RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Factors associated with self-reported anxiety, depression, and general health during the UK lockdown; a cross-sectional survey
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.06.23.20137901
DO 10.1101/2020.06.23.20137901
A1 Louise E. Smith
A1 Richard Amlot
A1 Helen Lambert
A1 Isabel Oliver
A1 Charlotte Robin
A1 Lucy Yardley
A1 G James Rubin
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/23/2020.06.23.20137901.abstract
AB Background To investigate factors associated with anxiety, depression, and self-reported general health during “lockdown” due to COVID-19 in the UK.Methods Online cross-sectional survey of a nationally-representative sample of 2240 participants living in the UK aged 18 years or over (data collected 6-7 May 2020). Participants were recruited from YouGov’s online research panel.Outcomes In this sample, 21·9% (n=458, 95% CI [20·1% to 23·7%]) reported probable anxiety (scored three or over on the GAD-2); while 23·5% (n=494, 95% CI [21·7% to 25·3]) reported probable depression (scored three or over on the PHQ-2). Poorer mental health was associated with greater financial hardship during the lockdown, thinking that you would lose contact with friends or family if you followed Government measures, more conflict with household members during the lockdown, less sense of community with people in your neighbourhood, and lower perceived effectiveness of Government measures. Females and those who were younger were likely to report higher levels of anxiety and depression. The majority of participants reported their general health as “good” (as measured by the first item of the SF-36). Poorer self-reported general health was associated with psychological distress, greater worry about COVID-19 and markers of inequality.Interpretation Rates of self-reported anxiety and depression in the UK during the lockdown were greater than population norms. Reducing financial hardship, promoting social connectedness, and increasing solidarity with neighbours and household members may help ease rifts within the community which are associated with distress, thereby improving mental health. Reducing inequality may also improve general health.Evidence before this studyQuarantine is associated with adverse psychological outcomes.Psychological distress during quarantine is associated with greater financial loss, greater perceived susceptibility to and severity of the illness, and greater frustration and boredom during quarantine.Measures put in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have highlighted existing inequalities in society, disproportionally affecting younger people, those in lower-income households, and Black and minority ethnic groups.Research in the UK and other countries indicates that rates of anxiety and depression during restrictions of movement such as “lockdown” measures are higher than population norms.Added value of this studyIn this study, 22% of the sample reported anxiety, while 24% reported depression. Normative data indicate that these rates are usually approximately 5% and 7% respectively.Factors associated with psychological distress included greater financial hardship, poorer social connectedness, greater conflict within the household and the wider neighbourhood, being female and of younger age.Self-reported general health in the sample was “good” on average. Factors associated with poorer self-reported general health included markers of inequality and greater worry about COVID-19.Implications of all the available evidenceDecreasing the financial impact of measures put in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19 may help improve mental health.Interventions promoting social connectedness in isolated young people and measures that increase household and neighbourhood solidarity may help improve mental health.Competing Interest StatementLS, RA and GJR are supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between Public Health England, King's College London and the University of East Anglia. RA, HL, IO, CR and LY are supported by the NIHR HPRU in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, a partnership between Public Health England and the University of Bristol. CR is also supported by the NIHR HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections and NIHR HPRU in Gastrointestinal Infections. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UKRI, NIHR, Public Health England or the Department of Health and Social Care. The NIHR HPRU Emergency Preparedness and Response funded the study. An MRC award under the MRC COVID-19 Rapid Response call (grant number MC_PC_19071) funded RA, HL, IO, CR, LY and GJR's time.Funding StatementLS, RA and GJR are supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between Public Health England, King's College London and the University of East Anglia. RA, HL, IO, CR and LY are supported by the NIHR HPRU in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, a partnership between Public Health England and the University of Bristol. CR is also supported by the NIHR HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections and NIHR HPRU in Gastrointestinal Infections. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UKRI, NIHR, Public Health England or the Department of Health and Social Care. The NIHR HPRU Emergency Preparedness and Response funded the study. An MRC award under the MRC COVID-19 Rapid Response call (grant number MC_PC_19071) funded RA, HL, IO, CR, LY and GJR's time.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for this study was granted by the King's College London Research Ethics Committee (reference: LRS-19/20-18687).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAnonymised data will be made available upon reasonable request.