| Literature DB >> 34149496 |
Peijing Wu1,2, Nan Zhao1, Sijia Li1,2, Zeyu Liu1,2, Yilin Wang1,2, Tianli Liu3, Xiaoqian Liu1, Tingshao Zhu1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS: With the rapid spread of COVID-19, strict home confinement has been implemented in most parts of Chinese regions. Millions of people were not allowed to leave their homes except for special reasons. Home confinement plays an essential role in curbing pandemic and promoting preventive behaviors, but it may affect individuals' mental health as well. OBJECTS: The objective of this study was to explore the psychological impacts of home confinement.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; LIWC; activity restriction; home confinement; mental health; psycho-linguistic analysis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34149496 PMCID: PMC8209261 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.587308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Home confinement cities and their start and end time.
| Wuhan, Hubei | February 11th | Unpublished |
| Huanggang, Hubei | February 1st | Unpublished |
| Ezhou, Hubei | February 4th | March 25th |
| Huangshi, Hubei | February 17th | March 23rd |
| Xiaogan, Hubei | February 14th | Unpublished |
| Wenzhou, Zhejiang | February 1st | February 16th |
| Taizhou, Zhejiang | February 2nd | February 13th |
| Yiwu, Zhejiang | February 4th | February 12th |
| Ningbo, Zhejiang | February 4th | February 10th |
| Bengbu, Anhui | February 3rd | March 23rd |
| Huaibei, Anhui | February 3rd | Unpublished |
| Fuyang, Anhui | February 7th | March 31st |
| Zhongshan, Guangdong | February 2nd | March 27th |
| Fangchenggang, Guangxi | February 3rd | Unpublished |
| Guigang, Guangxi | February 4th | Unpublished |
| Nanyang, Henan | February 4th | Unpublished |
| Songyuan, Jilin | February 3rd | March 20th |
Demographic characteristics of the selected participants.
| Male | 480 (26.82) | 320 (27.85) | 160 (24.96) | 960 (26.82) |
| Female | 1,310 (73.18) | 829 (72.15) | 481 (75.04) | 2,620 (73.18) |
| 18–30 | 255 (14.25) | 154 (13.40) | 101 (15.76) | 464 (12.96) |
| 31–40 | 128 (7.15) | 78 (6.79) | 50 (7.80) | 249 (6.96) |
| ≥ 41 | 18 (1.00) | 11 (0.96) | 7 (1.09) | 46 (1.28) |
| Missing data | 1,389 (77.60) | 906 (78.85) | 483 (75.35) | 2,821 (78.80) |
| Eastern China | 469 (26.20) | 0 (0) | 469 (73.17) | 2,836 (79.22) |
| Central China | 1,271 (71.01) | 1,149 (100) | 122 (19.03) | 2,40 (6.70) |
| Western China | 50 (2.79) | 0 (0) | 50 (7.80) | 504 (14.08) |
| Total | 1,790 (100) | 1,149 (100) | 641 (100) | 3,580 (100) |
Examples on affective processes words and cognitive words in SCLIWC.
| Positive emotion | Love, nice, sweet |
| Negative emotion | pain, harmful, worst |
| Anxiety | Stress, concern, frightening |
| Anger | Accuse, fury, curse |
| Sad | Lose, cry, heart-broken |
| Insight | Understand, essence, discuss |
| Cause | Why, because, conclusion |
| Discrepancy | More, less, can’t |
| Tentative | Hesitation, options, doubt |
| Certain | Guarantee, obvious, doomed |
| Inhibition | Suppression, confinement, manage |
| Inclusive | Lock, constrain, stop |
| Exclusive | But, without, exclude |
The results of RM ANOVA in all home confinement cities.
| Positive emotion | 22.53 | 11.71 | 21.52 | 10.53 | 22.6 | 12.71 | 22.53 | 12.72 | 7.926** |
| Negative emotion | 9.58 | 5.44 | 9.72 | 5.65 | 9.09 | 5.46 | 9.15 | 5.85 | 0.149 |
| Anxiety | 1.27 | 1.56 | 1.26 | 1.59 | 1.18 | 1.60 | 1.11 | 1.45 | 1.136 |
| Anger | 2.39 | 2.22 | 2.27 | 2.14 | 2.32 | 2.15 | 2.25 | 2.19 | 0.315 |
| Sad | 1.64 | 1.75 | 1.58 | 1.74 | 1.53 | 1.76 | 1.48 | 1.75 | 0.089 |
| Insight | 7.73 | 4.45 | 8.02 | 4.49 | 7.51 | 4.71 | 7.88 | 4.85 | 0.285 |
| Cause | 4.47 | 3.10 | 4.72 | 3.27 | 4.43 | 3.28 | 4.68 | 3.52 | 0.001 |
| Discrepancy | 12.4 | 6.27 | 12.1 | 6.54 | 11.9 | 6.28 | 11.4 | 6.66 | 0.605 |
| Tentative | 9.16 | 5.30 | 9.35 | 5.63 | 8.69 | 5.41 | 8.87 | 5.66 | 0.002 |
| Certain | 8.02 | 4.05 | 7.90 | 4.33 | 7.63 | 4.23 | 7.37 | 4.19 | 0.945 |
| Inhibition | 2.48 | 2.08 | 2.63 | 2.47 | 2.40 | 2.29 | 2.29 | 2.16 | 10.166*** |
| Inclusive | 19.3 | 8.24 | 18.7 | 8.57 | 18.7 | 8.81 | 18.2 | 8.54 | 0.055 |
| Exclusive | 9.28 | 5.24 | 9.64 | 5.54 | 8.94 | 5.46 | 9.04 | 5.50 | 2.657 |
FIGURE 1The interaction plots for words with significant interactions in the group of all home confinement cities. Significant group (confinement vs. non-confinement) * time (before vs. after confinement) interaction was found in the frequency of positive emotion words (A) and Inhibition words (B) by RM ANOVA. “Confinement” represents samples in all 14 cities where home confinement have implemented; “Non-confinement” represents samples that have not experienced home confinement; “Before” represents the data collected from 2 weeks before home confinement, and “After” represents that from 2 weeks after.
