% female; 8.7% Non-White) were analysed. Across the 11 studies, mental health deteriorated from pre-pandemic scores across all three pandemic time periods, but with considerable heterogeneity across the study-specific effect sizes estimated (pooled estimate TP1 Standardised Mean Difference (SMD): 0.15 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.25); TP2 SMD: 0.18 (0.09, 0.27); TP3 SMD: 0.21 (0.10, 0.32)). Changes in psychological distress across the pandemic were higher in females (TP3 SMD: 0.23 (0.11, 0.35)) than males (TP3 SMD: 0.16 (0.06, 0.26)), and lower in below-degree level educated persons at TP3 (SMD: 0.18 (0.06, 0.30)) compared to those who held degrees (SMD: 0.26 (0.14, 0.38)). Increased psychological distress was most prominent amongst adults aged 25-34 and 35-44 years compared to other age groups. We did not find evidence of changes in distress differing by ethnicity or UK country.
Conclusions and Relevance The substantial deterioration in mental health seen in the UK during the first lockdown did not reverse when lockdown lifted, and a sustained worsening was observed across the pandemic. Mental health declines have been unequal across the population, with females, those with higher degrees, and those aged 25-44 years more affected.
Competing Interest Statement
SVK is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) subgroup on ethnicity and co-chair of the Scottish Government's Expert Reference Group on ethnicity and COVID-19. All other authors declare no competing interests, except for the funding acknowledged.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Core Studies, an initiative funded by UKRI, NIHR and the Health and Safety Executive. The COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing National Core Study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC_20059). Full funding acknowledgements for each individual study can be found as part of Supplementary File 1.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This work was supported by the National Core Studies, an initiative funded by UKRI, NIHR and the Health and Safety Executive. The COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing National Core Study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC_20059). The most recent sweeps of the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS), Next Steps (NS), the British Cohort Study 1970 (BCS70), the National Child Development Study (NCDS) and the National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD) and have all been granted ethical approval by the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee and all participants have given informed consent. Data for MCS (SN 8682), NS (SN 5545), BCS70 (SN 8547), NCDS (SN 6137) and all four COVID-19 surveys (SN 8658) are available through the UK Data Service. Ethical approval was obtained from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) Ethics and Law Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees. The study website contains details of all the data that is available through a fully searchable data dictionary and variable search tool: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/our-data. The University of Essex Ethics Committee has approved all data collection for the Understanding Society (USoc) main study and COVID-19 waves. No additional ethical approval was necessary for this secondary data analysis. All data are available through the UK Data Service (SN 6614 and SN 8644). Waves 1-9 of the English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA) were approved through the National Research Ethics Service, while the COVID-19 Sub-study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee. All participants provided informed consent. Generation Scotland (GS) obtained ethical approval from the East of Scotland Committee on Medical Research Ethics (on behalf of the National Health Service). Reference number 20/ES/0021. All waves of TwinsUK (TwinsUK) have received ethical approval associated with TwinsUK Biobank (19/NW/0187), TwinsUK (EC04/015) or Healthy Ageing Twin Study (H.A.T.S) (07/H0802/84) studies from NHS Research Ethics Committees at the Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London. Born in Bradford (BiB) was granted ethical approval by the National Health Service Health Research Authority Yorkshire and the Humber (Bradford Leeds) Research Ethics Committee (references: 16/YH/0320, 15/YH/0455).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Data Availability
Data for MCS (SN 8682), NS (SN 5545), BCS70 (SN 8547), NCDS (SN 6137) and all four COVID-19 surveys (SN 8658) are available through the UK Data Service. NSHD data are available on request to the NSHD Data Sharing Committee. Interested researchers can apply to access the NSHD data via a standard application procedure. Data requests should be submitted to mrclha.swiftinfo{at}ucl.ac.uk; further details can be found at http://www.nshd.mrc.ac.uk/data.aspx. doi:10.5522/NSHD/Q101; doi:10.5522/NSHD/Q10. ALSPAC data is available to researchers through an online proposal system. Information regarding access can be found on the ALSPAC website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/alspac/documents/researchers/data-access/ALSPAC_Access_Policy.pdf). All USoc data are available through the UK Data Service (SN 6614 and SN 8644). All ELSA data are available through the UK Data Service (SN 8688 and 5050). Access to GS data is approved by the Generation Scotland Access Committee. See https://www.ed.ac.uk/generation-scotland/for-researchers/access or email access{at}generationscotland.org for further details. The TwinsUK Resource Executive Committee (TREC) oversees management, data sharing and collaborations involving the TwinsUK registry (for further details see https://twinsuk.ac.uk/resources-for-researchers/access-our-data/). Data from the various BiB family studies are available to researchers; see the study website for information on how to access data (https://borninbradford.nhs.uk/research/how-to-access-data/).
