Andrew T Gloster1, Demetris Lamnisos2, Jelena Lubenko3, Giovambattista Presti4, Valeria Squatrito4, Marios Constantinou5, Christiana Nicolaou6, Savvas Papacostas7, Gökçen Aydın8, Yuen Yu Chong9, Wai Tong Chien9, Ho Yu Cheng9, Francisco J Ruiz10, Maria B Garcia-Martin11, Diana P Obando-Posada11, Miguel A Segura-Vargas10, Vasilis S Vasiliou12, Louise McHugh13, Stefan Höfer14, Adriana Baban15, David Dias Neto16, Ana Nunes da Silva17, Jean-Louis Monestès18, Javier Alvarez-Galvez19, Marisa Paez-Blarrina20, Francisco Montesinos21, Sonsoles Valdivia-Salas22, Dorottya Ori23, Bartosz Kleszcz24, Raimo Lappalainen25, Iva Ivanović26, David Gosar27, Frederick Dionne28, Rhonda M Merwin29, Angelos P Kassianos30, Maria Karekla30. 1. Division of Clinical Psychology & Intervention Science, Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Department of Health Sciences, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus. 3. Psychological Laboratory, Faculty of Public Health and Social Welfare, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia. 4. Kore University Behavioral Lab (KUBeLab), Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Kore University of Enna, Enna, Italy. 5. Department of Social Sciences, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus. 6. Department of Nursing, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus. 7. Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia, Cyprus. 8. Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance, Faculty of Education, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Gaziantep, Turkey. 9. The Nethersole School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 10. Department of Psychology, Fundación Universitaria Konrad Lorenz, Bogotà, Columbia. 11. Faculty of Psychology, University of La Sabana, Chía, Columbia. 12. School of Applied Psychology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 13. School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. 14. Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 15. Department of Psychology, Babeş-Bolyai University (UBB), Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 16. Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada (ISPA), Instituto Universitário; APPsyCI-Applied Psychology Research Center Capabilities & Inclusion, Lisboa, Portugal. 17. Faculdade de Psicologia, Alameda da Universidade, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal. 18. LIP/PC2S, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France. 19. Department of Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Public Health, University of Cadiz, Cadiz, Spain. 20. Instituto ACT, Madrid, Spain. 21. Department of Psychology, European University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 22. Department of Psychology and Sociology, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain. 23. Vadaskert Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Hospital, Budapest, Hungary. 24. Private Pratice, Poland. 25. Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. 26. Clinic for Psychiatry, Clinical Center of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro. 27. Ljubljana University Medical Centre, Ljubljana, Slovania. 28. Département de Psychologie, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, Canada. 29. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America. 30. Department of Psychology, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered vast governmental lockdowns. The impact of these lockdowns on mental health is inadequately understood. On the one hand such drastic changes in daily routines could be detrimental to mental health. On the other hand, it might not be experienced negatively, especially because the entire population was affected. METHODS: The aim of this study was to determine mental health outcomes during pandemic induced lockdowns and to examine known predictors of mental health outcomes. We therefore surveyed n = 9,565 people from 78 countries and 18 languages. Outcomes assessed were stress, depression, affect, and wellbeing. Predictors included country, sociodemographic factors, lockdown characteristics, social factors, and psychological factors. RESULTS: Results indicated that on average about 10% of the sample was languishing from low levels of mental health and about 50% had only moderate mental health. Importantly, three consistent predictors of mental health emerged: social support, education level, and psychologically flexible (vs. rigid) responding. Poorer outcomes were most strongly predicted by a worsening of finances and not having access to basic supplies. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that on whole, respondents were moderately mentally healthy at the time of a population-wide lockdown. The highest level of mental health difficulties were found in approximately 10% of the population. Findings suggest that public health initiatives should target people without social support and those whose finances worsen as a result of the lockdown. Interventions that promote psychological flexibility may mitigate the impact of the pandemic.
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered vast governmental lockdowns. The impact of these lockdowns on mental health is inadequately understood. On the one hand such drastic changes in daily routines could be detrimental to mental health. On the other hand, it might not be experienced negatively, especially because the entire population was affected. METHODS: The aim of this study was to determine mental health outcomes during pandemic induced lockdowns and to examine known predictors of mental health outcomes. We therefore surveyed n = 9,565 people from 78 countries and 18 languages. Outcomes assessed were stress, depression, affect, and wellbeing. Predictors included country, sociodemographic factors, lockdown characteristics, social factors, and psychological factors. RESULTS: Results indicated that on average about 10% of the sample was languishing from low levels of mental health and about 50% had only moderate mental health. Importantly, three consistent predictors of mental health emerged: social support, education level, and psychologically flexible (vs. rigid) responding. Poorer outcomes were most strongly predicted by a worsening of finances and not having access to basic supplies. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that on whole, respondents were moderately mentally healthy at the time of a population-wide lockdown. The highest level of mental health difficulties were found in approximately 10% of the population. Findings suggest that public health initiatives should target people without social support and those whose finances worsen as a result of the lockdown. Interventions that promote psychological flexibility may mitigate the impact of the pandemic.
Authors: Seulkee Heo; Pedro Diaz Peralta; Lan Jin; Claudia Ribeiro Pereira Nunes; Michelle L Bell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Dominika Ochnik; Aleksandra M Rogowska; Ana Arzenšek; Joy Benatov Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-12 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Daniel M Cushman; Elizabeth York; Alexandra Asay; Brendon Ross; Masaru Teramoto; Zachary L McCormick Journal: Phys Sportsmed Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 2.758