The results of RM ANOVA in high-endemic subgroup.
| Positive emotion | 22.05 | 11.86 | 20.85 | 9.77 | 22.37 | 12.70 | 22.17 | 12.10 | 6.903** |
| Negative emotion | 10.1 | 5.06 | 9.98 | 5.55 | 9.27 | 5.41 | 9.11 | 5.93 | 0.071 |
| Anxiety | 1.29 | 1.50 | 1.32 | 1.62 | 1.17 | 1.63 | 1.10 | 1.50 | 1.651 |
| Anger | 2.57 | 2.26 | 2.31 | 2.13 | 2.34 | 2.13 | 2.24 | 2.18 | 2.49 |
| Sad | 1.80 | 1.76 | 1.60 | 1.60 | 1.59 | 1.82 | 1.48 | 1.82 | 1.306 |
| Insight | 7.96 | 4.30 | 8.21 | 4.24 | 7.49 | 4.79 | 8.05 | 5.06 | 2.515 |
| Cause | 4.52 | 3.02 | 4.73 | 3.00 | 4.34 | 3.32 | 4.74 | 3.57 | 1.895 |
| Discrepancy | 12.7 | 5.92 | 12.13 | 5.91 | 11.81 | 6.39 | 11.31 | 6.49 | 0.233 |
| Tentative | 9.41 | 4.95 | 9.50 | 5.35 | 8.78 | 5.56 | 8.98 | 5.86 | 0.242 |
| Certain | 8.16 | 3.77 | 7.99 | 4.01 | 7.64 | 4.29 | 7.37 | 4.21 | 0.392 |
| Inhibition | 2.68 | 2.13 | 2.82 | 2.53 | 2.45 | 2.35 | 2.26 | 2.16 | 10.154*** |
| Inclusive | 18.9 | 7.36 | 19.02 | 8.22 | 17.92 | 8.22 | 18.21 | 8.66 | 0.417 |
| Exclusive | 9.60 | 5.10 | 10.13 | 5.44 | 9.02 | 5.56 | 9.06 | 5.54 | 4.518* |
FIGURE 2The interaction plots for words with significant interactions in high-endemic subgroup. Significant group (confinement vs. non-confinement) * time (before vs. after confinement) interaction was found in the frequency of positive emotion words (A), Inhibition words (B), and Exclusion words (C) by RM ANOVA. “Confinement” represents samples in all 14 cities where home confinement have implemented; “Non-confinement” represents samples that have not experienced home confinement; “Before” represents the data collected from 2 weeks before home confinement, and “After” represents that from 2 weeks after.
The results of RM ANOVA in low-endemic subgroup.
| Positive emotion | 23.73 | 12.41 | 22.41 | 11.72 | 23.11 | 12.71 | 23.01 | 13.72 | 5.796* |
| Negative emotion | 8.70 | 5.96 | 9.25 | 5.79 | 8.76 | 5.52 | 9.22 | 5.69 | 0.083 |
| Anxiety | 1.23 | 1.67 | 1.17 | 1.54 | 1.20 | 1.55 | 1.14 | 1.34 | 0.001 |
| Anger | 2.07 | 2.11 | 2.19 | 2.16 | 2.30 | 2.19 | 2.26 | 2.21 | 1.598 |
| Sad | 1.36 | 1.68 | 1.54 | 1.97 | 1.42 | 1.66 | 1.50 | 1.64 | 1.272 |
| Insight | 7.33 | 4.68 | 7.67 | 4.90 | 7.55 | 4.58 | 7.57 | 4.42 | 1.619 |
| Cause | 4.38 | 3.26 | 4.72 | 3.71 | 4.59 | 3.22 | 4.56 | 3.43 | 3.452 |
| Discrepancy | 11.84 | 6.82 | 12.01 | 7.53 | 12.12 | 6.07 | 11.62 | 6.95 | 3.488 |
| Tentative | 8.73 | 5.85 | 9.09 | 6.11 | 8.52 | 5.12 | 8.67 | 5.29 | 0.606 |
| Certain | 7.78 | 4.52 | 7.73 | 4.86 | 7.60 | 4.10 | 7.36 | 4.15 | 0.603 |
| Inhibition | 2.13 | 1.94 | 2.30 | 2.32 | 2.31 | 2.18 | 2.35 | 2.17 | 1.019 |
| Inclusive | 20.02 | 9.59 | 18.22 | 9.15 | 20.12 | 9.63 | 18.13 | 8.30 | 0.13 |
| Exclusive | 8.69 | 5.45 | 8.85 | 5.63 | 8.78 | 5.27 | 8.99 | 5.42 | 0.03 |
FIGURE 3The interaction plots for words with significant interactions in low-endemic subgroup. Significant group (confinement vs. non-confinement) * time (before vs. after confinement) interaction was found in the frequency of positive emotion words by RM ANOVA. “Confinement” represents samples in all 14 cities where home confinement have implemented; “Non-confinement” represents samples that have not experienced home confinement; “Before” represents the data collected from 2 weeks before home confinement, and “After” represents that from 2 weeks after.