Mary Ruffolo1, Daicia Price1, Mariyana Schoultz2, Janni Leung3, Tore Bonsaksen4,5, Hilde Thygesen6,5, Amy Østertun Geirdal7. 1. School of Social Work, University of Michigan, 1080 South University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA. 2. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbia University, Manor House, Coach LanNE7 & 7TR, Newcastle On the Tyne, UK. 3. Faculty of Health and Behavioural Science, The University of Queensland, 17 Upland Roasm, St. Lucia, QLD 4067 Australia. 4. Faculty of Social and Health Sciences, Department of Health and Nursing Sciences, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Elverum, Norway. 5. Faculty of Health Studies, VID Specialized University, Sandnes, Norway. 6. Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Occupational Therapy, Prosthetics and Orthotics, Oslo Metropolitan University, PO Box 4 St Olavs Plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway. 7. Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Social Work, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in changes in the work environment and employment uncertainty. This paper reports on a cross-national comparison of four countries (Norway, UK, USA and Australia) and examines the differences in mental health between those individuals employed and those not employed during the social distancing implementation. METHODS: Participants (N = 3,810) were recruited through social media in April/May 2020 and were invited to complete a self-administered electronic survey over a 3-week period. Differences between those employed and those not employed with regard to their sociodemographic characteristics and mental health were investigated with chi-square tests, independent t tests, and one-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs). RESULTS: Compared with their counterparts, participants who were employed reported lower levels of mental health distress (p < 0.001), higher levels of psychosocial well-being (p < 0.001), better overall quality of life (p < 0.001), and lower levels of overall loneliness, social loneliness, and emotional loneliness (p < 0.001). Small to medium but consistent differences (Cohen's d = 0.23-0.67) in mental health favor those with employment or those who were retired. CONCLUSION: Further study is needed to assess mental health over time as the COVID-19 pandemic and employment uncertainty continues.
BACKGROUND: Social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in changes in the work environment and employment uncertainty. This paper reports on a cross-national comparison of four countries (Norway, UK, USA and Australia) and examines the differences in mental health between those individuals employed and those not employed during the social distancing implementation. METHODS: Participants (N = 3,810) were recruited through social media in April/May 2020 and were invited to complete a self-administered electronic survey over a 3-week period. Differences between those employed and those not employed with regard to their sociodemographic characteristics and mental health were investigated with chi-square tests, independent t tests, and one-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs). RESULTS: Compared with their counterparts, participants who were employed reported lower levels of mental health distress (p < 0.001), higher levels of psychosocial well-being (p < 0.001), better overall quality of life (p < 0.001), and lower levels of overall loneliness, social loneliness, and emotional loneliness (p < 0.001). Small to medium but consistent differences (Cohen's d = 0.23-0.67) in mental health favor those with employment or those who were retired. CONCLUSION: Further study is needed to assess mental health over time as the COVID-19 pandemic and employment uncertainty continues.
Authors: Jiaqi Xiong; Orly Lipsitz; Flora Nasri; Leanna M W Lui; Hartej Gill; Lee Phan; David Chen-Li; Michelle Iacobucci; Roger Ho; Amna Majeed; Roger S McIntyre Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2020-08-08 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Tore Bonsaksen; Laila Skogstad; Trond Heir; Øivind Ekeberg; Inger Schou-Bredal; Tine K Grimholt Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Tore Bonsaksen; Mariyana Schoultz; Hilde Thygesen; Mary Ruffolo; Daicia Price; Janni Leung; Amy Østertun Geirdal Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Amy K Østertun Geirdal; Daicia Price; Mariyana Schoultz; Hilde Thygesen; Mary Ruffolo; Janni Leung; Tore Bonsaksen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Tore Bonsaksen; Hilde Thygesen; Janni Leung; Mary Ruffolo; Mariyana Schoultz; Daicia Price; Amy Østertun Geirdal Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.390